Maybe the citizen’s assemblies could be a short PowerPoint presentation about exposing the lies that many Brexiters swallowed?
Coming to a movie theater this summer: Citizens Assemble
With Farage as Loki and an end credits scene with Putin as Thanos.
I’m struggling to cast the good guys as there seem to be so few around.
Revenge is a dish best served cold…with chutney on the side.
Isn’t it ironic that one of the Brexiteers main argument was to “not take take orders anymore from those unelected bureaucrats in Brussels”…and here you are, arguing for postponing the elections, presumably giving even more power to those bureaucrats? And, if some there are empty seats in the EU parliament, this means that some European citizens are deprived of representation…how’s that democratic?
UK is in a crisis, EU is not (at least not because of Brexit...in fact this whole Brexit might prevent EU dealing with some real crises).
I see no reason to change the EU laws just because the UK can’t figure out what it wants.
Look, you seem to think that EU doesn't want to play nice just to "teach a lesson" to those pesky brits. But that's not true. From the very beginning the EU position was "Brexit is gonna hurt. It's gonna be a lose-lose deal for both sides." EU's goal was to minimize the pain.
On the other hand, UK government seemed determined to "win" something out of the whole thing. If I remember correctly, besides the more famous "Brexit means Brexit" and "strong and stable", at some point Theresa May's "mot du jour" was "Let's make a success out of Brexit". Not to mention the vision of all those countries begging for commercial deals with an UK freed from EU's shackles that Brexiteers promised.
Over the last 3 years EU acted consistently to reduce the pain inflicted by Brexit; as long as negotiations looked like the best way to do so, they negotiated. But this works only as long as the other side has at least a vague idea of what it wants…ya know, it takes two to tango. Since somehow UK seem to step not only on EU’s feet but also on its own, dancing is not an option anymore.
Right now it looks like EU decided that UK cannot be negotiated with and the least painful path forward is to force them to take a decision as soon as possible. You might argue that this not taking the optimum approach to decrease Brexit impact, and you might have a point there, but stop thinking that EU is acting just out of malice.
You know what I found most striking in that article?
(bolding mine)
Is the usage of word “gain” in that sentence. The dude makes an overall thoughtful argument about how to get UK out of this mess, but the interaction with EU is still presented something to “gain” from. Like, winning something, suckering the other party out of something. What’s wrong with “ask for an opt-out” or “get an op-out”? It sounds like the two decades of EU-bashing and always talking about Brussels like an enemy from which the plucky UK politicians win concessions for Britain really left marks in their speech patterns; even the moderate ones can’t refer to EU as a partner.
Or maybe I’m reading too much in one word. :rolleyes:
No. You don’t make exceptions to laws post hoc, ad hoc because they’re inconvenient to you right now. That’s not how laws work. Not just no, but fuck no.
And you most certainly don’t change, ignore laws or make up laws during crises for the explicit and short term purpose of “fixing” said crises ASAP and without considering the ramifications of your bullshit improvisations. Ask the Romans why that’s not altogether great for the long-term survival of valued institutions. Or the Revolutionary French, for that matter.
Yes. I’m saying laws should be followed up until the point they are amended through the existing processes in place to amend, rescind or pass new laws. Like a normal person. That’s what separates countries with laws and countries in chaos.
“Meh, at worst we just undermine the legitimacy of the entire european parliamentary process, pffft, what’s the big deal ? The important point is to accommodate me in all things here, can we not lose track of that ?”
Yeah ! Look how well that works for you guys !
No. That’s breaking the law, for no reason other than the laws are inconvenient to you. Stop trying to subvert the institutions you contributed in creating. You had your say in all of this for decades. You’ve had your say in all of this for the three years since flipping the table like petulant children.
Stop trying to be in, but also out, but also also a little bit in, but not like all in, just in inasmuch as you unilaterally want and fuck everything else. Stop arguing that it’d be great if your internal chaos could be embraced by 27 countries who are watching your unbelievable continued floundering, mouth agape in utter disbelief. It’s not going to happen. It’s just not. And you’re living in an alternate coo-coo dimension if you believe for even a split second that it’s a reasonable possibility that it would.
A citizens’ assembly is a totally different thing from a parliament.
In Ireland, people were chosen at random to be representative of the whole population in terms of gender, age, location, and social class:
They were not paid for participation, but received expenses. They met over weekends.
They were given detailed presentations by experts in different fields with different viewpoints, and facilitators provided plenty of opportunity to debate quietly and at length. The proceedings were livestreamed.
It worked. They came up with a solution to the deeply divisive abortion debate in Ireland. Most politicians had thought that a solution was impossible.
I took part in a citizens’ assembly – it could help break the Brexit deadlock
‘Transparency and fairness’: Irish readers on why the Citizens’ Assembly worked
It’s not about inconvenience, it’s about averting a crisis for the entire EU. Parlaiment can amend its procedures by a vote, and there’s no reason for that not to happen now.
But if the EU is determined to stick to these procedures despite the harm they will suffer because of doing so, that’s ultimate up to them. It’s stupid and reckless, and will obviously harm the UK more than the rest of Europe, and it’s ultimately indefensible. Basically, exactly the same as many of the things Teresa May has been doing.
Let me make this very clear. Laws that cause harm are bad laws, and need to be changed. Where the harm is imminent and probably irreversable, they need to be changed immediately. If the sticking point to granting a long extension is the laws regarding EU elections, then change those laws. Or, if absolutely necessary to prevent a crisis, ignore them - but that obviously sets a bad precedent.
Why are you opposed to politicians (or anyone, for that matter) doing what’s necessary to get the best outcome? Or do you genuinely not care that Brexit will fuck up your country, and the EU? It is absurd that you and the rest of the EU aren’tdo whatever they can to prevent it.
Democracy is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. If a better end is found by a less democratic means, then do that. Also, the UK not being represented in the EU parliament unless and until Brexit is finally abandoned really seems to be common sense, and something I would expect the other EU countries to push for, rather than trying to force the elections on the UK.
As for the “not taking orders” thing, I’m not a brexiteer, and that’s one of the many things they were lied to about. Being in the EU doesn’t change that our Parliament is sovereign.
I’ve been thinking this whole time that “deal” is not the right word here. I half wonder if it’s some in vogue word due to Donald Trump? The language seems off, for this situation. It’s not deal-making. It’s considering the various consequences of the different ways of leaving. The consequences just are, they are enshrined in existing laws and agreements the UK has already agreed to. There is perhaps a small amount of deal-making on the side, but mainly it is examining legal consequences to the options, talking it through and then coming to an agreement on how the exit is going to be. (Well, actually none of that seems to be happening, but…sigh)
So this:
is absolutely right, because the UK is in this language of deal-making. The UK thinks it’s striking deals and the EU is not deal-making because that’s just not really what this is.
Just a weird thing that’s been annoying me the whole time…
(bolding mine)
See, you keep saying that such and such idea is “better”, that this or that is “common sense”, that you expect people to do so and so. Well, that’s like, your opinion, man. I beg to differ. So, how can we reach an agreement?
My point is that democracy is the process we’re using to figure out what “better” and “common sense” actually means for everyone, or at least which outcomes are at least acceptable, if not ideal, for most of us. Your idea of shelving democracy and doing “what’s best” (according to whom?) was tried before and it dind’t work that well.
Other than the fact that we don’t believe the crisis, such as it is, warrants such a measure ; but on the contrary collectively consider that the current climate of incertitude and chaos cause by the UK is a crisis that needs ending in and of itself, you mean ? No reason other than that one salient and expressed at length reason ? Not to mention the terrible, damaging, morally hazardous precedent it would set, if you want another reason ?
Agreed. Why didn’t you try and do that if the laws that call for regular elections and proportional apportionment of MEP seats are so bad ?
No. Laws are serious, binding matters. Changes should be studied, considered, pondered, examined. Not rushed through. And especially not when the “imminent” harm is caused by the party demanding laws be changed immediately due to a bogus time pressure of their own making that they could end at any point, to no cost whatsoever to anyone.
The overwhelming majority of UK citizens agree that rescinding A50 is the best solution. The overwhelming majority of EU citizens think so, too. And yet you guys continue to discuss every other decision you could possibly make. Just not that one. The best one. The one everyone knows is the best one. *That *one you simply won’t consider, because… something ? Something rational, most assuredly ?
And knowing that, you still ask why we don’t relish the prospect of getting sucked into that insanity and overhaul the entire system overnight to let you not talk about it some more ?! Are you high right now ?
Because we’ve tried that and it doesn’t work and there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever to trust it will work if given just a little bit more time at any cost to ourselves. You might not care one iota about the EU or its institutions - but we do.
Moreover, you might think improvising quick fixes, and then consider improvising quick fixes for those quick fixes but only later, constitutes “good governance”. We respectfully disagree, at least for as long as we can keep a straight face, at which point we still disagree but slightly less respectfully.
It’s a delaying tactic: just kick the whole thing downstream. We had the debate, for good or ill we had the vote, the politicians need to get their arses in gear.
The terrible, damaging, morally hazadous precedent of doing the right thing? Of doing what is necessary to minimise the damage to everyone from this crisis?
Postponing some EU elections will cause less harm than a no-deal Brexit, and yet, for reasons that no-one is prepared to explain, the EU will not countenance it. Which is ridiculous.
Because it is only in this specific set of circumstances that they have proven to be so dangerous, presumably because the framers didn’t forsee the possibility of the elections coming whilst a member state was in the process of leaving.
So, you are happy to fiddle while Rome burns, simply because the owners of one house shouldn’t have set it on fire. That’s just silly.
The time pressure has been caused by the EU ruling out a longer extension, nothing more. The UK cannot unilaterally extend that period, unfortunately, and may not revoke Article 50 just to allow for further negotiation - whether internally or with the EU.
Because revoking Article 50 means committing to remain in the EU which (again unfortunately) is not something our government will do, or our people will accept. There needs to be a long extension to allow for a General Election and/or second referendum here.
There is no need to overhaul the entire system, there is only the need to postpone one election. The rest of the EU can function as normal, and as an added bonus you don’t have to listen to Nigel fucking Farage all the time.
Of course I expect politicians to improvise quick fixes in an emergency, that is their job! If you would rather they sit back and watch the UK crashing out, devastating out country but only severely harming yours, that is I suppose your choice, but it’s not a defensible one.
There are many things to like about the EU, but it’s idiotic, interminable
bureaucracy is not one of them, and defending it at a time like this is no more sensible than defending Teresa May bringing the same unwanted deal to the table repeatedly.
You are not defending democracy, or the rule of law. You are defending pointlessm wastefull, damaging bureaucracy at the expense of the prosperity and wellbeing of your own country, your continent, and quite possibly the world. Brexit, combined with Trump’s economic idiocy, may well trigger a recession way worse that the one a decade ago. Because you are not prepared to bend or alter a procedure.
We listen to the experts, firstly. Democracy is only of value when people know what they’re voting for.
If 90% of the population voted to ban vaccines, for example, they should be ignored. The same with people who vote to destroy the economy.
I think the Politico article linked by GreenWyvern outlined nicely this issue (warning: gross oversimplification ahead): for the UK Brexit is a political matter, where everything can and should be negotiated, while for EU is “just” an administrative process*, already covered by existing laws and regulations.
I mean, joining the EU is a political decision (for both the joining country and for the EU), but the actual joining process is, well, just a process. Similarly, leaving the EU is a political decision (taken by the country who decides to leave), but the actual process of leaving is, again, just a process.
Contrast this with commercial deals that EU does with third parties, which are a mixture of politics and processes. So I would guess that whatever UK-EU deal is eventually made after UK leaves, it will involve a good deal of political negotiations.
- That’s not strictly true. I mean whatever position the Irish government takes with respect to Brexit is a matter of internal politics, but it’s almost guaranteed that EU will support this position, since Ireland is a member and UK is about not to be. Basically, backing up member states is part of EU’s “process”, so you can be sure that that’s what they’ll do.
The precedent of allowing a departure from the normal functioning of institutions, using “it’s a crisis !” as the rationale. This is how democracies die. It’s how all of those that died did, that weren’t simply conquered. It’s how Caesar, Napoleon or Hitler came to permanent power. It’s why Trump’s flaunting of every rule and established procedure is incredibly dangerous to the US.
And it’s always done as “the right thing”, “the only answer”, “just this one time”. Until the next time, and the next crisis, and the crises used to justify throwing away the cumbersome shackles of normal procedure keep getting smaller and smaller, until there is no more “normal procedure”, just permanent crisis and a permanent need for strong, decisive measures undertaken by strong, decisively providential men to answer them.
And I know what I’m talking about, because my country’s politicians have used terrorist attacks to declare a national state of emergency, then use said state to force in a number of very dangerous “temporary” measures that have now become the new norm.
Fuck that. This is more dangerous and damaging long term than a punctual economic and bureaucratic adjustment.
Consider it explained.
Actually I reckon the framers didn’t expect any member state, let alone one of the founding members, to be dumb and self-destructive enough to want to leave in the first place. But that’s neither here nor there.
That’s an amusing metaphor to choose, because Roman fire control groups were super corrupt and dysfunctional and functioned more like street gangs and extortionists. But I digress. Also, you realize that it’s the fiddler who’d set the fires (allegedly), in that historical image ? Your metaphor needs more work, I’m just saying.
You’re being disingenuous. Every single problem and wringing of hands that is happening right now was known in 2016. They’ve been explained and discussed at length, within and without the UK. The EU countries have, collectively as well as independently, taken steps to prepare for the eventuality of the UK drunkenly crashing out of the club even though that’s not what we’d prefer. What have you guys been doing ? Why do you expect us to believe for a second that you’ll be doing anything whatsoever if granted an extension that’d disrupt all of our own shit ?
Then leave. Oh, but your people won’t accept that either…
patiently but there is no defined process by which an election can or should be postponed. Which means that declaring the elections (that everybody else has been orderly preparing for) delayed, or that seats will be reassigned some time later (by whom ?) or whatever nonsense you may care to come up with is simply making shit up as we go. Which means an implicit declaration that the entire system is inadequate, and needs reforming. For the sake of your bullshit.
We don’t think it is. And if you thought it was, you should have pushed for reforms from within the institution. You had ample time to do so.
And again, what’s to stop the next country over from demanding EU elections, or EU laws & decisions, should be waved off in their specific case because they’re special snowflakes facing whatever issue of dire importance ? It’s simply not how we do things, and if we did things that way the whole edifice would collapse. We negotiate. We present. We discuss. We vote. We enact what we voted. That’s it.
That’s like saying the UK can function as normal while your government is paralysed and devoting the entirety of its time and energy dealing with this Brexit bullshit. How are you being governed at all right now, anyway ?
As for Farage, I rather like him. I really do. My father, and his father before him, could only practice that time honoured national tradition of loathing the British for vague and outdated grievances, such as bringing up Joan of Arc or Elba, with maybe a side glance at Mers El Kebir. Whereas I can go on YouTube every single day and rest assured that “oh, huh. Non but yeah, they really *are *unbelievable assholes, aren’t they ?” 
Bureaucracy and the rule of law being paramount is the cost and byproduct of trying to herd 28 selfish and prideful cats. It may be annoying at times, but it’s necessary for continued function.
I fully agree with you on this. Yeah, democracy works only if the voting public has reliable information.
But what happens when the public doesn’t trust the experts (again, that’s exactly what some lead Brexiteer said during the campaign “enough with these experts!”, IIRC)? And what happens when you get hundreds of “experts” arguing for opposing points of view?
Well, how do you ignore 90% of the population? I mean, some doctors won't vaccinate kids, parents will avoid hospitals, civil servants will falsify reports to show that all kids were vaccinated, police will not investigate...
What I’m saying is, if 90% of your citizens think vaccines are bad, Bad Things will happen anyway. Very Bad Things. Either you go full dictator (I hope I don’t need to argue that this will lead to a lot of Very Bad, Nasty, Ugly unintended consequences) and force everyone to have vaccines, or a lot of kids will die from preventable diseases. There’s no “win” in this story, only loss.
In order to “win”, you should have properly educated the public decades ago, so that they know what vaccines are for, what are their advantages and drawbacks . But now winning is not an option anymore, at least not in short therm; the only question is which path of action will be less harmful.
Speaking for myself, I want UK to be part of EU. But not if UK citizens have no idea what EU is for. I mean, is not that they don’t know exactly how EU works (I’m quite sure no one actually knows all the details 
), but somehow a sizeable part of them got this idea that EU is actively oppressing them, that they have no say in how EU is lead and that all the money they’re sending to EU is just lost.
So right now I think the least painful path is for UK to leave; you’re welcome to join again in 10 years, if that’s what you’ll want. Mind you, if the UK Parliament will somehow miraculously come with a plan that will allow UK to remain and at the same time heal the huge divisions within british society, I’d fully agree to extend the leave deadline…but I’m not holding my breath.
Maybe you should start by reforming your own electoral system? IIRC, some years ago UKIP got something like 13% of the national vote, but only one member in the Parliament. If there would have been 50 of them, hopefully the electors would have figured out earlier that they’re just a bunch of incompetent buffoons and dismissed their calls for Brexit.
They aren’t one of the founding members. They only joined in 1973 with Ireland and Denmark. EEC was founded in 1957 with the treaty of Rome.
Otherwise I can’t find fault with what you said.
I admit that I know fuck-all about the particulars of Article 50, but this is what disturbs me the most. It really does seem from afar that a clear majority of Britons would like a do-over on Brexit, which isn’t to say that there aren’t still a lot of Euro-skeptics on all sides, but rather, to say that a majority realize what you wrote earlier: these things require analysis and deliberation. Brexit might have been a feel-good moment of extending a middle finger to the political elites, but most people now understand that the result was essentially the same as stabbing themselves in the eye with a pencil to cure a stye.
And knowing that, you still ask why we don’t relish the prospect of getting sucked into that insanity and overhaul the entire system overnight to let you not talk about it some more ?! Are you high right now ?
Indeed, to do so would be to allow a self-inflicted national emergency to become a continental emergency. I applaud the EU for insisting that the UK find a solution to its own problems and forcing the people to deal with the consequences of their vote.
dp