EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Strike For The South]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Furunculus]

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

[Montmorency]

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?

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:

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: 

[Pannonian]

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: 

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?

[Pannonian]

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

[Furunculus]

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.

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Gilrandir]

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

[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. Im looking forward to this. (With slight amusement i have to admit).

[rory_20_uk]

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?

[Beskar]

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?

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.

[Pannonian]

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

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'

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

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.

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?

[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.

[Pannonian]

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.

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.

[Montmorency]

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?

I don't use more academic language than you do; my diction is pretty much vernacular. I only post a lot relative to the average user here. I don't feel like you've rebutted my points, though I'll grant that you make an effort to be substantive. You have a particular premise in favoring a "market economy", but I've never seen you show why the existence of finance as a major sector of the British economy is self-justifying, how the continuation of a £100 billion sector is the lynchpin for sustaining British life and therefore a lynchpin of Brexit strategy, or even how the fact of European integration is either a mortal threat to the British economy or really a moral threat to your value of sovereignty (or why your particular construction of sovereignty makes sense in the first place). You've had a generation within the EU Single Market; can you show that Single Market membership is not relevant to the growth of this industry? Why do you think there is growth opportunity outside the EU for this industry as opposed to constraint outside Europe alongside the prospect of erosion of European market share? (Deutsche Bank at least thinks Single Market access is exactly one of the advantages that has been enticing to the foreign banks that scaffold British investment banking, the dominant subset of British banking and financial services.)

At risk of getting ahead of myself, I'm interested in both if you're plausible and if you're internally consistent.

Quick question: have you ever mocked Corbyn for musing on British autarky?

EDIT:

I can't read that - but I have seen many valid and useful critiques, not least that services is inextricably tied up with people.

Accessible through Google search, "Why is Britain leaving the single market for services?". Also try Incognito/Private browsing. 1K words.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

Is it tragedy, or farce that all of this is true?

We're heading into round two of the votes now:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...s-will-vote-on

Option A is a non-starter and Option B has already been rejected. One hopes if they're soundly rejected again that they, along with May's deal can be put to bead - with a stake through the heart.

[Beskar]

So Labour has whipped in favour of commons 2.0, aka Norway-Plus, aka EFTA.
At this moment of writing, it is coming out with the Common Market 2.0 motion winning by 307 to 253

Does that sit well with those who voted leave if this gets the majority?
[As a note, Norway-Plus was shouted a lot as a possible default position by the leave camp during the referendum.]

[Furunculus]

Ill take it as an improvement, but it remains for the proponents to explain why it is acceptable for:
1. the eu to regulate the city of london (financial and professional services)
2. how that is actionable given it requires efta allowing a member in a customs union

mays deal is better, if:
a) you believe that flanking policies ought to be the competence of parliament
b) you want service related trade deals

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I know that there was no official vote of "no confidence," but when a government-sponsored measure on a major piece of legislation is voted down three times, isn't there a bit of a tradition that the PM resigns and/or calls for elections? As a student of representative democracy, I would appreciate local insight on this.

@Beskar All along, I think the bulk of the leave crowd wanted something along the lines of Norway Plus. My read is that 90%+ of the UK was happy with a combination of the EEC and the Good Friday Accords. It was the further diminution of sovereignty thereafter, notably the Lisbon deal and the refugee crisis engendered by Assad's excesses, that created a notable groundswell against the EU. Obviously, the 'nativists' in the UK took up that latter issue (likely to bigoted excess) as our own nativists here in the USA have taken up 'The Wall' as some kind of mantra (shamefully, with bigoted excess led by our President). The bulk of the opposition wasn't quite that strident though, at least from my read of things from this side of the pond.

[Pannonian]

I know that there was no official vote of "no confidence," but when a government-sponsored measure on a major piece of legislation is voted down three times, isn't there a bit of a tradition that the PM resigns and/or calls for elections? As a student of representative democracy, I would appreciate local insight on this.

@Beskar All along, I think the bulk of the leave crowd wanted something along the lines of Norway Plus. My read is that 90%+ of the UK was happy with a combination of the EEC and the Good Friday Accords. It was the further diminution of sovereignty thereafter, notably the Lisbon deal and the refugee crisis engendered by Assad's excesses, that created a notable groundswell against the EU. Obviously, the 'nativists' in the UK took up that latter issue (likely to bigoted excess) as our own nativists here in the USA have taken up 'The Wall' as some kind of mantra (shamefully, with bigoted excess led by our President). The bulk of the opposition wasn't quite that strident though, at least from my read of things from this side of the pond.

May's government has ignored all previous customs and traditions. Before the three failed votes, May had postponed the promised "meaningful vote", which was originally set for pre-Christmas break. When it eventually happened in mid-January, it was defeated by the biggest marginal in recorded history, which alone would normally cause previous British governments to call for a vote of confidence in itself, or even to call a General Election to clear the situation (as has happened numerous times in the past when it's clear the main manifesto promise cannot be kept). Prior to that, the government had to be taken to court to allow Parliament a say at all; May had ruled that Brexit was to be a matter determined and decided by her, and the court disagreed. Alongside that, the European Court of Justice, that body Brexiteers demonise as encroaching on British sovereignty, overruled the UK government's assertion that article 50, once invoked, cannot be revoked; the ECJ ruled that British sovereignty retains control of the process until it is ended. May now deems the process to be unsatisfactory, and has ordered a Secession of the Nobs (she's ordered the cabinet to abstain).

Brexit is all about the good of the Tory party, not the good of the country. Even the original referendum was to solve the schisms in the Tory party that have existed for the past 30 years, that had accounted for Thatcher and Major previously.

[Pannonian]

People from outside the UK may not be familiar with the individuals in the Brexit story, so here is a picture of Jacob Rees Mogg, the head of the European Research Group, the euphemistically named anti-EU group that is directing Brexit policy in the British government. It is a screencap from the most recent episode of Newsnight, a political discussion programme on the BBC.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Goalum]

People from outside the UK may not be familiar with the individuals in the Brexit story, so here is a picture of Jacob Rees Mogg, the head of the European Research Group, the euphemistically named anti-EU group that is directing Brexit policy in the British government. It is a screencap from the most recent episode of Newsnight, a political discussion programme on the BBC.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

A picture's worth a 1000 words

[rory_20_uk]

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.

I would have some grudging respect if right at the start the MPs had said "this was a non-binding vote. Thanks for your say, but we're overruling it as is our prerogative." But they didn't. Back then it was all about the "will of the people". Well, sort of.

Since the 1970's when the last plebiscite was undertaken on the as now is EU, how many times has what was voted on substantially changed? And yet there have been no votes.

So to point out the obvious, again it is only the requirement for new elections when the answer is against the EU's interests. Otherwise I imagine it is all a-ok since the politicians agreed it and they are our representatives... even though in many cases this wasn't in the manifesto. Mere details, right?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ill take it as an improvement, but it remains for the proponents to explain why it is acceptable for:
1. the eu to regulate the city of london (financial and professional services)
2. how that is actionable given it requires efta allowing a member in a customs union

mays deal is better, if:
a) you believe that flanking policies ought to be the competence of parliament
b) you want service related trade deals

The Leave vote was sold on the premise that Leaving would not incur substantial economic disruption. The majority of those who voted Leave did so on the principle that they wanted to leave the EU. Nobody was asked about leaving the EEA, although some clearly also voted to leave the trading Bloc.

at the Election the Tories DID put forward a vision of Brexit and Labour but not, but:

A) Both parties committed to Brexit
B) The current Labour Leader is a man many suspect of being a closet Communist/Terrorist Supporter/Anti-Semite/wanting to overthrow the Monarchy/Break up the UK/All/Some of the above.

So, really, the fact that May got the best Result since Thatcher is not that surprising, and it's not really a mandate for Brexit.