Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 11-20-2018, 09:29 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
American: I got 83% no deal, 78% Canada Plus, 65% Government's Deal, 30% Norway Deal, and 19% Remain.

Some of those questions amazed me. Why wouldn't a sovereign country like the UK want absolute authority to conduct activities within their own borders and not pay for EU domination?

Why can't the EU simply be a free trade zone without all of the extra bureaucracy? The U.S. would vote such a thing down 90-10.
Far from voting such a thing down, the US is such a thing.
  #202  
Old 11-20-2018, 09:39 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,961
Exactly. Why would the sovereign state of West Virginia, to take one example, be willing to surrender any of its sovereignty to Washington? What benefits does West Virginia from surrendering its sovereignty like it has?
  #203  
Old 11-20-2018, 11:22 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,297
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
For those interested, there's a Brexit quiz to see which deal you would prefer.
Innnnteresting. Also a Murrican, I was 63% Remain, 50% Approval of the Government's deal, 56% Canada Plus, 56% Norway Deal, and 38% No Deal.
  #204  
Old 11-21-2018, 04:33 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
Far from voting such a thing down, the US is such a thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
Exactly. Why would the sovereign state of West Virginia, to take one example, be willing to surrender any of its sovereignty to Washington? What benefits does West Virginia from surrendering its sovereignty like it has?
Very nice. I guess I understand, but it seems different. In the US, the states were small and subject to attack from larger outside forces...like the UK.

However England/UK dominated the world for centuries and has been independent for a long time. I could see how it could agree that a free trade zone of some type was beneficial to them, but such a surrender of sovereignty seems, well, foreign to me.

For example, I read somewhere (no cite) that the EU requires member-states to ban the death penalty. Without debating that subject, why would the EU becoming so demanding on a such a subject that seems to me to be one wholly internal to the member-states. Even if you were a harsh DP abolitionist, wouldn't you still like to make that decision in London, thank you very much?
  #205  
Old 11-21-2018, 04:41 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Without debating that subject, why would the EU becoming so demanding on a such a subject that seems to me to be one wholly internal to the member-states.
Because the countries have agreed that the subject of fundamental human rights, which they have decided includes non-use of capital punishment, is not a wholly internal matter.

And other parts of the union wouldn't work very well if that hadn't happened. For instance, the member states have agreed to mandatory extradition of criminal suspects, exchanges of intelligence between law enforcement agencies, etc. That wouldn't work very well if there were no guarantees about what the other party could do.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-21-2018 at 04:46 AM.
  #206  
Old 11-21-2018, 05:03 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Because the countries have agreed that the subject of fundamental human rights, which they have decided includes non-use of capital punishment, is not a wholly internal matter.

And other parts of the union wouldn't work very well if that hadn't happened. For instance, the member states have agreed to mandatory extradition of criminal suspects, exchanges of intelligence between law enforcement agencies, etc. That wouldn't work very well if there were no guarantees about what the other party could do.
Your second paragraph works well in the United States even though some have the DP and others do not.

But again, not to debate the DP, however I think that is what started down the road to Brexit. The DP is a human rights issue, so no member-state can have it. Then the next issue is very important so all member-states must do it. And so forth with the next issue, the next, and the next.

If the EU would have stayed simple, I don't believe there would have been such a backlash against it in the UK.
  #207  
Old 11-21-2018, 07:11 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
Spain doesn't have a veto over the Withdrawal Agreement now being discussed.

They've been promised (by the EU) a veto over the application to Gibraltar of the future relationship agreement (talks about which have barely commenced).

This is a political commitment by the EU, not an entrenched legal right.
A Spanish veto may not be a legal right, but it is a clear political right which was granted to Spain by the EU.

The EU guidelines were leaked in March this year:

The EU gives Spain a Brexit deal veto over Gibraltar in leaked guidelines

Germany and France also don't have a legal veto, but as a political reality, no deal will go through unless Germany and France approve it. The EU wants above all to show unity over Brexit. They don't want an agreement forced through against the will of countries with a stake in the outcome.
  #208  
Old 11-21-2018, 07:17 AM
Steophan Steophan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 8,706
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
If the EU would have stayed simple, I don't believe there would have been such a backlash against it in the UK.
You're right that this is one of the main issues with the EU, and one of the main objections to it (the bloody foreigners steiling are jerbs one is a minor one overall). But regardless of what you or I might want, countries are not economically or socially isolated these days, and what happens in other countries massively affects what happens in yours. So some level of cooperation and compromise is necessary, as is some level of similarity. Giving up a huge part of our economy just to take human rights laws in house, and make a few minor changes, seems to me to be massively unbalanced.

I'd like a stronger economic and weaker political union, but that's not an option right now, and is unlikely to ever be one. Of the options available, it's clear that leaving the EU, under whatever circumstances, will cause great harm to the UK. It's my opinion that nothing we could gain could outweigh that harm. It's possible that someone could believe that the gains could be worth it, but since the leavers have spent all their time lying about the harm that will be done, it's hard to say whether anyone actually does believe that.
  #209  
Old 11-21-2018, 07:32 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,151
Capital punishment, etc. is certainly an issue, but it is not the foundation of the EU, or even particularly important compared to other matters.

The basis of the EU is the four freedoms:

- Free movement of people and workers among countries
- Free movement of goods
- Free movement of capital
- Freedom to establish and provide services

This means that there must be overall standards, regulations, and legal procedures that apply across all member countries.

There can't be different standards if you want a level playing field for goods and services. e.g. If a product can only be manufactured with high safety standards in one country, and can be manufactured more cheaply with lower standards in another country and freely imported without customs checks, this is obviously not going to work.

There are many complex issues that are regulated centrally, and the advantage is the free flow of goods, services, labour, and capital within the EU.
  #210  
Old 11-21-2018, 07:34 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Your second paragraph works well in the United States even though some have the DP and others do not.
A similar provision really didn't work well, though. It was in the same section of the Constitution, and similar in structure, but it referred to slaves rather than criminal suspects, and it caused an actual war.

But the death penalty stuff is actually very minor. It was easy to include because everyone was already doing it. Other human rights stuff does cause occasional aggravation, though.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 11-21-2018 at 07:37 AM.
  #211  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:12 AM
gracer gracer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK & Netherlands for now.
Posts: 2,806
I think the death penalty is quite a bad example of something members states could decide for themselves. They probably could decide for themselves and the union would still function, although it is necessary for human rights to be respected similarly for reasons of labour laws and competitive advantages for countries more willing to exploit people and extradition and such.

But the death penalty seems to me like a nice, quick test on if there is any point at all in joining our club. If you want to join badly enough to change that, then come on in. If you want to cling to this barbaric practice then we're just never going to see eye to eye on other important stuff. We're too different. That's fine, we'll do regular trade and we can all be in the Olympics but you can't be in our union.

It's a good test precisely because the member states, by and large, don't disagree on this fundamental issue. It seems like exactly the sort of thing an American would object to, but then you don't want to be in our union so that's fine. It's a nice and easy deal breaker. Like not dating smokers or people who have dogs or something - if that's not what you want then be up front and clear about it!

I don't think Brexit is happening because people want the death penalty (except for some fringe nutters). I think (one reason) Brexit is happening because politicians have lied about being forced by Brussels to pass certain unpopular measures, when it was their own decision.
  #212  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:12 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Some of those questions amazed me. Why wouldn't a sovereign country like the UK want absolute authority to conduct activities within their own borders and not pay for EU domination?
"Domination"?

The UK has benefitted - and continues to benefit - from EU membership economically, politically and culturally. When one strips away the emotive language and looks at the reality of it, the UK will lose far more from Brexit than it gains.
  #213  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:34 AM
Fake Tales of San Francisco Fake Tales of San Francisco is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
England/UK dominated the world for centuries and has been independent for a long time. I could see how it could agree that a free trade zone of some type was beneficial to them, but such a surrender of sovereignty seems, well, foreign to me.
48.1% of us recognise we are no longer an empire, aren't as great as we seem to think we are, and that being part of a larger community is ultimately for the greater good.

When the UK dominated the world, we weren't exactly the good guys.
  #214  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:45 AM
filmstar-en filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 872
The EU started as a treaty organisation focusing on trade between European countries. It started as a deal between France, West Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg to co-ordinate Coal and Steel production. The general idea was that countries bound by trade links have a vested interest in compromise and negotiation rather than military conflict. It made a lot of sense after WW2. All these countries had been invaded by Germany and this was a good way of keeping an eye on its industrial production.

The UK tried to join on several occasions, but its application was vetoed by that towering figure of French politics, General DeGaulle. Who regarded the UK, with its imperial trade links and its close relationship with the US as being politically and economically incompatible with European integration. British policy had traditionally been to oppose the domination of Europe by any one power and in the post war years it was busy trying to hold on to its empire.

DeGaulle died in 1970 and the UK joined what was then called the 'Common Market' in 1973 and so began a difficult relationship. The political trajectory of the European Union is towards 'ever closer integration'. Sometimes they would use, what in the UK politics was called the 'F' word. Federalism.

The European Union has adopted several of the features of super state. Single currency, Free mobility of labour, Free Trade between members. The extends to agreeing conditions for membership that reference the democracy and human rights. These become elements of a constitution. Indeed, there was a move to replace the complex set of interstate treaties with a written constitution. That failed because some states required such a change to their laws to be endorsed by referendum. Interestingly it was an Irish Referendum stopped it. The intention was to make the EU more of a democracy. It remains a contradiction that the EU probably would not accept itself as a new member.

Nonetheless European integration continues, mainly at an economic level. It has enabled Europe wide supply chains to develop for manufacturing and many pan Europeans collaborations: Airbus in aviation, ESA for rocket launchers. It has enabled pan european Big Science projects. Common standards and tariffs for for important businesses like Telecoms, Pharma, etc. Politically, and of particular interest to Germany was the economic support and stabilisation of the former Soviet Satellite states. This is something like a Marshal Plan following the fall of the Soviet Union. The single market is now about 500million people in 28 countries. It negotiates trade treaties with the many other countries and economic blocks.

Membership costs approximately 1% of GDP. This is not much to pay for access to huge trading market.

Despite these positives, in the UK the impression of the EU has generally been wholly negative. While in Europe the general attitude is that the EU is a good thing. In the UK it has always been the target for attack, especially from the Conservative party and right wing press. Each member state can elect members of the European Parliament according to its population size. In the UK there was a great lack of interest in this an it was used as an anti-authority protest vote. Electing characters like Nigel Farage and the UKIP party or others further to the Alt-Right who did little more than collect their expenses and make the odd speech in which they expressed contempt for the European institution to which they were elected.

UK politicians of all parties took the position that they 'will be tough on Europe' and they try to appease emotional concerns about uncontrolled immigration. The Brexit vote to leave did not come as any sort of surprise to many observers.

The US is a super state with Federal system of government that has been developed over a couple of centuries. Its economy has an enviable flexibility, it has free mobility of labour, a single currency, national standards, free mobility of capital. The EU is simply trying to achieve the same thing and finding it difficult. In the US finding the balance between States rights and the authority of the Federal government has not been easy and it remains a bone of contention.

The EU hasn't really had an economy the size of the UK leave before. As one of the major contributors to the EU budget, others will have to make up the shortfall. That burden will fall on France and Germany. For the UK, it has the not inconsiderable task of negotiating new trading arrangements with the EU and many other countries.

I am trying to think of an equivalent with the US. Maybe if a contributor the size of the California economy seceded from the Union. It would blow a big hole in the Federal budget and then, there would have to some new deal with the US and lots of other deals with Pacific rim countries.

The UK will be paying the EU for some years to come if it wants access to the single market. But it won't have any say in the decision making. I am looking forward to our UK politicians reaching out to the rest of the world trying to cut trade deals as best they can. Best of luck with that.
  #215  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:47 AM
AK84 AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 15,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Because the countries have agreed that the subject of fundamental human rights, which they have decided includes non-use of capital punishment, is not a wholly internal matter.
The European Convention of Human Rights and the Council of Europe are separate from the EU (although since the Lisbon Treaty, the Union and all its members are part of it).

As it is on the issue of the Death Penalty, there are two Protocols, Protocol 5 and Protocol 13. The latter is optional and deals with wartime DP use for crimes like treason and sedition.
I think it was only this year that all EU Member States ratified Protocol 13. Before that, several had Capital punishment on the books for treason and wartime offences and were member states in good standing.

While politically of course, executing, Tim, Tomaz or Toni Traitor would be iffy, certainly its not and never beem a bar to membership.
  #216  
Old 11-21-2018, 09:18 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz Quartz is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 30,074
I've given up on reading the Brexit agreement.
  #217  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:42 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,859
In process news, it looks like newly reinstated Cabinet Minister Amber Rudd has torpedoed the already slim chances of the WA passing Parliament on its first attempt.

The only prospect for success that the WA had was that MPs who didn't like it had an even stronger dislike of No Deal, and might therefore grit their teeth and pass the WA purely to avoid No Deal. Specifically, while Tory MPs who don't like it split between those who would take No Deal and those who want No Brexit, Labour MPs are much more skewed towards "any deal better than no deal"; peeling these off Labour could in theory get the WA over the line. But they'd have to believe that a) No Deal was the likely outcome of derailing the WA and b) that by voting against their party they could save the WA. No point in rebelling just to help May lose by less.

Amber Rudd, interviewed this morning, suggested that there was no Parliamentary majority for No Deal (probably true) and that therefore Parliament could be relied on to stop No Deal in the event the WA failed (how?). This kind of throws a spanner in the works of the government's plan to get the WA through, because it suggests to MPs afraid of No Deal that they can vote down the WA and still avoid crashing out of the EU in March. In fact ,when challenged on this during PMQs, May said that voting down the deal would lead to uncertainty and could mean "no Brexit at all".

If this is a plan, it would seem that May and her advisors think they can win Hard Brexit types over to the WA by threatening them with No Brexit - a reverse of the strategy above of winning Soft Brexit types over by threatening them with No Deal. Sadly for her, she can't brandish both threats at the same time. If it's a plan, the calculation must have been done that the votes she needs to win are the Hard Brexit ones.

It might not be a plan - in times of stress communications strategies break down and Rudd may have been doing no more than saying what she really thought. In which case, she's left May scrambling.
  #218  
Old 11-21-2018, 11:46 AM
Stanislaus Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I've given up on reading the Brexit agreement.
Don't blame you - there's a reason lawyers need to go through years of extra training to do wha they do. 585 page treaties written in dense legalese are not going to be digestible for a layperson.

(May has had fun scoring off Corbyn with the cheap point that he admitted he hadn't read it. Of course he hasn't. Neither has she. But Corbyn makes it easy for her by getting bits wrong - today on Northern Ireland regulations under the backstop - and he should of course have been well-briefed on the bits he's going to speak about.)
  #219  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:00 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
In process news, it looks like newly reinstated Cabinet Minister Amber Rudd has torpedoed the already slim chances of the WA passing Parliament on its first attempt.

The only prospect for success that the WA had was that MPs who didn't like it had an even stronger dislike of No Deal, and might therefore grit their teeth and pass the WA purely to avoid No Deal. Specifically, while Tory MPs who don't like it split between those who would take No Deal and those who want No Brexit, Labour MPs are much more skewed towards "any deal better than no deal"; peeling these off Labour could in theory get the WA over the line. But they'd have to believe that a) No Deal was the likely outcome of derailing the WA and b) that by voting against their party they could save the WA. No point in rebelling just to help May lose by less.

Amber Rudd, interviewed this morning, suggested that there was no Parliamentary majority for No Deal (probably true) and that therefore Parliament could be relied on to stop No Deal in the event the WA failed (how?). This kind of throws a spanner in the works of the government's plan to get the WA through, because it suggests to MPs afraid of No Deal that they can vote down the WA and still avoid crashing out of the EU in March. In fact ,when challenged on this during PMQs, May said that voting down the deal would lead to uncertainty and could mean "no Brexit at all".

If this is a plan, it would seem that May and her advisors think they can win Hard Brexit types over to the WA by threatening them with No Brexit - a reverse of the strategy above of winning Soft Brexit types over by threatening them with No Deal. Sadly for her, she can't brandish both threats at the same time. If it's a plan, the calculation must have been done that the votes she needs to win are the Hard Brexit ones.

It might not be a plan - in times of stress communications strategies break down and Rudd may have been doing no more than saying what she really thought. In which case, she's left May scrambling.
May has also been alluding to the possibility of rejecting the deal leading to Brexit being stymied altogether, so I think this is a communications strategy, not an error on Rudd's part.

But, you're right; it will be a difficult strategy to pull off. They have to simultaneously persuade ultra-Brexiters that voting down the deal is likely to lead to losing brexit altogether, and to persuade Remainers that voting down the deal is likely to lead to the hardest of hard crash-out brexits. Both of these things can't be true, and signals aimed at persuading one group to support the deal may also tend to stiffen the other group's resolve to oppose it.
  #220  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:02 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
"Domination"?

The UK has benefitted - and continues to benefit - from EU membership economically, politically and culturally. When one strips away the emotive language and looks at the reality of it, the UK will lose far more from Brexit than it gains.
Plus, the UK is hugely influential within the EU - something like 97% of EU decisions go the way the UK has voted, so (if you must analyze it in those terms) the UK gets its way over other countries much more often than other countries get their way over the UK.
  #221  
Old 11-21-2018, 08:08 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Very nice. I guess I understand, but it seems different. In the US, the states were small and subject to attack from larger outside forces...like the UK.

However England/UK dominated the world for centuries and has been independent for a long time. I could see how it could agree that a free trade zone of some type was beneficial to them, but such a surrender of sovereignty seems, well, foreign to me.

For example, I read somewhere (no cite) that the EU requires member-states to ban the death penalty. Without debating that subject, why would the EU becoming so demanding on a such a subject that seems to me to be one wholly internal to the member-states. Even if you were a harsh DP abolitionist, wouldn't you still like to make that decision in London, thank you very much?
The death penalty is an interesting example, though, because of course the US Constituion does ban "cruel and unusual punishment", and it's the Supreme Court that ultimate decides whether or when the death penalty is a cruel or unusual punishment. So the power to ban the death penalty does in fact reside with federal institutions; they merely haven't exercised it (yet).

Whereas in Europe, the prohibition on the death penalty is an explicity treaty obligation, freely undertaken by states which sign and ratify the European Convention on Human Rights. As it happens, in recent years accession to the ECHR has become a condition of membership of the EU, but this wasn't always so. The UK signed and ratified the ECHR, and abolished the death penalty, at a time when this was not a requirement for EU membership, and it did this of its own choice.

True, it couldn't now reintroduce the death penalty without violating its obligations as an EU member, but that is the result of an amendment to the EU treaties which, again, the UK signed and ratified of its own volition. It could have refused to agree to that amendment - any member state could have.
  #222  
Old 11-21-2018, 09:22 PM
Northern Piper Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back.
Posts: 27,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
Plus, the UK is hugely influential within the EU - something like 97% of EU decisions go the way the UK has voted, so (if you must analyze it in those terms) the UK gets its way over other countries much more often than other countries get their way over the UK.


That's obviously a sign of oppression by Brussels elites.

Anything less than 100% of the decisions going in favour of Britain is a clear sign the EU is broken.
  #223  
Old 11-21-2018, 09:54 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,297
Well, that at least has the advantage of being a bright-line rule....
  #224  
Old 11-21-2018, 10:05 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
A Spanish veto may not be a legal right, but it is a clear political right which was granted to Spain by the EU.

The EU guidelines were leaked in March this year:

The EU gives Spain a Brexit deal veto over Gibraltar in leaked guidelines

Germany and France also don't have a legal veto, but as a political reality, no deal will go through unless Germany and France approve it. The EU wants above all to show unity over Brexit. They don't want an agreement forced through against the will of countries with a stake in the outcome.
Nitpick 1: The EU guidelines that you mention were published in March this year. It's true that there were leaks two or three days before publication about some of what would be in them, but if your statement implies that we know about the guidelines because of the leaks, no; we know about them because they were published. You'll find them here:https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/p...23-march-2018/. They were always to be published. It was the UK side that was obsessive about "keeping our cards close to our chest" and "not showing our hand".

Nitpick 2: While those guidelines do refer to Gibraltar, the guarantee to Spain actually predates them: it was in guidelines published nearly a year previously, in April 2017, in these terms:

Quote:
After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom.
But, the main point; what Spain has been promised is that the future relationship agreement, to be negotiated after the UK leaves, won't apply to Gibraltar, except with Spanish (and UK) agreement. Both of these sets of guidelines deal with that future relationship agreement. But the text which has just been settled and which is about to be approved (or not) is not the future relationship agreement; it's the withdrawal agreement.

As I understand it, what Spain is now seeking is that the Withdrawal Agreement should reiterate the guarantee that it has already been given, and that still stands. This wouldn't change the guarantee; it would give it greater legal force (in addition to the political force that, as you rightly point out, it already has) and would secure UK acceptance of the position, since the UK will be a party to any Withdrawal Agreement.
  #225  
Old 11-22-2018, 02:30 AM
Sandwich Sandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sarf Lun'n
Posts: 401
This is all just dysfunctional political theatre. Brexit is a farce, a national humiliation which will dominate politics for years to come.

The time has already run out for any constructive action.

The ERG has realised that any challenge to Mrs May’s leadership of the Conservatives will weaken their cause, and hugely damage the party.

A general election would be a mess. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives could articulate a sensible manifesto, nor campaign effectively. The most likely outcome is a hung Parliament.

The EU is not going to offer a materially better or even different deal on the withdrawal terms.

Parliament, whether there is a general election or not, will not vote for a no deal Brexit. The EU will grant an extension to the Article 50 period beyond the end of March. No PM will take us out of the EU without a deal without Parliament’s explicit agreement. There will not be no deal.

No competent PM will grant a second referendum before the end of the Article 50 period. No matter what the question and no matter the pattern of votes cast, it could only make the situation in Parliament much worse.

All other things being equal, Parliament and Government would procrastinate. However, it occurs to me that there is a very effective backstop. If withdrawal is delayed into April, then every hour that passes will put more and more pressure on the Government and Parliament to just sign May’s withdrawal agreement. Since if it is not signed in early April, then both Labour and the Conservative parties would both have to set out their manifestos for the European elections at the end of May. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives could articulate any sort of policy for another European election. It would be carnage. The Liberals and UKIP would both be resurgent. Chaos would ensue.

No, Mrs May’s withdrawal agreement will be passed, no matter how many times Parliament votes against it first.

The UK will leave the EU in spring next year. With a humiliating deal which literally no one likes. Exhausted, embittered, hopelessly divided, with it’s politics ruined. All to get through the easy first stage of the process, completely unready to face the really tough negotiations - on the future relationship with the EU, and the future relationships with the rest of the world.

It aint’t gonna be pretty!

Best start stockpiling essentials. Mainly popcorn - it’s going to be a long and thrilling ride.

There could only be a relatively good outcome if say five million people openly and sincerely admit their stupidlity and error in voting to leave in 2016. That won’t happen. Without it, it’s just more tears and sorrow, for ever.
  #226  
Old 11-22-2018, 03:23 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwich View Post
Since if it is not signed in early April, then both Labour and the Conservative parties would both have to set out their manifestos for the European elections at the end of May.
Highly unlikely the EU27 would agree to extend the Article 50 exit date to the extent of letting us continue electing MEPs. There will be no EP elections in the UK, unless and until we clearly abandon Brexit, but that would be a whole new set of discussions.

That apart, I don't disagree with the general thrust of your analysis.
  #227  
Old 11-22-2018, 12:06 PM
Sandwich Sandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sarf Lun'n
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
Highly unlikely the EU27 would agree to extend the Article 50 exit date to the extent of letting us continue electing MEPs. There will be no EP elections in the UK, unless and until we clearly abandon Brexit, but that would be a whole new set of discussions.

That apart, I don't disagree with the general thrust of your analysis.
My point was more that no UK Government would want to ask for an extension past 26 May so the EU shouldn’t have to take a view. Conversely, our friends in the EU, bureaucrats and politicians alike, don’t want to harm us if they can avoid it.

It’s not impossible that as we run up to the end of March, Parliament won’t take a decision and the UK Government will collapse with no party being able to deliver a majority in the Commons for anything. In the absence of a Government, I can’t see the EU throwing us out, since by definition it means that around 30 million people would leave the EU against their will just because their elected representatives have abdicated their responsibility. There’s only eight weeks between 29 March and 26 May (NB haven’t checked the relevant dates) - not a lot of time for a general election (which need not even resolve the issue).

You can easily picture Donald Tusk or Emmanuel Macron, for example, spending the time making sincerely sympathetic noises as they politely ask after our plan, are we staying or going, do we wan’t to do a deal or not, are there any responsible adults available to talk to (do we have any sort of clue at all...)?

In the absence of a functioning Government, could the UK even hold EU elections? Do the electoral bodies just do things without being prompted? Surely someone somewhere needs to give a formal instruction?

In that situation, I can’t see the EU taking a deliberate step to throw us out. If only because on balance it means that we were actually coming around to the conclusion that we don’t want to leave.

Of course, the 27 aren’t going to be happy with us if we do decide to stay after all. There is no good outcome now for anybody.
  #228  
Old 11-22-2018, 12:23 PM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,178
There's consequences sure, but cancelling the whole thing is the least worst option. It's virtually impossible to predict two weeks ahead what's going to happen right now. Call me naive but I'm hoping - if not hopeful - for a second vote.
  #229  
Old 11-22-2018, 05:16 PM
filmstar-en filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 872
The Brexit vote was held because the government could not decide what to do about its relationship with the EU. Clearly if the Withdrawal Ageement is rejected, that leaves three alternatives: Write another WA, Exit without an agreement or Stay in.

It would be appropriate to go back to the country and ask again what the people want.

Alternatively they could just say 'thanks for the advice about the EU, as a representative democracy and observing supremacy of Parliament to make decisions on behalf of the people. We have decided that the least damaging option is to Stay In. The government would have to defend itself over the perception that Referendum had a constitutional significance. Sadly that mistaken populist perception has been promoted relentlessly by the Brexit faction and is has gotten us into this sorry mess.

Do we really think that there are going to be mass protests on the streets against a government that has decided that this is in the best interests of the British people when is becoming clear that Exiting with no agreement and the uncertain Limbo that is the WA are both really bad options?

At some point the public are going to lose patience with all these Brexit arguments and want to get back to normal politics. Most voters simply do not understand why it is difficult and why there is so much drama. They were given a simple question and persuaded that the outcome would also be simple. They were deceived.

While the Conservatives seem unable to decide what to do amongst themselves, will Labour announce a policy change and get behind a Peoples Vote?
  #230  
Old 11-22-2018, 05:31 PM
dominic65 dominic65 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmstar-en View Post
The EU started as a treaty organisation focusing on trade between European countries. [...] The general idea was that countries bound by trade links have a vested interest in compromise and negotiation rather than military conflict. It made a lot of sense after WW2. All these countries had been invaded by Germany and this was a good way of keeping an eye on its industrial production.

The UK tried to join on several occasions, but its application was vetoed by that towering figure of French politics, General DeGaulle. Who regarded the UK, with its imperial trade links and its close relationship with the US as being politically and economically incompatible with European integration. British policy had traditionally been to oppose the domination of Europe by any one power and in the post war years it was busy trying to hold on to its empire.

DeGaulle died in 1970 and the UK joined what was then called the 'Common Market' in 1973 and so began a difficult relationship.

[...]
You present a rose-tinted, albeit widespread, view of the EU's origins and early history. I'm not going to go through every bit of it, but just as an example, the main reason de Gaulle blocked the UK's entry was that Britain would object to the nascent Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a protectionist/subsidy policy which heavily favoured the French farmers, a constituency that any French leader needed to keep on side. France had been subsidising its agriculture heavily in the post WW2 years. The bill was getting unaffordable, and the CAP offered a solution -- subsidies from other countries. De Gaulle didn't want the Brits messing it up.

Only once the CAP was finalised was consideration given to admitting the UK to the community.
  #231  
Old 11-23-2018, 12:59 AM
PatrickLondon PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 2,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwich View Post
My point was more that no UK Government would want to ask for an extension past 26 May so the EU shouldn’t have to take a view. Conversely, our friends in the EU, bureaucrats and politicians alike, don’t want to harm us if they can avoid it.

It’s not impossible that as we run up to the end of March, Parliament won’t take a decision and the UK Government will collapse with no party being able to deliver a majority in the Commons for anything. In the absence of a Government, I can’t see the EU throwing us out, since by definition it means that around 30 million people would leave the EU against their will just because their elected representatives have abdicated their responsibility. There’s only eight weeks between 29 March and 26 May (NB haven’t checked the relevant dates) - not a lot of time for a general election (which need not even resolve the issue).

You can easily picture Donald Tusk or Emmanuel Macron, for example, spending the time making sincerely sympathetic noises as they politely ask after our plan, are we staying or going, do we wan’t to do a deal or not, are there any responsible adults available to talk to (do we have any sort of clue at all...)?

In the absence of a functioning Government, could the UK even hold EU elections? Do the electoral bodies just do things without being prompted? Surely someone somewhere needs to give a formal instruction?

In that situation, I can’t see the EU taking a deliberate step to throw us out. If only because on balance it means that we were actually coming around to the conclusion that we don’t want to leave.

Of course, the 27 aren’t going to be happy with us if we do decide to stay after all. There is no good outcome now for anybody.
They wouldn't be throwing us out. We have already told them we are walking out, and have written that into our law as well as committing ourselves in EU law under Article 50. It follows automatically that our MEPs lose their jobs on March 29, and we hold no further elections to the EP; and I don't doubt that that too is explicitly enshrined in assorted legal documents. It was certainly made clear from the moment the Article 50 notification was made.

What would take an explicit act of will on both sides would be to halt or reverse the process. And I see no way in which that's going to include full participation in EU decision-making, including EP elections, while we sort ourselves out. Even on the off-chance that the outcome is "Sorry, will you take us back", I'd expect the associated new agreements to include some special arrangement about sending MEPs, since there isn't time for it to happen and allow us to hold elections in May as though nothing had happened.
  #232  
Old 11-23-2018, 01:07 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,151
An interesting take by Yanis Varoufakis:

Quote:
“The UK should never have entered the negotiations,” he told me when we met afterwards. “You do not negotiate with the EU because the EU does not negotiate with you. It sends a bureaucrat, in this case it was Mr Barnier…they could have sent an android, or an algorithm.”

May’s fatal error, Varoufakis said, was to accept a two-phase negotiation: a divorce agreement followed by a new trade deal. “This was a declaration of war because Barnier said: ‘You will give us everything we want: money, people, Ireland. And only then will we discuss what you want.’ Well, that isn’t a negotiation, that’s a travesty. And Theresa May agreed to play along.”

But Varoufakis, who helped persuade Jeremy Corbyn to support Remain in 2016, has little sympathy for the “People’s Vote” movement. “It’s offensive. What was the first vote? Wasn’t it a people’s vote? To call it a people’s vote is to try and delegitimise the original vote – to say it was dictatorial, it was rigged.”

He added: “You have to explain two things: first, how are you going to get the referendum completed before the Article 50 period is over? Secondly, how can you have a binary choice between five or six options? Explain those things and I’m with you.”
And Varoufakis on BBC Newsnight yesterday.
  #233  
Old 11-23-2018, 02:36 AM
yendis yendis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
An interesting take by Yanis Varoufakis:



And Varoufakis on BBC Newsnight yesterday.
But that is how negotiations go when side is significantly weaker then the other. It was pure hubris for the UK to assume that things would be different for them.

Ask the developing world what happens when you enter into talks with the EU or the US or China. It isn't a negotiation, it is merely an agreement on how much damage the developing nation can take without imploding.
  #234  
Old 11-23-2018, 05:50 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,138
Quote:
Originally Posted by filmstar-en View Post
Alternatively they could just say 'thanks for the advice about the EU, as a representative democracy and observing supremacy of Parliament to make decisions on behalf of the people. We have decided that the least damaging option is to Stay In. The government would have to defend itself over the perception that Referendum had a constitutional significance. Sadly that mistaken populist perception has been promoted relentlessly by the Brexit faction and is has gotten us into this sorry mess.
Putting the brakes on the current withdrawal timeline would be the most sensible move, even if the plan was simply to negotiate an orderly withdrawal on a less frantic timescale. But no one in Parliament - of any party - has the political courage to do this.

Quote:
Do we really think that there are going to be mass protests on the streets against a government that has decided that this is in the best interests of the British people when is becoming clear that Exiting with no agreement and the uncertain Limbo that is the WA are both really bad options?
Yes. And the Daily Mail and Murdoch press would be calling for them 24/7.

Quote:
At some point the public are going to lose patience with all these Brexit arguments and want to get back to normal politics. Most voters simply do not understand why it is difficult and why there is so much drama. They were given a simple question and persuaded that the outcome would also be simple. They were deceived.
And the public overall will never understand that this was the problem. People like simple solutions and when those aren't available they blame the people telling them there aren't any simple solutions and elect people who tell them there are, even though those people are lying unprincipled weasels.

Quote:
While the Conservatives seem unable to decide what to do amongst themselves, will Labour announce a policy change and get behind a Peoples Vote?
Not while Corbyn's in charge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yendis View Post
But that is how negotiations go when side is significantly weaker then the other. It was pure hubris for the UK to assume that things would be different for them.
EXACTLY. The Leave campaign's constant refrain of "the EU are being so mean to us by not giving us what we want even though they have no reason to do so and we have zero leverage" is stupid and tiresome. The EU have actually been fairly levelheaded about this - they could be far more punitive but they're not going to just give us what we want for no reason either. Meanwhile the UK has been disorganised, ill-prepared and in general bloody stupid about its approach to the negotiations.

May triggered Article 50 in a desperate attempt to gain some power by engaging in a game of chicken with the EU and hoping they'd turn aside first. Unfortunately this is like someone on a Vespa playing chicken with a lorry - the lorry might decide to turn off first but better odds are on the Vespa driver becoming one with the lorry's grill.

Frankly I think the EU pity us, and I can't blame them.
  #235  
Old 11-23-2018, 08:15 PM
filmstar-en filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 872
Quote:
Originally Posted by dominic65 View Post
You present a rose-tinted, albeit widespread, view of the EU's origins and early history. I'm not going to go through every bit of it, but just as an example, the main reason de Gaulle blocked the UK's entry was that Britain would object to the nascent Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), a protectionist/subsidy policy which heavily favoured the French farmers, a constituency that any French leader needed to keep on side. France had been subsidising its agriculture heavily in the post WW2 years. The bill was getting unaffordable, and the CAP offered a solution -- subsidies from other countries. De Gaulle didn't want the Brits messing it up.

Only once the CAP was finalised was consideration given to admitting the UK to the community.
Ah yes, the CAP. No French politician dare mess with the Farmers. The country, for some reason, has far too many small farmers, but they are well organised into unions and they are quick to take direct action and are not adverse to taking on the riot police. Many small farms are barely sustainable without a subsidy.

The CAP was an issue for years. It was up to 74% of the EU budget in the 1980s. Surpluses stored to keep the prices high. Butter mountains, milk lakes, which seemed absurd at the time and created much Euro-scepticism in the UK. Thatcher negotiated very hard with the EU and got a rebate on the UK contributions. Pity the current Conservative party under Cameron were not able to pull off the same feat.

The UK has far fewer farms and farmers than France. The EU farming subsidies went to the big landowners in the UK while in France they were distributed amongst many thousands of small farmers. That issue has not gone away in France. They were protesting quite recently. There are many landowners in the UK who are going to miss those EU payments after Brexit, especially the wealthiest. Another post Brexit challenge for the UK government is how it should replace these subsidies. There will be some howls of protest in the countryside if they are out of pocket.
  #236  
Old 11-23-2018, 08:27 PM
filmstar-en filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 872
The Daily Mail has changed editors and changed its stance on Brexit. It will be interesting to see if this goes as a far as getting behind the Peoples Vote campaign. It could happen.
  #237  
Old 11-23-2018, 10:18 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,297
Could a second referendum be worded:

VOTE FOR ONE:

1. Approve and implement the Brexit agreement negotiated by Her Majesty's Government
2. Disapprove the Brexit agreement negotiated by Her Majesty's Government, rescind Great Britain's Article 50 notification, and make every effort to return to Great Britain's earlier relationship with the EU
  #238  
Old 11-24-2018, 01:07 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil's Heir View Post
Could a second referendum be worded:

VOTE FOR ONE:

1. Approve and implement the Brexit agreement negotiated by Her Majesty's Government
2. Disapprove the Brexit agreement negotiated by Her Majesty's Government, rescind Great Britain's Article 50 notification, and make every effort to return to Great Britain's earlier relationship with the EU
No, because you are saying the only two options are:
1. May's deal
2. No Brexit.
Few would agree that those are the only options.

Off the top of my head, there's also:
- The Norway option, or 'Norway plus'
- Screw Northern Ireland, and go for the Canada option
- A no-deal Brexit, and negotiate afterwards
- Somehow get an extension of article 50 and go back to the drawing board
There are probably several other options, of varying degrees of realism and practicality.

But here won't be another referendum because
a) Parliament won't support it
b) There's no time to hold one
c) There's no way to frame simple, clear questions that everyone would agree on
Re-holding the previous referendum of Brexit or no Brexit is even less likely than anything else.

Last edited by GreenWyvern; 11-24-2018 at 01:08 AM.
  #239  
Old 11-24-2018, 01:30 AM
Sandwich Sandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sarf Lun'n
Posts: 401
And (d), or perhaps just the reason for (a), no MP could be confident that the people won’t vote for catastrophe. Public opinion has barely moved since 2016.

As Yanis Varoufakis demonstrates, even people with fancy degrees who have seen the outcomes of the Greek and British referenda still believe that little countries’ citizens can vote to tell other, bigger countries’ citizens what they must do.
  #240  
Old 11-24-2018, 03:10 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,178
Perhaps a referendum with two questions:

1) Should the UK ratify the Withdrawal Agreement?
2) If the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified, do you wish the UK to Leave the European Union or Remain (cancel Article 50)?

The EU has already made noises it's willing to extend A50 in certain circumstances and would accept its cancellation if the UK Remained.
  #241  
Old 11-24-2018, 03:13 AM
Malden Capell Malden Capell is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,178
Parliament won't support a referendum yet. Parliament is split three ways right now. But over time one of those options will be removed - presumably the WA, but my moneys on No Deal being utterly unacceptable to everyone but the most feverish Brexiters.

Assuming the WA is shot in the head, I can see a compromise for those MPs without a backbone would be to fob the decision off to the pubic. And the ground game would be very different this time round. Remain is energised, angry, more young people have the vote, and with No Deal the default, can put a positive case for Remaining...Leave has little to hide behind, with dodgy money being exposed, with a definite Leave scenario rather than the all-things-to-all-men of 2016, many Brexiters having died...
  #242  
Old 11-24-2018, 03:15 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,151
There's one notable thing about the leading Brexiteers - they are also climate change deniers, supporters of a smaller welfare state, privatisation, lower taxes, fewer regulations, etc. It's all part of one connected group of people.

When Ress-Mogg et al. held their press conference recently, the logo behind them was 'Global Vision'. Global Vision is based at 55 Tufton Street, which is also the address of several other organisations, as is 57 Tufton Street next door. This is the centre of all evil, the Mordor of Britain.

Also based at the same address are:
* Global Warming Policy Foundation - climate change denial and anti-climate-change propaganda.

* Taxpayer's Alliance - camapaign for lower taxes, especially for the wealthy. Has also criticised renewable energy.

* Big Brother Watch - privacy of personal data, especially dodgy financial transactions, front companies, and details of tax havens.

* UK2020 - promotes fracking and nuclear reactors.

* Business For Britain - anti-EU

* European Foundation - anti-EU

* Civitas - right-wing think tank, wants to reduce the NHS and all welfare.

This is nothing like a comprehensive list. Various other organisations seem to and come go at this same address. Reportedly, all the groups hold regular combined meetings together. The same interconnected web extends to Nigel Farage, Steve Bannon, supporters of populist parties in Europe, Trump supporters, etc.

The dodgy funding, lies, and underhand methods that went into the Brexit campaign are gradually becoming more apparent.

I've come to the conclusion that the basic reason all these people want Brexit is to be able to screw the plebs more effectively, free from EU constraints. Everything else is just propaganda.
  #243  
Old 11-24-2018, 04:01 AM
its_the_daddy its_the_daddy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 2
Read 'The Sovereign Individual' by William Rees-Mogg and James Dale Davidson (1997).

It's a full explanation of what Mordor is after. And therefore, an explanation of Brexit.

Here's an Amazon review (apologies to the reviewer):

An extreme far right libertarian dystopian view of the future that his son JRM appears to be willing along with his WTO no deal Brexit plans. Yes...the information age is upon us and the impact of governments being unprepared has led to western liberal democracy being challenged. This has resulted in a rise of nationalism across the globe. If you voted Brexit because you believe Britain can be a great sovereign state outside the EU...then read this book and you will find that WRM is predicting, with relish at the thought of monetary gains from no taxation, the demise of the nation state, including government services like the welfare state and NHS. Of course, we are just tax slaves and how much better off we will be when we are liberated from taxation and no longer have to pay for the services provided to the less well off in society...except you...yes you who voted Brexit...will be one of the less well off rather than a sovereign individual.
  #244  
Old 11-24-2018, 10:45 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,297
Looks like the UK and Spain have reached a deal on Gibraltar: https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/24/uk/ma...ntl/index.html
  #245  
Old 11-25-2018, 02:18 AM
Tamerlane Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post

EXACTLY. The Leave campaign's constant refrain of "the EU are being so mean to us by not giving us what we want even though they have no reason to do so and we have zero leverage" is stupid and tiresome.
Hmmm...
  #246  
Old 11-25-2018, 02:50 AM
Sandwich Sandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sarf Lun'n
Posts: 401
The Prime Minister has addressed the nation

There is such a fine line between genius and idiocy:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46333338
  #247  
Old 11-25-2018, 03:07 AM
lisiate lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,579
Summit time! The EU leaders are meeting to discuss the proposed deal with a press conference to follow.
  #248  
Old 11-25-2018, 03:48 AM
galen ubal galen ubal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Central VIC Australia
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwich View Post
There is such a fine line between genius and idiocy:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46333338
Is anyone else reading that as "We will have all of the advantages of being in the EU with none of the obligations."?
  #249  
Old 11-25-2018, 04:43 AM
williambaskerville williambaskerville is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wicklow
Posts: 457
Quote:
Originally Posted by galen ubal View Post
Is anyone else reading that as "We will have all of the advantages of being in the EU with none of the obligations."?
That would seem to be the case. Of course, it's full of blatant lies, but so is the whole Brexit project.

Note to the UK :- we here in the EU have some of the best trade negotiators on the planet working for us. They are not going to be outfoxed by ultra wily Oxford PPE graduates (who don't understand how EU law or international trade works anyway).

Last edited by williambaskerville; 11-25-2018 at 04:44 AM.
  #250  
Old 11-25-2018, 04:48 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,446
As an American, I am confused about how May could possibly lose this vote in Parliament. I was under the impression that if you were an MP and you were one of the members of the majority that made up the government, you voted for the government's position or else brought forth a no confidence motion and held new elections.

IOW, I thought this is a superior feature of a parliamentary system in that there is no gridlock.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017