Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

First Up

MrMusician18 wrote:

If a characteristic of a superstate is running elections that span across states then wouldn't the European Parliament elections fit that condition?

Each member state elects its own MEPs.

Anteayer

MrMusician18 wrote: »

If a characteristic of a superstate is running elections that span across states then wouldn't the European Parliament elections fit that condition?

The EU is not merely an association of states.

The problem is that it's unique. It's not a classical federal state on the US model and it's also not just a collection of sovereign states in a trade bloc either. It's got all sorts of concepts of pooled sovereignty and cooperation in systems that don't exist in any other context.

I think one of the big errors is assuming the EU has to be one of two things or has to reflect existing federal systems. It doesn't. It is what it is and I think that's part of the problem with discussing it - a lot of commentators try to make it the US of E. That's not necessarily where it's headed. It's a hybrid model and it's also its own unique system.

Sam Russell

Sam Russell wrote: »

We have had 11 commissioners to date - 7 FF 4 FG. Now all have been good at what they were required to do, and few had poor or low status portfolios. All were in public political life, and none have disgraced themselves. Peter Sutherland was noteworthy, as was Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, but most performed very well.

How could we improve on that record by having a public vote?

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Even P "try it sometime" Flynn?

Actually, in EU terms, he is thought of as quite a good commissioner, but not so much here.

tuxy

I take it her whips have informed her that they have failed to get Tory MPs to vote for her deal and if the vote goes ahead it will be a massive embarrassment to both her and the Tory party?

MrMusician18

Leroy42 wrote: »

Is that a characteristic of a superstate? Where did you get that from?

Perhaps if you checked the post I was quoting

MrMusician18

Anteayer wrote: »

The problem is that it's unique. It's not a classical federal state on the US model and it's also not just a collection of sovereign states in a trade bloc either. It's got all sorts of concepts of pooled sovereignty and cooperation in systems that don't exist in any other context.

I think one of the big errors is assuming the EU has to be one of two things or has to reflect existing federal systems. It doesn't. It is what it is and I think that's part of the problem with discussing it - a lot of commentators try to make it the US of E. That's not necessarily where it's headed. It's a hybrid model and it's also its own unique system.

Is the direction of travel for more or less pooling of sovereignty?

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is she going for though?

Apparently there was a belief in the EU that an agreement on wording or whatever was more or less done at the weekend, but once the UK team got back to London it was nixed as the say, overruled by her own government. Hence what's happening at the moment.
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1105121191302443008

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

Apparently there was a belief in the EU that an agreement on wording or whatever was more or less done at the weekend, but once the UK team got back to London it was nixed as the say, overruled by her own government. Hence what's happening at the moment.
https://twitter.com/JenniferMerode/status/1105121191302443008

is she not much more than a go between at this stage?

she's seriously reduced the credibility of the office of PM... a message carrier.

Anteayer

The issue is does she ask for an extension or does she just let it all collapse in a heap?

briany

Anteayer wrote: »

The issue is does she ask for an extension or does she just let it all collapse in a heap?

Well, I'm hearing people say that if tomorrow and Wed's votes fail, the UK will at least need to ask for an extension in order to avoid short-term chaos. A buffer of a few months for the HoC to pass the legislation needed to soften that hard exit.

But France say they would block an extension bid that has no clear objective. The objective of getting extra time to pass some laws mightn't cut it for France. If that happens, May's only remaining option is to run a vote on her Brexit deal a 3rd time. This could be on the day before Brexit day :eek: .

An Ciarraioch

http://twitter.com/Peston/status/1105132169834442752

http://twitter.com/Peston/status/1105132947944939520

ancapailldorcha

Anteayer wrote: »

The issue is does she ask for an extension or does she just let it all collapse in a heap?

Asking for an extension isn't straightforward. Firstly, all EU27 states must agree. Secondly, what for? A few extra months isn't a lot of time and probably insufficient to get the 400-odd statutory instruments through Parliament. The EU isn't going to go for this simply to let the Tories continue bickering with each other.

The Tories need to avoid a hard Brexit. It might be in the interest of money men like Jacob Rees-Mogg but it'll destroy their party utterly. There's a reason why May has clung to her deal with Badger-like tenacity. The Tories have sacrificed much that isn't theirs to keep their party together. They're not about to give up now.

If she loses another vote on her deal, the only recourse is either an extension or going back to the electorate. The former will only happen if she can justify it. I read recently that the ERG may be softening but I can't recall where. It probably wouldn't be enough on its own to get the WA through the Commons.

Leroy42

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Perhaps if you checked the post I was quoting

I did see it. The post you quoted state the Eu was not a superstate.

To which you replied that

If a characteristic of a superstate is running elections that span across states then wouldn't the European Parliament elections fit that condition?

I merely asked on what basis you are claiming that running elections across states makes something a superstate, and thus meets the condition of a superstate.

Would anyone else absolutely love if the EU negotiating team gave her what she wanted, and then the Council rejected it?

You'd have the entire UK talking about what a shambles the EU is, for doing the exact same thing they've been doing.

mrbrianj

Why agree to an extension of A50? it may be in the UK's interest and whilst it would be in Ireland's interest, the EU as a whole has little to gain.

It will serve little purpose, only to allow the UK to get ready of their breakaway - their failure to do so already given they triggered A50 is bizzare, and from the outside there appears little chance of change of direction in the UK anyway. In fact it will only serve to extend the uncertainty around business investments and hamper the up coming EU elections.

At the moment the UK is an equal trading partner, they are a big economy that is important for the Eu to trade with, But THEY are the ones that want a new trading status that will see them on the wrong side of an unequal partnership. There must be a train of thinking in the EU that says bring it on, everybody has had enough of HoC's grand standing for the English tabloids.

Calina

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Would anyone else absolutely love if the EU negotiating team gave her what she wanted, and then the Council rejected it?

You'd have the entire UK talking about what a shambles the EU is, for doing the exact same thing they've been doing.

No. It would be a profoundly stupid thing to do.

Fundamentally, the UK does not do self awareness. Reality however will force some element on them. End of day, EU has high moral ground.

Keeping it is important. The UK and its media is completely irrational. Handing them a weapon is an extremely bad idea.

So no, I would not love it.

Leroy42

It does appear that the EU is trying its very best to get something that the UK can live with. I do wonder, nay worry, just how far they will go in pursuit of a deal.

IMO, this has been the UK's plan all along. Keep holding back and get little increments here and there such that a deal is so close as to simply wear people down and the possibility of No Deal, when things are so close, is simply too much to take and the UK gets, at least in part, what it wants.

I think it would be a massive mistake by the EU, and not solve any of the problems. It would be nothing more than kicking the can down the road.

Hurrache

Leroy42 wrote: »

It does appear that the EU is trying its very best to get something that the UK can live with. I do wonder, nay worry, just how far they will go in pursuit of a deal.

IMO, this has been the UK's plan all along. Keep holding back and get little increments here and there such that a deal is so close as to simply wear people down and the possibility of No Deal, when things are so close, is simply too much to take and the UK gets, at least in part, what it wants.

I think it would be a massive mistake by the EU, and not solve any of the problems. It would be nothing more than kicking the can down the road.

They haven't got any changes to the WA that was agreed to last year.

CelticRambler

The focus today (or at least this afternoon) seems to be on the EU offering a form of words that satisfies TM's inner sanctum. I can't see how this is going to change anything. The EU is not going to capitulate in any significant way on the WA, so any document that's brought back to Westminster by TM will be pretty insipid, and unlikely to satisfy the Brexiteers. Most of them have proven themselves incapable of reading what's written (e.g. the number of times we're told that the backstop is "permanent" even though the exit mechanism is laid out in black and white); and with more of an interest in clobbering the government, Labour will - quite rightly - point out that "nothing has changed" in the WA.

Seems like an awful lot of carbon credits being burnt on cross-Channel travel for no good reason.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

It does appear that the EU is trying its very best to get something that the UK can live with. I do wonder, nay worry, just how far they will go in pursuit of a deal.

IMO, this has been the UK's plan all along. Keep holding back and get little increments here and there such that a deal is so close as to simply wear people down and the possibility of No Deal, when things are so close, is simply too much to take and the UK gets, at least in part, what it wants.

I think it would be a massive mistake by the EU, and not solve any of the problems. It would be nothing more than kicking the can down the road.

It very much does, doesn't it. The UK never negotiated with itself before calling the referendum or pulling the trigger. Then, in an effort to stamp her foot and impress her party's right wing, Theresa May drew her red lines which the EU have always tried to respect.

It all comes back to this slide from December 2017:



May drew these lines and now she is trapped within their confines.

Igotadose

Leroy42 wrote: »

It does appear that the EU is trying its very best to get something that the UK can live with. I do wonder, nay worry, just how far they will go in pursuit of a deal.

IMO, this has been the UK's plan all along. Keep holding back and get little increments here and there such that a deal is so close as to simply wear people down and the possibility of No Deal, when things are so close, is simply too much to take and the UK gets, at least in part, what it wants.

I think it would be a massive mistake by the EU, and not solve any of the problems. It would be nothing more than kicking the can down the road.

It appears that way, but what's the alternative - ground their planes and stop drug shipments on 1 April? Frankly, a week of that would probably get the UK back to the WA quickly, but the EU won't.

UK shouldn't get an extension without, as Leo Varadkar said, offering something in compromise - like a referendum to decide no Brexit or WA-based (NI only backstop, UK-wide backstop). Otherwise, enjoy life with grounded airplanes, strangled supply lines, citizens living overseas losing their local rights, etc etc.

An Ciarraioch

A deliberate ambiguity in the service reading today?

http://twitter.com/wabbey/status/1105131045916237824

Leroy42

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It all comes back to this slide from December 2017:



May drew these lines and now she is trapped within their confines.

Sorry, I know we have covered this lots on here but for some reason I can't work it out.

On that slide, wouldn't Norway require FOM? So not really understanding it (and apologies I know this has been covered and I am asking a really stupid question here but indulge me please).

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, I know we have covered this lots on here but for some reason I can't work it out.

On that slide, wouldn't Norway require FOM? So not really understanding it (and apologies I know this has been covered and I am asking a really stupid question here but indulge me please).

The Norwegian flag is in the first set in the top left, just beside that of the EU along with those of Liechtenstein and Iceland. Below, it states "No free movement".

It is in the Single Market but not the customs union so there are checks on goods going between Norway and Sweden. However, it must abide by EU rules without having a say in their making, pay into the EU's budget and accept free movement.

You might enjoy CGP Grey's take on it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agZ0xISi40E

tuxy

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, I know we have covered this lots on here but for some reason I can't work it out.

On that slide, wouldn't Norway require FOM? So not really understanding it (and apologies I know this has been covered and I am asking a really stupid question here but indulge me please).

That diagram shows why models have been ruled out because of the UKs red lines so it is showing why the Norway model was ruled out.
It then moves on to the net model and shows why that can't work.

Leroy42

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the responses (and the lack of questions about my ability to read!)

johnnyskeleton

Leroy42 wrote: »

Sorry, I know we have covered this lots on here but for some reason I can't work it out.

On that slide, wouldn't Norway require FOM? So not really understanding it (and apologies I know this has been covered and I am asking a really stupid question here but indulge me please).

The points in blue are the UK's red lines. So a Norway deal would involve Free Movement of Persons, so the deal falls because a red line is "No free movement".

One use of that document is to show that the UK's red lines will lead to at best a Canada style goods free trade agreement, or a no deal scenario.

However, another way of looking at it is that they have identified what the UK has to move on in order to secure a better deal if they want it. If they are prepared to allow free movement, accept ECJ authority, pay a contribution and abandon regulatory autonomy, then they can ave a Norway deal tomorrow.

tuxy

The Canada model would require dumping the GFA so should probably be shown as a red line for both the UK and EU.

An Ciarraioch

May has just left for Strasbourg.

MrMusician18

First Up wrote: »

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the EU is and how it works. It is an association of sovereign states, not a superstate.

It is ironic that the EU is accused in some quarters of threatening to become a superstate, while others criticise it for failing to introduce EU wide voting - which is the essence of a superstate.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I did see it. The post you quoted state the Eu was not a superstate.

To which you replied that

I merely asked on what basis you are claiming that running elections across states makes something a superstate, and thus meets the condition of a superstate.

You seem to have missed First Ups point. He said that if there were EU wide voting, that would give it the essence of a superstate.

I point out that we do have EU wide voting in the form of EU elections so surely that gives it the essence of a super state.