EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

[Gilrandir]

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.

[Pannonian]

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?

[Furunculus]

Yup.

[Beskar]

lol, i voted lib-dem too.

Opposites Attract?

[Pannonian]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Pannonian]

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)

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".

[Gilrandir]

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.

[InsaneApache]

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[InsaneApache]

How's France this weekend?

[Pannonian]

How's France this weekend?

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

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Strike For The South]

5 eyes union?

[Pannonian]

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?

[Pannonian]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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...

[Husar]

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?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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?

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?

[Furunculus]

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

[Pannonian]

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.

[Husar]

"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.

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).

[a completely inoffensive name]

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...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Someone vandalised Oliver Letwin's wiki page:

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

[InsaneApache]

5 eyes union?

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

[Pannonian]

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 leaders of the two main parties.