EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Furunculus]

good question...

[Pannonian]

constitutionally, i'm in favour of:
1. the executive having responsibility for negotiating foriegn treaties
> though i'm happy to recognise that the EU is so pervasive that brexit is practically a domestic issue
2. that government legal advice should remain private
> to ensure that governments can ask for and receive comprehesive and non-evasive advice

but more than anything i'm in favour of [the process] of parliament and how gov't responds to the demands of a political constitution (rather than a legal one), so I'm quite accepting of the fact that parliament will have a 'meaninful' vote and got an extensive precis of the legal advice.

Aren't these powers normally dependent on the executive having a demonstrable majority in Parliament? If the government wishes to bypass Parliament because they are not confident of having a demonstrable majority, what mandate do they have to do what they want to do? And what if the executive delays matters so that Parliament has no practical recourse to alternative courses of action? NB. Parliament has already authorised the amendment of any action the government wishes to take on the issue, so this isn't just theoretical. The executive wishes to evade this, and has already done by calling off last night's vote.

[Furunculus]

No, those which I list exist regardless of majorities, but as custom of a political constitution are subject to the dictate of Parliament, even if it's not an advisable course of action.

Making saugages is not something anyone wants to get too familiar with, but the process tends to produce a consistently palatable result. I hope we end with that situation here.

WIll you support May's deal, as a pragmatic and reasonable compromise?

[Pannonian]

No, those which I list exist regardless of majorities, but as custom of a political constitution are subject to the dictate of Parliament, even if it's not an advisable course of action.

Making saugages is not something anyone wants to get too familiar with, but the process tends to produce a consistently palatable result. I hope we end with that situation here.

WIll you support May's deal, as a pragmatic and reasonable compromise?

Brexit is not sausage making. It has far greater consequences, which sausage making does not. For that reason, glib comparisons are not appropriate. If you want to make comparisons, only political situations with similarly wide ranging consequences are comparable. You keep arguing about sovereignty, how it is a good thing that can not be ceded in any part to the EU. Yet it is the ECJ which has upheld British sovereignty, and the executive you continue to support that is setting aside Parliamentary sovereignty. You keep talking about the constitution, alluding to something nebulous that nonetheless supports your course of action. I'll remind you again, despite your denial of the fact, that the mandate of the executive is contingent on their possession of a demonstrable majority. If an executive does not have a demonstrable majority, it does not have a mandate. And if it bypasses Parliament to avoid the demonstrable fact that it does not have a majority, then it is abusing its power, and whatever it does has no democratic legitimacy.

How is a government formed? By asking the leader of the party with a majority of the seats in the Commons to form a government. Failing a majority, then the leader of the biggest party is invited to form a coalition that can form a majority of the seats in the Commons. If the biggest party cannot do this, then the second biggest party is invited to try. If this successive coalition forming cannot form a majority, then there is another election to clarify matters. A majority in the Commons is the basis of any mandate for the executive. The executive's mandate is contingent on a majority in the Commons. The executive's mandate does not exist separate from the Commons.

[Furunculus]

At what point have I discussed mandates? This begun with your question on a meaningful vote, and my response of constitutional conventions.

[Pannonian]

At what point have I discussed mandates? This begun with your question on a meaningful vote, and my response of constitutional conventions.

If you want to talk about constitutional conventions, how does that work in terms of the Grieve amendment? By that, Parliament can amend any action May takes on this issue. But to do so, it must be allowed to vote on whether or not May's deal passes. This was denied last night. You appear to support this denial. Was May right to call off the vote last night? Should she be allowed to delay any Parliamentary action until her deal or no deal is a fait accompli?

[Furunculus]

You first: do you suppot the deal?

[Pannonian]

You first: do you suppot the deal?

I'd have thought it was obvious. No I bloody well do not. And she should let Parliament demonstrate that they do not bloody well support it either.

Now do you think May was right to call off the vote last night?

[Furunculus]

I'd have thought it was obvious. No I bloody well do not. And she should let Parliament demonstrate that they do not bloody well support it either.

Now do you think May was right to call off the vote last night?

So, do you support some other deal, or withdrawing art50 and stopping brexit?

I'm fine with her delaying the vote if she thinks she can by her positive actions change the dial in favour of acceptance (but not by her negative actions of letting it run up to the deadline so no other choice is possible).

[Pannonian]

So, do you support some other deal, or withdrawing art50 and stopping brexit?

I'm fine with her delaying the vote if she thinks she can by her positive actions change the dial in favour of acceptance (but not by her negative actions of letting it run up to the deadline so no other choice is possible).

Withdrawing article 50, another referendum, except this time Leave has a manifesto to be measured up to, whatever. One thing that is definite and immediate is that Parliament has the right to amend whatever action May takes on this issue. This was established in the Grieve amendment, which passed in the Commons. By this, May does not have the authority to do whatever she likes without first passing it through the Commons. This is not theoretical, nor is it in some indefinite future. It has to be done before May can claim final authority for her actions. Without this, all her authority on this issue is provisional.

Edit: the EU have confirmed and reiterated that there will be no further renegotiation. The deal is the deal. They are willing to dress it up. But in concrete terms, there will be no further changes.

[Furunculus]

Are you willing to own your responsibility if no deal occurs, because you weren't willing to accept a reasonable and pragmatic compromise in support of the majority view of the referendum?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
But back to your point: as per the sausage machine analogy, i'm happy with the process of parliament and that is what it has produced.

I agree that there will be no substantial change made to the WA, at most we'll get pointless clarifications explaining what the text already says - as was the case with Spain on Gibraltar - but hopefully it will prove enough. I'm already 'okay' with it.

[Pannonian]

No, those which I list exist regardless of majorities, but as custom of a political constitution are subject to the dictate of Parliament, even if it's not an advisable course of action.

Making saugages is not something anyone wants to get too familiar with, but the process tends to produce a consistently palatable result. I hope we end with that situation here.

WIll you support May's deal, as a pragmatic and reasonable compromise?

The Queen, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional convention in the UK, seemingly agrees with me. May has apparently been called in for a chat, presumably for not having a working majority. And now the Tory party are gearing up for a leadership challenge, with the 48 letter mark rumoured to have been reached. What was it you said about delaying things past the deadline?

[Montmorency]

https://www.ft.com/content/6650dc0e-...f-99e208d3e521

Have Merkel/Germans been relatively accommodating of the UK's perspective compared to France and Spain out of fear that hard Brexit would help precipitate global economic downswing (and thereby damage German export markets)?

How is a government formed? By asking the leader of the party with a majority of the seats in the Commons to form a government. Failing a majority, then the leader of the biggest party is invited to form a coalition that can form a majority of the seats in the Commons. If the biggest party cannot do this, then the second biggest party is invited to try. If this successive coalition forming cannot form a majority, then there is another election to clarify matters. A majority in the Commons is the basis of any mandate for the executive. The executive's mandate is contingent on a majority in the Commons. The executive's mandate does not exist separate from the Commons.

Or there is a minority government, which are fairly common and stable throughout modern European history.

Are you willing to own your responsibility if no deal occurs, because you weren't willing to accept a reasonable and pragmatic compromise in support of the majority view of the referendum?

Poor juxtaposition, because Pan doesn't support or participate in this decision-making.

'The rich desire to hunt the homeless for sport. The government has reached a tentative deal to allow them to hunt the homeless only for food. The alternative to this reasonable and pragmatic compromise is that many cadavers will go to waste. You wouldn't want that, would you?'

[a completely inoffensive name]

Their hearts are not in it. Honestly, this is just a charade at this point.

[Furunculus]

The Queen, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional convention in the UK, seemingly agrees with me. May has apparently been called in for a chat, presumably for not having a working majority. And now the Tory party are gearing up for a leadership challenge, with the 48 letter mark rumoured to have been reached. What was it you said about delaying things past the deadline?

I think I was agreeing with you. Are you now manufacturing disagreement even where it does not exist, and does this help you?

"Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus - Are you willing to own your responsibility if no deal occurs, because you weren't willing to accept a reasonable and pragmatic compromise in support of the majority view of the referendum?"

Poor juxtaposition, because Pan doesn't support or participate in this decision-making.

Shouldn't the same generosity apply also to me? ;)

'The rich desire to hunt the homeless for sport. The government has reached a tentative deal to allow them to hunt the homeless only for food. The alternative to this reasonable and pragmatic compromise is that many cadavers will go to waste. You wouldn't want that, would you?'

To return to an earlier phrase: The idea that democratic self-governance will lead to societal collapse is absurdist fantasy.
I might not be the only person peddling poor juxtapositions, and at least I presented mine ironically and with a smile.

[Kagemusha]

When i look at this whole mess. I am starting to think that there will be another referendum and GB will revoke article 50. It is just a hunch, though dont hang me for it.

I just leave this here.

[rory_20_uk]

Given the deadline is March 29th, I think that there is no referendum (lest the plebs get a taste for direct democracy) and just initially a postponing and then a drop of Brexit. Sure the UK looses the most, but many other countries in the EU would also loose, and with the riots in France and Italy and Greece being... themselves no change is fine.

[a completely inoffensive name]

May will hold onto her spot, but her bill won't pass. So I guess everyone at this point is just playing games and running down the clock until they revoke Article 50.

[Furunculus]

I suspect it will pass.

[Montmorency]

Shouldn't the same generosity apply also to me? ;)

But you do support and have actively participated in this decision-making, as you've spent many posts emphasizing.

To return to an earlier phrase: The idea that democratic self-governance will lead to societal collapse is absurdist fantasy.

I'm not sure how that relates to my post, but the far left would agree with you.

I might not be the only person peddling poor juxtapositions, and at least I presented mine ironically and with a smile.

<poetry>

[Furunculus]

Sorry, but no member of the electorate gets to dodge this way.
we are collectively bound to accept the result of the democratic process, and uber Remainers are just as liable for a disorderly brexit as erg wing nuts.
If you want to distinguish between the degree of responsibility owned by a voter versus an MP, sure, I'm open to that case myself.

But I myself sit high on the alter of moral purity in supporting a reasonable and pragmatic compromise that reflects a close result on a divisive and far reaching issue. How terribly British of me! :D

I'm not the extremist here.

[Pannonian]

Sorry, but no member of the electorate gets to dodge this way.
we are collectively bound to accept the result of the democratic process, and uber Remainers are just as liable for a disorderly brexit as erg wing nuts.
If you want to distinguish between the degree of responsibility owned by a voter versus an MP, sure, I'm open to that case myself.

But I myself sit high on the alter of moral purity in supporting a reasonable and pragmatic compromise that reflects a close result on a divisive and far reaching issue. How terribly British of me! :D

I'm not the extremist here.

Bwahahaha. So the concrete unpreparedness of the UK for Brexit is partly the fault of the Remainers for not believing hard enough. Perhaps if we'd all united in prayer to the god of Brexit, all the problems would go away.

You won. We lost. This is your victory. Own it.

[Furunculus]

My victory would be May's deal.

I've already told you (a number of times) that while my personal preference was for a slightly more freebooting brexit Britain I didn't think this was justified given the result (or possible given the election), so I would content myself with a softer brexit.

Well here it is; May's deal.

[Montmorency]

Sorry, but no member of the electorate gets to dodge this way.
we are collectively bound to accept the result of the democratic process, and uber Remainers are just as liable for a disorderly brexit as erg wing nuts.
If you want to distinguish between the degree of responsibility owned by a voter versus an MP, sure, I'm open to that case myself.

Huh? It seems fairly obvious to me that someone who supports and votes for a course of action is more accountable and responsible for it than someone who votes against it and does not support it.

A-are you saying Remainers would have to discharge their responsibility by usurping the government through force?

I'm not the extremist here.

You've been very concerned about being seen as an extremist, have you?

[Husar]

If you told the captain there are icebergs ahead, you're just as responsible for sinking the ship as the captain who said you'll be fine and ordered to go full steam ahead. Common sense, guys.

[Fragony]

If you told the captain there are icebergs ahead, you're just as responsible for sinking the ship as the captain who said you'll be fine and ordered to go full steam ahead. Common sense, guys.

Don't you understand it, the iceberg is a succesful brexit. Ever heard about the orchestra now that we are innuando

[Furunculus]

Huh? It seems fairly obvious to me that someone who supports and votes for a course of action is more accountable and responsible for it than someone who votes against it and does not support it.

You've been very concerned about being seen as an extremist, have you?

no, i'm saying that if there is going to be endless whining about owning 'your' decision should no deal arrive that resposnibility lies equally with all parties that reject compromise, remainer and brexiter alike. if remainers had pulled for soft brexit instead of complaining about how unfair life is they might very well have achieved it, but they didn't.

every second post i receive in this topic invites me to "own my responsibility" for my policy choice, just pointing out that it isn't me coming across as the extremist here. i support May's reasonable and pragmatic deal, as one would expect from a middle-of-the-road compromising kinda guy... ;)

[Montmorency]

But that's rubbish. Remainers had no authority over Brexit negotiations to "pull for soft Brexit".

You don't get to arrogate labels like "reasonable" and "pragmatic" to yourself on the basis of self-identification, they have to be demonstrated. I don't know what your standards for "reasonable" are, but for something to be pragmatic suggests it as an optimal or optimized response to existing conditions, which given my understanding of your own posts over time and the Brexit process over time comes across as flagrant goal-post moving.

For the government to propose something does not make it reasonable, pragmatic, nor a compromise by virtue of being conclusive. If your only ideological condition is not being subject to a framework for future political integration and you accept whatever fulfills that one ideological criterion, that doesn't make your "middle of the road" and those who disagree with you extremists. You're getting what you want at the expense of others.

A: Let's stay home and cook dinner.
B: I refuse to eat at home.
A: I would prefer not to spend money eating out.
B: Get in the car. I'm driving us for dinner.
A: Can't we talk this over?

***3 days later***

A: We're at the other end of the country. Please, let's go home.
B: Don't be so extreme. Here, I'll compromise and stop at this Cracker Barrel we're coming up on.

[Pannonian]

no, i'm saying that if there is going to be endless whining about owning 'your' decision should no deal arrive that resposnibility lies equally with all parties that reject compromise, remainer and brexiter alike. if remainers had pulled for soft brexit instead of complaining about how unfair life is they might very well have achieved it, but they didn't.

every second post i receive in this topic invites me to "own my responsibility" for my policy choice, just pointing out that it isn't me coming across as the extremist here. i support May's reasonable and pragmatic deal, as one would expect from a middle-of-the-road compromising kinda guy... ;)

Which vote of mine brought about this situation, may I ask? Was it my pro-EU vote in 2016? Or was it my pro-EU vote in 2017? Would the thousands of customs officers that we're short of have been found had I believed harder in May? Would the severe jams predicted by Kent Council Council from Dover to Maidstone be solved if I'd believed harder in May? Would the WTO drop their demands on the NI-Ireland border if I'd believed harder in May? Etc. Explain how your vote to Leave absolves you of responsibility whilst passing it onto my vote to Remain.

[Pannonian]

But that's rubbish. Remainers had no authority over Brexit negotiations to "pull for soft Brexit".

You don't get to arrogate labels like "reasonable" and "pragmatic" to yourself on the basis of self-identification, they have to be demonstrated. I don't know what your standards for "reasonable" are, but for something to be pragmatic suggests it as an optimal or optimized response to existing conditions, which given my understanding of your own posts over time and the Brexit process over time comes across as flagrant goal-post moving.

For the government to propose something does not make it reasonable, pragmatic, nor a compromise by virtue of being conclusive. If your only ideological condition is not being subject to a framework for future political integration and you accept whatever fulfills that one ideological criterion, that doesn't make your "middle of the road" and those who disagree with you extremists. You're getting what you want at the expense of others.

A: Let's stay home and cook dinner.
B: I refuse to eat at home.
A: I would prefer not to spend money eating out.
B: Get in the car. I'm driving us for dinner.
A: Can't we talk this over?

***3 days later***

A: We're at the other end of the country. Please, let's go home.
B: Don't be so extreme. Here, I'll compromise and stop at this Cracker Barrel we're coming up on.

All I wanted was for tomorrow to be reasonably like today. That's extremism, apparently.