Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

once could argue that it really was the only strategy available. There was never going to be a consensus. Cross party would never work, as any converts she did get would be cancelled by defectors to the other side.

The real issue, and its not solely down to TM, is that the HoC is deeply divided on this issue. Not only divided on the issue itself, but past that starting point there are serious divisions on how to go forward.

Corbyn has put GE front and centre, that only a calling of a GE would see him getting involved. She then had the ERG and the likes of Johnson, Davis, Raab etc within her own party to content with.

So the delay and running down the clock was really the only option left. She is trying to drag them into the agreement, and agreement they are only ever going to agree to with the noose around their necks.

May decided the red lines. There was almost certainly a HOC majority for a soft brexit if she was prepared to lead a unity government. She did the opposite and we are where we are now

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

Revoking Art 50 is the only solution to this madness.

For the UK, yes. But a soft Brexit would suit the EU reasonably well. UK manufacturing will bleed to death and the UK market will buy even more stuff from the EU. Some barriers to financial and services business are inevitable, again favouring the EU at the UK's expense, since they are a big exporter of financial products and services.

Zubeneschamali

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Everyone is aware that there is need for reform and streamlining of the EU

This is part of how Remain lost:


Leave: The EU is crap and we should leave!
Remain: Yes, the EU is crap, but we should stay and try to destroy it from within!


It's not really a winning pitch. If there is a re-run, I hope Remain goes with


Remain: The EU is good for everyone, you lying toerag.

Leroy42

Akrasia wrote: »

May decided the red lines. There was almost certainly a HOC majority for a soft brexit if she was prepared to lead a unity government. She did the opposite and we are where we are now

I doubt she decided them without any input. The likes of the ERG, Johnson, Davis, Redmond. She was faced with not only a divided party, but a divided house and a divided country.

I am not trying to say that she didn't make mistakes, I agree she has handled pretty much everything terribly, just that I don't see how this grand coalition would have really worked. It sounds great, but then why hasn't it coalesced at this stage?

Even at this late stage there is no majority for anything.

jm08

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Everyone is aware that there is need for reform and streamlining of the EU - the discussion between UK/EU at this stage should be moving back to significant reform of the EU and UK revoking Article 50.

The reforms that the UK want is a reduction of the power of the European Parliament who actually control the Commission now (which is effectively less democracy).

LuckyLloyd

EU politics needs a functioning opposition voice. That's fundamentally what it lacks. It needs to move to a scenario where we have at least two opinions on major policy decisions it makes. At the moment we have europhiles and euroskeptics. To become a fully healthy democratic movement, we need various valid strands of eurphiles. Where people can express dissatisfaction with certain policy drives within the context of being positive about the project generally.

That's the major reform I believe is required.

josip

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Everyone is aware that there is need for reform and streamlining of the EU - the discussion between UK/EU at this stage should be moving back to significant reform of the EU and UK revoking Article 50.

I think the last 2 years have shown that it's the UK in more need of reform than the EU.

First Up

jm08 wrote:

The reforms that the UK want is a reduction of the power of the European Parliament who actually control the Commission now (which is effectively less democracy).

That's funny. I thought the accusation was that the EU is run by the "unelected bureaucrats" in the Commission. The European parliament is elected, so how does reducing its power improve democracy?

lawred2

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

EU politics needs a functioning opposition voice. That's fundamentally what it lacks. It needs to move to a scenario where we have at least two opinions on major policy decisions it makes. At the moment we have europhiles and euroskeptics. To become a fully healthy democratic movement, we need various valid strands of eurphiles. Where people can express dissatisfaction with certain policy drives within the context of being positive about the project generally.

That's the major reform I believe is required.

?

the EU is a technocratic organisation that painstakingly builds policy through consensus based on detailed analysis...

A call for opposition for opposition sake is not reform..

It's that line of thinking that has led to every topic under discussion having to be discussed by people with differing viewpoints even if one of the differing viewpoints is patently untrue..

I don't see what your proposing as remotely reformative.

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

EU politics needs a functioning opposition voice. That's fundamentally what it lacks. It needs to move to a scenario where we have at least two opinions on major policy decisions it makes. At the moment we have europhiles and euroskeptics. To become a fully healthy democratic movement, we need various valid strands of eurphiles. Where people can express dissatisfaction with certain policy drives within the context of being positive about the project generally.

That's the major reform I believe is required.

There's a major flaw in your thinking here though. You're advocating for blocs of parties like the EPP, EGP, etc to become more of a presence in European politics.

The problem then becomes a risk of clashing with national governments. The EU is a capitalist project. If its Parliament decides, for example to push for member states to outsource more of their public sector to private firms, it will clash with the remits given to governments by their electorates if said electorates elect anything like the current Labour party in the UK.

You're making a good point which I largely agree with but this needs to be factored in when accounting for the likes of the Visegrad group and the concept of a multi-speed Europe.

LuckyLloyd

lawred2 wrote: »

?

the EU is a technocratic organisation that painstakingly builds policy through consensus based on detailed analysis...

A call for opposition for opposition sake is not reform..

It's that line of thinking that has led to every topic under discussion having to be discussed by people with differing viewpoints even if one of the differing viewpoints is patently untrue..

I don't see what your proposing as remotely reformative.

Well I obviously disagree. We can say that the to and fro of government / decision maker and opposition is inefficient, but it is nonetheless a core tenant of an engaging democratic process. A sense of choice for the electorate. I understand that there are differing groups in parliament, but we do lack a true sense of democratic politics.

I say all this as someone more ready to take federalist leaning leaps than ever before. You may think it silly, but I believe it is the essential issue people have with the EU. Or rather, it is the thing about the EU that is different to their experience of democratic politics.

First Up

LuckyLloyd wrote:

EU politics needs a functioning opposition voice. That's fundamentally what it lacks. It needs to move to a scenario where we have at least two opinions on major policy decisions it makes. At the moment we have europhiles and euroskeptics. To become a fully healthy democratic movement, we need various valid strands of eurphiles. Where people can express dissatisfaction with certain policy drives within the context of being positive about the project generally.

You talk as if the EU is a unitary state. It isn't. Its an association of states in all of which there are political parties, dynamics and structures you describe.

The electorate of each country decides its government and policies and EU issues are decided collectively by those governments That's how balance is retained in the EU.

The UK government and electorate are responsible for their own decisions. Every other member has the same power.

LuckyLloyd

I understand well what the EU is and how it functions, thank you very much. The issue is that, at the end voter level in all 28 member states, any debate they may have on the EU feels like it evaporates into the ether once it goes up to consensus building level across the institutions. Every member state government is pro EU, to varying degrees and gets on board with the end policy almost uniformly.

That's where dissent breeds and hides. That is what was successfully manipulated when it comes to Brexit. But listen, don't take my word on it. Listen to much smarter people like Kevin O'Rourke on the topic.

Bit cynical

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

EU politics needs a functioning opposition voice. That's fundamentally what it lacks. It needs to move to a scenario where we have at least two opinions on major policy decisions it makes. At the moment we have europhiles and euroskeptics. To become a fully healthy democratic movement, we need various valid strands of eurphiles. Where people can express dissatisfaction with certain policy drives within the context of being positive about the project generally.

That's the major reform I believe is required.

In some ways the euroskeptics could be considered a form of opposition. Just like the "right" in democratic countries seeks a smaller smaller state and more responsibility for the individual, the euroskeptics seek a smaller EU and more responsibility for the individual member state.

I think the major problem is that by the time a policy becomes known the the public the core decisions have already been made. Therefore the only action an opposition can make is to hamper the implementation of that policy.

An Ciarraioch

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I understand well what the EU is and how it functions, thank you very much. The issue is that, at the end voter level in all 28 member states, any debate they may have on the EU feels like it evaporates into the ether once it goes up to consensus building level across the institutions. Every member state government is pro EU, to varying degrees and gets on board with the end policy almost uniformly.

That's where dissent breeds and hides. That is what was successfully manipulated when it comes to Brexit. But listen, don't take my word on it. Listen to much smarter people like Kevin O'Rourke on the topic.

The "varying degrees" aspect is perhaps the most crucial dynamic at play - because of the emergence of regional mini-groups like Visegrad and the Nordic-Baltic bloc , power is shifting from the centre to the peripheries, the drive towards federalism is being slowed, and smaller states can pick and choose shifting alliances, depending on the relevant issue.

jmayo

The worst thing that can happen for the smaller member states is more power to be diverted to the EU parliament.
We simply do not have the numbers to make a viable stand on matters.

For instance if the tax affairs of member states was dictated by EU parliament how long would our low corporation tax be tolerated ?

And yes I know we have vetoes at moment, but if the europhiles and fedaralists have their way that would be a thing of the past.

As it is the EU commission had to be put back in it's box by national governments including our own when it mooted removal of national vetoes on matters relating to tax.
The big players have long wanted majority voting because then they can totally steer the EU ship.

The key thing for the EU's long term survival is knowing when enough is enough.
A lot of people in Europe do not want a federal Europe and we as a small peripheral nation should definitely not want one.

Of course I await the onslaught of jibes about Eurosceptics, etc.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

This is part of how Remain lost:


Leave: The EU is crap and we should leave!
Remain: Yes, the EU is crap, but we should stay and try to destroy it from within!


It's not really a winning pitch. If there is a re-run, I hope Remain goes with


Remain: The EU is good for everyone, you lying toerag.

A more emotional argument is better. Particularly nowadays.

There are issues though:

1: Facebook

So early 20th century propagandists thought you needed to target an entire population with propaganda. Post WW2 they realized that it was more important to convince the 'influencers' of social networks whose opinions other network members looked to.
It was difficult to reach and even identify these influencers....Until Facebook that is.

• Now, with everyone (de facto) on Facebook you can not only identify and reach these influencers: you can know their personality and tailor the correct message at the correct time to influence them and thereby influence others.
• A voter will now see in her feed "Johnny Influencer wants to Remain" etc.
• No more asking Royal Mail for Voter addresses. FB has it all.
• Also, a campaign can plug a voting register into a FB custom audience and be given coresponding FB user profiles.
• A campaign can do granular searches (based on FB likes)
• A campaign can find a lookalike audience of people LIKE registered voters who are NOT registered voters. (Returns non-registered voters: this is what Cummings did with AIQ)
• These non (less assertive) potential voters are usually more succeptible to influence so simplifying registration for them is key.
• Campaigns can run Dark posts. These were meant to be for testing a message but campaigns in 2015-now have 'taken the piss' and used them in the 10s of thousands. Especially good for targetting non-registered voters to mask what you are doing to a non-savvy opposition campaign.
• Emotional messages make people DO SOMETHING or NOT DO SOMETHING.
  Rational messages try to make people change their minds. Picture the rational rider trying to direct the Emotional elephant. If you control the elephant you control the rider.
• There will be a correct emotional message to target an influencer and voter. If there is not a suitable anecdote/story to hand those willing to use fake or %fake stories have a massive advantage here

Perhaps people can realise that from Duterte to Trump to Brexit etc. etc. the campaigns that mastered Facebook all won from a combination of the above and by all in criminality around obsolete election law.

With Google a user can visit a webpage that no-one has ever visited before and still see ads targetted at them

Twitter can amply messages and poison traditional media by misrepresenting size/import of stories/disinformation or by drowning out real news. Twitter also devastates local journalism aiding to the sense of citizen helplessness allowing disinfo to thrive.

The likes of Cambridge Analytica/AIQ amalgamates more datapoints to target individuals and uses other sites to follow them around the Internet. It then uses military grade targetting techniques (from SCL) to sow division, Nationalism etc. It also has that massive database it stole.

On the plus side Leave had all this advantage and still barely won.

Crucially there is real anecdotal evidence on the ground of hurt from Brexit.
If Remain use emotional and verifiable messaging they should win another referendum. They must engage with Facebook (honestly) until proper regulation is brought in to chop FB up.

An Ciarraioch

An excellent analysis by Henry Newman - even if one disagrees with his politics, the thread is very informative:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1103404253786370059.html

ToBeFrank123

lawred2 wrote: »

?

the EU is a technocratic organisation that painstakingly builds policy through consensus based on detailed analysis...

A call for opposition for opposition sake is not reform..

It's that line of thinking that has led to every topic under discussion having to be discussed by people with differing viewpoints even if one of the differing viewpoints is patently untrue..

I don't see what your proposing as remotely reformative.

Which loosely translates as a top down organization which dictates policy to the people while putting its fingers in its ears to criticism. At best it represents political and economic elites. The EU clearly does not welcome diversity of opinion. Its their way or the high way.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

murphaph wrote: »

Meh. We know the EU needs some work but it's pretty damn good. It is envied in many parts of the world! If you allow member states to threaten leaving every time they want the EU to move in a particular direction, the whole thing will unravel. It has to be a case of cooperation, not threats of walking out.

That's not at all what I was suggesting. The EU itself admits it needs work; not to be torn down and rebuilt.

lawred2

the EU is a technocratic organisation that painstakingly builds policy through consensus based on detailed analysis...

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Which loosely translates as a top down organization which dictates policy to the people while putting its fingers in its ears to criticism. At best it represents political and economic elites. The EU clearly does not welcome diversity of opinion. Its their way or the high way.

nope....

that post is such a mismash of groundless europhobic sound bytes that one would be minded to suggest a career in trash journalism

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

I doubt she decided them without any input. The likes of the ERG, Johnson, Davis, Redmond. She was faced with not only a divided party, but a divided house and a divided country.

I am not trying to say that she didn't make mistakes, I agree she has handled pretty much everything terribly, just that I don't see how this grand coalition would have really worked. It sounds great, but then why hasn't it coalesced at this stage?

Even at this late stage there is no majority for anything.

It didn't coalsce because May didn't keep anyone informed of the progress of her negotiations or consult anyone about her strategy for brexit.

The EU were totally upfront and open with the EU27 and everyone was always on the same page. Theresa May did the opposite. She kept her strategy and her negotiations private, she tried to go behind the EUs back and divide them by trying to split the EU 27 from within. She refused to meet the opposition or soft Brexiteers or Remainers from within her own party.

Tony Connelly gives a really good summary of where Theresa May went wrong in his speech to the IIEA from a few days ago.

She was fundamentally in how she negotiated with everyone, her own party, the opposition, the EU, the public...

mrbrianj

Whoa there with the "technocratic organisation"...

I get to vote for A) local political parties who then represent my views in the Dail, they elect a head of government and ministers (on my behalf), the leader represents me on the Council of Europe. Likewise each minster in the government get to represent me at the meetings of the council of EU. I get to vote for MEP's to represent my views the European parliament.

lawred2

mrbrianj wrote: »

Whoa there with the "technocratic organisation"...

I get to vote for A) local political parties who then represent my views in the Dail, they elect a head of government and ministers (on my behalf), the leader represents me on the Council of Europe. Likewise each minster in the government get to represent me at the meetings of the council of EU. I get to vote for MEP's to represent my views the European parliament.

I didn't say that there was an unelected/undemocratic element to it. I take your point though. Didn't mean technocratic in the pure dictionary sense.

Hurrache

The backstop that the British government suggested and negotiated for may be a breach of the human rights of the citizens of Northern Ireland, argues the attorney general for the same British government with the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/07/attorney-general-geoffrey-cox-rejects-eu-brexit-deadlock-complaints?CMP=share_btn_tw

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't see how this grand coalition would have really worked. It sounds great, but then why hasn't it coalesced at this stage?

Probably because the UK has, since the feudal battles of mediaeval times, always been about battering the other side into submission. There's no tradition of "reaching across the aisle" so even if those of us on the outside can see that that would be/have been the most sensible way to approach Brexit, all but a handful of Tory or Labour MPs are hardwired to oppose anything that comes from the other side.

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

EU politics needs a functioning opposition voice. That's fundamentally what it lacks. It needs to move to a scenario where we have at least two opinions on major policy decisions it makes. At the moment we have europhiles and euroskeptics. To become a fully healthy democratic movement, we need various valid strands of eurphiles. Where people can express dissatisfaction with certain policy drives within the context of being positive about the project generally.

The EU has a "functioning opposition" in the form of China, the US, India, Mercosur, e. Internally, policy decisions are already frequently disputed by more than two opinions, so creating an artificial shadow parliament of sorts wouldn't add anything more to the process. If there's dissatisfaction at the level of the national electorate, then (a) the EU should do more to publicise its activity - including the parties arguing for and against various policies-in-the-making; and (b) the electorate needs to take the election of MEPs and the appointment of EU commissioners seriously. There's no point complaining about "the EU" if the only representatives who are sent there
are the product of a protest vote and/or a back-room deal to get rid of a no-longer electable TD.

Water John

'Geoffrey Cox is facing a backlash in Brussels and Dublin after claiming the Irish backstop posed a risk to the human rights of people in Northern Ireland.

In the latest round of negotiations in Brussels, the attorney general told Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief negotiator, the arrangement could potentially breach the European convention on human rights (EHCR).' Guardian

Cox is coming out with daft stuff.
“The attorney general said there was a risk of violating the ECHR,” a senior EU source said. “He said a lot of surprising things this week.” Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/07/attorney-general-geoffrey-cox-rejects-eu-brexit-deadlock-complaints

Cox is in the trenches with Weyand. I know who I would back. She's top notch on her brief.

Beat me Hurrache.

Winters

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

EU politics needs a functioning opposition voice. That's fundamentally what it lacks. It needs to move to a scenario where we have at least two opinions on major policy decisions it makes. At the moment we have europhiles and euroskeptics. To become a fully healthy democratic movement, we need various valid strands of eurphiles. Where people can express dissatisfaction with certain policy drives within the context of being positive about the project generally.

That's the major reform I believe is required.

The door closed to the reform that the UK needs back in May 2011 with the AV referendum.

Its ironic that the very parties that voted to keep FPTP are now being torn apart by it. FPTP creates two party/binary politics. Within those two parties are hardliners that in a AV system would have their own smaller party but in UK politics with their party loyalty its creates this split. So damaging and I can see no solution.

Akrasia

mrbrianj wrote: »

Whoa there with the "technocratic organisation"...

I get to vote for A) local political parties who then represent my views in the Dail, they elect a head of government and ministers (on my behalf), the leader represents me on the Council of Europe. Likewise each minster in the government get to represent me at the meetings of the council of EU. I get to vote for MEP's to represent my views the European parliament.

The EU was founded under the principle of subsidiarity which was then re-inforced in the Lisbon treaty. Which basically means that decision making should be exercised as close to the level of the citizen as possible (local, regional, national and then EU level

The general aim of the principle of subsidiarity is to guarantee a degree of independence for a lower authority in relation to a higher body or for a local authority in relation to central government. It therefore involves the sharing of powers between several levels of authority, a principle which forms the institutional basis for federal states.

When applied in the context of the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity serves to regulate the exercise of the Union’s non-exclusive powers. It rules out Union intervention when an issue can be dealt with effectively by Member States at central, regional or local level and means that the Union is justified in exercising its powers when Member States are unable to achieve the objectives of a proposed action satisfactorily and added value can be provided if the action is carried out at Union level.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/7/the-principle-of-subsidiarity

mrbrianj

Yeah, The big bold EU is run by people who we either directly elect, or by people selected by those who we elect to make those decisions on our behalf.

There seems to be a failure to understand our own engagement in the system in some parts! Maybe that's a failure of communication, but it is there if you are bothered to be informed (or just a matter of the source of ones information! and not that anybody on this forum is not informed!)