Brexit Referendum Superthread

Nody

Bob24 wrote: »

Not sure I get you. I didn't refer to 'David Cameron's pre-Brexit EU Negotitations' in my post and Cameron never negotiated on behalf of several nation states. Was that from me?

He was referring to the fact DC was doing exactly what you claimed will not happen; which is negotiate with the rest of EU on behalf of one country deeply affected by it and who ended up with sod all for it. The essence being that no Ireland will get no to very limited special consideration by the rest of EU no matter the impact it would have and would be told to secure their external borders.

Bob24

Nody wrote: »

He was referring to the fact DC was doing exactly what you claimed will not happen; which is negotiate with the rest of EU on behalf of one country deeply affected by it and who ended up with sod all for it. The essence being that no Ireland will get no to very limited special consideration by the rest of EU no matter the impact it would have and would be told to secure their external borders.

Cameron was the elected leader of one nation state and only negotiating on behalf of that state.

The European Commission (non elected body representing the various interests of several states) is a very different beast from a UK prime minister.

Not sure how you can see a parallel between the two?

Thomas_...

Bob24 wrote: »

Tell me more, I still don't see your point ...

I was referencing to a political superstructure negotiating on behalf of several nation states.

Cameron was the elected leader of a single nation state and never negotiated on behalf of any other one.

That´s right and so he did for the UK only.

View

Bob24 wrote: »

If it wants Ireland to start vetoing decisions that would be a good idea. But realistically when you are a political superstructure in charge of negotiating on behalf of several nation states, you can not completely ignore something which will deeply affect one of those states.

Article 50 TEU, which deals with the exit of a member state, clearly specifies that an exit agreement is subject to a majority vote in the EP and a QMV vote at Council level (excluding the departing member state). Therefore neither Ireland nor any other member state has a veto on the exit negotiations.

And as we can't veto those negotiations it should be obvious that randomly vetoing other EU business could backfire massively on us as other member states can randomly reciprocate in kind.

View

Bob24 wrote: »

The European Commission (non elected body representing the various interests of several states) is a very different beast from a UK prime minister.

The Commission won't be in charge of the exit negotiations as they fall under the remit of the European Council (or whoever they appoint).

Also the Commission is elected to office (it needs majority support in both the EP and the Council so it can be appointed to office). And, we can't suddenly object to the idea of the Commission representing us in negotiations when it has done so in decades - the Commission has to balance the collective EU interest, it isn't there to represent Ireland alone.

Bob24

View wrote: »

The Commission won't be in charge of the exit negotiations as they fall under the remit of the European Council (or whoever they appoint).

Also the Commission is elected to office (it needs majority support in both the EP and the Council so it can be appointed to office). And, we can't suddenly object to the idea of the Commission representing us in negotiations when it has done so in decades - the Commission has to balance the collective EU interest, it isn't there to represent Ireland alone.

Why did the European Comission appoint Barnier as "chief Brexit negotiator" if it is not going to negotiate?

And the president of the commission has indeed been approved by the European Parliament and the European Council. But this certainly doesn't mean the commission has been elected or has the same legitimacy to represent European citizens as Cameron had to represent British citizens. Basically the commission is there to find compromises between the interests of the governments of various nation states and represent that position, but is not the direct representative any electorate.

View wrote: »

Article 50 TEU, which deals with the exit of a member state, clearly specifies that an exit agreement is subject to a majority vote in the EP and a QMV vote at Council level (excluding the departing member state). Therefore neither Ireland nor any other member state has a veto on the exit negotiations.

Yes but if Ireland feels a key point for its national interest is being completely ignored by the commission, it is likely to become less flexible related other points where it could be a facilitator and which would piss-off other countries. At the end of the day if the commission starts telling small members to completely piss-off on their key issues there will be a vicious circle whereby everyone becomes less flexible and finding a majority becomes very difficult. Hence my original point that they cannot completely ignore the issue of the CTA and the NI border. Mind you, I never said they should bow down to whatever the UK asks for, but if they want to go for a hard stance because they think it is the interest of the EU, they need to have a discussion with Ireland about this and offer Ireland something which will compensate for the hard compromise made in what is seen as the overfall interest of the EU.

View

Bob24 wrote: »

Why did the European Comission appoint Barnier as "chief Brexit negotiator" if it is not going to negotiate?

Because it will be A negotiating party just as the EP will, who have appointed Verhofstadt as their negotiator.

Bob24 wrote: »

And the president of the commission has indeed been approved by the European Parliament and the European Council. But this certainly doesn't mean the commission has been elected or has the same legitimacy to represent European citizens as Cameron had to represent British citizens. Basically the commission is there to find compromises between the interests of the governments of various nation states and represent that position, but is not the direct representative any electorate.

There are no "degrees of legitimacy" when appointing people to office. Either they are legitimate or they are not. A person (or persons) elected by the EP is no less legitimate than a person elected by a Parliament of a member state.

And the Commission is there to establish and advance the common overall EU position on an issue. It does so by securing the consent of both the member states at Council level AND the MEPs at EP level. How much more representation can a person reasonably expect when they have both their government and their local MEPs representing them in the process of establishing and representing a common EU position?

View

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes but if Ireland feels a key point for its national interest is being completely ignored by the commission,

The EU is there to negotiate the common EU interest and we can't claim this is a "key point" (for the EU) when it clearly does not have to be included in the exit agreement.

Nor indeed would it be credible to claim this is a "key point" for us since we are not the only member state that has to police an international (non-EU) border and it is silly to seek to tie the EU up in knots about this.

Bob24 wrote: »

it is likely to become less flexible related other points where it could be a facilitator and which would piss-off other countries. At the end of the day if the commission starts telling small members to completely piss-off on their key issues there will be a vicious circle whereby everyone becomes less flexible and finding a majority becomes very difficult.

Such tactics would be massively counter productive for us since they would be seen as us having a temper tantrum. Advancing our very many other interests involves securing support as part of a voting coalition at Council level. Alienating the other member states would do us no favours whatsoever.

Bob24 wrote: »

Hence my original point that they cannot completely ignore the issue of the CTA and the NI border. Mind you, I never said they should bow down to whatever the UK asks for, but if they want to go for a hard stance because they think it is the interest of the EU, they need to have a discussion with Ireland about this and offer Ireland something which will compensate for the hard compromise made in what is seen as the overfall interest of the EU.

Look ultimately we are either commited to the EU or we prefer to trail along in the UK's wake. Due to the UK decision, we can't do both, as it seems that the EU and UK paths are set to diverge rapidly. Unless there is a sudden volte-face on the UK's part and it abandons its rush for the hardest of hard exits, we are at a parting of the ways when we must choose either/or.

As I said, we could probably expect help from the Schengen Border Fund given we face a unique one-off situation but - no more than Norway in the case of Russia - we certainly can't expect to tie the rest of the EU and/or Schengen up in knots about this or to be regarded as "heroes" for doing so.

Bob24

View wrote: »

Because it will be A negotiating party just as the EP will, who have appointed Verhofstadt as their negotiator.

Yes exactly. Hence why I don't think it was correct to say "the Commission won't be in charge of the exit negotiations". They will not be the only party involved, but they will definitely have a responsibility.

View wrote: »

There are no "degrees of legitimacy" when appointing people to office. Either they are legitimate or they are not. A person (or persons) elected by the EP is no less legitimate than a person elected by a Parliament of a member state.

Agree with the part in bold, and as I said the European Commission has no legitimacy to represent all Europeans, whereas the British PM can speak on behalf of the British people.
There are others, but the key difference is that their is a British nation state (which thus can have a leader), whereas there is no European nation state (the EU is a collection of nation states which each have a leader and different national interests). The EC is only a conduit for the partnership between those nation states.

Pro Hoc Vice

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes exactly. Hence why I don't think it was correct to say "the Commission won't be in charge of the exit negotiations". They will not be the only party involved, but they will definitely have a responsibility.




Agree with the part in bold, and as I said the European Commission has no legitimacy to represent all Europeans, whereas the British PM can speak on behalf of the British people.
There are others, but the key difference is that their is a British nation state (which thus can have a leader), whereas there is no European nation state (the EU is a collection of nation states which each have a leader and different national interests). The EC is only a conduit for the partnership between those nation states.

The British People did not vote for the current PM.

Bob24

View wrote: »

Nor indeed would it be credible to claim this is a "key point" for us since we are not the only member state that has to police an international (non-EU) border and it is silly to seek to tie the EU up in knots about this.

Are you honestly saying the possible reintroduction border checks with Northern Ireland would not a a massive issue in terms of Irish politics? (this could happen if our EU partners ignores us and don't take the CTA into consideration whatsover)

If so we have a fundamental disagreement and I think the rest of the discussion doesn't really matter.

Bob24

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The British People did not vote for the current PM.

Which doesn't change the role of a PM in the British political system and the fact that he leads a sovereign nation state while the EC doesn't.

Pro Hoc Vice

Bob24 wrote: »

Which doesn't change the role of a PM in the British political system.

Your original post was about legitimacy, it could be argued that the PM has not won an election and in fact was a remain surporter so on both counts lacks legitimacy.

Bob24

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Your original post was about legitimacy, it could be argued that the PM has not won an election and in fact was a remain surporter so on both counts lacks legitimacy.

My original point was rather that there is no European sovereign nation so no official can claim they represent "the EU" in the same way as someone can say they represent "the UK".

Hence Cameron negotiating on behalf of the UK was a very different from Barnier or Verhofstadt negotiating on behalf of their respective EU institutions (as opposed to what another poster said).

View

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes exactly. Hence why I don't think it was correct to say "the Commission won't be in charge of the exit negotiations". They will not be the only party involved, but they will definitely have a responsibility.

Clearly if either the Commission or the EP is merely "a party" involved in the negotiation it does not mean that either of them is in charge of the negotiations. It's up to the Council who is in charge and they could well appoint their own negotiator to head up the talks.

Bob24 wrote: »

Agree with the part in bold, and as I said the European Commission has no legitimacy to represent all Europeans,

Of course it has legitimacy to do so. It IS doing so in multiple international negotiations currently and has done so in multiple ones in the past. Clearly it couldn't have done so were it illegitimate for it to have done so.

bleg

Changing our border practices to accommodate the UK sounds absurd to me.

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting a Churchillian utopia with thousands of City bankers donning greasy overalls and marching north to the shipyards ffs. But the idea that unsophisticated manufacturing=bad is so daft I hardly know where to begin. I suppose you think France, which is Europe's most self-sufficient country in agriculture, should down tools and retrain its workforce in cell biology and quantum physics.

"Creating jobs in unsophisticated manufacturing is a terrible idea". That's an absurdly stupid comment in fairness.

Stable economic planning requires a country to have a diverse basket of manufactured products, including reasonably basic items that are produced for the domestic market, such as food production.

I’ll tell you what’s absurdly stupid: the idea that food production is unsophisticated.

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that a government-owned firm is immune from State aid law?

There are several important components of state aid law, with which I assume you are completely unfamiliar. But state-control over a firm is not an exemption. That is a foolish thing to think, let alone to assert in public, since it could defeat the purpose of State aid law entirely.

No such assertion was made.

djpbarry

Thomas_... wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/border-controls-ireland-3018480-Oct2016/



That would automatically lead to a tougher border control on the side of the Republic of Ireland and from what I´ve read for months now, such measures would be rather welcome by not less Irish People in regards of illigal immigration to the Republic.

Bollocks it would – Ireland would have signed up to Schengen had they not been prevented from doing so by the UK.

Bob24

View wrote: »

Of course it has legitimacy to do so. It IS doing so in multiple international negotiations currently and has done so in multiple ones in the past. Clearly it couldn't have done so were it illegitimate for it to have done so.

You are still not differentiating sovereignty and delegation of authority (which was my original point). EU nation states can agree to delegate some of their authority to the EC in specific areas for a certain duration (as per your examples). But this is only possible if they all agree do do so and can compromise to have a common position based on which the EC can work (and national governments can take back that delegation anytime, as is now happening around TTIP negotiations for which France has said it is not standing behind what the EC is doing anymore - effectively taking its authority back from the EC and killing the negotiations as there is not more consensus the EC can work with).

This is very different from the British government which has full sovereignty on any decision and is not accountable to anyone except the British electorate.

View

Bob24 wrote: »

Are you honestly saying the possible reintroduction border checks with Northern Ireland would not a a massive issue in terms of Irish politics? (this could happen if our EU partners ignores us and don't take the CTA into consideration whatsover)

Did I dispute that it would be a massive issue? Just because something is a massive issue doesn't mean we can ignore it (eg the near bankruptcy of the state a few short years ago). And, much as we might wish to ignore it, NI is part of the UK and will leave with them barring a jaw-dropping political upheaval in NI politics.

And as for the CTA, under EU law, the exemption that applies to it is dead once the UK leaves the EU. Under the protocol (No 20), we are "granted the same rights as the UK". However, as should be obvious, once the UK leaves it will have no rights under EU law to the protocol exemption (which it won't care about) and, hence, nor will we.

Bob24 wrote: »

If so we have a fundamental disagreement and I think the rest of the discussion doesn't really matter.

I refer you to Art 3 TEU which states:

2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum, immigration and the prevention and combating of crime.

That is one of the five stated aims of the EU - as agreed to by us - and one we either are commited to or we have a fundamentally disagreement with the rest of the EU that would be so serious it would call into question our entire membership of the EU.

Asking the other member states to rewrite the EU Treaties on this is a bigger request than what David Cameron was asking for and would put us in the "committed exiters" category in the eyes of any outside observer.

This is an either/or choice that we face and barring a miracle in the UK one we can't duck.

Bob24

View wrote: »

Did I dispute that it would be a massive issue? Just because something is a massive issue doesn't mean we can ignore it (eg the near bankruptcy of the state a few short years ago). And, much as we might wish to ignore it, NI is part of the UK and will leave with them barring a jaw-dropping political upheaval in NI politics.

Well, referring to this issue I said:

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes but if Ireland feels a key point for its national interest is being completely ignored by the commission

And you answered:

View wrote: »

Nor indeed would it be credible to claim this is a "key point" for us since we are not the only member state that has to police an international (non-EU) border and it is silly to seek to tie the EU up in knots about this.

I am a bit lost in your semantics. You are saying it can be a "massive issue" but not a "key point" for Ireland.

For me it is both, and I actually think that when other EU leaders are asked by the Irish government if they want to share the responsibility for reigniting tensions on the island, most of them will be reasonable and accept not to ignore that question (and again, considering it doesn't necessarily mean bowing to the UK).

David Davis

I love this

David Davis wrote:

One is to regain control of our borders. Another is to get back control of our laws. The one I did not list was our aim to keep our justice and security arrangements at least as strong as they are. Finally, and most importantly in this context, the United Kingdom must aim to maintain the best possible open access to European markets and vice versa. If we can achieve all that, there will be no downside to Brexit at all, and considerable upsides.

Last sentence is glorious.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

I love this

David Davis wrote:

One is to regain control of our borders. Another is to get back control of our laws. The one I did not list was our aim to keep our justice and security arrangements at least as strong as they are. Finally, and most importantly in this context, the United Kingdom must aim to maintain the best possible open access to European markets and vice versa. If we can achieve all that, there will be no downside to Brexit at all, and considerable upsides.

Last sentence is glorious.

The have your cake and eat it and make the EU choke on their cake scenario.

130Kph

My Oh My. It seems Paul Dacre (longtime master of misrepresenting facts in almost every article he prints & central to whipping up hysteria against the EU for 25+ years) is taking mounting criticism of a hard Brexit very personally.

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Whingeing. Contemptuous. Unpatriotic. Damn the Bremoaners and their plot to subvert the will of the British people

It [a report] was based on a six-month-old study commissioned by — you guessed it — George Osborne, the architect of the utterly discredited Project Fear

He feels that since the Mail keeps pretending Brexit has already happened then everybody else should also pretend it has already happened. Strange stuff.

Other tasty snippits

….unsubstantiated claims of impending doom for the UK outside of the single market….

…an unpatriotic, defeatist position…
…the pro-EU position of the CBI — which has long been notorious for its appeasing instincts…

…So it was that they resorted to desperate subterfuge…
…the breathtaking mendacity of Remain…
…diktats of the European Court of Justice and a vast annual membership fee.
…pro-EU ramblings of the wet-behind-the-ears ex-Tory ministers…

Thus, a well-heeled group of London ‘intellectuals’ which is used to having everything its own way — and which has ignored the ordinary voter for decades...

…But their argument …… is perhaps the most insulting of all…

….lecture anybody on democracy….
….they are now trying to stick up two fingers to their own constituents…

….the Remainers are also being deeply unpatriotic….

I’ve never seen a Daily Mail editorial quite like this!!

wes

130Kph wrote: »

He feels that since the Mail keeps pretending Brexit has already happened then everybody else should also pretend it has already happened. Strange stuff.

Other tasty snippits


I’ve never seen a Daily Mail editorial quite like this!!

Seems to me that the Daily Mail, only likes democracy, when it goes his way. The details of Brexit are very much open for discussion. The mandate from the referendum is to leave the EU, and that can happen in many different ways. His rage is really unbecoming, considering that a Hard Brexit (a term he doesn't like) is the likely outcome, I do find it puzzling as to what he is complaining about. After all, he will get what he wants.

The Daily Mail seems to just being on some kind of Jingoistic bender imho. Well, I suppose you could say that is there default MO.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

I’ll tell you what’s absurdly stupid: the idea that food production is unsophisticated.

I'll tell you what's stupid: using an economic term and ascribing its literal translation to it.

I suppose you think Austrian economics refers to the economic policy of Austria, and that tiger economies are about the trade in big cats.

Unsophisticated manufacturing, in economics, does not mean something isn't complicated, overall. It means that a large section of the workforce don't have advanced skills, that a lot of the workforce don't have much academic training.

Nobody with even an ounce of intelligence considers typical food production to be sophisticated.

djpbarry wrote: »

No such assertion was made.

erm... wrong again.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, I can't see what the point of that's supposed to be. The quote you include notes that AIB is 99.8% owned by the State in the form of the National Pension Reserve Fund - as a result of the State's recapitalisation of AIB, and in exchange for it.

Since that's exactly what I said, I have no idea why you think you've successfully contradicted me - unless you didn't realise that the NPRFC was part of the State, of course?

A Tyrant Named Miltiades!

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

...
Unsophisticated manufacturing, in economics, does not mean something isn't complicated, overall. It means that a large section of the workforce don't have advanced skills, that a lot of the workforce don't have much academic training.

Nobody with even an ounce of intelligence considers typical food production to be sophisticated.
..

I'll ask a third time (1, 2)

Deleted User wrote: »

Which unsophisticated products do you think the UK could/should produce more of Tyrant {instead of importing}?

Let's go nuts and go for a 30% currency devalution and a 10% tariff and all gets added to the price of the imported unsophisticated good.

Do you think that there is indigenous capacity that it currently so underutilized that can replace that import entirely? Or offer itself as a substitute at a comparable price even considering that huge overnight price hike?

Very useful information available here
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/datasets/publicationtablesuktrade

With the bulletin synopsis here - http://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/july2016#longer-term-perspective-sterling-depreciation-and-trade

Top 30 Commodity Imports available on Sheet '15.Top 30 Commodities'
IMPORTS

Value % of Total Cumulative
Commodity Division £ million UK Imports percentage

Electrical machinery 716+75+76+77 53 469 13.1 13.1
Mechanical machinery 71:74 minus 716 35 834 8.7 21.8
Cars 781 31 639 7.7 29.5
Medicinal & pharmaceutical produ 54 25 411 6.2 35.7
Other miscellaneous manufactures 80 25 401 6.2 41.9
Road vehicles other than cars 78 minus 781 18 327 4.5 46.4
Clothing 84 18 091 4.4 50.8
Refined oil 334+335 17 296 4.2 55.0
Crude oil 333 11 665 2.8 57.8
Scientific & photographic 87+88 11 493 2.8 60.6
Aircraft 792 10 406 2.5 63.1
Unspecified goods 9 9 356 2.3 65.4
Fuels other than oil 32+34+35 8 945 2.2 67.6
Miscellaneous metal manufactures 69 8 297 2.0 69.6
Vegetables & fruit 05 7 541 1.8 71.4
Plastics 57+58 7 424 1.8 73.2
Organic chemicals 51 6 628 1.6 74.8
Beverages 11 5 823 1.4 76.2
Meat & meat preparations 01 5 762 1.4 77.6
Paper & paperboard 64 5 626 1.4 79.0
Toilet & cleansing preparations 55 5 490 1.3 80.3
Non-ferrous metals excl. silver 68 minus 681 5 140 1.3 81.6
Iron & steel 67 4 991 1.2 82.8
Textile fabrics 65 4 944 1.2 84.0
Footwear 85 4 748 1.2 85.2
Works of art 896 4 110 1.0 86.2
Fertilisers & other chemicals 56+59 4 003 1.0 87.2
Mineral manufactures less precio 66 minus 667 3 849 0.9 88.1
Metal ores & scrap 28 3 210 0.8 88.9
Cereals 04 3 114 0.8 89.7

Thomas_...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37639307

Brexit: High Court hearing challenge to Article 50 strategy
A legal challenge to the government's right to formally begin Brexit without parliamentary approval is under way.
The High Court will consider whether ministers can invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the trigger for formal talk, without MPs passing a new law.
The woman leading the case said ministers were trying to "bypass Parliament" by not offering a vote.
But critics said it was a "naked attempt to steal the referendum by the back door".
Ministers argue they are entitled to act under ancient powers of Royal Prerogative.
...
The judicial review, due to conclude on Monday, will be heard by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas.
...
Investment manager Gina Miller is among those contesting the government's authority to proceed without recourse to Parliament - arguing the principle of parliamentary sovereignty underpins the constitution and the rule of law in the country.
Her legal team, headed by constitutional lawyer and cross-bench peer Lord Pannick, is expected to argue that invoking Article 50 will threaten the rights of individuals enshrined in the 1972 European Communities Act - the piece of legislation which paved the way for the UK to join the European Economic Community.
Only Parliament, they will argue, can remove or reduce rights granted under law and Article 50 must have the consent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.
...

I m very interested to learn about the verdict due on Monday and see what is about to happen in case the court says that the whole thing has to be referred to parliament.

Sam Russell

Why is the Government frightened of a vote in the HofC? It cannot be because they might lose, is it?

If they did lose it, it would cause a general election on Brexit, I assume.