It. And “It means It.” I trust that’s all clear now.
I know the original saying but it was deliberately modified for context. “The voice of the people [is] the voice of God”, therefore the referendum result must be the voice of both.
I think they both are. The DUP absolutely will not brook any agreement that treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the UK, and the backstop which would require NI to remain part of the EU trade thingie definitely treats NI differently. Meanwhile, the hard-Brexit Tories want to be completely free from the EU regulations, which they are not if NI is still abiding by them, permanently or temporarily.
I found this CGPGrey video helpful, though if any actual UK people have comments or criticisms, please share!
My favourite quote of the day:
“Theresa May must be the only leader in living memory who has tried to fall on her own sword and has managed to miss”
From https://twitter.com/ArguesTimes/status/1111284695872884741
Didn’t wantthis little tidbitto get lost in the noise: “Vote Leave has today dropped its appeal and related proceedings against the Electoral Commission.”
Not that it’ll matter, but there it is.
Crossposting to the “Unfortunate acronyms thread”! :eek:
The EU’s concern about the elections for the European Parliament is not an arbitrary deadline. By EU treaties, the seats are allocated by a formula so that all member states have a certain number of seats.
The EU reallocated the seats for the upcoming elections on the assumption that the Uk would no longer be a member by then, based on the Article 50 withdrawal date, which, remember, was chosen unilaterally by the UK.
Now the UK may be wanting a later date for withdrawal, past the date for EU elections.
But if Britain is still a member of the EU at the time of the elections, the EU is legally obliged to include Britain in the allocation of seats, even if Britain doesn’t plan to hold elections for those seats.
And that potentially buggers up the elections in every other EU member, because if the number of seats gets reallocated on the basis that the UK is still a member, that will have a knock-on effect in every other EU member, affecting the number of seats they each get in the EU Parliament. And that’s less than two months away.
Why should the EU allow the UK’s political dysfunction to bugger up the elections across the EU?
You’re either in or out, and both of those options have real-life impacts on the EU.
That isn’t necessarily what “this state of affairs remain perpetually so” means (it certainly isn’t what I meant). It can also mean “The UK is a fully participating member of the EU, and will be until an exit process has been completed. Oh, and by the way, no one has any intention of doing anything to complete that process, however much they might pretend that they do.”
Kinda like people over here pretend that one day the National Debt will be completely paid off.
I occurs to me that the EU, when fashioning its charter, only thought they were being clever by including a provision for the exit of any nation that wanted to leave. A more effective A50 would have had a clause that it self-revokes if the putatively-departing nation will not ratify a negotiated departure plan.
There’s no EU charter or constitution, in the sense of the document that is revered by Americans, despite various luminaries’ ambitions to have themselves placed among the EU’s version of the founding fathers. Some of them did actually try to introduce a constitution, but even the French baulked at it, which is a good sign that it’s a non-starter.
Instead, there are a lot of international treaties. Article 50 is part of the Lisbon treaty of 1997-9, which augments some of the EU or EC’s earlier treaties. There seems to be widespread opinion that article 50 is shoddy work, drafted by people who did not expect it to be applied. And even if it were amended, I’m not sure how one would define in law such woolly notions as “a negotiated departure plan”.
It’s a bit like “no deal”, in the UK context. How do you define it, in law? You have to define what “deal” means first. Let’s say that British prime minister and the president of the EU, after round-the-clock negotiations, agree to exchage Christmas cards every year. Would that be considered a “deal”? One would hope not, but then, what exactly would? You have to define certain minimum criteria, and that just returns us to the disagreement that we already have.
Exactly. If the UK doesn’t have elections but is still a member when the new Parliament meets, is that Parliament valid ? No one knows but the ECJ.
And the incoming Parliament must approve the incoming Commission. If it is invalid, it cannot. So that would be 2 of the EU’s 3 main institutions potentially inoperable.
The EU’s concerns on this are far from an arbitrary red line.
The obviuos solution is to leave the UK’s seats empty while the process is ongoing and then, if Article 50 is revoked, we can then hold elections to fill them. This prevents the biggest problem, which is the UK being part of the EU Parliament while still ostensibly in the process of leaving, and means there is still a functional EU government for whatever time period is needed to sort this out.
Except that it’s not obvious now that everyone else’s allocation of seats has been adjusted on the assumption that the UK will not be sending any members.
So now you’re arguing we should break laws for you. Just make shit up as we go along. And just, you know, turn our political institutions into ad-hoc dysfunctional chaotic bullshit because your political institutions are dysfunctional and chaotic and make it up as they go along.
You can’t be serious. No. Re-assess the basis of your reasoning, because it leads you to ridiculous conclusions.
The seats have been re-distributed. There are no seats for Britain planned for the May elections, to be kept vacant while Britain makes up it’s mind.
They’ve been re-distributed to other countries, on the basis that Britain won’t be a member by then.
If Britain wants a longer extension past the May EU elections, then the EU has to re-reallocate the seats, taking them away from the countries they’ve been assigned to and re-assigning them to Britain.
But people in the other countries have been gearing up for those elections based on the re-allocation and increased seat numbers. Should they be expected to agree on two months notice to a reduction in seats, because Britain can’t figure out if it wAnts to stay or leave?
By asking for an extension past the elections, Britain is asking for a major accommodation from the EU, yet it wants to leave the EU. Why should the EU accommodate that?
See the wiki article on EU seat allocation, especially the section on the 2019 re-allocation:
I suppose the EU feels the same towards the UK as someone considering whether he should try to save a panicked, drowning person: It may want to help but it has to make sure it’s not dragged down and put at risk by those it’s trying to save.
The article mentioned above about how the EU has been running circles around the UK mentions the EU’s unified, systematic approach based on laws and the UK’s hodgepodge, scattershot approach based on attempts to engage in the familiar bilateral political horsetrading. The EU has kept to its method, the UK to its madness and both can be expected to continue.
I’m trying to think of a movie that would illustrate the difference in dynamics. I guess the UK would be the Space Marines from Aliens and the EU would be the Terminator.
The poor dears cannot rule themselves.
We should deal with them by dividing the country up into two new States, one Leave and one Remain. Surely one or two ex-colonial administrators can be found hanging in some nursary home in Tumbidge Wells? They can demarcate the new border.
One population exchange a couple of wars and voila! problem solved.
Everyone is happy. Except for ordinary citizens, but I believe the general attitude to them is Bugger ‘em!
We can call this whole process…drumroll…Partition
Some*** actual common sense*** from Gordon Brown:
The UK needs a year-long extension on Brexit – to really take back control
- A long extension
- Citizens’ assemblies to find a way forward
- A compromise on EU elections
- A way to veto EU laws in the UK based on the treaty of Lisbon
- Ways to control immigration within the EU’s freedom of movement rules, using methods already in use by Germany, France, and Belgium
Gordon Brown had issues as Prime Minister, but he is head and shoulders above the current lot.
That’s not an obvious solution at all. Is it remotely permitted under TFEU ? Only the ECJ can meaningfully answer, and it hasn’t been asked.
I’m suggesting a small change in parliamentary proceedings to head off a crisis. You are saying that the procedure must be followed at all costs, no matter the consequences. The worst possible consequence of my suggestion is that supplementary elections have to be called to fill the empty seats in a year or two, whether by British or other MEPs. The worst (and indeed almost inevitable) consequence of your approach is a no-deal Brexit, the outcome that everyone should be doing whatever is necessary to avoid.
Elections can, and should, be postponed or adjusted in a crisis. To do otherwise is to fetishise democracy, to see it as an end in itself rather than a means to good governance.
Even saying that any extension without the UK holding elections, and so having no MEPs for 5 years even if we rescind Article 50, would be better than refusing an extension. There are many potential compromises, all of which are better than forcing a no-deal Brexit. If they are against the law, then change the law - assuming that the EU parliament is capable of passing a vote, I assume it’s slightly better than ours.
Not a fan of citizen’s assemblies - that’s what Parliament is, we don’t need more - but apart from that he’s spot on.