EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Referendums are most useful when they are judged or expected beforehand to produce a decisive result.

---

And on one very narrow grounds they did - Dave wanted to either be the leader of a country that wanted what he wanted or to go off to the private where it would be more fun.

A proper referendum would have had a nested tree of outcomes and a 70% threshold for a positive result with also asking clearly what to do if the EU did not agree. Most of the cattle might not understand but lowering things to the level of the average person is hardly the recipe for success.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I voted Labour for most of my life. Because of Brexit and Corbyn's position on it I voted Lib Dem in the last election. And saying that May or Corbyn got the biggest vote since whenever convinces me not a jot. Do you know which party leader got the most votes ever in any UK general election?

---

lol, i voted lib-dem too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Referendums are most useful when they are judged or expected beforehand to produce a decisive result.

---

Referendums (da?) are stupid. I can hold dozens of referendums asking people if they want to have dinners at restaurants for free, buy gasoline for 2 pence a gallon, pay no taxes etc. and people will all say yes. Does it mean it should be that way because people want it?

Moreover, in democracies you elect the authorities and pay them money for taking decisions, but why you should pay more money to hold a referendum? In fact, you pay twice. It is like parents paying for the kids' education at a private school plus paying salary to the principal into the bargain.

AFAIK, national (federal) referendums in Germany are forbidden - good for you, guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Referendums (da?) are stupid. I can hold dozens of referendums asking people if they want to have dinners at restaurants for free, buy gasoline for 2 pence a gallon, pay no taxes etc. and people will all say yes. Does it mean it should be that way because people want it?

Moreover, in democracies you elect the authorities and pay them money for taking decisions, but why you should pay more money to hold a referendum? In fact, you pay twice. It is like parents paying for the kids' education at a private school plus paying salary to the principal into the bargain.

AFAIK, national (federal) referendums in Germany are forbidden - good for you, guys.

---

Referendums may be workable if there are mechanisms for dealing with abuse. There weren't for the Brexit referendum. Leave perpetrated abuses by the multitude that, if they had happened in any normal election, would invalidate the result and have the instigators in prison. But because the referendum was legally merely advisory, not legally binding, these measures are not available. The UK's constitution is designed to implement elections for representatives. It is well designed for that. It is not designed to implement referendums, especially where one side is concrete and the other open ended.

In related news, PM May has said that Britain voted for pain and that's what it will get, and it will take the form of no deal. Sources: the outgoing leader of the Lib Dems and the Financial Times. Leavers, this is what we're on course for. Are you still in favour of Leaving?

Yup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

lol, i voted lib-dem too.

---

Opposites Attract?

In the normalisation of abuse to politicians, Ian Blackford (SNP) was harassed by several Brexiteers accusing him of being a "traitor to England".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In the normalisation of abuse to politicians, Ian Blackford (SNP) was harassed by several Brexiteers accusing him of being a "traitor to England".

---

Why do you have to write every sentence in a hyperbolic tone. I feel like you wake up in the morning at 100% and never let off the gas until bed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Why do you have to write every sentence in a hyperbolic tone. I feel like you wake up in the morning at 100% and never let off the gas until bed.

---

You missed the point about Brexiteer idiots accusing a Scottish politician (SNP stands for Scottish National Party) of being a "traitor to England".

As for the hyperbolic tone: every day the expression of Brexit finds new depths of idiocy, as the above. Satirists couldn't invent the above, as it would be considered unrealistically idiotic. Yet Brexiteers, day after day, manage to outdo satire.

Brexit PROTEST: Lorry drivers threaten to bring M4 to STANDSTILL over May shambles TONIGHT (22nd March 2019, 14:46)
Brexit-backing blockade labelled 'pathetic' as drivers claim it was just a 'normal Friday night' on the M4 (22nd March 2019, 22:59)

Quote:

---

Pro-Brexit truckers said they "could bring the country to its knees" on Friday night as motorists from across the UK took part in a series of protests on some of the busiest motorways.

But it didn't quite seem to happen as planned.

Some events just didn't take place, and there were far fewer people than predicted at others. Traffic on the roads was heavy for a while in some areas, and there were some frustrated motorists stuck in queues, in Deeside for example, and on the M6 where three lanes of traffic were affected by the go-slow protest.

In Wales, around 100 pro-Brexiteers were due to met at Magor services at 6pm, before taking to the motorway with the aim of causing delays around the Prince of Wales Bridge.

They planned to drive slowly up the carriageway to create a rolling road block, but only a handful of vehicles could be seen, and there were no reports of any major traffic hold-ups, although queues were filmed travelling behind slow-moving vehicles over the Princes of Wales Bridge towards Bristol.

Some drivers in other parts of the UK were pulled over by the police for driving inconsiderately.

Around ten vehicles were taking part in the protest on the A30 in Cornwall and police confirmed on Twitter that nine were stopped and the front two were reported for "inconsiderate driving".

They were advised to "continue their way at an appropriate speed".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Referendums may be workable if there are mechanisms for dealing with abuse. There weren't for the Brexit referendum. Leave perpetrated abuses by the multitude that, if they had happened in any normal election, would invalidate the result and have the instigators in prison. But because the referendum was legally merely advisory, not legally binding, these measures are not available. The UK's constitution is designed to implement elections for representatives. It is well designed for that. It is not designed to implement referendums, especially where one side is concrete and the other open ended.

---

Referendums make elections redundant. Why would you need any government if you can put any issue to vote on a referendum? Start with free medicare and free education at Oxford.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IL2XwSkFJQ

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In related news, PM May has said that Britain voted for pain and that's what it will get, and it will take the form of no deal. Sources: the outgoing leader of the Lib Dems and the Financial Times. Leavers, this is what we're on course for. Are you still in favour of Leaving?

---

So Theresa May is punishing the UK for independent thinking?

How very European.

In other news, Europe's failure to foster prosperity in Italy and Greece has seen them turn to China who already owns the main Container Port outside Athens.

As for Leaving - let's not pretend this situation hasn't been largely engineered by the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

So Theresa May is punishing the UK for independent thinking?

How very European.

In other news, Europe's failure to foster prosperity in Italy and Greece has seen them turn to China who already owns the main Container Port outside Athens.

As for Leaving - let's not pretend this situation hasn't been largely engineered by the EU.

---

Still blaming the EU. It's not the EU that's made the UK decide to Leave. It's not the EU who's set May's red lines. Always everyone's fault but yours for deciding to leave. If this isn't what you envisaged by Leaving, it just shows what an open ended option Leave was, versus the concrete manifesto of Remain. The unicorns promised by Leave do not exist. The reality of Remain does exist.

How's France this weekend?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

How's France this weekend?

---

They won 4-1 away against Moldova on Friday. Or was there anything else you were talking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

They won 4-1 away against Moldova on Friday. Or was there anything else you were talking about?

---

How about the people getting their hands blown off by police grenades?

I've never pretended this is all the EU's fault but you seem blinkered to just how far the EU is the architect of the current crisis.

For starters, we're in this mess because after the EU Constitution was rejected by France and the Netherlands it was repackaged with minor changes into the "Lisbon Treaty" and then duly passed by National Parliaments without Referendums being held, except Ireland who rejected it. Once Ireland said "Non" the EU announced that the Irish would get to vote again, which they duly did after the Irish economy crashed and had to be bailed out by the EU.

Voting three times on a treaty that has been soundly rejected twice. The EU quite literally wrote the playbook for May on our current crisis. Further, they are complicit in said crisis because they are allowing her to re-run the vote and so abuse the British people and Parliament. Until the 12th of April, at least, we are all still EU citizens and that means the European Commission is partaking in flagrant abuse of the democratically elected government of its own people.

The EU had other options - it could have withdrawn the deal after Parliament voted it down the first time unless we held a Referendum on it, for example. That would, at the very least, have prevented the nail-biting last-minute extension.

So, I say the EU is "largely" to blame for the current crisis, because they have engineered the mechanisms (Article 50, multiple votes on the same issue) that caused it.

5 eyes union?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

How about the people getting their hands blown off by police grenades?

I've never pretended this is all the EU's fault but you seem blinkered to just how far the EU is the architect of the current crisis.

For starters, we're in this mess because after the EU Constitution was rejected by France and the Netherlands it was repackaged with minor changes into the "Lisbon Treaty" and then duly passed by National Parliaments without Referendums being held, except Ireland who rejected it. Once Ireland said "Non" the EU announced that the Irish would get to vote again, which they duly did after the Irish economy crashed and had to be bailed out by the EU.

Voting three times on a treaty that has been soundly rejected twice. The EU quite literally wrote the playbook for May on our current crisis. Further, they are complicit in said crisis because they are allowing her to re-run the vote and so abuse the British people and Parliament. Until the 12th of April, at least, we are all still EU citizens and that means the European Commission is partaking in flagrant abuse of the democratically elected government of its own people.

The EU had other options - it could have withdrawn the deal after Parliament voted it down the first time unless we held a Referendum on it, for example. That would, at the very least, have prevented the nail-biting last-minute extension.

So, I say the EU is "largely" to blame for the current crisis, because they have engineered the mechanisms (Article 50, multiple votes on the same issue) that caused it.

---

Didn't the Lisbon agreement get changed after Ireland rejected it, and the amended version was then passed? And talking about flagrant abuse of the UK's democracy, the PM has already cancelled Parliamentary votes on the issue on multiple occasions, such as before the Christmas break. Reports say that she's done it again, not allowing cabinet ministers to see the planned options for indicative votes. Is Parliament sovereign? Or does sovereignty belong to the executive? What authority does the PM have for all this?

On the bolded bit: the EU have said that they're prepared for us to leave with no deal if that's what we want, and that they will assume that this is what we want unless we say otherwise. But they're not prepared to continue wasting time negotiating the same thing that's been set in stone ever since May set out her red lines. This was the deal that was available when she made her Lancaster House speech, as per the EU's rules. This was all decided by the UK. Not the EU.

BTW, article 50 was written by a Brit. Just like the Single Market was engineered by Britain. When are you going to start taking responsibility for your decision?

Q for those still blaming the EU for all this: what solution should there be, and what's the authority for this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

They won 4-1 away against Moldova on Friday. Or was there anything else you were talking about?

---

Cannot say that the Moldova win was unexpected though. Now, UCF beating Duke would've been a surprise, but alas...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

How about the people getting their hands blown off by police grenades?

---

Why plural? I find an article in the express and one in the sun saying one man's hand was blown off. The telegraph says it was partially blown off. So I don't know how much of the hand is actually left. Partially could also mean the thumb for example.
And then of course they were trying to storm parliament, he picked the grenade up and it's not exactly a grenade that is meant to blow off parts of someone's body. Tear gas grenades are used by police everywhere. So not entirely sure what the point is here. Don't pick up tear gas grenades or don't do it the wrong way around? Avoid ones that aren't up to spec and can explode? Or just let people storm parliament and hang the politicians on the next tree?

Why are British people not protesting the Brexit desaster in front of Downing Street?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Didn't the Lisbon agreement get changed after Ireland rejected it, and the amended version was then passed? And talking about flagrant abuse of the UK's democracy, the PM has already cancelled Parliamentary votes on the issue on multiple occasions, such as before the Christmas break. Reports say that she's done it again, not allowing cabinet ministers to see the planned options for indicative votes. Is Parliament sovereign? Or does sovereignty belong to the executive? What authority does the PM have for all this?

On the bolded bit: the EU have said that they're prepared for us to leave with no deal if that's what we want, and that they will assume that this is what we want unless we say otherwise. But they're not prepared to continue wasting time negotiating the same thing that's been set in stone ever since May set out her red lines. This was the deal that was available when she made her Lancaster House speech, as per the EU's rules. This was all decided by the UK. Not the EU.

BTW, article 50 was written by a Brit. Just like the Single Market was engineered by Britain. When are you going to start taking responsibility for your decision?

---

When are you going to stop trying to hold me solely responsible?

I took my share of responsibility years ago, literally, when I voted. That does not absolve the EU of responsibility, nor does the fact a Brit wrote Article 50 absolve 27 Governments of refusing to hold referendums on what was, clearly, a Constitutional Document for the EU.

I'm not even going to touch your attempt to conflate the fact I voted Leave with support for Theresa May. If you wan't to get tribal then perhaps I should point out she's one of "your" lot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Why plural? I find an article in the express and one in the sun saying one man's hand was blown off. The telegraph says it was partially blown off. So I don't know how much of the hand is actually left. Partially could also mean the thumb for example.
And then of course they were trying to storm parliament, he picked the grenade up and it's not exactly a grenade that is meant to blow off parts of someone's body. Tear gas grenades are used by police everywhere. So not entirely sure what the point is here. Don't pick up tear gas grenades or don't do it the wrong way around? Avoid ones that aren't up to spec and can explode? Or just let people storm parliament and hang the politicians on the next tree?

Why are British people not protesting the Brexit desaster in front of Downing Street?

---

A report for you: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...injuries-paris

"Lawyers have also petitioned the government to ban so-called “sting-ball” grenades, which contain 25g of TNT high-explosive. France is the only European country where crowd-control police use such powerful grenades, which deliver an explosion of small rubber balls that creates a stinging effect as well as launching an additional load of teargas. The grenades create a deafening effect that has been likened to the sound of an aircraft taking off."

"Lawyers estimate that as many as 17 people have lost an eye because of the police’s use of such weapons since the start of the street demonstrations, while at least three have lost their hands and others have been left with their face or limbs mutilated."

So, according to the Guardian, three hands, seventeen eyes - this is why I describe this as plural. Perhaps it is not being fully reported in Germany because of the recent Treaty of Cooperation and the upcoming Joint Parliament?

husar seems a little too ready to write off the actions of the state. why is that? :p

Civil service distancing themselves from the political government, in a manner that's apparently unprecedented, as they note that government is acting in the interests of party politics.

The Commons votes to take control of government on this issue, that the executive warns is unprecedented.

The former may well be preparation for a future public inquiry on Brexit, with the civil service seeing its implementation as toxic and wanting to wash its hands of it. The latter is logical, given that constitutionally the executive's authority rests on a Commons majority, the executive has repeatedly and decisively shown that it possesses no such authority, and the executive does not wish to share its authority, saying as recently as today that it may disregard the Commons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

"Lawyers have also petitioned the government to ban so-called “sting-ball” grenades, which contain 25g of TNT high-explosive. France is the only European country where crowd-control police use such powerful grenades, which deliver an explosion of small rubber balls that creates a stinging effect as well as launching an additional load of teargas. The grenades create a deafening effect that has been likened to the sound of an aircraft taking off."

"Lawyers estimate that as many as 17 people have lost an eye because of the police’s use of such weapons since the start of the street demonstrations, while at least three have lost their hands and others have been left with their face or limbs mutilated."

So, according to the Guardian, three hands, seventeen eyes - this is why I describe this as plural. Perhaps it is not being fully reported in Germany because of the recent Treaty of Cooperation and the upcoming Joint Parliament?

---

Thanks, didn't read about that in the articles I found. I thought I read somewhere that they removed the "rubber grenades" from service.
Since I used English search terms the conspiracy has to apply to Britain as well somehow, or maybe I just didn't go to page 5 of my search to find everything from the last couple of months.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

husar seems a little too ready to write off the actions of the state. why is that? :p

---

I'm a law and order guy, so pretty much a right-winger.
And that's quite rich from someone who would rather trade with the USA: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...gs-us-database

A few people losing a hand because they don't want a higher Diesel tax is a small price to pay for freedom (of the police to defend themselves, blue lives matter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

When are you going to stop trying to hold me solely responsible?

I took my share of responsibility years ago, literally, when I voted. That does not absolve the EU of responsibility, nor does the fact a Brit wrote Article 50 absolve 27 Governments of refusing to hold referendums on what was, clearly, a Constitutional Document for the EU.

I'm not even going to touch your attempt to conflate the fact I voted Leave with support for Theresa May. If you wan't to get tribal then perhaps I should point out she's one of "your" lot?

---

I've been trying to work through your previous argument, so forgive me if these are a dumb questions. EU Constitution was presented as referendums to member states, but failed in France and Netherlands as you mentioned.
When the reforms were re-packaged as a series of amendments to existing treaties they became what we call the "Lisbon Treaty".

1. Did that legally change the methodology in which the reforms could be passed? To me it makes sense that a new written Constitution would be driven by direct approval by the public bodies it impacts while "Treaties" would be under the domain of their representative governments just as any other economic or political agreement between governments.

2. My impression from wikipedia (I know, mock me all you want) is that legally the Irish government could not amend their constitution to adopt the treaty unless the Constitution permitted it, which means a referendum has to be legally held to amend the Constitution to allow for ratifying any major changes to European Union treaties and that this has happened for every major EU treaty in the past. My impression from you is that Ireland was treated specifically in this way (by referendum) for reasons other than legal...is that a wrong impression?

3. The primary reason for rejection was not understanding the impact of Lisbon on several areas of Irish law. The EU then clarified that moving forward, nothing in the Lisbon treaty would impact existing Irish law regarding taxation, worker's right, abortion, and family law.
I guess the argument could be made that it should have been made clear during the first referendum, but on the other hand weren't these genuine concessions that the European Council made which made it in practice a revised deal?

4. With the above in mind, it seems that for each defeat the European Council either changed the manner, the methodology, or provided some assurances/concessions prior to each revisit of what we call "Lisbon Treaty". Unless I am mistaken about any of this (which is very possible), this seems to be in accordance with a degree of respect for the democratic rule of law in contrast to Theresa May who has quite literally tabled the same Brexit deal with no additional clarification or modification to the text three times in a row, only weeks apart. I understand from a broad level similarities can be made (if we can re-vote on Lisbon, we can re-vote on the same bill, thank EU), but once we start getting into the weeds it seems they are actually different circumstances...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I've been trying to work through your previous argument, so forgive me if these are a dumb questions. EU Constitution was presented as referendums to member states, but failed in France and Netherlands as you mentioned.
When the reforms were re-packaged as a series of amendments to existing treaties they became what we call the "Lisbon Treaty".

1. Did that legally change the methodology in which the reforms could be passed? To me it makes sense that a new written Constitution would be driven by direct approval by the public bodies it impacts while "Treaties" would be under the domain of their representative governments just as any other economic or political agreement between governments.

2. My impression from wikipedia (I know, mock me all you want) is that legally the Irish government could not amend their constitution to adopt the treaty unless the Constitution permitted it, which means a referendum has to be legally held to amend the Constitution to allow for ratifying any major changes to European Union treaties and that this has happened for every major EU treaty in the past. My impression from you is that Ireland was treated specifically in this way (by referendum) for reasons other than legal...is that a wrong impression?

3. The primary reason for rejection was not understanding the impact of Lisbon on several areas of Irish law. The EU then clarified that moving forward, nothing in the Lisbon treaty would impact existing Irish law regarding taxation, worker's right, abortion, and family law.
I guess the argument could be made that it should have been made clear during the first referendum, but on the other hand weren't these genuine concessions that the European Council made which made it in practice a revised deal?

4. With the above in mind, it seems that for each defeat the European Council either changed the manner, the methodology, or provided some assurances/concessions prior to each revisit of what we call "Lisbon Treaty". Unless I am mistaken about any of this (which is very possible), this seems to be in accordance with a degree of respect for the democratic rule of law in contrast to Theresa May who has quite literally tabled the same Brexit deal with no additional clarification or modification to the text three times in a row, only weeks apart. I understand from a broad level similarities can be made (if we can re-vote on Lisbon, we can re-vote on the same bill, thank EU), but once we start getting into the weeds it seems they are actually different circumstances...

---

1. At no point was any country, saving Ireland, explicitly legally obliged to hold a Referendum. The point was that the original treaty was called a "Constitution" and so several member states, including the Netherlands, France and the UK were politically obliged to hold a referendum. The Lisbon Treaty just repackaged the same arrangements in a more politically palatable form - the substantive difference was negligible. However, this was enough for Tony Blair to go back on his previous promise to hold a referendum - causing David Cameron to commit to holding one on the Treaty.

Then Gordon Brown refused to hold an election until the Treaty was ratified by all members, preventing Cameron from holding his referendum - this is the immediate root-cause of the Brexit-Referendum.

2. A "Rider" was added to the Treaty which essentially committed the EU to modifying it at some future date, whether this ever actually happened after the financial crash I couldn't tell you, but in either case the Treaty voted on was the same both times. So the EU made promises about future Treaties and then held the same Referendum twice. This is roughly what Theresa May has tried to do with her second vote, and her third.

3. Taxation... Remember Amazon's Tax Bill? The Irish voted it down because most Europeans are less keen on further integration than their elected politicians. As I said, the Irish were voting on substantially the same thing as the Dutch and French had already rejected.

4. There was some "clarification" before the Second vote, there will probably be an attempt at clarification before the Third. The idea that you just repeat the vote until you get the result you want is a very EU concept, though - the same happened with the EU-Canada Treaty where it was essentially bribery and vague promises until the final Parliament got on board.

Someone vandalised Oliver Letwin's wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php...ldid=889576623

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

5 eyes union?

---

Then we'd have to merge this with the Trump thread. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald Tusk

And here, let me make one personal remark to the Members of this Parliament. Before the European Council, I said that we should be open to a long extension if the UK wishes to rethink its Brexit strategy, which would of course mean the UK's participation in the European Parliament elections. And then there were voices saying that this would be harmful or inconvenient to some of you. Let me be clear: such thinking is unacceptable. You cannot betray the six million people who signed the petition to revoke Article 50, the one million people who marched for a People's Vote, or the increasing majority of people who want to remain in the European Union. They may feel that they are not sufficiently represented by the UK Parliament, but they must feel that they are represented by you in this chamber. Because they are Europeans.

---

This is closer to my sentiments than the :daisy: leaders of the two main parties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

This is closer to my sentiments than the :daisy: leaders of the two main parties.

---

So... any minority in any state should get representation at the EU if they want it? Or only if the EU wants them to? For a pretence at Democracy might he like to address the c. 17 million that voted to leave? Might they be betrayed if the UK stays? A mere inconvenience of the clinically insane / xenophobes and troglodytes who can be ignored for their own good.

"Betrayal" might be a more accurate term to use when the populace was not asked at all. Apparently that wasn't a problem - even when the vote was either ignored or redone. Only when things don't go the way the EU wants. The term "betrayal" wasn't even used when the UK was taken to war against sovereign states with no UN mandate and demonstrations of over 2 million.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... any minority in any state should get representation at the EU if they want it? Or only if the EU wants them to? For a pretence at Democracy might he like to address the c. 17 million that voted to leave? Might they be betrayed if the UK stays? A mere inconvenience of the clinically insane / xenophobes and troglodytes who can be ignored for their own good.

"Betrayal" might be a more accurate term to use when the populace was not asked at all. Apparently that wasn't a problem - even when the vote was either ignored or redone. Only when things don't go the way the EU wants. The term "betrayal" wasn't even used when the UK was taken to war against sovereign states with no UN mandate and demonstrations of over 2 million.

~:smoking:

---

So, are you going to accept responsibility for the consequences of no deal or whatever the UK ends up with? I've asked Brexiteers a number of times, but every time the answer demands rights but accepts no responsibility. What do you think of the promises made by Leave? Do you think Brexit should be based around these promises? Should Brexit be judged on whether or not the NHS budget increases by 350m/week?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

So... any minority in any state should get representation at the EU if they want it? Or only if the EU wants them to? For a pretence at Democracy might he like to address the c. 17 million that voted to leave? Might they be betrayed if the UK stays? A mere inconvenience of the clinically insane / xenophobes and troglodytes who can be ignored for their own good.

"Betrayal" might be a more accurate term to use when the populace was not asked at all. Apparently that wasn't a problem - even when the vote was either ignored or redone. Only when things don't go the way the EU wants. The term "betrayal" wasn't even used when the UK was taken to war against sovereign states with no UN mandate and demonstrations of over 2 million.

~:smoking:

---

I don't see how that relates to him apparently arguing that UK citizens should get to vote for the EU parliament as long as the UK is in the EU via an extension that the UK asked for. As I understand it, he's arguing (to the EU parliament) that not letting the British vote in the upcoming EU election because the UK wants to leave would betray the citizens who don't want to leave and appreciate the extension.

If you're angry about the extension, take that anger to your own government and not the EU.
To me it looks like you're just externalizing your anger over internal issues of the UK unless you can show me that I completely misunderstood the unsourced quote (no, I won't google it myself, it's not my argument).
You didn't blame the EU when it granted the UK government's request for a rebate, did you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So, are you going to accept responsibility for the consequences of no deal or whatever the UK ends up with? I've asked Brexiteers a number of times, but every time the answer demands rights but accepts no responsibility. What do you think of the promises made by Leave? Do you think Brexit should be based around these promises? Should Brexit be judged on whether or not the NHS budget increases by 350m/week?

---

Perhaps you are rather slow. So I'll try again...

We live in a representative democracy, Not my dictatorship. I have not been advocating spending two years on wasting time. The vote was the first time we were allowed to express a view. I had wished for integration to have stopped decades ago.

To your points - again:

I did not believe the promises of Leave any more than I believed Gordon Brown's "end of boom and bust", Cameroon's "compassionate Conservatism" or any other facile phrase spat out by a focus group.
I do not think Brexit should have been based around those promises. I would have rather that we'd never got to "Brexit" and not abandoned our trading partners from the 1970's onwards in a rush to get in with Europe. Yes, then I was the child and this is the future those that voted then ruined for me now.
I do not think that the main priority is to pour money into the NHS, but to sort out what resources are spent on for starters and secondly do some wel overdue integration of social services and the NHS to alleviate the chronic bed blocking.
I didn't vote based on any "promises" made by Leave. I was interested in the Sovereignty of the country. Not freedom of movement. Not freedom of goods. I'm happy for joint standards - just like how the internet works for example.

So - do you hold those who allowed deeper integration with the EU responsible for the current situation? If they had done more we would not be in this mess now.

~:smoking:

We usually order in advance for the Christmas meal with work colleagues and this came up the other day. Usually, we book for this restaurant which is nice and affordable, but we go every year kind of thing. Then there was talk about this new restaurant opening up which promised the everything for nothing sort of thing. We had a vote and it is was pretty even split, 1 vote more for the new place, so the decision was made to explore what kind of options and deal we can get with them. People were mildly optimistic.

Anyway, this restaurant got really bad reviews and they wouldn't offer any special deals or anything. You simply go and pay a lot for it. You know, 1/5 rating, rat droppings on the plate, small portions, overpriced, etc sort of thing. My boss trying to be diplomatic, even though she wanted to regular place, tried to reason with them, but a vocal minority are those trouble makers who are unreasonable, throwing a wobbler as they want to go to the new place.

Obviously people's opinions changed since the initial vote, cannot blame them for initially wanting to try something new that sounded good, but it turns out it is a solid no win, so we discussed having a new vote on the subject just to settle it. Now, these people are being labelled enemies of the workplace, also being called backstabbers as they changed their mind. The whole thing is a real mess, and the deadline for the regular place is running out.

Looks like I am in for a Christxit.

Wow. That metaphor has shown how wrong I was. How everything I think is in fact merely a fiction. Only by remaining in the EU can we eat, have medicine and remain a functioning society.

Or perhaps it was a facile and trite example that tries to link the future of a country to the choice of a meal.

~:smoking:

You would have thought that the warnings of people starving, denied medicine so that they die, rampant clap, death of the first born and a plague of locusts would have persuaded the racist bigoted, low information and basically thick leave voters the error of their ways. Alas not, as the thick bastards are, well, too thick to understand.

These sorts really shouldn't have the vote.

Still at least we'll have Article 13 to save us from those bastards American media platforms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmO7BdPcmlU

Pannonian:

The number of political leaders who staunchly accept the responsibility for an unpopular decision or a decision which, good or bad, comes at a high cost to their constituency, is fairly small. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage was anecdotal, since there were too few examples to do anything statistical. ~;) You might argue that Parliament has more of a history of ethical behavior and admission of responsibility than does the US Senate. I would be skeptical.

Rory:

The Tusk quotation isn't about representing minorities, really. It is about taking time to allow England to 'come to her senses' and return to the fold, chastened, repudiating Brexit and thus more or less squelching similar efforts from other nations in the EU. One of those "more in sorrow than in anger" angles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

We usually order in advance for the Christmas meal with work colleagues and this came up the other day. Usually, we book for this restaurant which is nice and affordable, but we go every year kind of thing. Then there was talk about this new restaurant opening up which promised the everything for nothing sort of thing. We had a vote and it is was pretty even split, 1 vote more for the new place, so the decision was made to explore what kind of options and deal we can get with them. People were mildly optimistic.

Anyway, this restaurant got really bad reviews and they wouldn't offer any special deals or anything. You simply go and pay a lot for it. You know, 1/5 rating, rat droppings on the plate, small portions, overpriced, etc sort of thing. My boss trying to be diplomatic, even though she wanted to regular place, tried to reason with them, but a vocal minority are those trouble makers who are unreasonable, throwing a wobbler as they want to go to the new place.

Obviously people's opinions changed since the initial vote, cannot blame them for initially wanting to try something new that sounded good, but it turns out it is a solid no win, so we discussed having a new vote on the subject just to settle it. Now, these people are being labelled enemies of the workplace, also being called backstabbers as they changed their mind. The whole thing is a real mess, and the deadline for the regular place is running out.

Looks like I am in for a Christxit.

---

lucky guess: you lot are english? :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Rory:

The Tusk quotation isn't about representing minorities, really. It is about taking time to allow England to 'come to her senses' and return to the fold, chastened, repudiating Brexit and thus more or less squelching similar efforts from other nations in the EU. One of those "more in sorrow than in anger" angles.

---

Yes, I am not so vainglorious that the EU really cares about the UK beyond the money in and as a lesson to others. It is just more posturing - but again when it is the EU is it somehow wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom whereas Brexiteers are the raving words of the criminally insane.

Making the UK grovel for each small extension until nothing is really done beyond beg for longer to remain in the EU. Not exactly subtle imagery.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Making the UK grovel for each small extension until nothing is really done beyond beg for longer to remain in the EU. Not exactly subtle imagery.

---

According to the brexiteers all you had to do is get out for things to get really better in a flash - so why is your government even asking extensions knowing all too well that it will be made to grovel if it does?

Unlikely that the uk government wants to "be made to grovel" i'd say.. so perhaps it tries to show to the brexit crowd that believed the lies that were said for the referendum, that leaving is actually a very bad idea by trying to make it happen - in that way the conservative party will stop [actually let it on its own to go to a halt] the brexit without losing its political strength among those that voted for exit.

Teresa May was appointed successor by David Cameron and it may well be that what we are witnessing is his plan-b to remedy the situation as it evolved, without the conservative party collapsing electorally ~;)

Leaving is bad for the uk in every respect - and not just economically. Also politically, diplomatically and even culturally.

Your government knows that all too well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Yes, I am not so vainglorious that the EU really cares about the UK beyond the money in and as a lesson to others.

---

The eu is a league of nations that have close ties of all sorts and strong reasons to maintain them, not an organisation in its own right. In that sense it does care about the uk way more about the money and a lesson to others, although these factors are in play in the negotiations.

Brussels bureaucrats are just responsible managers and executers - when leaders of strong nations speak they back down if you closely pay notice. The uk was/is the second strongest of these nations - and in terms of diplomatic influence, the first [Germany does not have nuclear weapons [it can develop very quickly, but that's another story] nor a seat in the UN's security council, nor the US cultural and economica ties that the uk has].

The very idea of the eu as a separate entity from the nations that comprise them is a joke and brexiteering propaganda - either connected to the far-right or the far-left.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

It is just more posturing - but again when it is the EU is it somehow wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom whereas Brexiteers are the raving words of the criminally insane.

---

There is content even in posturing - even reason needs to be marketed and even lack of it can be marketed also.

The raving is in the content of what the brexiteers say - as are the wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom of the eu representatives - not in the posturing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gallum

According to the brexiteers all you had to do is get out for things to get really better in a flash - so why is your government even asking extensions knowing all too well that it will be made to grovel if it does?

Unlikely that the uk government wants to "be made to grovel" i'd say.. so perhaps it tries to show to the brexit crowd that believed the lies that were said for the referendum, that leaving is actually a very bad idea by trying to make it happen - in that way the conservative party will stop [actually let it on its own to go to a halt] the brexit without losing its political strength among those that voted for exit.

Teresa May was appointed successor by David Cameron and it may well be that what we are witnessing is his plan-b to remedy the situation as it evolved, without the conservative party collapsing electorally ~;)

Leaving is bad for the uk in every respect - and not just economically. Also politically, diplomatically and even culturally.

Your government knows that all too well.



The eu is a league of nations that have close ties of all sorts and strong reasons to maintain them, not an organisation in its own right. In that sense it does care about the uk way more about the money and a lesson to others, although these factors are in play in the negotiations.

Brussels bureaucrats are just responsible managers and executers - when leaders of strong nations speak they back down if you closely pay notice. The uk was/is the second strongest of these nations - and in terms of diplomatic influence, the first [Germany does not have nuclear weapons [it can develop very quickly, but that's another story] nor a seat in the UN's security council, nor the US cultural and economica ties that the uk has].

The very idea of the eu as a separate entity from the nations that comprise them is a joke and brexiteering propaganda - either connected to the far-right or the far-left.



There is content even in posturing - even reason needs to be marketed and even lack of it can be marketed also.

The raving is in the content of what the brexiteers say - as are the wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom of the eu representatives - not in the posturing

---

A lot to unpack there.

First off, "Brexeteers" are only united in their wish to leave the EU. Their reasons are varied and can not be simply lumped together. Many think that economically things will get worse at least in the short term. But sometimes principles are worth more than money. Some might have completely based their ideas on the side of a bus - but since we've never trusted politicians before, it seems more to me that they wanted to believe the lie, rather than the lie persuaded them.

Politically and diplomatically? Really? Why? Surely all small countries would be desperate to join bigger blocks. And I personally think the UK is far to quick to meddle abroad in matters that are not our concern. Culturally is even more of a stretch - will the EU suddenly stop bothering to learn English? England was fortunate to peak when they did since the language has spread to all corners of the world. Unfortunate in that what is definitely English culture is pretty limited, since we were flooded with ideas from the colonies and now are proudly "multicultural". This will not change with or without the EU - since those from the EU tend to be those most keen to integrate.

What was the EU might have been a loose collection of states. But unless you've failed to notice the overseas diplomats, the unified currency everyone has to join, oversight of national budgets, the start of an army... what facet of a state are they not quietly creating? Then the veto is ever so slowly eroded. To help make decisions more effective, of course. It is a long way from what it was 25 years ago.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

A lot to unpack there.

First off, "Brexeteers" are only united in their wish to leave the EU.

---

Certainly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Their reasons are varied and can not be simply lumped together.

---

Their resons no, them as a political camp, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Many think that economically things will get worse at least in the short term. But sometimes principles are worth more than money.

---

What is the principle exactly that is being tarnished?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Some might have completely based their ideas on the side of a bus - but since we've never trusted politicians before, it seems more to me that they wanted to believe the lie, rather than the lie persuaded them.

---

Absolutely. Yet in terms of result is one and the same, because someone is spreading the lies at the side of a bus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Politically and diplomatically? Really? Why? Surely all small countries would be desperate to join bigger blocks. And I personally think the UK is far to quick to meddle abroad in matters that are not our concern.

---

There are none such matters [of "no concern"] especially for the strong nations. They have an interest to participate in coallitions, because exactly they can influence and lead them more than weaker nations and in so doing they will consolidate and preserve and even expand their power. So did all great powers, so they are doing today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Culturally is even more of a stretch - will the EU suddenly stop bothering to learn English? England was fortunate to peak when they did since the language has spread to all corners of the world. Unfortunate in that what is definitely English culture is pretty limited, since we were flooded with ideas from the colonies and now are proudly "multicultural". This will not change with or without the EU - since those from the EU tend to be those most keen to integrate.

---

To clarify: i am not a leftist. I am a center right winger. I believe in human rights, free economy, and open society but up to a point. A culture, in order to develop healthily, needs to have a certain inertia in how fast its changing as well as certain core characteristics [for the english people common sense is one such characteristic for example]. That inertia is its traditions, its cultural heritage.

This changes over time - because, well things change and sometimes new elements need to be integrated for a culture to survive and thrive.

New ways of thinking, new approaches, new relations - from history even new peoples can/need to be integrated. English history in particular has many such examples. The roman conquest, the anglo-saxon conquest, the viking invasions, the norman conquest - all these brought new blood, new ways, even new languages, that over time were integrated in what is now recognisably "english".

The key is in slow integration of the new cultural elements. If a culture changes too fast, it loses its compass and social cohesion and if it changes none at all is superseded by the times - plenty of such examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

What was the EU might have been a loose collection of states. But unless you've failed to notice the overseas diplomats, the unified currency everyone has to join, oversight of national budgets, the start of an army... what facet of a state are they not quietly creating? Then the veto is ever so slowly eroded. To help make decisions more effective, of course. It is a long way from what it was 25 years ago.

---

Why would you want to veto any of these things?

The currency has made the eu nations ever stronger in a zillion ways - including the uk that didn't join - ask anyone that does bank transactions in your country.

The eu army will give the eu nations' diplomatic will a very strong arm to enforcing it or making it respected - and that will, will be determined more to the will of its strong nations, who will also reap the most benefits from its enforcement/being respected. I don't see the problem, especially for the uk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

oversight of national budgets

---

This is to keep in check populist governments - far right or far left ones, like we have in my country [greece]. The greek economic crisis was exactly because greek politicians had no one to give account to.

Equally Italy, Spain, Portugal and many of the ex-eastern block countries, have strong traditions of large black market economies [transactions that are not being taxed as they are done "in private"] as well as rampant corruption and nepotism, that do not allow their economies and societies to grow.

In England, political corruption has never been a problem - and i remember that well from when i lived in England. You are very fortunate that you have politicians as accountable as you have over there ~:)

The eu nations have made rules for how a nation functions healthily, its not the interventionist nightmare the brexiteering camp presents it to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

~:smoking:

---

Consider quitting Rory, smoking makes you poorer and less healthier - tried and tested for 17 years ~;)

Referendums on domestic policy often turn out well for breaking political deadlock on popular ideas. Referendums on foreign policy more clearly cut against the grain of representative government, and so probably should be excluded from the mechanism unless the proposed policy is the abolition of foreign policy (e.g. full political union).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

But sometimes principles are worth more than money.

---

Can't you have some other principles?

Quote:

---

What was the EU might have been a loose collection of states. But unless you've failed to notice the overseas diplomats, the unified currency everyone has to join, oversight of national budgets, the start of an army... what facet of a state are they not quietly creating? Then the veto is ever so slowly eroded. To help make decisions more effective, of course. It is a long way from what it was 25 years ago.

---

That baby in the crib may not be the Herakles you imagine, but if it were I would welcome our new EU overlords. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't see how that relates to him apparently arguing that UK citizens should get to vote for the EU parliament as long as the UK is in the EU via an extension that the UK asked for. As I understand it, he's arguing (to the EU parliament) that not letting the British vote in the upcoming EU election because the UK wants to leave would betray the citizens who don't want to leave and appreciate the extension.

If you're angry about the extension, take that anger to your own government and not the EU.
To me it looks like you're just externalizing your anger over internal issues of the UK unless you can show me that I completely misunderstood the unsourced quote (no, I won't google it myself, it's not my argument).
You didn't blame the EU when it granted the UK government's request for a rebate, did you?

---

The EU leadership, unlike the UK leadership, and certainly unlike the rank and file Brexiteers, have been consistent in supporting a constitutional solution for the UK, decided by the UK. In return for this, Brexiteers have continued to blame them for everything, for sticking their oar in. Eg. the ECJ, rory's bete noir, supported the UK deciding on whether to stick with article 50 or not. That's confirming the UK's sovereignty, unlike the UK government, who argued that this was out of their control, ie. arguing that the UK did not have sovereignty. In the case of Tusk, he was chiding the EU's member states for feeling fed up with the UK, and supporting the UK's people in making their own decision. Once again, supporting the UK's sovereignty. And rory doesn't like this, once again a Brexiteer criticising the EU for impinging on the UK's sovereignty when it's nothing of the sort. Throughout all this, Brexiteers have always been destructive in nature, opposing everything European whilst offering no constructive answers.

In today's votes, the closest to a majority were Ken Clarke's customs union that PFH is horrified at us "being trapped in", although he's declined my request for an answer as to why he dislikes it, and Margaret Beckett's second referendum. Tusk would support either, as he and the EU leadership would support any UK decision, as long as it had constitutional support. Incidentally, revoking article 50 got more support than May's agreement got in its last outing (defeated by 109 votes, versus around 150 votes for MV2 and 200+ for MV1).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Pannonian:

The number of political leaders who staunchly accept the responsibility for an unpopular decision or a decision which, good or bad, comes at a high cost to their constituency, is fairly small. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage was anecdotal, since there were too few examples to do anything statistical. ~;) You might argue that Parliament has more of a history of ethical behavior and admission of responsibility than does the US Senate. I would be skeptical.

Rory:

The Tusk quotation isn't about representing minorities, really. It is about taking time to allow England to 'come to her senses' and return to the fold, chastened, repudiating Brexit and thus more or less squelching similar efforts from other nations in the EU. One of those "more in sorrow than in anger" angles.

---

On the first paragraph: it's a matter of Leave having a manifesto to be judged on. Remain had a manifesto: the EU as it is at the time of voting. Heck, IA sticks what's happened since, without our voice, as a reason for not remaining. That's how much of a tangible manifesto Remain had. In comparison, Leave has dropped all its promises, with the most well known (350m per week for the NHS) being excused as inadvisable but an aspiration, not a promise. Things that Remain said would happen (manufacturing would leave) has happened. Yet Leave maintains its mandate on the grounds that they won, Remain lost. The closest that Leave has to a manifesto is May's withdrawal agreement, and Parliament has rejected that twice; out of the four biggest government defeats in British history, May's WA suffered two of them. Even revoking article 50 and reversing Brexit without further ado got more support than Leave's manifesto. And since Leave's only concrete manifesto has so little support, what mandate does Leave have? Legally no deal is the eventual result, but every Brexiteer says "I didn't vote for this, not my fault".

On the second, the EU would be happy for the UK to leave on May's deal. It would even accept the UK leaving on no deal: the EU has announced that its preparations for no deal are complete. What the EU wants above all else, as every EU official dealing with May's government has stated, is for the UK to make a decision on something concrete. Which brings us back to the above: Leave had no solid manifesto in its campaign, and has disclaimed all promises made during it. What Brexiteers have to do is settle on one solution and stick with it, and the EU will support that. Hell, it has gone out of its way to facilitate May's WA, the WA that has suffered two of the biggest government defeats in British history. The EU wishes the UK to make a decision; PFH criticises it for being inflexible and bullying the UK. The EU gives the UK time to make a decision: rory criticises it for pushing the UK around. Brexit has always been about blaming the EU. Even when the EU defends the UK's sovereignty and allows it time and freedom to make its own decision, Brexiteers still blame the EU.

[duplicate post]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In today's votes, the closest to a majority were Ken Clarke's customs union that PFH is horrified at us "being trapped in", although he's declined my request for an answer as to why he dislikes it...

---

If you're voting for a CU, you're doing because you want friction less trade in goods. but that is only 15-20 percent of the total friction, so what you're really voting for is an alignment against single market goods regs. to deal with the 80-85 percent. This is remarkably close to chequers/WA+PD.

But you have never really said what you find so fundamentally objectionable about those proposals?

-------------------------------

I’ve long had a nagging suspicion that Liam Fox has the unrewarding task of setting up a fiefdom that exists only to scrapped as a bargaining chip in the great brexit unwinding. Customs Unions are dangerous beasts, but they don’t do much damage – sovereignty wise – in and of themself.

That is if we are to consider Customs Unions as separate from Single Markets.

But you can’t consider them separately and the problem comes from the necessity for regulatory alignment behind the barrier, because we’re talking non-tariff barriers here. But if you’re happy to have regulatotory alignment on Goods two things fall out: 1. You don’t have much to offer third parties in the realms of trade agreements, and, 2. You aren’t losing much by going the whole hog and being in an EU Customs Unions… for Goods.

Britain is a Services based economy, and to a much larger degree than most european countries we are a Services exporting country, but Services has never really featured in the EU. Either internally, as a corporeal and fully fledged internal market, or as a feature of external relations via trade agreements. Germany, principally – but one among many – taking a very possessive view of Services regulations, and this has severely stunted any move to make a real Services market. An attempt to create a Services passport died in 2012 with Cameron’s “No, No, No!”.

Back to Liam and his heavy burden in the wake of Salzburg: Yeah, they’not so keen on a common rule book with a cumbersome customs arrangement that permits british FTA’s and complex systems for collecting each others tariffs. Where to go from here? Have a common rule book for Good, and as per Chequers keep Services out of the ambit of the European Union. Then, have a Customs Union with the EU… for Goods. What does this achieve?

It achieves three things:

1. It preserves the sovereignty of Parliament for an enormous swath of the UK Law, where there is less to be gained from being part of the EEA (because a Services market is nascent at best). What sovereinty it gives away to the EU it has already sold the pass on via the Common Rule Book for Goods, and this is largely determined by the likes of UNECE anyway.
2. It allows the UK to make Services based Trade Agreements, and lets not forget there are about a billion new middle class being added every decade. Once they’ve bought their BMW from the Germans, they’re going to want to think about Insurance, Legal Services, Finance, etc. Trade agreements of the like that we’ll never get via the EU!
3. It allows a ‘total package’ for Goods which keeps us in all the EU trade agreements, the Single market, and dedramatises sticky issues like NI. Thus bringing the backstop back to only those things necessary for the All Island Economy and the GFA. Sanitory, Phyto-Sanitory, etc. Oh, and it ditches all that complexity around varying tariff regimes that pleased precisely nobody.

Would the EU prefer the UK to break and go for EFTA/EEA? Sure, why wouldn’t you want to keep a leash on a strategic competitor! Might it be possible to negotiate an exemption from ECJ jurisdiction on key strategic Services industries within the EEA? Like, financial and legal services, which are european industries that the UK absolutely dominates and would be daft to give up (not much love lost for the anglo-saxon model). Well, its possible, but I wouldn’t want to bet on it in the current climate!

So, full alignment in Goods in both regulation and trade, and a rather more limited remit for Liam. Just a thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In today's votes, the closest to a majority were Ken Clarke's customs union that PFH is horrified at us "being trapped in", although he's declined my request for an answer as to why he dislikes it, and Margaret Beckett's second referendum. Tusk would support either, as he and the EU leadership would support any UK decision, as long as it had constitutional support. Incidentally, revoking article 50 got more support than May's agreement got in its last outing (defeated by 109 votes, versus around 150 votes for MV2 and 200+ for MV1).

---

You have not been paying attention, because I have been very clear.

In theory ending up in a Customs union with the EU is not a bad thing, at least in the medium term. However, the Backstop "traps" the UK in a Customs Union if negotiations break down. Given that Macron has indicated that future UK access to EU markets will be contingent on the UK taking the CFP this is not acceptable. If we had negotiated our future trade relationship with the EU alongside our withdrawal this might not have been a problem but because we are now expected to sign a contingent provisional agreement and THEN negotiate a trade deal it is.

If the UK signs up to the Backstop then, when negotiations break down, it will have three options.

1. Except the Backstop as permanent, leaving the UK in a perpetual trade limbo half attached to the EU, half not, with no room to make our own deals.

2. Sell the Irish down the river to free the rest of the UK.

3. Break the agreement, which may be possible in international law, and walk away.

Options 2 and 3 betray someone in Northern Ireland whilst Option 1 would likely leave the UK economy stagnant due to the perpetual uncertainty.

So the problem is not a Customs Union per se, the problem is being tripped up and forced into one being trapped their by a negotiating partner you don't trust.

Clear enough?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

1. Except the Backstop as permanent, leaving the UK in a perpetual trade limbo half attached to the EU, half not, with no room to make our own deals.

---

The customs union would not allow the UK to differ from EU trade/tariff policy on goods but it could strike independent deals on services, investor protections and so on, and would have some ability to resist new EU trade deals.

Quote:

---

I said to a cabinet minister, why is the Prime Minister holding a vote when she's pretty sure she's going to lose? And using very strong language, this cabinet minister said to me, Fuck knows (sic), I'm past caring, it's like the living dead in here.

---

Newsnight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

That is if we are to consider Customs Unions as separate from Single Markets.

But you can’t consider them separately and the problem comes from the necessity for regulatory alignment behind the barrier, because we’re talking non-tariff barriers here. But if you’re happy to have regulatotory alignment on Goods two things fall out: 1. You don’t have much to offer third parties in the realms of trade agreements, and, 2. You aren’t losing much by going the whole hog and being in an EU Customs Unions… for Goods.

Britain is a Services based economy, and to a much larger degree than most european countries we are a Services exporting country, but Services has never really featured in the EU. Either internally, as a corporeal and fully fledged internal market, or as a feature of external relations via trade agreements. Germany, principally – but one among many – taking a very possessive view of Services regulations, and this has severely stunted any move to make a real Services market. An attempt to create a Services passport died in 2012 with Cameron’s “No, No, No!”.

Back to Liam and his heavy burden in the wake of Salzburg: Yeah, they’not so keen on a common rule book with a cumbersome customs arrangement that permits british FTA’s and complex systems for collecting each others tariffs. Where to go from here? Have a common rule book for Good, and as per Chequers keep Services out of the ambit of the European Union. Then, have a Customs Union with the EU… for Goods. What does this achieve?

It achieves three things:

1. It preserves the sovereignty of Parliament for an enormous swath of the UK Law, where there is less to be gained from being part of the EEA (because a Services market is nascent at best). What sovereinty it gives away to the EU it has already sold the pass on via the Common Rule Book for Goods, and this is largely determined by the likes of UNECE anyway.
2. It allows the UK to make Services based Trade Agreements, and lets not forget there are about a billion new middle class being added every decade. Once they’ve bought their BMW from the Germans, they’re going to want to think about Insurance, Legal Services, Finance, etc. Trade agreements of the like that we’ll never get via the EU!
3. It allows a ‘total package’ for Goods which keeps us in all the EU trade agreements, the Single market, and dedramatises sticky issues like NI. Thus bringing the backstop back to only those things necessary for the All Island Economy and the GFA. Sanitory, Phyto-Sanitory, etc. Oh, and it ditches all that complexity around varying tariff regimes that pleased precisely nobody.

Would the EU prefer the UK to break and go for EFTA/EEA? Sure, why wouldn’t you want to keep a leash on a strategic competitor! Might it be possible to negotiate an exemption from ECJ jurisdiction on key strategic Services industries within the EEA? Like, financial and legal services, which are european industries that the UK absolutely dominates and would be daft to give up (not much love lost for the anglo-saxon model). Well, its possible, but I wouldn’t want to bet on it in the current climate!

So, full alignment in Goods in both regulation and trade, and a rather more limited remit for Liam. Just a thought.

---

Freedom of movement of services is technically one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms.

If the complaint is that actual intermember exchange of goods is more robust than exchange in services - well, why would leaving the single market suddenly change that? IIRC the majority of British exports in services are to the EU. If one is dissatisfied with exports of services to the EU within the single market, why would one entertain that leaving the single market would facilitate exports of services either to the EU or to the rest of the world? Leaving aside that post-industrial economies are overwhelmingly service-oriented and perhaps most of this economic activity is too local to be amenable to inducements to cross-border trade. Britain is too big to organize its economy solely around financial services exports - it's not Cyprus or Malta -and why don't you think the cocoon of the Single Market is what allows London finance to flourish? Isn't it easier for British services to compete in the single market than equally across the world?

Critique of Chequers in terms of remaining in market for goods but not market for services.

My impression is still that your ideas about sovereignty and comparative advantage are more ideological and abstract than evidence-based.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

So the problem is not a Customs Union per se, the problem is being tripped up and forced into one being trapped their by a negotiating partner you don't trust.

Clear enough?

---

How about, do what the American executive did over legislative recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital between Clinton and Trump, and delay certification (of Brexit) until the next year, every year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

How about, do what the American executive did over legislative recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital between Clinton and Trump, and delay certification (of Brexit) until the next year, every year.

---

This option is being seriously mooted, to put it off at least until 2022 (next election).

May is bringing (part) of the deal back tomorrow - something she previously said was impossible. If/when she fails to get the votes a third time that HAS to trigger a no confidence vote. At this point in the crisis at least one major party should start to unravel as MP's default to what their electorate wants vs party loyalty. Interestingly, our FPTP system makes this more likely whereas in a wretched PR system some MP's are always beholden to their Party and will remain loyal.

This is Corbyn's ball to drop. If he fluffs it (and I have no great expectation he won't) we could well end up with all three main parties having no leader come May, given Vince Cable has said he will resign. At that point Parliament will basically have to pick someone to go to Brussels and beg for more time.

Unless, of course, the Queen just dissolves Parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Freedom of movement of services is technically one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms.

If the complaint is that actual intermember exchange of goods is more robust than exchange in services - well, why would leaving the single market suddenly change that? IIRC the majority of British exports in services are to the EU. If one is dissatisfied with exports of services to the EU within the single market, why would one entertain that leaving the single market would facilitate exports of services either to the EU or to the rest of the world? Leaving aside that post-industrial economies are overwhelmingly service-oriented and perhaps most of this economic activity is too local to be amenable to inducements to cross-border trade. Britain is too big to organize its economy solely around financial services exports - it's not Cyprus or Malta -and why don't you think the cocoon of the Single Market is what allows London finance to flourish? Isn't it easier for British services to compete in the single market than equally across the world?

Critique of Chequers in terms of remaining in market for goods but not market for services.

My impression is still that your ideas about sovereignty and comparative advantage are more ideological and abstract than evidence-based.

How about, do what the American executive did over legislative recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital between Clinton and Trump, and delay certification (of Brexit) until the next year, every year.

---

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive

This has to be implemented by 1st January 2020. The leaders of Brexit are desperate to get the UK out and away from this before that date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Unless, of course, the Queen just dissolves Parliament.

---

I thought the act that fixed parliament terms basically did away with that power?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive

This has to be implemented by 1st January 2020. The leaders of Brexit are desperate to get the UK out and away from this before that date.

---

^ Guilty of spreading fake news. ^

https://twitter.com/PJChapman74/stat...99242914099201

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I thought the act that fixed parliament terms basically did away with that power?

---

I'm pretty sure that Brenda can still dissolve Parliament whenever she wishes.

...and so democracy dies in the UK after 101 years of universal suffrage.

This will not end well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

This will not end well.

---

Do you mean this thread? Aren't you guys tired of chewing the same gum for 82 pages?

Very funny.

The message is this. If you vote the 'wrong way' then the politicians will ignore you and carry on as before. I don't know what that is but it isn't democracy.

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Very funny.

The message is this. If you vote the 'wrong way' then the politicians will ignore you and carry on as before. I don't know what that is but it isn't democracy.

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

---

Are you disappointed that May hasn't got her deal through on the third attempt? Do you think she might get it through at the fourth time of asking? What was that you said about voting the wrong way? Are Parliament supposed to wave through whatever the PM dictates, even though the PM does not command a majority in this or in the House as a whole? Are there any other issues you'd like the House to wave through without discussing or voting on it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Then we'd have to merge this with the Trump thread. :laugh4:

---

I was actually thinking I could shake up with you....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Very funny.

The message is this. If you vote the 'wrong way' then the politicians will ignore you and carry on as before. I don't know what that is but it isn't democracy.

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

---

IA:

This has been a factor in representative government wherever and whenever it has been used. Burke even argued it was the duty of the better informed/educated representative to vote in the best interests of a constituency against the will OF that constituency. This is hardly a harbinger of democracy's eradication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

IA:

This has been a factor in representative government wherever and whenever it has been used. Burke even argued it was the duty of the better informed/educated representative to vote in the best interests of a constituency against the will OF that constituency. This is hardly a harbinger of democracy's eradication.

---

In Parliamentary democracy, a government holds a mandate by virtue of the majority they hold in Parliament, allowing them to pass legislation after it is voted on. If the government does not have enough votes to pass legislation, it does not have a mandate to pass that legislation. This mechanic is recognised in the fact that the party holding a majority of MPs is invited to form a government, since they are able to do the above. So I'm not sure what IA is complaining about. All the PM has to do is pass legislation to effect Brexit as defined by her and as IA presumably supports, and that is done.

If he thinks Parliament should pass legislation simply because the PM says this is it, what other things does Parliament need to do without a vote because the PM says it needs to be done? A nice chap in Romford sported a T-shirt the day after the referendum saying, We've won, now kick them out. Does Parliament need to do this as well if the PM requires it? After all, that Essex bloke had as much of a part in voting Leave as IA did. Who's to say that any argument against this is more valid than his? It is Parliament's part to usher through Brexit as its supporters envisaged, according to IA.

No I'm disappointed that MPs are doing everything they can to stop Brexit.

Remember, next time it might be you that gets the finger from the politicians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

No I'm disappointed that MPs are doing everything they can to stop Brexit.

Remember, next time it might be you that gets the finger from the politicians.

---

In related news, the official Leave campaign today accepted that they broke the law as found by the Electoral Commission. In an election electing a candidate, this would result in the result being voided and the election re-held. But because the referendum was supposedly advisory and not subject to rigorous checks, the campaign is merely fined 60-odd k and we are left to reconcile their lies with reality.

BTW, talking about getting the finger from politicians, are we going to see the 350 million per week for the NHS that Leave promised? Unlike May's deal, this was something that Leave actually promised at the time of the campaign. Have you been pressing Brexit-supporting politicians to fulfil this campaign promise of theirs? Farage disowned it on the morning of the result.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/...pg?imwidth=480

In other news, ghe inxeoendent group have rebranded themselves for the coming fight as cuk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

No I'm disappointed that MPs are doing everything they can to stop Brexit.

Remember, next time it might be you that gets the finger from the politicians.

---

Look at it from another perspective: if a non-binding referendum asking "Socialism or Capitalism?" passed in favor of socialism 52-48, the (Corbyn?) government couldn't come within miles of figuring out a way to devise and implement a comprehensive program for social, economic, and political transition by some arbitrary timeline, half the socialists were insisting that the government resolve the matter by the deadline by irrevocably legislating a stark "Capitalism is over, f*** you" that immediately empowers all citizens to directly organize their municipalities and redistribute property as they see fit, and the capitalists were begging for the revocation of Article 50 the Committee of Public Progress, and the socialists were fuming that allowing the public another vote or entertaining a different process would be an "undemocratic" betrayal (a chillingly Orwellian charge) by the "enemies of the people", I would be sympathetic to the capitalists - and I'm a socialist.

I know for sure though that capitalists around the world would take the opportunity to point to the whole affair as exposing the chaos and tyranny that must surely be heralded by socialism. Right, Seamus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

BTW, talking about getting the finger from politicians, are we going to see the 350 million per week for the NHS that Leave promised? Unlike May's deal, this was something that Leave actually promised at the time of the campaign. Have you been pressing Brexit-supporting politicians to fulfil this campaign promise of theirs? Farage disowned it on the morning of the result.

---

Dude, they just want to cancel their bonds. They already told you multiple times they don't think such indiscretions affect the basic integrity of the process, so you won't gain anything by not changing the record.



EDIT: @Furunculus will like this (or maybe he won't?)

1-minute clip of Varoufakis on who's responsible for this state of affairs. Key line:

Quote:

---

Whether you are a Brexiteer or a Remainer, this is a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war

---

Straight fire.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1esrEb9p0Wc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Look at it from another perspective: if a non-binding referendum asking "Socialism or Capitalism?" passed in favor of socialism 52-48, the (Corbyn?) government couldn't come within miles of figuring out a way to devise and implement a comprehensive program for social, economic, and political transition by some arbitrary timeline, half the socialists were insisting that the government resolve the matter by the deadline by irrevocably legislating a stark "Capitalism is over, f*** you" that immediately empowers all citizens to directly organize their municipalities and redistribute property as they see fit, and the capitalists were begging for the revocation of Article 50 the Committee of Public Progress, and the socialists were fuming that allowing the public another vote or entertaining a different process would be an "undemocratic" betrayal (a chillingly Orwellian charge) by the "enemies of the people", I would be sympathetic to the capitalists - and I'm a socialist.

I know for sure though that capitalists around the world would take the opportunity to point to the whole affair as exposing the chaos and tyranny that must surely be heralded by socialism. Right, Seamus?




Dude, they just want to cancel their bonds. They already told you multiple times they don't think such indiscretions affect the basic integrity of the process, so you won't gain anything by not changing the record.



EDIT: @Furunculus will like this (or maybe he won't?)

1-minute clip of Varoufakis on who's responsible for this state of affairs. Key line:



Straight fire.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1esrEb9p0Wc

---

IA was outraged because Parliament won't pass May's deal, and he calls it the end of democracy in the UK. But May's deal wasn't promised by Leave. 350 million per week for the NHS was promised by Leave. Why is the former the obligation of Parliament to pass, but the latter is ignored by Leavers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

No I'm disappointed that MPs are doing everything they can to stop Brexit.

Remember, next time it might be you that gets the finger from the politicians.

---

MPs who voted against May include:

Steve Baker
Bill Cash
Christopher Chope
Mark Francois
John Redwood

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

EDIT: @Furunculus will like this (or maybe he won't?)

1-minute clip of Varoufakis on who's responsible for this state of affairs. Key line:

---

i agree with the argument he presents on the illogicality of agreeing to the EU's demand of a two stage negotiating process.
this is precisely why when we said "no deal is better than a bad deal" we should have meant it! and if necessary, have left if they refused to negotiate in tandem.
it would have produced a brexit closer to my own preferences; a market economy model rather than a limited social democracy.

that said, what resulted from this broken process was workable, it gave me a lot of the things i wanted while giving remainers some of what they wanted.
it left britain as a limited social democracy, but that seemed a reasonable compromise given the marginal result. i'm a considerate chap.

if we have another referendum i will be writing dominic cummings a cheque for a grand, and will look forward to the "tell them again!" slogan with enormous enthusiasm.

Point of Order: Both Main parties (Lab, Con) ran on a pro-Brexit platform at the least election and increased their vote share. Parties that ran a second Referendum or pro-EU platform (SNP, Lib Dem) reduced their vote share.

This is a care issue in the current crisis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

Point of Order: Both Main parties (Lab, Con) ran on a pro-Brexit platform at the least election and increased their vote share. Parties that ran a second Referendum or pro-EU platform (SNP, Lib Dem) reduced their vote share.

This is a care issue in the current crisis.

---

Since the 2017 General Election produced such a decisive result for pro-Brexit parties, all the government has to do is pass legislation to enact it. That is how the British constitution works, isn't it?

May has announced another sequel. MV4: A New Beginning.

It is March the 30th and the UK hasn't brexited still.

I think next there will be new parliamentary elections in Britain, because no deal of May´s is never gonna be accepted.

The good thing about this is that then we get to see democracy in action as the theme for the elections will be pretty clear. Maybe it will even break apart Labour and Conservative party and create something new. Im looking forward to this. (With slight amusement i have to admit).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

I think next there will be new parliamentary elections in Britain, because no deal of May´s is never gonna be accepted.

The good thing about this is that then we get to see democracy in action as the theme for the elections will be pretty clear. Maybe it will even break apart Labour and Conservative party and create something new. I'm looking forward to this. (With slight amusement i have to admit).

---

I would love for a different system to emerge, with a multiplicity of parties.

But for another vote under First Past the Post on this single issue for the next 5 years on everything - unless the "Remainers" are serious and every time a government does something that was not on their manifesto we hold a new vote... or is it just this one occasion?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I would love for a different system to emerge, with a multiplicity of parties.

But for another vote under First Past the Post on this single issue for the next 5 years on everything - unless the "Remainers" are serious and every time a government does something that was not on their manifesto we hold a new vote... or is it just this one occasion?

~:smoking:

---

Brexiiteers are the ones who need to get serious.
They do hold the parliamentary majority. So when the deal is getting shot down by both the Remainers (representing 49% of the population who voted) and Brexiteer European Research Group, you cannot blame the peoples who are against it, blame the people (ERG) supposedly for it.

or you know, just accept there is actually no consensus on what Brexit actually is and have an actually referendum with the people to have a right to define and give a mandate to enact it. Opposed to the advisory non-binding wish-washy one which caused this mess and ever-enduring constitutional crisis in the first place.

Unless the real reason is, you are fearful that people might not actually want Brexit now and vote to remain, opposed to actually voting to confirm they do indeed want Brexit and expect to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Brexiiteers are the ones who need to get serious.
They do hold the parliamentary majority. So when the deal is getting shot down by both the Remainers (representing 49% of the population who voted) and Brexiteer European Research Group, you cannot blame the peoples who are against it, blame the people (ERG) supposedly for it.

or you know, just accept there is actually no consensus on what Brexit actually is and have an actually referendum with the people to have a right to define and give a mandate to enact it. Opposed to the advisory non-binding wish-washy one which caused this mess and ever-enduring constitutional crisis in the first place.

Unless the real reason is, you are fearful that people might not actually want Brexit now and vote to remain, opposed to actually voting to confirm they do indeed want Brexit and expect to win.

---

Get these Remainiacs out now!

Steve Baker
Bill Cash
Christopher Chope
Mark Francois
John Redwood

Others who voted against Brexit in earlier rounds.

David Davis
Iain Duncan Smith
Boris Johnson
Daniel Kawczynski
Esther McVey
Dominic Rabb
Jacob Rees Mogg

Get these Remoaners out now!

Edit: There were 118 Tories who voted against Brexit first time round.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Freedom of movement of services is technically one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms.

---

A somewhat nascent pillar of the single market, but yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

If the complaint is that actual intermember exchange of goods is more robust than exchange in services - well, why would leaving the single market suddenly change that?

---

The complaint is that in a direct sense - but it is not something that we can change unilaterally in face face of opposition from the original eu bloc members. The complaint is indirect - as a response to the above - about the latent hostility to a free-wheeling finance industry that shouldn't feel the need to justify its activity against arbstract notions of social justice.

This then leads to the real issue:
From the EEA - is it appropriate for Britain to let a strategic industry be regulated by the EU, when:
1. There exists a latent hostility to the anglo-saxon model of eocnomic regulation
2. Britain is the by far the largest partner in financial services in europe
3. As a consequence of #2 - the EU hasn't got a lot of skin in a game to compel it to be a 'responsible' regulator.
4. As a consequence of #2 - the EU doesn't have a global industry to think strategically about.
5. The nature of global economic growth means the opportunity is elwsewhere, and the EU simply isn't in a position to care about 'elsewhere'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

why don't you think the cocoon of the Single Market is what allows London finance to flourish? Isn't it easier for British services to compete in the single market than equally across the world?

---

Because it was the 'big-bang' of finaical deregulation that caused London to flourish as a global financial centre, not the single market:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ba...ncial_markets)
It is one of only TWO "full-service" hubs in the world due to a variety of inherent advantages:
https://www.pwc.co.uk/who-we-are/reg...fFS_060717.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Critique of Chequers in terms of remaining in market for goods but not market for services.

---

I can't read that - but I have seen many valid and useful critiques, not least that services is inextricably tied up with people.
But then I fully expect that were the current deal to go through, over the next two years of negotiation:
1. We'd trade preferential access for labour for access for services, and;
2. We'd do it with an enhanced equivalence regime where we remain our own regulator, because:
3. With 9% unemployment, the EZ already verging on a technical recession, the next global down-turn coming - the EU needs London's money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

My impression is still that your ideas about sovereignty and comparative advantage are more ideological and abstract than evidence-based.

---

My impression is that sometimes you like to fling out academic sounding verbiage in the hope that sheer quantity alone will disguise the fact that on occasion you have no substantial rebuttal to offer. Is that unfair?

After three no's, there is a chance that Theresa May's showing is going to get a fourth showing as an option... ... ... seriously... ...

But 2nd referendum which is binding and allowing the British people to choose their Brexit is apparently a terrible thing. Brexiteer logic. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

After three no's, there is a chance that Theresa May's showing is going to get a fourth showing as an option... ... ... seriously... ...

But 2nd referendum which is binding and allowing the British people to choose their Brexit is apparently a terrible thing. Brexiteer logic. :laugh4:

---

The tyrannous EU forces its member states to vote and vote again until they get the right result. Parliament is betraying the British people by failing to pass the government's Bill, even after three goes. MPs like John Redwood and Bill Cash, and Boris Johnson, David Davis and Jacob Rees Mogg before them, keep doing all they can to stop Brexit. It's all the EU's fault.