webdiplomacy.net

That is exactly what the EU wants to prevent. If meaningful vote 3 fails, the EU will want a long extension and UK elections for the EU parliament.

Yesterday evening I saw a documentary on Swedish TV making it clear how little the relatively young Cameron knew about EU when he handled the pre-referendum negotiations with other EU leaders. He (and the rest of the remainers) were criminally naive about what could be achieved.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:25 pm

As an aside, just reading today's news. If there is a 3 month delay, and a decision not to be involved in the next round of EU Parliament elections (saving British tax payers money) and then there is another delay, you could end up with the UK still in the EU but unrepresented...

Which is more or less what Labour's soft Brexit would achieve anyway.

What you have to keep in mind, Ora, is that to the majority of the people on the Brexit side, and a fair few others as well, being in the EU unrepresented offers very little difference from the current reality. The perception of the EU is that it does what it wants (which is largely to increase its own power) regardless of the will of the people or who they elect. No doubt a number of people will be suitably outraged by the idea of no British MEPs, but I don't think it carries anywhere near the threat you think it does.

I am more outraged with having British MEPs while the country is leaving. We don't need these wreckers.
Also, the EU doesn't do what it wants. On all major topics each country has a veto. The council is where the decisions are made and each country is represented there by their PM or president, with mostly the right to veto.
The commission does what the council and to a lesser extent the parliament decide.

ksako8 wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:29 am

I am more outraged with having British MEPs while the country is leaving. We don't need these wreckers.
Also, the EU doesn't do what it wants. On all major topics each country has a veto. The council is where the decisions are made and each country is represented there by their PM or president, with mostly the right to veto.
The commission does what the council and to a lesser extent the parliament decide.

The EU will likely have its fair share of its own non British wreckers in June, if rumours are to be believed. There is a quasi conspiracy theory doing the rounds that the whole farce is simply a delaying tactic so that negotiations can begin again in more receptive conditions, although that gives more credit to our leadership than I think is deserved.

As for the EU and power, the experience of Greece and Italy doesn't exactly inspire confidence, and the direction of travel has certainly been away from national governments in favour of Brussels. How long will national vetoes last? The Commission has been trying to abolish the veto on tax for some time, as Ireland knows very well.

Greece wanted to stay in and got payback for their own mistakes

ksako8 wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:29 am

I am more outraged with having British MEPs while the country is leaving. We don't need these wreckers.
Also, the EU doesn't do what it wants. On all major topics each country has a veto. The council is where the decisions are made and each country is represented there by their PM or president, with mostly the right to veto.
The commission does what the council and to a lesser extent the parliament decide.

That isn't precisely right though, is it?

The EU has negotiated several areas, some of them have sole competency of member States, other have joint competency, and other have sole EU competency.

And depending on which area you are talking about the decision making process is different.

If it concerns new responsibilities, the council needs to approve

Should have clarified that. Decisions on more or less power to Brussels lie with the council.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:25 pm

As an aside, just reading today's news. If there is a 3 month delay, and a decision not to be involved in the next round of EU Parliament elections (saving British tax payers money) and then there is another delay, you could end up with the UK still in the EU but unrepresented...

There'd probably be nominated representatives in that scenario, like what Romania & Bulgaria had when they joined before the next round of EU Elections.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Fri Mar 15, 2019 10:08 am

orathaic wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:25 pm

As an aside, just reading today's news. If there is a 3 month delay, and a decision not to be involved in the next round of EU Parliament elections (saving British tax payers money) and then there is another delay, you could end up with the UK still in the EU but unrepresented...

Which is more or less what Labour's soft Brexit would achieve anyway.

What you have to keep in mind, Ora, is that to the majority of the people on the Brexit side, and a fair few others as well, being in the EU unrepresented offers very little difference from the current reality. The perception of the EU is that it does what it wants (which is largely to increase its own power) regardless of the will of the people or who they elect. No doubt a number of people will be suitably outraged by the idea of no British MEPs, but I don't think it carries anywhere near the threat you think it does.

This was not meant as a threat.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:30 pm

<snip> The worst possible result would be Labour's super light Brexit idea, which is a compromise that combines none of the benefits of Brexit with many of the drawbacks, and will unite the British people in their contempt.

I thought the whole point of the argument was that the UK made a decision to join an economic union NOT a political union. This 'worst' leaves you in the economic Union (sans the currency).

What you are left with is other countries making political decisions which will affect the UK economically, but that already happens. The US can make unilateral tarrif decisions or invade/topple oil producing countries, and this affects the UK's economy.

Economically speaking, getting full access to the single market is great for all UK importers and exporters. Access to free movement of people is great for employers and those who wish to move abroad to work; access to the free movement of capital is great for anyone with a huge amount of money, so mainly the super rich and bankers in the City of London.

Being part of the customs Union is great for reducing the administrative burden (less red tape) for everyone involved in import and export to the rest of Europe.

All these positives are better than a No Deal. Regardless of them being worse than full membership... Which is contrary to the 'will of the people' (except in Scotland, the Welsh speaking areas of Wales, the City of London, all the Nationalist areas of Northern Ireland and many of the least Unionist areas of Northern Ireland...)

The vote was an advisory one, and I think it is clear the parliament needs more advice as they can't sort their shit out. But very few in parliament seem to want to admit this.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:27 am

This was not meant as a threat.

The threat of the argument. The argument says "this is bad because of x", where x is assumed to be a pretty substantial negative. The point I'm making is that I doubt most people will give a damn either way about x, so the argument has far less weight than what you might assume.

orathaic wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 17, 2019 9:27 am

I thought the whole point of the argument was that the UK made a decision to join an economic union NOT a political union.

You genuinely thought that?? Is that how the debate is being portrayed in Ireland? It's largely irrelevant, and only gets brought up because it's one of those rare facts people can state that are undeniably true. If that referendum had never happened it wouldn't make an iota of difference to the current debate.

Octavious wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 17, 2019 12:44 pm

The vote was an advisory one, and I think it is clear the parliament needs more advice as they can't sort their shit out. But very few in parliament seem to want to admit this.

There are plenty who are openly in favour. I'm not sure where your "very few" comes from. All the SNP, the Lib Dems, the TIGs, PC, a few Tories, and a good hundred or so from Labour are rather eager. Not a majority in itself, but there are also another couple of hundred or so of Labour and Tories who would happily vote for it as long as they were seen to being forced into it, rather than choosing it as a preferred option.

There are rumours beginning to circulate that Jeremy Corbyn is considering standing down.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/londone ... 6.html?amp

Labour sources have denied them, stating

“Somebody has been eating too much cheese, or something harder,” one said, adding, “His diary is packed full. He does a lot more late nights than early mornings: meetings, engagements, receptions. He’ll be at the Kebab Awards tonight (Monday).”

And indeed he was, where he made a keynote speech about his fondness for the kebab shop.

I don't know quite whether turning up to the kebab awards is a sign you want to stay as leader of the opposition or not. I don't know whether prioritising this appointment in the Brexit crunch period is admirable or lunacy. Nothing makes any sense any more.

https://i.gyazo.com/495cb541f016249e89a ... a8be1f.png

I think this genuine newspaper headline (from the Independent) far better surmises the "Nothing makes sense" attitude of the current parliament, tbh.

Since your parliament has ruled out a "hard brexit", I see only 2 options left.

1. ratify the EU-UK agreed brexit deal
2. remain in the EU.

This would be a great choice to put to the people in a second referendum since your joke of a parliament seems to be incapable to figure out how to continue from here.

And if you go for a referendum, you will get the extension May is asking for. Otherwise, I see no point in prolonging the inevitable.

peterlund wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2019 6:04 pm

And if you go for a referendum, you will get the extension May is asking for. Otherwise, I see no point in prolonging the inevitable.

You've not been paying attention, Peter. The extension May is asking for only has a purpose if May's deal is agreed and there is no referendum. To have a referendum you need a considerably longer extension than May wants, and the only option that involves no extension is no deal.

peterlund wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:58 pm

Since your parliament has ruled out a "hard brexit", I see only 2 options left.

1. ratify the EU-UK agreed brexit deal
2. remain in the EU.

This would be a great choice to put to the people in a second referendum since your joke of a parliament seems to be incapable to figure out how to continue from here.

On this point, you are also wrong. Parliament has not ruled out no deal. Parliament has voted no deal into law as the default option. What Parliament did last week was to express its opinion that it does not want a no deal, but by itself that doesn't change the law.

Sincerely hope May shows the leadership I’m sure she is capable of tonight.
Explain that there are two choices,
1. Accept what has been offered by the EU & agreed by the UK Govt. awaiting parliamentary approval.
2. Leave with no deal accepting the various consequences & benefits that may acrue from this option.

Both are in compliance with the democratic will stated in 2016, so either is fundamentally acceptable, even though I’m sure both carry drawbacks.
It’s time this was over after 1000+ days of dithering. One week is sufficient to make this call by any democratic legislature, let alone the oldest in the world.

Let the Govt. process either decision & get on with life thereafter. More worrying things have happened to the UK than bloody Brexit, in it’s long history.
Storm in a bloody teacup. What happened to “keep calm & carry on”?