Brexit discussion thread IV

J Mysterio

kunst nugget wrote: »

What's the actual bullying that Brussels are inflicting on the UK? I can never figure that out…

They havent put on a free cake buffett for the UK when the UK wants one i.e. bullying.

Econ__

Deleted User wrote: »

Theresa May also unilaterally decided and proclaimed that the result of the referendum meant that the UK would be leaving both the Single Market and Customs Union.

It has been this declaration (Lancaster House) which has been so fundamentally undermining of their own negotiating position and what has pushed the UK extremely close to a no deal.

I certainly don't admire that.

By the same token, she would never have lasted as PM if she had said anything else. If she had taken a soft approach from the start, the brextremists would have forced her out. Now it's too late for them.

lawred2

J Mysterio wrote: »

What annoys me most is people with the cheek to claim that the EU and 'Brussels bureaucrats' are 'bullying them'. Absolutely ridiculous article in UK Independent today.

If we are using lazy, ignorant characterizations such as that, I say the UK is selfish, arrogant and rude.

That whole article is utterly childish. Cliche ridden. Stereotype ridden. And emotive in a spoiled child type way. Typical Little Englander British bulldog nonsense where every engagement with Europe is seen through the prism of conflict..

May has shown herself to be a spineless leader and no match at all for the bullying tactics of Barnier and his Brussels bureaucrats.

Everything has to hark back to war time rhetoric. Boring.

But this line alone had the eyes rolling in my head the most

A kind of giddy excitement at seeing history being made and knowing I had played a small part in it

Grow up.

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

What annoys me most is people with the cheek to claim that the EU and 'Brussels bureaucrats' are 'bullying them'. Absolutely ridiculous article in UK Independent today.

If we are using lazy, ignorant characterizations such as that, I say the UK is selfish, arrogant and rude.

It's a typical opinion among the hard Brexiteers. Very little knowledge of what the EU is or does, other than that they are 'messing the UK around'.

A fair amount of ignorance on display from her. She doesn't give a single reason why she voted to leave nor why she is so full of loathing for the EU. It's all just emotions and feelings.

kunst nugget

Strazdas wrote: »

It's a typical opinion among the hard Brexiteers. Very little knowledge of what the EU is or does, other than that they are 'messing the UK around'.

A fair amount of ignorance on display from her. She doesn't give a single reason why she voted to leave nor why she is so full of loathing for the EU. It's all just emotions and feelings.

It kind of reminds of me of that infamous 'ballsy guys' article Brendan O’Connor wrote in 2007 before raging against the Governor of the Central Bank 2 years later because he was in massive negative equity.

You can imagine her giving out in a year’s time about the EU bullying them by letting them drive off a cliff and not stopping them.

Rhineshark

Strazdas wrote: »

It's a typical opinion among the hard Brexiteers. Very little knowledge of what the EU is or does, other than that they are 'messing the UK around'.

A fair amount of ignorance on display from her. She doesn't give a single reason why she voted to leave nor why she is so full of loathing for the EU. It's all just emotions and feelings.

Yep. Also again the lazy reference to Ireland as "they voted and had to vote again", ignoring the absolutely logical reason for it - that particular negotiation was to some extent with the public. Why should Ireland be the only country that doesn't get to negotiate from the top mandate - badly phrased, but the British negotiators would bring the agreed solution to Parliament and if that got rejected, and they seriously don't think that they'd go back to the table and talk again, they're off their heads. Exactly why should Ireland be different? Our method is a bit more cumbersome and does limit the negotiating that way (the gov has to figure out what will be acceptable to us fairly early on) but say Lisbon, while it failed the first time, did actually produce concrete reasons as to why it wasn't accepted to work with, mostly neutrality.

Can't answer for France or Greece there but given the usual tired misinformation regarding the Irish votes I somehow suspect it may not have been the evil EU showing the whip and saying "Try Again" with narrowed eyes there either.

The 2016 referendum was not democratic.

The British system is set up for Parliamentary soveteignity. The referendum tool is advisory only in the UK - and for good reason! It's one thing in Ireland, a small, mostly homogenous population. It is NOT appropriate to use in a multi-state set-up where one country swamps the rest.

Shall we run the EU that way? One wo/man, one vote? It'd make as much sense as using a referendum in the UK to make binding changes, where population size wins.

It is not democratic to misuse the tool so badly that the people don't really know what they are voting for. I'm pretty sure that RoI has never had a referendum where we were asked such a stupid, open-ended, interpret-the-goat-entrails question.

It is not democratic to change the rules on the population regarding this unusual method - your decision on this rubbish question is now binding and once in a lifetime. (Whoever it was saying similar about the abortion ref in Ireland should also have kept his mouth shut.) If you go down the path of democracy by referenda, you have to accept that democracy doesn't stop because of one. If the losing side can rouse enough demand for another one (perhaps with a cooling down period for internal ones - quicker if required where international talks are underway - "sorry lads, can we take a rain check for seven years and maybe the people will speak again on these new terms, k?"), they get one.

It is really not democratic to misuse a referendum to get a broad result which is then used as a "big old bucket of political mandate" for a government to interpret to its maddest conclusions and then force through as "the will of the people". -This- is exactly how referenda can be used to end democracy.

And it is exceptionally undemocratic to misuse a political tool to undermine and bypass the actual system - in this case Parliament. This was a decision that needed that reasoned, unimpassioned debate.

What they have ultimately done is to create a stonking big precedent for a populist to totally bypass British democracy for their own ends. They have opened a Pandora's box, and in this case, it fits the story quite well, because they slammed the lid on the one thing that might at this point help them combat all the evils that they let loose in 2016 - another, more informed, referendum.


British democracy got essentially mugged in an alleyway in 2016 and now the theives are rooting through its bank account.

Nate--IRL--

Imreoir2 wrote: »

His mandate is to agree a Withdrawl Treaty, and Treaty on the Future Relationship with the UK.

Are you sure? I always thought his specific mandate was the Withdrawal agreement alone.

And that the Future Relationship Treaty Talks come after the Withdrawal treaty concludes, and would be handled by a different team.

Nate

Spook_ie

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Are you sure? I always thought his specific mandate was the Withdrawal agreement alone.

And that the Future Relationship Treaty Talks come after the Withdrawal treaty concludes, and would be handled by a different team.

Nate

Lord Kerr, the guy who essentially wrote article 50 for the EU Constitutional Treaty ( rejected) that got put into the Lisbon Treaty ( accepted ) made an annotated copy of Article 50 on https://Politico.eu about how there should have been parallel talks concerning the framework for the countries future relationship.

https://www.politico.eu/article/article-50-brexit-europe-annotated-with-comments-from-its-author-lord-kerr-theresa-may/

An Ciarraioch

Looking at Barnier's press release today, I don't see any evidence of backsliding:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/news/ambitious-partnership-uk-after-brexit-2018-aug-02_en

Nate--IRL--

Spook_ie wrote: »

Lord Kerr, the guy who essentially wrote article 50 for the EU Constitutional Treaty ( rejected) that got put into the Lisbon Treaty ( accepted ) made an annotated copy of Article 50 on https://Politico.eu about how there should have been parallel talks concerning the framework for the countries future relationship.

https://www.politico.eu/article/article-50-brexit-europe-annotated-with-comments-from-its-author-lord-kerr-theresa-may/

Understood, this would be Phase 2 of the existing negotiations, but the framework for the future relationship/phase 2, does not equal the actual treaty talks of the new relationship, which are likely to last years after the Withdrawal date, and from what I'd understood are nothing to do with Barnier.

Nate

lawred2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Looking at Barnier's press release today, I don't see any evidence of backsliding:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/news/ambitious-partnership-uk-after-brexit-2018-aug-02_en

Constructive and cordial but firm and not lacking in any way in clarity.

None of the hallmarks of a bullying bureaucrat

briany

Rhineshark wrote: »

The 2016 referendum was not democratic.

The British system is set up for Parliamentary soveteignity. The referendum tool is advisory only in the UK - and for good reason!

Thing is that Cameron promised that the UK government would 'respect' the outcome of the vote. I don't know if there was any strict legal impediment to simply reneging on that promise except the probably-justified fear that it would boot him out of office, branded a 'traitor', collapse the government, render the Conservatives unelectable and or bring UKIP into power, if only in a coalition.

The Anti-EU movement had been gathering momentum in the UK for decades. Alarmism over migrants, and economic concerns were starting to tip the balance. Attempts to renegotiate the UK's place in the EU had failed. Usurpers were waiting in line to ride the anti-EU wave into number 10. I dare say the mistake was not in offering people a choice, but the ham-handedness of the choice on offer and the misinformation and guff that was bandied about before the vote.

Leroy42

There really is little point arguing of the validity or legal standing of the ref poll, it is what it is and nobody is listening anyway. If the illegal acts of the leave campaign, the Russian money etc haven't caused a rethink that nothing will.

The only possible solution is that the UK are given another vote on what Brexit actually means, ie the deal that TM actually achieves. I fail to see how that is undemocratic.

I don't think Remain should be an option, that was already decided upon. They should be given the details of the deal and asked to vote on it or reject it. Rejection is obviously a no deal.

breatheme

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think Remain should be an option, that was already decided upon. They should be given the details of the deal and asked to vote on it or reject it. Rejection is obviously a no deal.

That has disaster written all over it.

Then again, so did Brexit, so who am I to speak.

Leroy42

breatheme wrote: »

That has disaster written all over it.

Then again, so did Brexit, so who am I to speak.

Do you mean Brexit is a disaster or the options?

I think that now that the UK has voted to leave, they should be given the option of what that leave will actually be like.

TM was tasked with getting the best deal she could, and the deal she presents will be that. The only other option should therefore be to reject the deal.

I don't see any value in trying to re-run the campaign from the start.

The people made a choice, for whatever reasons, and this is the consequence.

Those calling from a ref2 which includes a Remain option lose any credibility as they are faced with the claim of going against the will of the people.

Its about trying to make the best of the situation that the UK finds itself in.

Imreoir2

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Are you sure? I always thought his specific mandate was the Withdrawal agreement alone.

And that the Future Relationship Treaty Talks come after the Withdrawal treaty concludes, and would be handled by a different team.

Nate

Just had a quick look into it, from what I could find it seems that the mandate only delt with the Withdrawl Treaty. I have seen comments from Barnier, shortley after he was appointed, saying that if the Withdrawl Treaty could be concluded quickly, then talks could procede to trade and the future relationship. I might have missed something and there is a formal mandate for the future relationship talks aswell, though it seems that the proposals on the Withdrawl Treaty have to be brought back and approved by the European Council before a further mandate for dealing with the future relationship is granted.

Either way, it has always been the case that phase one has to be agreed before phase two can start. If Barniers mandate only relate to phase one, then I suppose it is possible that someone else will be brought in for phase two, though I always assumed that Barnier was the man to deal with the process all the way through.

Barnier certainly is tasked with dealing with future relationship issues, as part of his job is to prepare a political declaration between the EU and UK on the future relationship to go alongside the Withdrawl Treaty, though he is probably not empowered to go beyond a political declaration at this point.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think Remain should be an option, that was already decided upon. They should be given the details of the deal and asked to vote on it or reject it. Rejection is obviously a no deal.

Allowing the electorate to vote for No Deal is the same lunatic idea as allowing them to vote for Brexit.

There is no upside to asking the question, you either get the "Bloody Obvious" answer you are looking for (and can enact without asking anyhow) or you get the "Two Fingers To The PM" answer you were not anticipating and cannot deliver in reality.

Water John

Well a new ref should be take this deal or remain where you are, in the EU, not crash out. Or do you want a 3 way scenario with a run off if none reaches 50%?

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Those calling from a ref2 which includes a Remain option lose any credibility as they are faced with the claim of going against the will of the people.

If Brexit is the Will of the People, Remain cannot win a referendum, so voting again cannot change anything.

But if there is even a 2% swing, suddenly Brexit is no longer the Will of the People and the whole fecking disaster can be cancelled.

listermint

There's something wrong when posters here start using Tory bylines like will of the people

It means nothing it's rethoric.

No one got to vote in any sort of deal.

Referendum us required and part of that can be Mays style if deal there has to be option c remain

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't think Remain should be an option, that was already decided upon. They should be given the details of the deal and asked to vote on it or reject it. Rejection is obviously a no deal.

If there were to be a new referendum, and I think it is highly unlikely that there will be, I don't see why Remain should be off the table. It is one of the options with the heighest level of support. On the other hand, putting leave with no deal on the table would be criminal in my opinion, given the damage it would do to the UK.

Rhineshark

Leroy42 wrote: »

There really is little point arguing of the validity or legal standing of the ref poll, it is what it is and nobody is listening anyway. If the illegal acts of the leave campaign, the Russian money etc haven't caused a rethink that nothing will.

The only possible solution is that the UK are given another vote on what Brexit actually means, ie the deal that TM actually achieves. I fail to see how that is undemocratic.

I don't think Remain should be an option, that was already decided upon. They should be given the details of the deal and asked to vote on it or reject it. Rejection is obviously a no deal.

There is some point to it though. Admittedly not so much in Ireland, we just have to deal with the consequences.

But this question is continuing with all sorts of misinformation being pushed by, frankly, used-donkey salesmen. That another referendum would be undemocratic. That their referendum was totes how it done and the stupid Irish (who only, y'know, actually use these things regularly and understand them) are both wrong and stupud - with the express purpose of ending democratic decision making as soon as there's real information to work from.

This must not be allowed to be accepted as remotely the way it works or should work because it is an undemocratic scam for power-grabbing. Referenda are useful but dangerous when misused and as a country that does use them, we should be very cautious about accepting in any way (or not challenging) this dangerous attempt to reshape how they work.

Other than that, I agree that religitating it has limited use. But it should be reminded every so often of just how badly done and devious it was - and how undemocratic. As a small English speaking country, we're linguistically dominated by UK and US opinion. This dangerous opinion s one I don't want to see gaining any more traction through British repetition.

I don't want any of our governments ever getting notions about copying that sort of shenangigan either!

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Twitter dump deleted.

Leroy42

I understand, and agree, with all the points about it being a disaster, but there is no way that a remain vote can be put to the people without massive implications to the view of democracy in the UK.

They had a vote, which whilst legally only advisory, the PM stated that whatever the outcome was it would be respected. So, Leave won and thus should be delivered.

So the vote should now be on what leave actually means. Of course grand promises were made in the campaign, but TM has now (or will at the time of any hypothetical ref) have arrived at a deal with the EU. One must assume, since she is PM, that this is the best deal that can be secured.

Hence the UK voters now can choose which style of leave they want. Of course to leave with no deal is madness, but that is up to them.

One needs to be very careful about including Remain in any ref2, as it will be seen by many as a kick to the teeth of their earlier vote.

Leroy42

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Looking at Barnier's press release today, I don't see any evidence of backsliding:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/news/ambitious-partnership-uk-after-brexit-2018-aug-02_en

This is a key line in the text

"We are ready to improve the text of our proposal with the UK."

This is in relation to the NI border issue.

Wonder what that entails? Accepting the time limit?

robinph

If anybody had even the slightest clue what the "will of the people" was then they might be able to use that as part of the argument. But nobody knows what the will is, nobody knows what Brexit means (you can't define it by using the word Brexit) and you only need less than 2% of those who voted to change their mind, or less than 1% of people who didn't even vote first time around to bother themselves and it's all change.

IF there were to be another vote of some description on the final deal though you can't have the choices being "do you want to jump off a cliff" or "do you want to jump of a cliff with a carrier bag as a parachute", you still need the option of not wanting to jump off a cliff. There isn't anything yet set in stone that the UK has to leave, they can change their mind. The only promise that would have been broken would be Cameron having said that he'd carry out the result of the referendum, but he ran away the next day anyway so that hardly matters.

judeboy101

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Looking at Barnier's press release today, I don't see any evidence of backsliding:

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/news/ambitious-partnership-uk-after-brexit-2018-aug-02_en

"goods and customs" but not services?

robinph

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand, and agree, with all the points about it being a disaster, but there is no way that a remain vote can be put to the people without massive implications to the view of democracy in the UK.

The people who would be complaining about democracy obviously have no idea what democracy means. A democracy gets to change it's mind if they think the people governing them are doing a useless job and want thing doing differently.

jm08

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is a key line in the text

This is in relation to the NI border issue.

Wonder what that entails? Accepting the time limit?

I'd say the wording so as to calm down the DUP - but the substance will remain the same.

listermint

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand, and agree, with all the points about it being a disaster, but there is no way that a remain vote can be put to the people without massive implications to the view of democracy in the UK.

They had a vote, which whilst legally only advisory, the PM stated that whatever the outcome was it would be respected. So, Leave won and thus should be delivered.

So the vote should now be on what leave actually means. Of course grand promises were made in the campaign, but TM has now (or will at the time of any hypothetical ref) have arrived at a deal with the EU. One must assume, since she is PM, that this is the best deal that can be secured.

Hence the UK voters now can choose which style of leave they want. Of course to leave with no deal is madness, but that is up to them.

One needs to be very careful about including Remain in any ref2, as it will be seen by many as a kick to the teeth of their earlier vote.

There's nothing democratic about tearing 2 countries in the union out of another economic union kicking and screaming especially when you used that same economic union as a stick to beat one country with only a few years ago.


Democratic doesn't come into it , you'd be pandering to the minority and a bunch of charlatans who are set to make billions off of chaos.

Fight them at the ballot box they don't deserve to use voting as a tool to usurp the majority of the voting population which is what they have done . It's not even the will of those who are eligible to vote