EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[rory_20_uk]

How is that relevant? If he was one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, which he was, then shouldn't he be required to keep his promises once he's in a position to do so, which he is? Are you going to argue that Johnson becoming PM has nothing to do with Brexit?

My view, and the view of many others, was not determined by who was in the Leave campaign. All I expect of the Government is to leave. You are trying to conflate the two issues.

[Pannonian]

My view, and the view of many others, was not determined by who was in the Leave campaign. All I expect of the Government is to leave. You are trying to conflate the two issues.

Exactly who should be responsible for the reality of leaving the EU then? Or is it some kind of existential fuzzy logic, where pinning down responsibility is missing the point because we should just wibble umbrella marshmallows?

Apparently holding one of the leaders of Leave to his promises now that he is in power is unreasonable. Despite him reiterating said promise when he was PM.

[rory_20_uk]

Exactly who should be responsible for the reality of leaving the EU then? Or is it some kind of existential fuzzy logic, where pinning down responsibility is missing the point because we should just wibble umbrella marshmallows?

Apparently holding one of the leaders of Leave to his promises now that he is in power is unreasonable. Despite him reiterating said promise when he was PM.

If that is the comfy blanket that makes you better then so be it. But for many - if not most - who actually voted to leave they wanted to leave and did not fantasise that there would be vast amount of money flowing in.

[Pannonian]

If that is the comfy blanket that makes you better then so be it. But for many - if not most - who actually voted to leave they wanted to leave and did not fantasise that there would be vast amount of money flowing in.

Half of UK still believes £350m message plastered on side of Vote Leave's bus (as of October 2018)

A new study has found that a majority of voters (42%) believed the “we send the EU £350m a week - let’s fund our NHS instead” message to still be true. Just 36% believed it to be false, while 22% were unsure.

...

Polling - carried out by Ipsos MORI - found that Conservative voters and pro-Brexit voters were the most susceptible to the £350m line. It found that 54% of Tory voters and 61% of Leave voters believed the claim compared with 33% of Labour voters and 22% of Lib Dem voters - and 23% of Remain voters.

Vote Leave’s Dominic Cummings said after the Brexit vote he believed that Leave would not have won the EU referendum without the NHS claims.

He said: “It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic”.

[Montmorency]

Half of UK still believes £350m message plastered on side of Vote Leave's bus (as of October 2018)

While I remain astonished at the comfort level of - certain groups - at being constantly lied to, 42% is neither half nor a majority. Watch out for malicious framing.

Or, actually, fuck it, let's go for a maximalist socialist agenda, gratuitously deceive the public about its contents and implementation, and shamelessly declare lies to be truth and vice versa when we're proven wrong. What can go awry?

[Pannonian]

While I remain astonished at the comfort level of - certain groups - at being constantly lied to, 42% is neither half nor a majority. Watch out for malicious framing.

Or, actually, fuck it, let's go for a maximalist socialist agenda, gratuitously deceive the public about its contents and implementation, and shamelessly declare lies to be truth and vice versa when we're proven wrong. What can go awry?

When the margin was 52-48, 42% still believing a lie, 2 years on, is significant. Especially when the director of the Leave campaign reckons it was the most effective message in the campaign, and one which the Leave campaign would not have won without.

Incidentally, for those unfamiliar with the details of Britain's current affairs, Boris Johnson is our current PM, while Dominic Cummings is his chief of staff, and Brexit is their stated raison d'etre.

[Furunculus]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49909309

Government proposes keeping Northern Ireland basically within the EU Single Market etc. for four years with an option to review every four years - descied by the NI Assembly and not Westminster.

So, basically, the people of Northern Ireland or their elected representatives get to decide.

Now, watch the EU shout it down - even after one tiny Belgian region held up the EU-Canada trade deal.

noble attempt to actually talk about the issue du jour. futile possibly, but noble.

seems like a pretty good basis to negotiate from:
NI free from flanking policies and services (like GB), which is good.
GB free from goods regs, which i'm not bothered about.
GB free from CU - which i'm only bothered about to escape common commercial policy competence (not goods tarifs per-se).
NI free from CU - which feels a bit pointless given that they'll be in dynamic alignment with eu goods regs.
GB free from the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ (which is great)
NI free... possibily from direct jurisidiction of the ECJ (but great that it is not locked forever as per backstop).

kinda feels like the NI customs unions position is there to be traded away (even if only tarifs - leaving ukgbni services deals)
also feels like the default to diverge is there to be traded away into a default to remain in eu goods regime (which i can live with - their choice).

[Furunculus]

Or, actually, fuck it, let's go for a maximalist socialist agenda, gratuitously deceive the public about its contents and implementation, and shamelessly declare lies to be truth and vice versa when we're proven wrong. What can go awry?

just the usual mountain of skulls. :)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

noble attempt to actually talk about the issue du jour. futile possibly, but noble.

seems like a pretty good basis to negotiate from:
NI free from flanking policies and services (like GB), which is good.
GB free from goods regs, which i'm not bothered about.
GB free from CU - which i'm only bothered about to escape common commercial policy competence (not goods tarifs per-se).
NI free from CU - which feels a bit pointless given that they'll be in dynamic alignment with eu goods regs.
GB free from the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ (which is great)
NI free... possibily from direct jurisidiction of the ECJ (but great that it is not locked forever as per backstop).

kinda feels like the NI customs unions position is there to be traded away (even if only tarifs - leaving ukgbni services deals)
also feels like the default to diverge is there to be traded away into a default to remain in eu goods regime (which i can live with - their choice).

I concur with your analysis, it seems to me this position is primed to be moved so that NI ends up in a Customs Union unless or until the NI Assembly votes otherwise. At that point the UK's position is the same as the Backstop, except that the NI Assembly votes on it every four years.

I think I suggested basically this a year ago - execpt it was Westminster voting every five years - although that assumed an all-UK alignment.

I doubt that will be allowed though - despite it being a good compromise position.

[CrossLOPER]

Ah. So not selling out is being a traitor?

Sounds like your boy Boris is the one selling out to those Forex neckbeards.

Again, it would be interesting to see what would happen to the UK if Farage and friends got it their way. The problem is that real people are going to be affected in a negative way.

Go on. Show us your plans.

I asked for this too, but got a laughing smiley.

It's kind of the same mindset when you had those tiki nazis running around a couple of years back, where everyone shared their views, but didn't see themselves as nazis. They didn't tell them to wave around nazi flags. They didn't tell them to run over someone with a car.

They didn't tell anyone to shoot remain politicians.

They aren't doing anything, but by golly they support the results, of which there aren't any because the opposite side is keeping those things from them.

[Pannonian]

I concur with your analysis, it seems to me this position is primed to be moved so that NI ends up in a Customs Union unless or until the NI Assembly votes otherwise. At that point the UK's position is the same as the Backstop, except that the NI Assembly votes on it every four years.

I think I suggested basically this a year ago - execpt it was Westminster voting every five years - although that assumed an all-UK alignment.

I doubt that will be allowed though - despite it being a good compromise position.

The UK’s chief Brexit negotiator has acknowledged that there could be a risk of smuggling across the border in Northern Ireland under proposals put forward by Boris Johnson on Wednesday.

David Frost was asked about the issue at a meeting with European officials in Brussels where Britain’s proposals were presented, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussions that took place.

“He replied that he recognised that the system only worked for those who wanted to comply,” one of the sources said. Frost went on to argue that the smuggling of illicit goods was about criminality, intelligence sharing and law enforcement, the source added.

The UK’s Chief Brexit Negotiator Has Admitted Boris Johnson’s Brexit Plan Could Have A Problem: Smuggling Across The Irish Border

Another unicorn solution, intended to be rejected so that the EU can be blamed by people like yourself.

The Taoiseach said the proposals do not fully meet the agreed objectives of the backstop.

[Pannonian]

Remember this?

Do you mean the ones that are colluding with foreign powers to stop Brexit?

It turns out to be another lie from Cummings.

Addressing the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, who was standing in for Boris Johnson while the prime minister was delivering his keynote speech at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, Grieve asked: “How is it that the government is allowing special advisers at No 10 Downing Street, speaking on behalf of the government, to tell outright lies?

“He should be familiar that on Saturday such a special adviser who I believe is Mr Dominic Cummings told the Mail on Sunday that a number of honourable members were in receipt of foreign funding in order to draft what is known as the Benn act, which is totally untrue.

“He went on to say that this was going to be the subject of a government investigation – something which is also completely untrue because mercifully this country is not yet run as a police state by Mr Cummings.”

The newspaper’s report claimed No 10 had launched a major investigation into alleged links between foreign governments and MPs behind what Johnson has controversially described as the “surrender act”.

Johnson’s chief of staff lied to media about drafting of Benn act, Grieve says at PMQs

Not that it matters to Brexiteers. They've got their lie into the media, and that's all that matters to them. Just like the NHS lie. Just like all their other lies.

[InsaneApache]

It turns out to be another lie from Cummings.

Prove it.

[CrossLOPER]

Prove it.

You are actually a banana with arms.

Prove that you are not.

[Beskar]

I think I suggested basically this a year ago - execpt it was Westminster voting every five years - although that assumed an all-UK alignment.

I think I suggested Ireland only near the beginning when it was first brought up as potentially being an issue with the whole "put the border at the coast" solution before it became a thing in the media as a stop-gap/short-term measure.

This was opposed heavily by the DUP which is why the whole 'All UK alignment' came into play, etc.

[Pannonian]

The Northern Ireland police have said that they don't want any part of keeping the border. If the UK government wants to define the NI-RoI border as they propose, they'll have to raise another force to keep it, as it is outside the remit of the existing force, and there's no way in hell they're going to be dragged into it.

[Furunculus]

i think you are manufacturing a problem where there is none.

[Pannonian]

i think you are manufacturing a problem where there is none.

The Chief Constable Simon Byrne has told Boris Johnson the PSNI will not police any customs checkpoints on the Northern Ireland border after Brexit.

Mr Byrne had a 30 minute video call with the prime minister last Friday.

He also told Mr Johnson he had "no plans to put police officers on any one of 300 crossings" along the border.

Speaking after a meeting of the policing board in Belfast, Mr Byrne said the PSNI does not want "to be dragged into another type of policing".

Brexit: PSNI 'won't police custom checkpoints', says chief constable

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think I suggested Ireland only near the beginning when it was first brought up as potentially being an issue with the whole "put the border at the coast" solution before it became a thing in the media as a stop-gap/short-term measure.

This was opposed heavily by the DUP which is why the whole 'All UK alignment' came into play, etc.

We come back to the same point - no matter how long you drag this out neither side can or will budge.

[Pannonian]

We come back to the same point - no matter how long you drag this out neither side can or will budge.

Why is it a red line when the principal argument for Brexit, according to the Brexiteers here, is political? Why not CU/SM with payment into the EU kitty and full regulatory synchronisation and a recognised body with a huge UK bias adjudicating disputes. Just take out the UK's MEPs, which according to IA we don't vote for (even though I distinctly remember voting for them earlier this year, but that might be EU-implanted fake memories). No more border dispute then, and you'll get your political argument recognised.

[Furunculus]

Brexit: PSNI 'won't police custom checkpoints', says chief constable

there is no intent to have police man customs checkpoints across the 300 crossing, as the UK has repeatedly said:

"He added: "Obviously, as people would expect, we have a duty to protect people's lives, so if we have intelligence about threats to people from other agencies such as customs or the border force working in a particular place where they are vulnerable to attack, we will send officers to protect them.
But I think it's on a case by case and intelligence-led basis."

[Pannonian]

there is no intent to have police man customs checkpoints across the 300 crossing, as the UK has repeatedly said:

"He added: "Obviously, as people would expect, we have a duty to protect people's lives, so if we have intelligence about threats to people from other agencies such as customs or the border force working in a particular place where they are vulnerable to attack, we will send officers to protect them.
But I think it's on a case by case and intelligence-led basis."

Are you telling me it's going to be an unmanned border?

[Furunculus]

Effectively, yes.
We have the Common Travel Arrangement for free movement of people.
We have a political committment for zero border infrastructure, made operational by the offer of alignment on goods and agri-food (90% of checks).

So yes, with much of the customs issue being managed by declaration and business surveillance (the other 10%), there is no reason to 'man a border' outside of contingent securituy operations, i.e.

"If we have intelligence about threats to people from other agencies such as customs or the border force working in a particular place where they are vulnerable to attack, we will send officers to protect them. But I think it's on a case by case and intelligence-led basis."

[a completely inoffensive name]

Parliament gets it's sovereignty and legitimately from the people. Jesus wept.

Actually legitimacy comes from consent of the governed. Big difference.

[Pannonian]

You are actually a banana with arms.

Prove that you are not.

Funnily enough, there is more credible evidence of the reverse, of Leavers colluding with foreign governments to defy the UK government/Parliament (the latter is separate when the opposition commands a majority but the government does not). IA's accusation comes from the Mail, a tabloid that is not known for its credibility, and Dominic Grieve, an MP who was high up in May's government, has already actively denied its truth and pointed to Dominic Cummings as the probable source. Grieve also doubts that any investigation has actually been made, as Cummings does not command the police; although this wouldn't be the first time that Cummings has presumed that he does.

Then there is the case of Boris Johnson, a PM who does not command a majority (he has lost every vote so far, which no other PM has achieved), seeking to thwart the expressed will of a Parliament majority (demonstrated in an opposition vote which mustered a majority, which he has not managed) by asking foreign governments to veto any request for an extension. This story first appeared in the Times, traditionally the UK's most respected newspaper.

And then there was the case of Daniel Kawczynski, who sought to thwart the majority May-DUP government by asking the Polish government to veto a request for an extension, fondly imagining that his Polish ancestry would make the Polish government inclined to listen to him. In this case, there is no need to assess the credibility of the source; the idiot MP boasted about it on twitter. Incidentally, the Polish government told him to PO.

[Furunculus]

Cummings does not command the police; although this wouldn't be the first time that Cummings has presumed that he does.

tell me more...

Parliament gets it's sovereignty and legitimately from the people. Jesus wept.

Actually legitimacy comes from consent of the governed. Big difference.

i'd be keen to hear what the practical effect of that difference is...

[Pannonian]

Remember the complaints about ever closer union, and how that irrevocably bound the UK?

Full text of EU's special status deal for Britain (19th February 2016)

Recalling that the Treaties, together with references to the process of European integration and to the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, contain also specific provisions whereby some Member States are entitled not to take part in or are exempted from the application of certain provisions or chapters of the Treaties and Union law as concerns matters such as the adoption of the euro, decisions having defence implications, the exercise of border controls on persons, as well as measures in the area of freedom, security and justice. Treaty provisions also allow for the non-participation of one or more Member States in actions intended to further the objectives of the Union, notably through the establishment of enhanced cooperations. Therefore, such processes make possible different paths of integration for different Member States, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, whilst respecting the rights of those which do not want to take such a course

It doesn't apply to the UK. It specifically doesn't apply to the UK. It was negotiated by the UK so that it doesn't apply to the UK.

And IA's complaint that we should be able to vote out lawmakers and that the EU does not allow us to: I distinctly remember voting for such EU lawmakers earlier this year. The government reminded people to register so that they could vote for them. I phoned the electoral register people to double check that I could vote. And on the day, I went out and voted. Was this a fake memory?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Remember the complaints about ever closer union, and how that irrevocably bound the UK?

Full text of EU's special status deal for Britain (19th February 2016)



It doesn't apply to the UK. It specifically doesn't apply to the UK. It was negotiated by the UK so that it doesn't apply to the UK.

And IA's complaint that we should be able to vote out lawmakers and that the EU does not allow us to: I distinctly remember voting for such EU lawmakers earlier this year. The government reminded people to register so that they could vote for them. I phoned the electoral register people to double check that I could vote. And on the day, I went out and voted. Was this a fake memory?

Furunculus addressed this a couple of pages back - and I addressed this a few years ago. The EU stipulated this provision only ever apply to the UK, that no other country could have it. Anti-Federalists want a "two speed Europe", what the EU was offering was special status for Britain which would have led to us either leaving eventually or having to give up that status.

[Furunculus]

Remember the complaints about ever closer union, and how that irrevocably bound the UK?

Full text of EU's special status deal for Britain (19th February 2016)



It doesn't apply to the UK. It specifically doesn't apply to the UK. It was negotiated by the UK so that it doesn't apply to the UK.

And IA's complaint that we should be able to vote out lawmakers and that the EU does not allow us to: I distinctly remember voting for such EU lawmakers earlier this year. The government reminded people to register so that they could vote for them. I phoned the electoral register people to double check that I could vote. And on the day, I went out and voted. Was this a fake memory?

Furunculus addressed this a couple of pages back - and I addressed this a few years ago. The EU stipulated this provision only ever apply to the UK, that no other country could have it. Anti-Federalists want a "two speed Europe", what the EU was offering was special status for Britain which would have led to us either leaving eventually or having to give up that status.

We've all been pointing this out for years.

The exemption from ever-closer-union failed in finding a tactical compromise that had no bearing on the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf

To give an example of what this problem looks like in practice:

De jure incentives to take common position: This incentive is reinforced by the way the Commission’s ECB/EBA Regulations are currently drafted. For example:

• The ECB Regulation envisions the ECB acting as a coordinator of eurozone national supervisors, with the view for them to take a common position. The ECB has already dropped hints that it intends to actively discourage dissenting opinions amongst eurozone national supervisors.

• Through a eurozone caucus, some member states will indirectly boost their influence as their voting weight amongst eurozone countries is proportionally much greater than in the EU-27 (EU-28 with Croatia). This is particularly true of the larger eurozone member states.

• The safeguards proposed by the European Commission (see Section 5 below) leave the eurozone with the upper hand. Given that the 17 eurozone countries already constitute a simple majority, these countries would only need to seek the support of three ‘outs’ – whereas non-euro countries would need at least four countries.

De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.

Taken together, the EBA structure will therefore significantly shift the balance of power in favour of the eurozone, at the expense of the UK and other ‘outs’.

In short, we face a serious (future) problem whereby a integrated economic union of eurozone states begin to caucus decisions against the policy consensus of the EBU, the consequence of which would be that Britain ceased to be a sovereign nation. Once we cease to be a sovereign nation we instead become a sanjak, such as Greece was under the ottomans and is again today under the troika.

[a completely inoffensive name]

i'd be keen to hear what the practical effect of that difference is...

Consent is simply an allowance or permission from the governed for the government to operate in a particular manner, or structure, or behavior.
In practical terms, this means that any form, structure, or behavior can be considered legitimate if the governed consent to it. This includes all types of structures outside the 'accepted' Western Democratic presidential/parliamentary systems.
While we as individuals might consider the manner, structure and form of the Soviet Union to be illegitimate from our point of view and our set of principals of what makes for good government, realistically the United States certainly treated the Soviet Union as a legitimate structure, it recognized its sovereignty up until the moment when the governed expressed their lack of consent through their successful independence movements. This is why I believe, as a tangent, it is such a moral failure for the US, UK, France, etc to not explicitly endorse and support movements such as the Arab spring where the governed have shown their displeasure and wish to reform into a more democratic structure.

Now what is the significance of saying to paraphrase above, "any government is legitimate to which the governed do not actively fight against". Well, if we look at what it means to say "will of the people", we interpret it through the understanding of the people as a whole in their totality. Basically, without getting Monty level wordy, I believe (and can elaborate further if you want) the will of the people can only be expressed in systems in which there is no obstacle for the people themselves to have their most common desires expressed in the actions and behaviors of their government.

Again practically, I believe that means that direct democracy with no limitations on the power of the majority or some sort of elective monarchy/dictatorship are the only real systems that can always uphold consistently the "will of the people".

By definition of Liberal Indirect Democracy, we have limitations on the powers of the majority such that the 51% cannot strip away rights and property from the 49%. We have elected representatives who act fundamentally in accordance with their own will and is not beholden by law to vote in lockstep with the wishes of their constituency.
So on multiple levels Western Liberal Democracy cannot say in any manner that it consistently upholds the "will of the people", but we still recognize it as legitimate despite that inability. So again, what makes any government legitimate in a real sense is the consent of those that live under it and not whether the policies match the desired outcomes of 'the people'.

This is ultimately why claims that Brexit must happen because it is the 'will of the people' are nonsense to me. Liberal, indirect democracy of the forms taken by both the US and UK were never about establishing the political expression of a majority of people, 100% of the time.

It was the will of the people that Hillary Clinton become president, but Donald Trump is my president because I and the rest of America still consent to live under a structure that does not take popular votes for president.