Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

I think we can all agree that Johnson's ascent to Prime Minister has had, and will have, profound benefits for the UK. He appears to be making a solid commitment to northern constituencies that voted for him. His NHS spending pledge is welcomed. His commitment to getting Brexit done is also welcomed; it signals the end of this torturous and divisive debate over the past 3.5-years.

It may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what's happened over the past 3.5-years.

If Corbyn attained power, the divisive Brexit issue - and the division within his own party - would have continued. Add to that a Scottish independence referendum and you have a recipe for utter disaster.

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

However when, as per the rules, the candidate is put before the Parliament at that point it is the only candidate. To compare this with a national democracy, imagine that during our presidential election here, the electorate was presented with just one presidential candidate that it could accept or reject.

You are aware that on more than one occasion, an Irish president has been elected unopposed because no other candidate has been nominated?

Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh had no opponents as all parties represented in the Dáil agreed to nominate him jointly, Patrick Hillery was elected unopposed after the resignation of Ó Dálaigh, he was then re-elected to a second term, also unopposed, as was Mary McAleese in 2004.

sondagefaux

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

You can tell the UK's regional Assembly all about that

Which one?

sondagefaux

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we can all agree that Johnson's ascent to Prime Minister has had, and will have, profound benefits for the UK. He appears to be making a solid commitment to northern constituencies that voted for him. His NHS spending pledge is welcomed. His commitment to getting Brexit done is also welcomed; it signals the end of this torturous and divisive debate over the past 3.5-years.

It may not be perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than what's happened over the past 3.5-years.

If Corbyn attained power, the divisive Brexit issue - and the division within his own party - would have continued. Add to that a Scottish independence referendum and you have a recipe for utter disaster.

Good old 'do or die (in a ditch)' Johnson, never known to have told a lie or broken a promise...

Yes, it would have been terrible if the people of the UK had been given a democratic choice to change their minds about Brexit. And it also would have been terrible for Scottish democracy for Scotland to have been allowed to vote again on independence. :rolleyes:

A vote that is much more likely to be in favour of independence when, not if, Scotland votes again, after several years of Tory rule and having a hard Brexit imposed on them.

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

You are aware that on more than one occasion, an Irish president has been elected unopposed because no other candidate has been nominated?

Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh had no opponents as all parties represented in the Dáil agreed to nominate him jointly, Patrick Hillery was elected unopposed after the resignation of Ó Dálaigh, he was then re-elected to a second term, also unopposed, as was Mary McAleese in 2004.

Not the same thing however. Yes, occasionally, the President is elected unopposed (any such electoral system must allow for unopposed candidates) but the system allows for multiple candidates. It is not like each time only one candidate can be presented to the electorate.

Nody

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is he saying that the EU must do a deal because theyre under pressure, while simultaneously saying that they have been stalling to put the pressure on the UK? Who exactly does he think time limits put pressure on? Or does he think the Tory victory makes a jot of difference to the EU? It must be so difficult trying to keep your story straight as a Brexiteer.

Not really; no matter the question or issue it's EU's fault (delay, obstinate, refusing to cooperate, see the big picture, talk details etc.) and if challenged on that view you tell them EU needs us more than we need them because German cars and Italian cheeses.

Nody

Nody wrote: »

Not really; no matter the question or issue it's EU's fault (delay, obstinate, refusing to cooperate, see the big picture, talk details etc.) and if challenged on that view you tell them EU needs us more than we need them because German cars and Italian cheeses.

Why should the UK or EU punish itself over the decision of an electorate?

If the UK electorate opt to Brexit, why should the UK or EU become hostile in any such manner?

I fail to see why. What's the problem with accepting a democratic result and working together toward a more positive future from both ends?

In summary, why does it have to be "all or nothing"?

McGiver

Bit cynical wrote:

True, however at the same time no law can be enacted without first being proposed by the Commission as the has the sole power to propose legislation.

Nope.

Where EU laws and policies come from

The Commission proposes laws and policies on its own initiative. It can also respond to invitations to do so from:

European Council (heads of state or government of each EU country)

Council of the European Union (government ministers from each EU country)

European Parliament (directly elected by EU citizens)

Citizens themselves, following a successful European Citizens’ Initiative

Bit cynical

McGiver wrote: »

Nope.

But it is only a formal proposal when the Commission makes it so. Only then does the legislative process start. The Parliament can't initiate and pass legislation on its own accord.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why should the UK or EU punish itself over the decision of an electorate?

If the UK electorate opt to Brexit, why should the UK or EU become hostile in any such manner?

I fail to see why. What's the problem with accepting a democratic result and working together toward a more positive future from both ends?

In summary, why does it have to be "all or nothing"?

In your view being punished is not getting all the rights and access of full membership whilst being a third country.

It's the smugness of the UK that will bring them down. They aren't members they will be treated as such. There's not cherry picking without massive concessions just like any third country.

Live with third country status and stop complaining about it

LuckyLloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Why should the UK or EU punish itself over the decision of an electorate?

If the UK electorate opt to Brexit, why should the UK or EU become hostile in any such manner?

I fail to see why. What's the problem with accepting a democratic result and working together toward a more positive future from both ends?

In summary, why does it have to be "all or nothing"?

Why would a club extend the benefits of club membership to non members? The U.K. may negotiate something akin to benefits previously held as members, but they will have to offer things in return for same. You need service access, we’ll have your fish. That sort of thing.

ambro25

Deleted User wrote: »

Why should the UK or EU punish itself over the decision of an electorate?

If the UK electorate opt to Brexit, why should the UK or EU become hostile in any such manner?

I fail to see why. What's the problem with accepting a democratic result and working together toward a more positive future from both ends?

In summary, why does it have to be "all or nothing"?

I would suggest that you ask the side which you support, i.e. the hardline Tories, ERG types and their like: they're the side still pushing for cakeism (aka "all or for nothing"), not the EU27.

Do that first, then we can start discussing 'hostility', and whether refusing ill-founded negotiating demands amounts to such, by comparison to insults and rethoric by the supertanker-load for close to 4 years.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

I fail to see why. What's the problem with accepting a democratic result and working together toward a more positive future from both ends?

Tell me exactly what that democratic result was for? Exactly what kind of brexit did all 17,410,742 people vote for?

Dytalus

Bit cynical wrote: »

But it is only a formal proposal when the Commission makes it so. Only then does the legislative process start. The Parliament can't initiate and pass legislation on its own accord.

I've already explained why it's important that legislative initiative remain in the Commission's hands, unless you want to shift the structure of the EU to a more federal-like one.

Like Ireland with the Dáil and Seanad, EU laws must pass two "bodies" (actually three, but the Council of Ministers and Parliament both occupy the same 'level' of negotiations to grossly simplify the system). They simply 'start' at the Commission (again, simplifying since as pointed out they regularly take direction from other sources) which is Member State controlled in its makeup.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the problem with accepting a democratic result and working together toward a more positive future from both ends?

The EU has always accepted the UK "democratic" result - which has been to consider the EU as a hostile institution that undermines the True Britishness of England; it's pretty damn difficult to work together towards a positive future when the UK elected a government that insisted (like yourself, on this very forum) that we foreign-resident Europeans are part of a 500-million strong horde trying to invade your damp island and usurp your culture (most of which you've absorbed from us continentals and your faraway colonies).

27 countries (with others on a waiting list to join) have decided that the most positive future is one where we work and play together, according to the same rules. England has decided it doesn't want to play by the same rules, and it only wants to play away, so what point do you think we could work towards? You made your democratic Tory bed - enjoy lying [sic] in it.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

I think we can all agree

No, you don't, not for a second.

If Corbyn attained power, the divisive Brexit issue - and the division within his own party - would have continued.

It is going to continue for the next 10 or 20 years no matter who is in charge.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

What's the problem with accepting a democratic result and working together toward a more positive future from both ends?

I don't see anything else in the EU's approach to the whole question, and I'm sure they will be quick to offer Johnson a deal similar to the one Canada negotiated, and in a lot less time.

It might even be ratified and in force by as soon as 2025!

The country ruling out an extension when all logic says any productive and pragmatic trade talks would take a few years is the one taking an all or nothing approach. Nothing is No Deal. Only one side has ever talked about it.

Kermit.de.frog

Boris Johnson has just said there will be no alignment with any EU rules post Brexit.

This means as hard a custom border in the Irish sea as you can get.

He also says the UK will negotiate as "sovereign equals". The EU is not a sovereign entity so i'm not sure what that even means.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

He also says the UK will negotiate as "sovereign equals". The EU is not a sovereign entity so i'm not sure what that even means.

This is Johnson fighting the domestic UK/internal Tory battle he has already won - exactly the same as Trump harping on about his 2016 victory when he's facing a new challenge before the end of next year. There's obviously a chapter about this in the Bannon-Cummings Electoral Strategy book ... but I'll be damned if I know what the logic is.

beggars_bush

Has already shown you cannot trust the PM

RobMc59

CelticRambler wrote: »

The EU has always accepted the UK "democratic" result - which has been to consider the EU as a hostile institution that undermines the True Britishness of England; it's pretty damn difficult to work together towards a positive future when the UK elected a government that insisted (like yourself, on this very forum) that we foreign-resident Europeans are part of a 500-million strong horde trying to invade your damp island and usurp your culture (most of which you've absorbed from us continentals and your faraway colonies).

27 countries (with others on a waiting list to join) have decided that the most positive future is one where we work and play together, according to the same rules. England has decided it doesn't want to play by the same rules, and it only wants to play away, so what point do you think we could work towards? You made your democratic Tory bed - enjoy lying [sic] in it.

The advantages of Ireland being part of the EU are obvious for all to see.
It's equally obvious Johnson and co believe the UK can prosper by going it alone.Britain can't hurt the EU but if they do prosper that is a problem for the EU as others will want 'a piece of the action'.
Personally,I don't see any advantage to leaving the EU and the thought of a closer trading relationship with the US is chilling-in the early days of WW2 Britain was forced to pay dearly for US help-the 'special relationship'is a myth.

First Up

CelticRambler wrote:

This is Johnson fighting the domestic UK/internal Tory battle he has already won - exactly the same as Trump harping on about his 2016 victory when he's facing a new challenge before the end of next year. There's obviously a chapter about this in the Bannon-Cummings Electoral Strategy book ... but I'll be damned if I know what the logic is.

The stuff about the negotiation deadline is just a sop to the ERG to get them onside for today's vote. Boris wants a united Tory front.

If the negotiations on the future relations don't go well (as they very well might) they can vote to reverse the deadline.

Kermit.de.frog

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Boris Johnson has just said there will be no alignment with any EU rules post Brexit.

This means as hard a custom border in the Irish sea as you can get.

He also says the UK will negotiate as "sovereign equals". The EU is not a sovereign entity so i'm not sure what that even means.

Would I be right in saying he no alignment thing is needed to make other deals with the US or whatever?

Because I don't see any particular mandate for a change and I don't think the electorate had that in mind as part of their vote. Do any of us actually know any detail at all on that sort of thing..

It will be interesting to see which major block of country the UK signs a deal with and presumably sets new standards.

Shelga

What is he playing at? No alignment with EU, but in the same breath saying a free trade agreement will be done within a year?

But it’s what the people voted for...

First Up

Shelga wrote:

But it’s what the people voted for...

They don't know what they voted for so they won't be too upset when they don't get it.

briany

RobMc59 wrote: »

The advantages of Ireland being part of the EU are obvious for all to see.
It's equally obvious Johnson and co believe the UK can prosper by going it alone.Britain can't hurt the EU but if they do prosper that is a problem for the EU as others will want 'a piece of the action'.
Personally,I don't see any advantage to leaving the EU and the thought of a closer trading relationship with the US is chilling-in the early days of WW2 Britain was forced to pay dearly for US help-the 'special relationship'is a myth.

There has to be either cognitive dissonance going on, or just flat-out lying. The current UK regime is gung-ho to do an FTA with a country whose leader has literally said, "It's America first, folks! It's AMERICA. FIRST." Trump's erstwhile adviser, Steve Bannon, has talked proudly about this policy, referring to it as 'economic nationalism.

It's not that every country shouldn't have it's own economic interests at heart, but this combative stance from the U.S. doesn't just suggest self-interest. It signifies a desire for revenge for all the years that the public feel like they've been sold out, whereby manufacturing was moved abroad. That's who the UK would be doing a deal with - the U.S. would be looking to wring every bit of advantage out of the deal that they can get away with. The U.K. just isn't going to be in a position to get an even cut.

If Merkel came out and said, "It's Germany, first!" there'd be bedlam among the UK tabloids. But when Trump says it, it's relative crickets. There's an element of hypocrisy there which signifies a rather obvious agenda.

Professor Moriarty

Shelga wrote: »

What is he playing at? No alignment with EU, but in the same breath saying a free trade agreement will be done within a year?

But it’s what the people voted for...

43% of the people voted Tory. Yet polling shows that people increasingly want to remain. The last 5 polls Nov/Dec average:
54% Remain
46% Leave

The previous 5 polls Sep/Oct averaged:
52% Remain
48% Leave.

Of course that Leave number contains hard and soft Leavers. So, on Brexit, there is clear blue water developing between a large majority of people and this hard Brexit Tory government.

Zubeneschamali

CelticRambler wrote: »

I'll be damned if I know what the logic is.

I think there are at least 40 ERG heads in the Conservative Parliamentary party. Johnson has to keep them onside until the WA is passed or they might vote against it and the UK is back in crash out mode for January.

Letwin_Larry

Paisley looks a bit silly arguing against the WA now, and how it will create an impediment to trade between NI & GB.