Brexit discussion thread II

Christy42

marcus001 wrote: »

Get rid of democracy and you'll see what slavish devotion really is.

The poster is not saying get rid of Democracy. The poster is saying that just because people voted for something does not mean it was a good choice. See Trump/Brexit.

Hence the various checks and balances in the US system for instance.

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We've discussed this in other threads To summarise: A bad decision which the people choose is better than a good decision in which they have no choice.

Sure, if you present it as a bald dichotomy between direct democracy on the one hand and a repressive dictatorship on the other hand, direct democracy for all its obvious flaws is the clear winner.

Which is why I've never argued that the people should never be allowed to make any decisions at all. I've made the argument that democracy, like any powerful force, should be applied sparingly and carefully.

In the case of Brexit, it shouldn't have been put to the people. End of story. I'd still believe that if the remain side had won: I'd just consider it a narrow escape from the consequences of a stupid decision rather than a slavish devotion to the consequences of a stupid decision.

We have representative democracy for a reason: running a country is far too complicated a job to reduce to a simple yes/no question put to people on whom there's absolutely no onus to inform themselves before answering. For the government to put the Brexit decision to the people was an egregious abdication of its responsibility to govern.

If a Parliament had voted to Brexit, it would have been politically possible (albeit horribly embarrassing) to reverse course when the appalling consequences became clear. Because the people voted for it - even though they are not sovereign in the UK, Parliament is - it is politically unthinkable.

To the slavish devotee of democracy, the consequences of Brexit don't matter. Literally the only thing that matters is a majority, however narrow. If the consequences of leaving are horrific and destroy the country's economy for generations - if the ultimate consequence is civil strife and widespread violence - apparently that's OK, because a bad decision made by the people is better than a good decision made by someone else.

I find it hard to put into words how mind-bogglingly ridiculous that seems to me.

* Note: I'm not saying that the above will come to pass, or is indeed particularly likely: I'm pointing out that if it did, it's still apparently better than peace and prosperity imposed by the jackbooted heel of a mere elected Parliament.



Trump is the other example, and it's a different type of failure of democracy. In this case, the fundamental problem is the capture of the USA's political system by powerful vested interests. The Citizens United decision is probably the worst thing that could have happened to representative democracy.

I don't have a simple prescription to fix how horribly democracy is broken in the USA, but I'll continue to hold out Donald Trump as an answer to the simplistic idea that the will of the people is always unarguably correct.

marcus001

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, if you present it as a bald dichotomy between direct democracy on the one hand and a repressive dictatorship on the other hand, direct democracy for all its obvious flaws is the clear winner.

Which is why I've never argued that the people should never be allowed to make any decisions at all. I've made the argument that democracy, like any powerful force, should be applied sparingly and carefully.

In the case of Brexit, it shouldn't have been put to the people. End of story. I'd still believe that if the remain side had won: I'd just consider it a narrow escape from the consequences of a stupid decision rather than a slavish devotion to the consequences of a stupid decision.

We have representative democracy for a reason: running a country is far too complicated a job to reduce to a simple yes/no question put to people on whom there's absolutely no onus to inform themselves before answering. For the government to put the Brexit decision to the people was an egregious abdication of its responsibility to govern.

If a Parliament had voted to Brexit, it would have been politically possible (albeit horribly embarrassing) to reverse course when the appalling consequences became clear. Because the people voted for it - even though they are not sovereign in the UK, Parliament is - it is politically unthinkable.

To the slavish devotee of democracy, the consequences of Brexit don't matter. Literally the only thing that matters is a majority, however narrow. If the consequences of leaving are horrific and destroy the country's economy for generations - if the ultimate consequence is civil strife and widespread violence - apparently that's OK, because a bad decision made by the people is better than a good decision made by someone else.

I find it hard to put into words how mind-bogglingly ridiculous that seems to me.

* Note: I'm not saying that the above will come to pass, or is indeed particularly likely: I'm pointing out that if it did, it's still better than peace and prosperity imposed by the jackbooted heel of a mere elected Parliament.



Trump is the other example, and it's a different type of failure of democracy. In this case, the fundamental problem is the capture of the USA's political system by powerful vested interests. The Citizens United decision is probably the worst thing that could have happened to representative democracy.

I don't have a simple prescription to fix how horribly democracy is broken in the USA, but I'll continue to hold out Donald Trump as an answer to the simplistic idea that the will of the people is always unarguably correct.

I'd disagree on the Brexit thing. People should have a right to decide who governs them. Direct democracy should be used for the big questions like "should the UK be part of the EU?" and "should the North be part of the UK?". Any attempt to decide big questions like this without the approval of the citizenry would be a threat to representative democracy.

You say that your opinion would be the same if the remain side had won, would your opinion be the same if UKIP had won a general election and decided to take the UK out of the EU with only about 35% of the national vote and no referendum?

ancapailldorcha

marcus001 wrote: »

I'd disagree on the Brexit thing. People should have a right to decide who governs them. Direct democracy should be used for the big questions like "should the UK be part of the EU?" and "should the North be part of the UK?". Any attempt to decide big questions like this without the approval of the citizenry would be a threat to representative democracy.

You say that your opinion would be the same if the remain side had won, would your opinion be the same if UKIP had won a general election and decided to take the UK out of the EU with only about 35% of the national vote and no referendum?

Except that offering a referendum involves using a binary choice to resolve an immensely complex issue. Several countries have relationships with the EU. Some are members, some are in the EEA, some are in EFTA and some trade with it on a third country basis. In addition, a referendum in country can't compel the EU to do anything. Switzerland had a referendum on free movement but why should the EU have had to bend to the will of a non-member?

Ultimately, we elect politicians to work full time sorting out complex issues on our behalf. That's all democracy is. If we had to rubber stamp everything via referendum, nothing would get done.

oscarBravo

marcus001 wrote: »

I'd disagree on the Brexit thing. People should have a right to decide who governs them.

Yes. That's what elections are for.

Direct democracy should be used for the big questions like "should the UK be part of the EU?" and "should the North be part of the UK?".

No, it shouldn't. You're doing exactly what I talked about: taking an immensely complicated question and boiling it down to a simplistic yes or no question.

As for the latter, I can only hope lessons have been learned, and at least before there are any referendums on unification, the actual process will be worked out first and then we can make an informed decision.

Any attempt to decide big questions like this without the approval of the citizenry would be a threat to representative democracy.

I'm not certain you know what the phrase "representative democracy" means.

You say that your opinion would be the same if the remain side had won, would your opinion be the same if UKIP had won a general election and decided to take the UK out of the EU with only about 35% of the national vote and no referendum?

Sure - because then, when the consequences became clear, it would at least be possible to elect a different government that could change course.

That's the problem with a referendum: it's politically impossible to go against the will of the people, so - even when the will of the people is "let's all jump off the nearest cliff" - it has to be slavishly followed.

You're not even making any arguments to counter my points; you're basically making my point for me. You're saying that when the people speak, they speak ex cathedra and can't be questioned.

ThisRegard

solodeogloria wrote: »

There hasn't been a single convincing argument for remaining in the EU.

You've been asked this a few times and every time chose to ignore the question.

Why did you vote to remain (as you claim you did) despite all evidence you say is contradictory to this?

marcus001

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that offering a referendum involves using a binary choice to resolve an immensely complex issue. Several countries have relationships with the EU. Some are members, some are in the EEA, some are in EFTA and some trade with it on a third country basis. In addition, a referendum in country can't compel the EU to do anything. Switzerland had a referendum on free movement but why should the EU have had to bend to the will of a non-member?

Ultimately, we elect politicians to work full time sorting out complex issues on our behalf. That's all democracy is. If we had to rubber stamp everything via referendum, nothing would get done.

You just said yourself it's a complex issue and we have politicians who work full time on sorting that stuff out. So what's the problem? The people tell them to leave the EU, the politicians set about getting it done. The only reason it's not going more smoothly is because politicians want to stop it from happening at all.

marcus001

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. That's what elections are for. No, it shouldn't. You're doing exactly what I talked about: taking an immensely complicated question and boiling it down to a simplistic yes or no question.

As for the latter, I can only hope lessons have been learned, and at least before there are any referendums on unification, the actual process will be worked out first and then we can make an informed decision. I'm not certain you know what the phrase "representative democracy" means. Sure - because then, when the consequences became clear, it would at least be possible to elect a different government that could change course.

That's the problem with a referendum: it's politically impossible to go against the will of the people, so - even when the will of the people is "let's all jump off the nearest cliff" - it has to be slavishly followed.

You're not even making any arguments to counter my points; you're basically making my point for me. You're saying that when the people speak, they speak ex cathedra and can't be questioned.

Don't be so condescending.

Elections are for choosing the Government but referendums can be used to resolve constitutional issues that can be boiled down to a Yes or No answer like membership of the EU or membership of the UK.

Do you think Scottish independence should be decided by Westminster, Holyrood or the Scottish people themselves? What would happen if Holyrood decided unilaterally to break from the UK? Would Westminster accept it? No, the decision wouldn't have legitimacy in most people's eyes unless it was put to a referendum.

jooksavage

marcus001 wrote: »

You just said yourself it's a complex issue and we have politicians who work full time on sorting that stuff out. So what's the problem? The people tell them to leave the EU, the politicians set about getting it done. The only reason it's not going more smoothly is because politicians want to stop it from happening at all.

You're mistaking politicians for magicians. They just can't shazzam a solution to monumentally complicated problem from a binary yes/no vote.

Tories: You want to leave the EU?
UK: Yup!
Tories: Uh... really?!
UKIP: You heard them!
EU: You're going to lose tariff-free trade status, tariffs will raise the cost of exports, and make you less competitive in addition to raising import prices. The subsequent inflation will lower the standard of living for UK residents. Also you won't be be able to travel freely throughout Europe anymore.
UK:....

ancapailldorcha

marcus001 wrote: »

You just said yourself it's a complex issue and we have politicians who work full time on sorting that stuff out. So what's the problem? The people tell them to leave the EU, the politicians set about getting it done. The only reason it's not going more smoothly is because politicians want to stop it from happening at all.

What exactly is leaving the EU? Technically, Norway is outside it yet it pays up, has no say in regulations and accepts free movement. That is technically out.

solodeogloria

ThisRegard wrote: »

You've been asked this a few times and every time chose to ignore the question.

Why did you vote to remain (as you claim you did) despite all evidence you say is contradictory to this?

Good afternoon

This is a question I must have answered about 10 times in this thread and its predecessor. You can read the posts I've already posted. To claim that I've "ignored" this question isn't true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

marcus001

jooksavage wrote: »

You're mistaking politicians for magicians. They just can't shazzam a solution to monumentally complicated problem from a binary yes/no vote.

Tories: You want to leave the EU?
UK: Yup!
Tories: Uh... really?!
UKIP: You heard them!
EU: You're going to lose tariff-free trade status, tariffs will raise the cost of exports, and make you less competitive in addition to raising import prices. The subsequent inflation will lower the standard of living for UK residents. Also you won't be be able to travel freely throughout Europe anymore.
UK:....

The vote didn't change the law. It just gave the government the task of leaving the EU. How they go about it is up to them.

marcus001

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What exactly is leaving the EU? Technically, Norway is outside it yet it pays up, has no say in regulations and accepts free movement. That is technically out.

Leaving the EU is leaving the EU. The desire to endlessly complicate the meaning of the Brexit vote is just a stalling tactic.

Christy42

marcus001 wrote: »

Leaving the EU is leaving the EU. The desire to endlessly complicate the meaning of the Brexit vote is just a stalling tactic.

No it really really is not simple. There is a vast body of regulations that need to be kept or gotten rid of. Trade agreements with the EU. The UK's previous commitments. What to do with businesses split between the various countries. How to police borders or what regulations should be there.

The entire UK economy is intertwined to the EU's in thousands of different ways. You don't separate that overnight and to call it a stalling tactic is gross oversimplification. Then you have different versions of out such as Norway model, Swiss model or be like most other countries and the disagreements with what is the best way. What about all the foreign workers from various eu countries or in the EU from the UK.

In or out is largely a nonsensical question without "out" being properly defined.

marcus001

Christy42 wrote: »

No it really really is not simple. There is a vast body of regulations that need to be kept or gotten rid of. Trade agreements with the EU. The UK's previous commitments. What to do with businesses split between the various countries. How to police borders or what regulations should be there.

The entire UK economy is intertwined to the EU's in thousands of different ways. You don't separate that overnight and to call it a stalling tactic is gross oversimplification. Then you have different versions of out such as Norway model, Swiss model or be like most other countries and the disagreements with what is the best way. What about all the foreign workers from various eu countries or in the EU from the UK.

In or out is largely a nonsensical question without "out" being properly defined.

The process of leaving the EU is complicated, but the decision to leave is one that anyone can make. All of those issues you brought up is what parliament is for.

Tony EH

It's really diffcult to blame the people of the UK for voting to leave, when you've had the Tories trumpeting that angle for years and UKIP, etc in agreement.

Now that the vote is in, it's up to those who have been presenting this sceneario as an option to come up with the exit plan.

When you have political parties dangling things in front of a population and that population bites after a while, those parties only have themselves to blame.

Christy42

marcus001 wrote: »

The process of leaving the EU is complicated, but the decision to leave is one that anyone can make. All of those issues you brought up is what parliament is for.

So the people should vote on a question where no one knows what the answers actually mean for the country and Parliament makes it up afterwards? So people get to decide whether or not to be in the EU directly but about the single market?

I fail to see how any of this could go wrong. If you manage to define the question properly. So say Parliament says we will try and get this deal if you say no then maybe it can voted on. Till then asking people questions without properly defined answers is a stupid idea.

To bring I back on topic Trump got elected through similar means. He gave every answer to questions. No one knew what he meant or had planned (turns out nothing) so people were left free to assume he meant whatever they wanted him to mean. There was no vote Trump get this policy for health say. Just vague statements of better healthcare.

jooksavage

marcus001 wrote: »

The vote didn't change the law. It just gave the government the task of leaving the EU. How they go about it is up to them.

What if the govt. decide to stay in the single market by paying large sums of money (the Norwegian model) and accepting free movement? UKIP will cry foul and say "that's not Brexit!" But who's to know? Yes/no isn't much use when it comes down to it. Not everything can be reduced to a binary plebiscite.

View

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We've discussed this in other threads To summarise: A bad decision which the people choose is better than a good decision in which they have no choice.

You might want to refer to the rise of the Nazis within Germany where they used repeated referenda to undermine Germany's parliamentary democracy.

But, no doubt, you'd have cheered them on as you believe that "a bad decision that the people choose is better than a good decision in which they have no choice".

Tony EH

Actually, the nazis were losing support when Hitler was made chancelor of Germany, even if Hitler remained relatively popular. He wasn't voted into that position by the German people though. He was given that by an aging Hindenburg, who's own political cronies believed they could control Hitler, while gaining the benefits of his support base.

They were very wrong.

While Hitler and the nazis enjoyed popularity in Germany for a time, it was a perfect storm of political upheaval that facilitated a siezure of power. Not any kind of public vote. Hitler lost the vote of German presidency in 1932 by quite a margin, as a lot of German people were cottoning on to him and his party.

Had Hindenburg been a younger man, it would have been him who led Germany for the rest of the 30's as he always had more public support.

It was political fiddling from a party that wanted to remain in power that led to Hitler's leadership, not a public vote.

ancapailldorcha

Tony EH wrote: »

It's really difficult to blame the people of the UK for voting to leave, when you've had the Tories trumpeting that angle for years and UKIP, etc in agreement.

I sort of oscillate on this. Sometimes I feel that in this age of information, it was very easy for someone to get clued in on the EU and Britain's relationship with it. There were no end of good debates on the subject all over the place. On the other hand, it's mostly older people who vote. A lot of people, myself included thought that there was no chance that Leave would win. A lot of older people are Conservative and are more likely to stick to traditional media which was mostly anti-EU.

Tony EH wrote: »

Now that the vote is in, it's up to those who have been presenting this sceneario as an option to come up with the exit plan.

When you have political parties dangling things in front of a population and that population bites after a while, those parties only have themselves to blame.

See, here's the thing. You're conflating Vote Leave with a political party. In fairness, it did act like one for much of the time but there was never any obligation on it to fulfill any part of its vision for a post-Brexit United Kingdom which in essence gave them the chance to go wild and wild they indeed did go. The promises they made (along with the scaremongering of course) must have been very tempting to people living in places which have been under-resourced and abandoned by various governments over the years.

View

Tony EH wrote: »

Actually, the nazis were losing support when Hitler was made chancelor of Germany, even if Hitler remained relatively popular. He wasn't voted into that position by the German people though. He was given that by an aging Hindenburg, who's own political cronies believed they could control Hitler, while gaining the benefits of his support base.

They were very wrong.

While Hitler and the nazis enjoyed popularity in Germany for a time, it was a perfect storm of political upheaval that facilitated a siezure of power. Not any kind of public vote. Hitler lost the vote of German presidency in 1932 by quite a margin, as a lot of German people were cottoning on to him and his party.

Had Hindenburg been a younger man, it would have been him who led Germany for the rest of the 30's as he always had more public support.

It was political fiddling from a party that wanted to remain in power that led to Hitler's leadership, not a public vote.

The referenda I was referring to were held AFTER Hitler had obtained office. Hitler didn't become an absolute dictator immediately, rather the Nazis used government office to undermine the already weakened pre-existing parliamentary democracy.

Referenda were used by them to bypass normal parliamentary procedures and so to consolidate Hitler and the Nazis grip on power. Referenda are sometimes described as "tools of dictators" for a reason, as they are frequently used to persuade "the little man" by people railing against "the elite".

Jim2007

Christy42 wrote: »

So the people should vote on a question where no one knows what the answers actually mean for the country and Parliament makes it up afterwards? So people get to decide whether or not to be in the EU directly but about the single market?

It is not necessarily an incorrect interpretation. Referenda are advisory in the UK, the parliament asks for an opinion and they are charged with making it work. That is how it is expected to work under their system. The fact that they seem to be unable to implement the concept is another issue.

Jim2007

jooksavage wrote: »

What if the govt. decide to stay in the single market by paying large sums of money (the Norwegian model) and accepting free movement? UKIP will cry foul and say "that's not Brexit!" But who's to know? Yes/no isn't much use when it comes down to it. Not everything can be reduced to a binary plebiscite.

But under their system, the government is legally entitled to do so. And in UKIP are unhappy with that then they need to get a majority in parliament to do so. That is what a sovereign parliament means.

Jim2007

marcus001 wrote: »

Elections are for choosing the Government but referendums can be used to resolve constitutional issues that can be boiled down to a Yes or No answer like membership of the EU or membership of the UK.

Not under the UK constitution system no. Constitutional matters are for parliament, the privy council and the supreme court. As confirmed in the Miller decision, referenda are purely advisory and have no legal basis for action. The PM cannot use the Queen's prerogative to implement the outcome of a referendum.

Jim2007

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that offering a referendum involves using a binary choice to resolve an immensely complex issue.

Not at all, I've voted in a few Swiss referenda, where you had a double choice - if the outcome of A is this do you then want C or D, if it nor do you want X or W...

Tony EH

View wrote: »

The referenda I was referring to were held AFTER Hitler had obtained office. Hitler didn't become an absolute dictator immediately, rather the Nazis used government office to undermine the already weakened pre-existing parliamentary democracy.

Referenda were used by them to bypass normal parliamentary procedures and so to consolidate Hitler and the Nazis grip on power. Referenda are sometimes described as "tools of dictators" for a reason, as they are frequently used to persuade "the little man" by people railing against "the elite".

The major referenda I can think of, off the top of my head, was the vote to withdraw from the League of Nations and the the one where people were asked to merge Chancellor and President after Hindenburg's death.

And to some extent, I agree to the point you are making. However, I have to fully support the democratic right of people to vote according to their wishes. That's fundamental to democracy. Anything else and it just isn't cricket.

It would be a grave mistake to put the blame for Hitler and the nazis upon the German people's lack of forsight in political matters and especially for the times that were to come.

Nobody could have foreseen that, no matter how clued in they were politically.

This, rather, is a call for better governance. If one thinks that taking public voting out of the equation will result in that, then they are barking up the wrong tree.

As far as Brexit is concerned, I am absolutely loath to place the blame at the public's feet, who were led a merry dance by politicians who place being in power above all else. And, I'll be clear, I don't blame a fringe party like UKIP either.

It lies with the Tories.

The Tories said they wanted Brexit time and time again (both in and out of power) and now they don't know what to do.

Frankly, given the choice between people like that calling the shots and the public, I'll go with the public all the time, even with the bad results.

ancapailldorcha

Jim2007 wrote: »

Not at all, I've voted in a few Swiss referenda, where you had a double choice - if the outcome of A is this do you then want C or D, if it nor do you want X or W...

Fair point but what the government offered was a binary choice on what was very much a complex and multifaceted issue.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fair point but what the government offered was a binary choice on what was very much a complex and multifaceted issue.

I think the problem was that people were asked to vote on whether they wanted to leave the EU when there was no developed proposal to leave the EU, or what to do afterwards, and when in fact the government which was asking the question didn't want to leave the EU at all.

Contrast the PR referendum or the Scottish independence referendum, in both of which there was a detailed proposal which the government asked the people to endorse. In the PR referendum it was an Act of Parliament, passed but not to come into force unless approved by a referendum. In the Scottish Independence Referendum it was a detailed white paper on the transition to independence and the policies to be pursued by an independent Scotland, coupled with a draft Scottish Constitution.

The upshot of the sloppiness of the EU referendum was that anyone voting "Leave" didn't know whether they were voting for the UK to join the EEA, or for the UK to adopt a North Korea-like isolation, or for anything in between. They might have thought they knew what they were voting for as an alternative to EU membership, but since different voters might have thought different things about that, and indeed different Leave campaigners outlined different visions, the referendum gives no mandate for any particular alternative to EU membership.

The lesson, of course, is 1. don't hold a referendum seeking a mandate for a policy that you don't wish to implement, and 2. don't hold a referendum seeking a mandate for a policy that you haven't developed yet.

I'll defer to Jim2007's greater experience of the Swiss system, but my understanding is that most (all?) Swiss referendums are about laws that have already been passed by the legislature, so the details of what you are voting on are known, or about proposed amendments to the Constitution (as in Ireland). If there are follow-on questions it's usually because there are simultaneous referenda about different questions which could give rise to inconsistent answers, in which case there can be a follow-on which says, in effect, "if both proposal A and proposal B are approved, which one of them would you rather have implemented?"

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fair point but what the government offered was a binary choice on what was very much a complex and multifaceted issue.

Good afternoon!

And people weighed up both positions, and voted to leave.

Therefore that's what's happening. The UK Government is respecting the result. Claiming that people are feeble and fickle because they didn't agree with you is patronising nonsense.

The key question is how to get the UK out of the European Union in the best way and to ensure that it gets the best possible trading arrangements with the EU while also allowing it to forge new trade deals elsewhere. The Government have put some proposals forward the last few days. Let's see where they go, and let's see what solution gets hammered out. Crowing on about the Brexit apocalypse that is almost certainly not going to happen does no good for anyone.

I also think the comparisons to Hitler and the Nazis are totally unnecessary and offensive. Leaving the European Union and taking a different course is a completely a different thing to fascism.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

And people weighed up both positions, and voted to leave.

You missed his point. There were never TWO positions. The remain position was clear as it reflected the status quo, a known quantity. The leave position didn't exist as the leave campaigners all painted different images of what it means to leave the EU. That's why Cameron should have outlined what leave would actually mean in practice.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The key question is how to get the UK out of the European Union in the best way and to ensure that it gets the best possible trading arrangements with the EU while also allowing it to forge new trade deals elsewhere. The Government have put some proposals forward the last few days. Let's see where they go, and let's see what solution gets hammered out. Crowing on about the Brexit apocalypse that is almost certainly not going to happen does no good for anyone.

The signs are there that things are not going well. Warning of impending doom is certainly worthwhile if it can get the UK to adopt a position that might enable it to avoid this.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The key question is how to get the UK out of the European Union in the best way and to ensure that it gets the best possible trading arrangements with the EU while also allowing it to forge new trade deals elsewhere. The Government have put some proposals forward the last few days. Let's see where they go, and let's see what solution gets hammered out.

They have already been dismissed for the nonsense they are by the EU negotiators and the Czechs have already indicated they would veto any agreement along the proposed lines.

solodeogloria

Jim2007 wrote: »

They have already been dismissed for the nonsense they are by the EU negotiators and the Czechs have already indicated they would veto any agreement along the proposed lines.

Good afternoon!

So a normal negotiation would move forward to assess both positions and to come to some form of middle ground.

I think if the transition doesn't include negotiating trade deals it's pretty pointless to the UK but still there's really not much grounds for worrying. There's hard work to be done. We all knew this. The sky isn't going to fall in though.

Both sets of negotiators will move from here to a final position.

Edit: I'm pleased that the UK is setting the right tone on travel into the UK for EU citizens and to suggest that secondary controls around employment will be applied rather than hard frontier borders.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!



Edit: I'm pleased that the UK is setting the right tone on travel into the UK for EU citizens and to suggest that secondary controls around employment will be applied rather than hard frontier borders.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But they really dont have any other option here. You perceive its about the right tone while negating the fact that its not debatable.

There is no trade deal without this travel arrangement , zero trade deal. The UK would have been kicked out on their ear.

Additionally the UK's own citizens simply would not accept not being able to travel to the UK for Holidays or business easily.

So this isnt a conciliatory tone story, Its hard realities setting in

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Given the EU haven't said anything about it from what I've read it's a good step forward. In fact I've heard of €5 charges for entering the Schengen area post Brexit. Of course everything should be reciprocal.

Brexit is about defining the type of country the UK wants to be after Brexit. People have criticised the papers for being aspirational. Brexit is aspirational by nature. Therefore outlining what the aspirations are is helpful. Firstly because it tells us about what kind of country Britain wants to be and it gives us detail on how the British government interprets Brexit. Secondly because it gives an idea of the direction of travel.

Aspirational papers are hugely useful. It isn't Britain's job to play Nostradamus in respect to what the EU will and won't accept. It is Britain's job to represent the concerns of its citizens and business in the most harmonious way possible in the negotiation.

Business groups in particular welcomed the publication on customs.

Brexit is also unprecedented. This is why it's reasonable to propose a new solution to a new problem.

Let's see where we can move to. I'm not particularly worried.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit is about defining the type of country the UK wants to be after Brexit.

Brexit does not define the type of country the UK wants to be. What defines the type of country the UK wants to be is how its people behave.

I would also add that while Britain isn't required to predict what the EU will and will not accept, it is required to produce papers that have some grounding in reality. The paper relating to the NI border was taken apart by Fintan O'Toole yesterday and I don't think that Simon Coveney was particularly impressed either.

The UK is doing its homework in the most desultory, lazy and incompetent way imaginable

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

So a normal negotiation would move forward to assess both positions and to come to some form of middle ground.

I think if the transition doesn't include negotiating trade deals it's pretty pointless to the UK but still there's really not much grounds for worrying. There's hard work to be done. We all knew this. The sky isn't going to fall in though.

Both sets of negotiators will move from here to a final position.

Edit: I'm pleased that the UK is setting the right tone on travel into the UK for EU citizens and to suggest that secondary controls around employment will be applied rather than hard frontier borders.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You'd wonder why the UK or any country bothers with immigration controls at all if you can just police it all through employment law. The black economy will run riot in the UK with the back door through Dublin (very well connected to all of Eastern Europe) and a short spin up the motorway to Belfast. Totally untraceable route in and out for anyone who wants to work cash in hand and still visit the family in Poland (no offence intended) any time they like.

Also, normal negotiation begins with each party stating a realistic if hopeful position. The UK's proposals are not realistic. It's like a guy rocking up to your door answering a classified ad for a nearly new luxury car and offering you 200 quid for it. It's an offer, but you'd laugh him off your driveway.

Tony EH

Peregrinus wrote: »

The lesson, of course, is 1. don't hold a referendum seeking a mandate for a policy that you don't wish to implement, and 2. don't hold a referendum seeking a mandate for a policy that you haven't developed yet.

There's also 3. Don't platform for years on a policy of downplaying and leaving an institution just to gain power.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Swiss referendums are about laws that have already been passed by the legislature, so the details of what you are voting on are known, or about proposed amendments to the Constitution (as in Ireland). If there are follow-on questions it's usually because there are simultaneous referenda about different questions which could give rise to inconsistent answers, in which case there can be a follow-on which says, in effect, "if both proposal A and proposal B are approved, which one of them would you rather have implemented?"

The very real problem here is that there isn't a none of the above option for people to vote for. Government could end up carefully designing a phony choice for the electorate under the auspice of a "democratic vote".

Something like this could lead to "if both proposal A (Break your left leg) and proposal B (Break your right leg) are approved, which one of them would you rather have implemented?"

Samaris

It's quite true that Britain should not be expected to play the role of Nostradamus regarding what the EU will or will not accept. However, it might help if they read the deals they signed up to when they joined and then they'd have a better idea of what the EU will or will not accept. There is a certain element of RTFM* about it all.


I don't expect ordinary Joe Soaps to read it, mind you. But I darn well expect the leaders negotiating to have read it.

*Technical troubleshooting term - read the f-ing manual.

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit is about defining the type of country the UK wants to be after Brexit. People have criticised the papers for being aspirational. Brexit is aspirational by nature.

Now you have really lost the plot, we don't care what Brexit means to the British voters! What we care about is that the UK delivers up serious papers that address the issues that need to be addressed in the exit talks, that is the situation of EU citizens, the border and the method of calculation the UK contribution on exit. Nothing more, nothing less.

Samaris

Aspirational is lovely and all when hard practicality isn't demanded. But the UK is leaving the EU. This is the time for practicality. No matter how you look at it, the well-being of 66million people depends on it. The UK needs to be working from solid facts and practical plans, not pie in the sky.

murphaph

"Aspirational" just about sums Brexit up perfectly.

Capt'n Midnight

I love the comment someone made about the UK's new Invisible border up North "I'll believe it when I see it"

AFAIK under the WTO Most Favoured Nation rules the UK can't have one rule for the North and another for the Channel Ports. Unless there's a separate deal between countries. And the EU won't do that.

And the magic electronic border won't work in Dover under the same rules as the North and they aren't allowed use different rule.


And besides
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/16/uk-government-border-proposals-ireland-brexit-position-paper

The absurdity of the proposition becomes clear when we think about all the new trade deals that post-Brexit Britain is going to make. With no Irish border controls, US beef, Australian lamb, Chinese steel and Indian cars can be imported into Belfast, sent an hour down the road to Dundalk and exported tariff-free to France, Germany or any other EU country. The only way to stop this happening would be in effect to make Ireland itself a semi-detached member of the EU with all Irish exports subjected to customs controls at EU ports. And this is simply not going to happen – why on earth would any Irish government ever agree to it ?

or apply that both ways at Dover

Leonard Hofstadter

Talks on a UK-US trade deal are perhaps not going as well as might be hoped (for Liam Fox), hardly a surprise but worth posting the link all the same:

https://www.ft.com/content/83e6bdda-8372-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd

Capt'n Midnight

captainspeed wrote: »

Talks on a UK-US trade deal are perhaps not going as well as might be hoped (for Liam Fox), hardly a surprise but worth posting the link all the same:

https://www.ft.com/content/83e6bdda-8372-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd

Actually no one over there is paying any attention to the UK right now. The $1.2 trillion NAFTA discussions are front and centre.

Canada and Mexico have a pretty clear mandate while the US is split between Republicans and Democrats agendas.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-nafta-talks-polls-1.4247820

Lemming

captainspeed wrote: »

Talks on a UK-US trade deal are perhaps not going as well as might be hoped (for Liam Fox), hardly a surprise but worth posting the link all the same:

https://www.ft.com/content/83e6bdda-8372-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd

article behind a paywall

murphaph

Lemming wrote: »

article behind a paywall

https://www.ft.com/content/83e6bdda-8372-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

article behind a paywall

top tip for FT articles.

Google the headline. If FT search result, click the down arrow on the right hand side of the link. Click cached.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RTTXgFGS1uwJ:https://www.ft.com/content/83e6bdda-8372-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd%3Fmhq5j%3De4+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Roanmore

captainspeed wrote: »

Talks on a UK-US trade deal are perhaps not going as well as might be hoped (for Liam Fox), hardly a surprise but worth posting the link all the same:

https://www.ft.com/content/83e6bdda-8372-11e7-94e2-c5b903247afd

I can't understand all the talk of the US / UK trade deal and why the British were so positive. It's Donald Trump FFS.
"Going to be big and exciting, Jobs"

Watching Sky news and the paper reviews at night, the pro brexit journalists keep talking about it.
I wouldn't trust a word out of his mouth.

steddyeddy

I found this interesting. New proposals circulated by trade secretary Liam Fox would mean that Britain could strike trade deals without the consent of Scotland, Wales and presumably Northern Ireland. From the Scotsman.

Britain could strike post-Brexit free trade deals without the approval of the Scottish and Welsh governments under proposals circulated among Cabinet ministers by International Trade Secretary Liam Fox.


Dr Fox has written to colleagues setting out four options for devolved governments’ role in negotiating free trade agreements after the UK leaves the European Union, a Whitehall source confirmed. One of them includes making trade a reserved matter for the UK Government, although at the other end of the spectrum is a proposal that a common position should be agreed with devolved governments before striking a deal. Any move to freeze out devolved governments is likely to be strongly opposed in Edinburgh ADVERTISEMENT and Cardiff. The Government has not taken a decision on which option it prefers. READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon to address Pride Glasgow event However The Times claimed Dr Fox favours denying Scotland and Wales a veto, and Tories worried about the anti-Brexit Scottish National Party scuppering any free trade deals could back him. Genetically modified (GM) foods - which are legal for cultivation in England and the United States but banned in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - is one potential flashpoint in trade talks.