EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

As PFH has said, the Government negotiates treaties on behalf of Parliament. That it has not, because it buckled on the question of meaningful votes is in good measure why we are in this knot.

We saw exactly this point with the outrage over the initial extension, where the leave date became the 12th of april regardless of the fact that parliament had put "31st of March" into law.

Why not? It isn't ideal, but it is perfectly workable.
If we didn't like the sequencing of WA > FTA + the maximalist interpretation of "no hard border", then we should have left without a deal.
But this is still perfectly workable.

British governments take office based on their majority in the Commons. Where is this majority?

[Beskar]

There's an MEP called Nigel Farage who's been claiming goodness knows how much money whilst not turning up for work. Does that count?

Was that the guy who used EU funds to pay for his parties campaigning in a national election on the platform against the EU?

Then there was that guy who charged parliament to build a house for his duck.. oh wait, that was UK corruption.

[Greyblades]

Why not? It isn't ideal, but it is perfectly workable.
If we didn't like the sequencing of WA > FTA + the maximalist interpretation of "no hard border", then we should have left without a deal.
But this is still perfectly workable.

I dont see how, even when May managed to shift the faux brexiteers she was still short of a majority. As it is she has run out of viable turncoats on her side and is looking for support from across the isle; that isnt going to come without likely dire concessions. The deal in its current form just isnt going to pass parliament and its going to be a hell of a challenge to rework the deal to enough of the opposition's liking, while also getting EU approval for the changes, without haemoragging support tory-side.

[Goalum]

Was that the guy who used EU funds to pay for his parties campaigning in a national election on the platform against the EU?

You mean Alexis Tsipras?

[Beskar]

You mean Alexis Tsipras?

He might have too. Le Penn did similar in France. Popular trope.

[Goalum]

He might have too. Le Penn did similar in France. Popular trope.

same lies, same power mongers..its all the eu's fault though

[rory_20_uk]

There's an MEP called Nigel Farage who's been claiming goodness knows how much money whilst not turning up for work. Does that count?

It certainly does. And what has the EU done about it? They should have penalised the corrupt little leech years ago.

And now that we are out of the EU, we can be ruled by the incorruptible Westminster. Have you seen some of the sidelines our MPs get up to? Eg. John Redwood giving financial advice to his clients not to invest in the UK because the UK economy post-Brexit is likely to be dodgy. And then pushing for no deal. Or Rees Mogg expanding investments inside the EU because there is likely to be greater stability within the EU than in the UK post-Brexit. Why are European politicians doing dodgy stuff to their money such an important issue with you, but UK politicians screwing the UK over such a non-issue?

So... since we have problems with corruption at the UK level, we might as well have an extra level of corruption. Is that the extent of the argument?

When did the EU promise this?

The EU have their 4 pillars. The UK had their red lines. Given they were not remotely close and both sides prior to the start said they'd not budge there was never going to be an agreement.

Negotiation was basically to what extent the UK was prepared to do what the EU wanted. And, sure, they are the EU rules - why should they break their own rules? Except for auditing accounts, country expenditure deficits, financial tricks to enter the EU in the first place, exceptions for overseas territories. But apart from all the examples where they have done, when has the EU ever changed its mind? And of course the massive difference is the previous examples the EU bent because it was politically desired to do so. There is and never will be any political desire to bend for what the UK wants.

Others have mentioned the UK loosing "power" on the world stage. Personally I would have thought that Suez would have been a wake up call, but no we are still pretending that we matter and if we just accept that we have a role with soft power things would be much easier - perhaps it would be more effective if people stopped hating us for intervening in situations where we have frankly no place.

If this loss of power means that every time some country implodes the UK doesn't need to send its overstretched armed forces and shower resources on some new disaster that'd be fantastic! France and Germany can enjoy the prestige of getting shot at by all sorts of "lovely" cultures. Perhaps people in our own "communities" will side with terrorists less often.

[Pannonian]

It certainly does. And what has the EU done about it? They should have penalised the corrupt little leech years ago.



So... since we have problems with corruption at the UK level, we might as well have an extra level of corruption. Is that the extent of the argument?

The EU have their 4 pillars. The UK had their red lines. Given they were not remotely close and both sides prior to the start said they'd not budge there was never going to be an agreement.

Negotiation was basically to what extent the UK was prepared to do what the EU wanted. And, sure, they are the EU rules - why should they break their own rules? Except for auditing accounts, country expenditure deficits, financial tricks to enter the EU in the first place, exceptions for overseas territories. But apart from all the examples where they have done, when has the EU ever changed its mind? And of course the massive difference is the previous examples the EU bent because it was politically desired to do so. There is and never will be any political desire to bend for what the UK wants.

Others have mentioned the UK loosing "power" on the world stage. Personally I would have thought that Suez would have been a wake up call, but no we are still pretending that we matter and if we just accept that we have a role with soft power things would be much easier - perhaps it would be more effective if people stopped hating us for intervening in situations where we have frankly no place.

If this loss of power means that every time some country implodes the UK doesn't need to send its overstretched armed forces and shower resources on some new disaster that'd be fantastic! France and Germany can enjoy the prestige of getting shot at by all sorts of "lovely" cultures. Perhaps people in our own "communities" will side with terrorists less often.

How many conflicts has the EU embroiled the UK in during our membership? Here are the last few that I remember.

Syria, sort of: Did we really get involved?
Libya: Was this an EU-driven involvement?
Iraq: Most of the EU states were against. We joined to pay the blood price of being in partnership with the US.
Afghanistan: A NATO response.
Sierra Leone: A purely UK affair. A British officer and the UK foreign minister (Robin Cook) both said the UK would not wait for wider approval before intervention.
Kosovo: A UK-driven affair, bringing a reluctant US into it.

Have I missed anything? How would leaving the EU free us from the above? The most controversial on the list, Iraq 2003, was driven by our perceived need to keep our partnership with the US. Once we leave the EU, we will be more dependent than before on the US-UK relationship. You argue that our EU membership leads us to being shot at because of EU-embroiled conflicts, which hasn't happened. But your action leads us to being more heavily dependent on a relationship which does result in us being shot at because of US-embroiled conflicts, and that has happened. You argue a theoretical case that isn't backed by evidence, but your chosen action is seen to have resulted in what you argue against in the past.

[InsaneApache]

So who does govern the UK? You've already criticised Parliament for betraying the British people because they refused to pass May's deal to facilitate her Brexit. Should they have passed it, in your view? Don't dance around it with memes. Give your honest opinion on whether or not Parliament should have passed it. Or even whether or not it needed Parliament to vote on it.

We should have left on the 29th as promised. No ifs no buts. The people didn't vote for a deal, they voted out.

Start with anything.Give us an example? Not what you phantom, but any corruption misconduct revealed within EU.

..and when presented with the facts there proceeded to be a sudden rush of whataboutery and cries of 'look over there'.....

[rory_20_uk]

How many conflicts has the EU embroiled the UK in during our membership? Here are the last few that I remember.

Syria, sort of: Did we really get involved?
Libya: Was this an EU-driven involvement?
Iraq: Most of the EU states were against. We joined to pay the blood price of being in partnership with the US.
Afghanistan: A NATO response.
Sierra Leone: A purely UK affair. A British officer and the UK foreign minister (Robin Cook) both said the UK would not wait for wider approval before intervention.
Kosovo: A UK-driven affair, bringing a reluctant US into it.

Have I missed anything? How would leaving the EU free us from the above? The most controversial on the list, Iraq 2003, was driven by our perceived need to keep our partnership with the US. Once we leave the EU, we will be more dependent than before on the US-UK relationship. You argue that our EU membership leads us to being shot at because of EU-embroiled conflicts, which hasn't happened. But your action leads us to being more heavily dependent on a relationship which does result in us being shot at because of US-embroiled conflicts, and that has happened. You argue a theoretical case that isn't backed by evidence, but your chosen action is seen to have resulted in what you argue against in the past.

Did I say leaving the EU would? Oh that's right - you've assumed what I meant, not bothered to check and just run with it.

I guess that was better than having to accept the rest of the post.

[InsaneApache]

‘It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure, or whether we leave: your decision – nobody else’s. Not politicians’. Not Parliament’s. Not lobby groups’. Not mine. Just you: you the British people will decide.
‘At that moment you will hold this country’s destiny in your hands. This is a huge decision for our country, perhaps the biggest we will make in our lifetimes. And it will be the final decision.
‘So to those who suggest that a decision in the referendum to leave would merely produce another stronger renegotiation and second referendum in which Britain could stay, I say: Think again. The renegotiation is happening right now and the referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice: an In or Out referendum.
‘When the British people speak, their voice will be respected, not ignored. If we vote to leave, then we will leave.’

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

British governments take office based on their majority in the Commons. Where is this majority?

It's a majority of members, not numbers in a specific party.

Our FPTP system isn't a "Party" system, as much as some like to pretend it is.

[Pannonian]

It's a majority of members, not numbers in a specific party.

Our FPTP system isn't a "Party" system, as much as some like to pretend it is.

It's a majority of votes in a Commons Bill. Parties help to get these common majorities together. But in this case, the government has had 3 goes at passing the Bill, and failed on each occasion. The Tories were only asked to form a government because they and the DUP combined to form a majority of the MPs in the Commons. But the DUP has voted against the Bill on each occasion, and has said that it will continue to vote against it. Thus meaning the government has no majority on this issue, as demonstrated on 3 occasions. Furunculus said that the government should have had executive power on this, and that Parliament should not have presumed to poke their nose in. But government authority is based on a demonstrable majority, which it plainly does not have on this. What Furunculus suggests should have been done overturns centuries of our most fundamental constitutional foundation, that government is based on a majority of votes in the Commons.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a majority of votes in a Commons Bill. Parties help to get these common majorities together. But in this case, the government has had 3 goes at passing the Bill, and failed on each occasion. The Tories were only asked to form a government because they and the DUP combined to form a majority of the MPs in the Commons. But the DUP has voted against the Bill on each occasion, and has said that it will continue to vote against it. Thus meaning the government has no majority on this issue, as demonstrated on 3 occasions. Furunculus said that the government should have had executive power on this, and that Parliament should not have presumed to poke their nose in. But government authority is based on a demonstrable majority, which it plainly does not have on this. What Furunculus suggests should have been done overturns centuries of our most fundamental constitutional foundation, that government is based on a majority of votes in the Commons.

Yet a Vote of No Confidence has not been brought...

It's clear there's no will to oust the Government, so on we go.

[Pannonian]

Yet a Vote of No Confidence has not been brought...

It's clear there's no will to oust the Government, so on we go.

If that's the only measure of government, then all the government has to do to facilitate May's Brexit is pass her Bill. More yeas than nays on her Bill is the concrete proof of its democratic legitimacy.

[Furunculus]

Furunculus said that the government should have had executive power on this, and that Parliament should not have presumed to poke their nose in. But government authority is based on a demonstrable majority, which it plainly does not have on this. What Furunculus suggests should have been done overturns centuries of our most fundamental constitutional foundation, that government is based on a majority of votes in the Commons.

You have a formidable talent for reading the words I write and then imputing any meaning you deem useful into those words when you impart their apparent meaning to others.

You misrepresent my words (again), and you plainly don't understand the constitutional position. A quick google search would have cleared up any confusion:

https://www.google.com/search?q=uk+c...t=firefox-b-ab

"The Government makes treaties… The UK Government is responsible for negotiating, signing and ratifying the 30 or so international treaties involving the UK each year. The starting point for treaty ratification in the UK is that the Government has the power to make international treaties under its prerogative powers."
https://researchbriefings.parliament...ummary/SN05855

"The lack of formal parliamentary involvement in treaty-making differentiates the British Parliament from most other national legislatures. ... (The constitution of the United States provides that treaties are made by 'the President by and with the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senators')."
https://www.parliament.uk/documents/...office/p14.pdf

"The power to conclude and ratify treaties in the United Kingdom is one of the few remaining prerogatives of the crown. We may search in vain for constitutional ..."
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1948324

"Under English law the capacity to negotiate and conclude treaties falls entirely to the executive arm of government. Nominally Parliament plays no role at all in this process."
https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/...xt=cklawreview

Just in case you were bored and had a spare moment to re-read what i said:

"we exist in this parliamentary knot in large part because parliament has inserted itself into a gov't task; negotiating treaties with foreign powers.
and negotiation by committee is universally understood to be a poor idea.

yes, we can make the argument that the eu is so deeply entwined around our domestic governance that it is no longer a foreign policy issue...
... but this is precisely my objection to ever closer union.

yes, parliament should have passed May's deal, but i wish it didn't have too.
of course, if didn't feel it needed to have a say then we may not have felt it necessary to leave. see the conundrum? "

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053792891

Three questions:
1. Does your quote above seem like a reasonable characterization of what I said?
2. Does your quote above seem like a accurate restatement of uk constitutional principles?
3. Do you realise how much time I spend correcting your misrepresentations of my words?

[Goalum]

Folks, just listen to the experts:

[Greyblades]

I wonder how often in history there have been this many people in power around the world who, were it not for the promise of a future democratic removal, would be at high risk of assassination.

Here's hoping I dont get a knock on my door by the local Met officer for wondering.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Folks, just listen to the experts:

You mean the leader of the country the EU threatened to drive into poverty in order to overturn a referendum result?

Then they drove Greece into poverty anyway.

[Beskar]

Plenty of time for Referendum 2 with the choices given as Alternative Vote format.

Time to get the Brexit the people of the country actually want, instead of what the "European Research Group" wants.

On another note, who else dislikes the name of the ERG? It has no representation of what it actually is, in the same league as referring to North Korea as democratic because of it's name.

[Goalum]

You mean the leader of the country the EU threatened to drive into poverty in order to overturn a referendum result?

Then they drove Greece into poverty anyway.

This is so out of touch with objective reality that one gets the feeling that you are writing these things just to keep the posting going..

[edyzmedieval]

The problem is simple and yet so complicated at the same time - not even the UK knows what it wants. England and Wales have voted for Leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland are staunchly Remain.

When there is such a significant disconnect in between the 4 members of the UK, how do you expect to arrive at a consensus for everyone?

[Beskar]

The problem is simple and yet so complicated at the same time - not even the UK knows what it wants. England and Wales have voted for Leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland are staunchly Remain.

When there is such a significant disconnect in between the 4 members of the UK, how do you expect to arrive at a consensus for everyone?

The split is pretty much 50/50 between those who want to remain and those who wanted to leave in some fashion. It isn't located so geographically, it is pretty even throughout the nation throughtout the nation with minor variation based on country, city or rural.
Though the latter 50% who chose the option to leave have no consensus on what leave actually looks like and the PM has pandered to the most extremist elements of that percentage and brow-beaten the other half of the country to accept it or else. Country is being held hostage by a ring of football hooligans chanting "Brexit means Brexit".

It isn't that the UK doesn't know what it wants, it is there is not actual politic will to give the nation what it wants or even make any steps to remedy the situation.

As I said, Legally-Binding Referendum with Alternative Vote. It will solve the issue. But god-forbid giving the nation the democratic choice of choosing. I will happily accept options such as Common Market 2 (Norway Plus) as advocated by Vote Leave during the initial referendum for example, but instead of trying to unify the country, it is time for...

BREXIT MEANS BREXIT

Which in reality resulted into Brexit means Brex**it

[Beskar]

On that note, Mr Nigel has returned from life outside of the UK to launch his new "Brexit Party"

[Husar]

The problem is simple and yet so complicated at the same time - not even the UK knows what it wants. England and Wales have voted for Leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland are staunchly Remain.

When there is such a significant disconnect in between the 4 members of the UK, how do you expect to arrive at a consensus for everyone?

It's just like the split within the EU. 27 countries want the UK to remain and the UK wants to leave. The obvious solution for the UK is to leave the union because it disagrees with the direction of the union. So for NI and Scotland, the same solution can be applied, if they vote for it.

[Greyblades]

The problem is simple and yet so complicated at the same time - not even the UK knows what it wants. England and Wales have voted for Leave; Scotland and Northern Ireland are staunchly Remain.

When there is such a significant disconnect in between the 4 members of the UK, how do you expect to arrive at a consensus for everyone?

I think you are reading too much into the irish result, Northern island split down the same catholic/protestant divide it always does. The main divide in britain isnt between the kingdoms (as much as the at-current impotent SNP may wish to believe) but between parliament and people, with the government being a rogue element.

Parliament is dominated by mp's who want to remain, they wish to avoid no deal but are disunited in what to do instead as they are vaguely aware that trying to outright betray the referendum would be suicidal, thus they are running a delaying action hoping that the people get tired of it all and become willing to remain.

The people are split thrice by those who want either a good deal, no deal or remain, with good deal/no deal forming a majority comprising of the remainers who have accepted the referendum result and the leave voters, while the remainers hold a minority of voters, comprising of the sizeable portion of remainers who dont respect the referendum. The remainers are very loud.

Finally the government is run by a PM who wants a bad deal who has basically gone rogue and has wrangled her way into being immune to removal by parliament, constantly insisting that it's her way of the highway, currently she is incapable of getting parliament to agree to her terms because, while immoveable, she is impotent.

Thus Britain is in a holding pattern until either May's deal gets through (unlikely), the EU decides to refuse to extend the deadline (even less likely but might change as time goes on), someone gets rid of may and brings the conservatives back to sanity(if pigs fly) or the next election comes around wherein the conservative party will collapse and we either get corbyn or a hung parliament (pretty much a guarentee)

[Pannonian]

I think you are reading too much into the irish result, Northern island split down the same catholic/protestant divide it always does. The main divide in britain isnt between the kingdoms (as much as the at-current impotent SNP may wish to believe) but between parliament and people, with the government being a rogue element.

Parliament is dominated by mp's who want to remain, they wish to avoid no deal but are disunited in what to do instead as they are vaguely aware that trying to outright betray the referendum would be suicidal, thus they are running a delaying action hoping that the people get tired of it all and become willing to remain.

The people are split thrice by those who want either a good deal, no deal or remain, with good deal/no deal forming a majority comprising of the remainers who have accepted the referendum result and the leave voters, while the remainers hold a minority of voters, comprising of the sizeable portion of remainers who dont respect the referendum. The remainers are very loud.

Finally the government is run by a PM who wants a bad deal who has basically gone rogue and has wrangled her way into being immune to removal by parliament, constantly insisting that it's her way of the highway, currently she is incapable of getting parliament to agree to her terms because, while immoveable, she is impotent.

Thus Britain is in a holding pattern until either May's deal gets through (unlikely), the EU decides to refuse to extend the deadline (even less likely but might change as time goes on), someone gets rid of may and brings the conservatives back to sanity(if pigs fly) or the next election comes around wherein the conservative party will collapse and we either get corbyn or a hung parliament (pretty much a guarentee)

What is this good deal you are talking about? What red lines does it involve?

[Greyblades]

"Good deal" is catch all term for "deal not mays deal". Presumably each person thinks thier preferance is good and can be considered unified by thier opposition to May's.

[Pannonian]

"Good deal" is catch all term for "deal not mays deal". Presumably each person thinks thier preferance is good and can be considered unified by thier opposition to May's.

Is there anything practical that Leavers are united on and are willing to take responsibility for? Most of the Leave argument tends towards opposition to something existing, but without offering anything concrete as an alternative. A lot of criticism of others, but few arguments about how they'll make things better. So anything which isn't strictly following the Remain position is claimed to be support for a nebulous Leave position.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is this good deal you are talking about? What red lines does it involve?

To be part of the EEC but not the EU.