Brexit - the final throes....

ECJ's ruling rather weakens the PM's chosen strategy for advocating her deal.  My understanding of the ruling is that if Parliament voted to withdraw Art 50 that would meet the 'democratic' test.  Another referendum voting to stay in would also meet it but, of course, that couldn't be arranged in time for the current Art 50 timescale.

ynwa250505 posted:
Morton posted:
Stephen packer posted:

I think we're completely in uncharted waters, what a mess.

Totally agree, I find this whole situation deeply depressing, and I think it is turning a national humiliation. Cameron has a lot to answer for.

I don’t think Cameron “has a lot to answer for” at all. A referendum on EU membership was a highlight of the Conservative’s 2015 election manifesto and they were returned with an outright majority. We (the electorate) could have voted for the other (non-referendum) parties. Clearly, the electorate wanted a referendum, so (imho) Cameron is to be congratulated. Where he went wrong was campaigning to remain, after the EU shafted him by making it plain that EU reform was a non-starter. That was just cowardice on his part.

Cameron had put in place no plan to implement a 'leave' vote.  He simply ran away.  Regardless of whether you are on the remain or leave side of the argument, I believe that deficiency is a serious failing in any Prime Minister.  

ynwa250505 posted:
Morton posted:
Stephen packer posted:

I think we're completely in uncharted waters, what a mess.

Totally agree, I find this whole situation deeply depressing, and I think it is turning a national humiliation. Cameron has a lot to answer for.

I don’t think Cameron “has a lot to answer for” at all. A referendum on EU membership was a highlight of the Conservative’s 2015 election manifesto and they were returned with an outright majority. We (the electorate) could have voted for the other (non-referendum) parties. Clearly, the electorate wanted a referendum, so (imho) Cameron is to be congratulated. Where he went wrong was campaigning to remain, after the EU shafted him by making it plain that EU reform was a non-starter. That was just cowardice on his part.

No, where Cameron went wrong, once he decided to call the referendum, was not putting due effort into a campaign because he thought it was unnecessary with a vote to remain a 'dead cert'. And he was caught out by the lies and misleading claims of the Brexit campaign,  by media hype over immigration whipping latent racism into a frenzy where people actually expected Brexit to get rid of non-EU immigrants, and non-immigrant descenaents of non-EU immigrants, and by people reacting against his cockiness by voting against his recommendation to make it not as much a landslide as Cameron expected and so shake him up a bit.

But that happened, there was a referendum, and a small majority to leave, so we have been through a process of discovery and as soon as the reality is clear - deal, no deal or stop the process, there is a need for a referendum to confirm that as the way forward, which as you well recognise will not support a no-deal Brexit, and as parliament looks almost certain to reject the deal, so either just staying in the EU, or better a confirmatory referendum before doing that, is ever more likely, thankfully.

 

I presume nobody told him (Cameron) that it was only an advisory referendum and that Parliament would have the final say.

Damn those civil servants - withholding information from a serving PM. Makes me wonder what else they are not telling us (the folly of electrical cars/the existence of Aliens/when Leicester will next win the Premiership)?

Rob

MDS posted:

Cameron had put in place no plan to implement a 'leave' vote.  He simply ran away.  Regardless of whether you are on the remain or leave side of the argument, I believe that deficiency is a serious failing in any Prime Minister.  

I believe that "Why should I do the hard s**t" was the sentiment he expressed after announcing his resignation. Um, because you got us into this mess in the first place, perhaps? Not necessarily for catastrophically misjudging the public mood, and the failings that IB has outlined - but for steering the country on a path to austerity in 2010. I would suggest that this policy decision was one of the biggest factors in the Brexit referendum outcome - with so many voters feeling angry about the state of public services and their perception that they and their communities had been forgotten or undervalued by the government. And of course whilst reducing public debt was not a bad thing per se, if done rationally and intelligently, it needed to be matched with macroeconomic moves to grow the economy, which was counterintuitive to the policy of austerity. The end result has been the worst of all worlds - still rising national debt, a flat economy and a disengaged electorate with little faith in politics, ready to hit out at the first opportunity to register a protest vote - the Brexit Referendum. 

 

I think the ECJ ruling gives Parliament the opportunity to consider whether it wants to consider  withdrawing Article 50 before a vote on the deal. It could be a free vote. If we do vote to withdraw article 50 then no need for a vote on deals, and a referendum could be called to get new instructions from the people. Otherwise Parliament needs to think where it wants to go on the leave spectrum. Makes decisions a lot easier.

Phil

I'm not so sure about that Duncan,  as I see it the Tory party has been troubled by a euro-sceptic minority for many years,  as I understood it Cameron - in an attempt to suppress or satisfy the euro-sceptics -  said he would attempt to renegotiate the UK terms & then the country could decide in a referendum.     Cameron failed to negotiate anything of note & the referendum went against all expectations,  especially including Cameron's.   As I see it he did the honorable thing & fell on his sword.

Interestingly,  I voted to remain,  but now after watching the last years of this exit terms 'negotiation'  & now knowing so much more than we did at the referendum,  so much more detail & consequences, all missing from both camps in 2016.   Now having seen the attitudes & methods of the EU side in the negotiations,  including this morning's last minute ECJ ruling,  I have now shifted my voting preference if there should be another referendum to leave.  

ynwa250505 posted:
Morton posted:
Stephen packer posted:

I think we're completely in uncharted waters, what a mess.

Totally agree, I find this whole situation deeply depressing, and I think it is turning a national humiliation. Cameron has a lot to answer for.

I don’t think Cameron “has a lot to answer for” at all. A referendum on EU membership was a highlight of the Conservative’s 2015 election manifesto and they were returned with an outright majority. We (the electorate) could have voted for the other (non-referendum) parties. Clearly, the electorate wanted a referendum, so (imho) Cameron is to be congratulated. Where he went wrong was campaigning to remain, after the EU shafted him by making it plain that EU reform was a non-starter. That was just cowardice on his part.

Well I voted Tory, (after decades voting Labour) but it was not because I wanted a referendum. Does anyone ever agree with all the polices set out in Party Manifestos?  For myself it comes down to choosing the least worst of the available options. In hindsight I may have made a mistake!

Cameron held the referendum because he thought it would be good for the Tory Party, not for the good of the country. Well that did not work out too well.

Filipe posted:

I think the ECJ ruling gives Parliament the opportunity to consider whether it wants to consider  withdrawing Article 50 before a vote on the deal.

That should have been clear at the very beginning & surely should have been included in the Art-50 terms & conditions.   Big BAD on UK for not verifying before the referendum & bad on EU for the same,  but dare I suspect it might have been a last minute tool to influence the final outcome at this late hour

Morton posted:

 For myself it comes down to choosing the least worst of the available options. In hindsight I may have made a mistake!

I did the same for the same reasons.

But don't be too hard on yourself. You are better at your job than any politician would be. They are supposedly better at their jobs than we would be  ;-)

Mike-B posted:

Interestingly,  I voted to remain,  but now after watching the last years of this exit terms 'negotiation'  & now knowing so much more than we did at the referendum,  so much more detail & consequences, all missing from both camps in 2016.   Now having seen the attitudes & methods of the EU side in the negotiations,  including this morning's last minute ECJ ruling,  I have now shifted my voting preference if there should be another referendum to leave.  

Given that the EU didn't want the ECJ judgement either I'm not sure how we could put the blame for this on the EU.  Frankly we should have understood this point much sooner- and would if our Government hadn't spent our taxes trying to delay the case being presented.

Watching the way the EU has operated I think it's done what it is there to do- looking after the interest of the EU27.  I think they've (the commission) been open with the UK about where their 'red lines' are and have been consistent with this.  Not sure why any of this would cause you to reverse your view from remain to leave.  If, for example, it was Germany who wanted to leave wouldn't we have wanted the EU to be 'robust' in their treatment of Germany on exit to maximise EU/UK interests?

Duncan Mann posted:
MDS posted:

Cameron had put in place no plan to implement a 'leave' vote.  He simply ran away.  Regardless of whether you are on the remain or leave side of the argument, I believe that deficiency is a serious failing in any Prime Minister.  

I believe that "Why should I do the hard s**t" was the sentiment he expressed after announcing his resignation. Um, because you got us into this mess in the first place, perhaps? Not necessarily for catastrophically misjudging the public mood, and the failings that IB has outlined - but for steering the country on a path to austerity in 2010. I would suggest that this policy decision was one of the biggest factors in the Brexit referendum outcome - with so many voters feeling angry about the state of public services and their perception that they and their communities had been forgotten or undervalued by the government. And of course whilst reducing public debt was not a bad thing per se, if done rationally and intelligently, it needed to be matched with macroeconomic moves to grow the economy, which was counterintuitive to the policy of austerity. The end result has been the worst of all worlds - still rising national debt, a flat economy and a disengaged electorate with little faith in politics, ready to hit out at the first opportunity to register a protest vote - the Brexit Referendum. 

 

... and the irony of that small fluke Leave win is that Brexit has been procured by the same political party masters of bungling ideology that many people protest voted against in the first place, and a government which has evolved into a far out on the right wing that wants their way to hammer the hell out of those very protest voters.

It's a shame so many Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for.

Stephen packer posted:

Given that the EU didn't want the ECJ judgement either I'm not sure how we could put the blame for this on the EU.  Frankly we should have understood this point much sooner- and would if our Government hadn't spent our taxes trying to delay the case being presented.

Watching the way the EU has operated I think it's done what it is there to do- looking after the interest of the EU27.  I think they've (the commission) been open with the UK about where their 'red lines' are and have been consistent with this.  Not sure why any of this would cause you to reverse your view from remain to leave.  If, for example, it was Germany who wanted to leave wouldn't we have wanted the EU to be 'robust' in their treatment of Germany on exit to maximise EU/UK interests?

All valid points Stephen,  we each have our own mix of pro's cons & opinions on brexit & in my case my opinions have changed.  I was in favour of remain at something like 60/40,  now having seen the EU in action over these last 2 years & having considered it all with a lot more understanding of the detail,  I'm now persuaded 40/60 to leave.   

Another issue that weighs against EU for me is I do not want to be part of a federal state (I won't bang on about the unelected executive as that argument is flawed)    But I see the EU with dominant states such as Germany & France together with the Euro as something that will eventually fail,  I did say eventually.  

Mike-B posted:
Filipe posted:

I think the ECJ ruling gives Parliament the opportunity to consider whether it wants to consider  withdrawing Article 50 before a vote on the deal.

That should have been clear at the very beginning & surely should have been included in the Art-50 terms & conditions.   Big BAD on UK for not verifying before the referendum & bad on EU for the same,  but dare I suspect it might have been a last minute tool to influence the final outcome at this late hour

Fair point Mike - it seems obvious in retrospect that Article 50 should have been thought through a bit more in this regard. Interestingly, it was the Brits who pushed for this and indeed Lord Kerr who drafted the legalities - and of course, pre-Lisbon there was no contingency at all for departure. But with regard to your suspicion that the omission of specific rules regarding withdrawal of Article 50, on the cock-up or conspiracy spectrum I'd say definitely cock-up. Bear in mind that both the UK government and EU commission fought to prevent this matter reaching the ECJ - and as I noted earlier, it raises the prospect of the UK temporarily withdrawing Art 50 as a strategic manoeuvre in order to regroup before recommencing the entire process all over again. Given the issues the EU has to contend with currently, I'm sure this is not something the Commission or member states would welcome.

Hardcore Brexiteers are effectively stymied by Parliament's ability to block a no-deal Brexit. Given this, and where we are in the negotiation - by common consensus in the worst possible situation whatever one's politics - it would seem to be in the interests of all that we avail ourselves of this opportunity to withdraw Art 50 and regroup. Obviously, it would be a considerable humiliation for the Tories and TM in particular, but the needs of the nation ought to transcend this. It's not as if TM is held in high regard in any quarter currently and she risks trashing her legacy by making this logical decision... but then, when did logic enter into the equation?! 

Mike-B posted:

Interestingly,  I voted to remain,  but now after watching the last years of this exit terms 'negotiation'  & now knowing so much more than we did at the referendum,  so much more detail & consequences, all missing from both camps in 2016.   Now having seen the attitudes & methods of the EU side in the negotiations,  including this morning's last minute ECJ ruling,  I have now shifted my voting preference if there should be another referendum to leave.  

Mike,

Obviously, you are entitled to change your mind, but I am very puzzled as to why you have come to this conclusion and decision. In particular, I really don't understand how today's ECJ ruling can possibly have contributed to your change of voting preference should there be another referendum. 

I am still of the opinion that the vast majority of those who originally voted 'remain' will have had their views and their resolve strengthened rather than weakened by events on both sides following the referendum. I also believe that a good many people who originally voted 'leave' will have interpreted recent events very differently with a polar opposite result in respect of any future confirmation referendum vote. Coupled with the fact that a significant number of additional youngsters will now be entitled to a vote, I am convinced that a second referendum would result in a clear majority to remain in the EU.

Of course, I could conceivably be proven to be wrong, but that can only happen if there is a second referendum.    

naim_nymph posted:
Duncan Mann posted:
MDS posted:

Cameron had put in place no plan to implement a 'leave' vote.  He simply ran away.  Regardless of whether you are on the remain or leave side of the argument, I believe that deficiency is a serious failing in any Prime Minister.  

I believe that "Why should I do the hard s**t" was the sentiment he expressed after announcing his resignation. Um, because you got us into this mess in the first place, perhaps? Not necessarily for catastrophically misjudging the public mood, and the failings that IB has outlined - but for steering the country on a path to austerity in 2010. I would suggest that this policy decision was one of the biggest factors in the Brexit referendum outcome - with so many voters feeling angry about the state of public services and their perception that they and their communities had been forgotten or undervalued by the government. And of course whilst reducing public debt was not a bad thing per se, if done rationally and intelligently, it needed to be matched with macroeconomic moves to grow the economy, which was counterintuitive to the policy of austerity. The end result has been the worst of all worlds - still rising national debt, a flat economy and a disengaged electorate with little faith in politics, ready to hit out at the first opportunity to register a protest vote - the Brexit Referendum. 

 

... and the irony of that small fluke Leave win is that Brexit has been procured by the same political party masters of bungling ideology that many people protest voted against in the first place, and a government which has evolved into a far out on the right wing that wants their way to hammer the hell out of those very protest voters.

It's a shame so many Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for. (my bold addition)

but 'they' won the Bexit vote and 'they' also voted the Tories back into power remember. So can we at least credit the electorate with maybe knowing exactly what they want. Not maybe not what you (or indeed I) might want. Uncomfortable, but true.

The alternative arguments were not won in either the Brexit or GE votes, and it is far from clear they would be if either/both came around again. So instead of berating the voters we should look to those who would lead an alternative way of doing things and ask why they are not more successful.

I don't think characterising the electorate as stupid-as has been consistently the case explicitly or implicitly in much of the Brexit debate is terribly helpful. See also the US supporters of the Ginger One.

Bruce

Mike-B posted:
 

Another issue that weighs against EU for me is I do not want to be part of a federal state (I won't bang on about the unelected executive as that argument is flawed)    But I see the EU with dominant states such as Germany & France together with the Euro as something that will eventually fail,  I did say eventually.  

Again, fair point - Mike - I can't say I'm enthused by the politics at play by Germany or particularly France currently either - for example, Macron's use of leverage over the exit negotiations to gain advantage for French fishing fleets by forcing access to British territorial waters. However, this is realpolitik at work, and we're better off in my view in the game and fighting our corner - something we've actually done rather successfully in the EU to date. Most of the perceived disadvantages of the EU have in fact been down to either UK Government failings, or the forces of globalism. 

Bruce Woodhouse posted:
naim_nymph posted:
Duncan Mann posted:
MDS posted:

Cameron had put in place no plan to implement a 'leave' vote.  He simply ran away.  Regardless of whether you are on the remain or leave side of the argument, I believe that deficiency is a serious failing in any Prime Minister.  

I believe that "Why should I do the hard s**t" was the sentiment he expressed after announcing his resignation. Um, because you got us into this mess in the first place, perhaps? Not necessarily for catastrophically misjudging the public mood, and the failings that IB has outlined - but for steering the country on a path to austerity in 2010. I would suggest that this policy decision was one of the biggest factors in the Brexit referendum outcome - with so many voters feeling angry about the state of public services and their perception that they and their communities had been forgotten or undervalued by the government. And of course whilst reducing public debt was not a bad thing per se, if done rationally and intelligently, it needed to be matched with macroeconomic moves to grow the economy, which was counterintuitive to the policy of austerity. The end result has been the worst of all worlds - still rising national debt, a flat economy and a disengaged electorate with little faith in politics, ready to hit out at the first opportunity to register a protest vote - the Brexit Referendum. 

 

... and the irony of that small fluke Leave win is that Brexit has been procured by the same political party masters of bungling ideology that many people protest voted against in the first place, and a government which has evolved into a far out on the right wing that wants their way to hammer the hell out of those very protest voters.

It's a shame so many Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for. (my bold addition)

but 'they' won the Bexit vote and 'they' also voted the Tories back into power remember. So can we at least credit the electorate with maybe knowing exactly what they want. Not maybe not what you (or indeed I) might want. Uncomfortable, but true.

The alternative arguments were not won in either the Brexit or GE votes, and it is far from clear they would be if either/both came around again. So instead of berating the voters we should look to those who would lead an alternative way of doing things and ask why they are not more successful.

I don't think characterising the electorate as stupid-as has been consistently the case explicitly or implicitly in much of the Brexit debate is terribly helpful. See also the US supporters of the Ginger One.

Bruce

 

But the facts remain that no Leave voter really knew what they voted for because no one knew what Brexit was, and no one really knows exactly what Brexit is or means now.

Voting for an unknown entity = not knowing what one is voting for.

Hmack posted:

Obviously, you are entitled to change your mind, but I am very puzzled as to why you have come to this conclusion and decision. In particular, I really don't understand how today's ECJ ruling can possibly have contributed to your change of voting preference should there be another referendum. 

 I've moved my opinion back & forth & slowly over time,  I'm both disappointed with the outcome of the UK negations & what looks like intransigence with the EU.   But in that regard,  as Stephen Packer says in his post,  the EU have an agenda & objective to protect the EU-27,  & it that regard they did a better job than the UK.     But over the months of negotiations I've come to the conclusion that EU have made negotiations difficult with an underlying objective of stopping UK leaving,  that is my main reason to shift,  the UK voted to leave & that should not be denied, even tho' I voted to remain in 2016.   The ECJ ruling this morning has not added anything like a significant change in my sifting vote,  its just 2 years too late.  

naim_nymph posted:
Bruce Woodhouse posted:
naim_nymph posted:
Duncan Mann posted:
MDS posted:

Cameron had put in place no plan to implement a 'leave' vote.  He simply ran away.  Regardless of whether you are on the remain or leave side of the argument, I believe that deficiency is a serious failing in any Prime Minister.  

I believe that "Why should I do the hard s**t" was the sentiment he expressed after announcing his resignation. Um, because you got us into this mess in the first place, perhaps? Not necessarily for catastrophically misjudging the public mood, and the failings that IB has outlined - but for steering the country on a path to austerity in 2010. I would suggest that this policy decision was one of the biggest factors in the Brexit referendum outcome - with so many voters feeling angry about the state of public services and their perception that they and their communities had been forgotten or undervalued by the government. And of course whilst reducing public debt was not a bad thing per se, if done rationally and intelligently, it needed to be matched with macroeconomic moves to grow the economy, which was counterintuitive to the policy of austerity. The end result has been the worst of all worlds - still rising national debt, a flat economy and a disengaged electorate with little faith in politics, ready to hit out at the first opportunity to register a protest vote - the Brexit Referendum. 

 

... and the irony of that small fluke Leave win is that Brexit has been procured by the same political party masters of bungling ideology that many people protest voted against in the first place, and a government which has evolved into a far out on the right wing that wants their way to hammer the hell out of those very protest voters.

It's a shame so many Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for. (my bold addition)

but 'they' won the Bexit vote and 'they' also voted the Tories back into power remember. So can we at least credit the electorate with maybe knowing exactly what they want. Not maybe not what you (or indeed I) might want. Uncomfortable, but true.

The alternative arguments were not won in either the Brexit or GE votes, and it is far from clear they would be if either/both came around again. So instead of berating the voters we should look to those who would lead an alternative way of doing things and ask why they are not more successful.

I don't think characterising the electorate as stupid-as has been consistently the case explicitly or implicitly in much of the Brexit debate is terribly helpful. See also the US supporters of the Ginger One.

Bruce

 

But the facts remain that no Leave voter really knew what they voted for because no one knew what Brexit was, and no one really knows exactly what Brexit is or means now.

Voting for an unknown entity = not knowing what one is voting for.

I can only speak for myself: I wanted out of closer political union and that hasn’t changed. According my MP his party’s real thinking is roughly staying in the Single Market and Customs Union all of which is the least difficult to achieve with the PMs deal as it’s the Transition arrangements!

Phil

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

but 'they' won the Bexit vote and 'they' also voted the Tories back into power remember. So can we at least credit the electorate with maybe knowing exactly what they want. Not maybe not what you (or indeed I) might want. Uncomfortable, but true.

 

Bruce

Theresa Villiers was on the radio this morning, and claimed that "80% of the electorate voted for a party that would carry out the referendum result and leave the EU", as if that closes the argument. Hardly. The choice at the GE was simple - we're in this position and both main parties will take us out; which party would you prefer to carry out the negotiation, as well as run the economy and be PM for the next 5 years? Given that we were leaving regardless it didn't matter who we voted for, we were stuck with the decision.

I don't recall the GE result being a conformationary referendum of Leave or Stay. Somehow the Hobson's Choice option that we were faced with (Out, or Out) has become just that. 

Mike-B posted:
Hmack posted:

Obviously, you are entitled to change your mind, but I am very puzzled as to why you have come to this conclusion and decision. In particular, I really don't understand how today's ECJ ruling can possibly have contributed to your change of voting preference should there be another referendum. 

 I've moved my opinion back & forth & slowly over time,  I'm both disappointed with the outcome of the UK negations & what looks like intransigence with the EU.   But in that regard,  as Stephen Packer says in his post,  the EU have an agenda & objective to protect the EU-27,  & it that regard they did a better job than the UK.     But over the months of negotiations I've come to the conclusion that EU have made negotiations difficult with an underlying objective of stopping UK leaving,  that is my main reason to shift,  the UK voted to leave & that should not be denied, even tho' I voted to remain in 2016.   The ECJ ruling this morning has not added anything like a significant change in my sifting vote,  its just 2 years too late.  

Ok Mike,

So is your position now that leaving with 'no deal' is preferable to remaining in the EU?

If so, do you have an answer to the seemingly impossible to answer question of what then happens to the Irish border? 

Mike-B posted:
Stephen packer posted:

Given that the EU didn't want the ECJ judgement either I'm not sure how we could put the blame for this on the EU.  Frankly we should have understood this point much sooner- and would if our Government hadn't spent our taxes trying to delay the case being presented.

Watching the way the EU has operated I think it's done what it is there to do- looking after the interest of the EU27.  I think they've (the commission) been open with the UK about where their 'red lines' are and have been consistent with this.  Not sure why any of this would cause you to reverse your view from remain to leave.  If, for example, it was Germany who wanted to leave wouldn't we have wanted the EU to be 'robust' in their treatment of Germany on exit to maximise EU/UK interests?

All valid points Stephen,  we each have our own mix of pro's cons & opinions on brexit & in my case my opinions have changed.  I was in favour of remain at something like 60/40,  now having seen the EU in action over these last 2 years & having considered it all with a lot more understanding of the detail,  I'm now persuaded 40/60 to leave.   

Another issue that weighs against EU for me is I do not want to be part of a federal state (I won't bang on about the unelected executive as that argument is flawed)    But I see the EU with dominant states such as Germany & France together with the Euro as something that will eventually fail,  I did say eventually.  

I think we end up with a federal core and a periphery. Personally I'm happy being in the federal core given I feel as much 'kinship' with a German Engineer than I do with, say, a sheep farmer from Barnet.

I suspect I would be in the minority with that though. 

However when the EU shapes in this form, sat outside we will only be able to watch and not influence.

I think the only thing we end up getting at best is some sort of Norway model where we have FOM (but with the brake and who knows we may even use the controls we already had...) Where we comply with the EU legislation but don't directly influence.

 

hungryhalibut posted:

So, it seems that May will shortly be announcing a delay in the vote until the new year. Incapable of doing anything but kick the can down the road. We’ll have to live with this shit even longer. Why doesn’t she just give up? It’s unbelievable. 

There's never been a better time to be a masochist 

hungryhalibut posted:

So, it seems that May will shortly be announcing a delay in the vote until the new year. Incapable of doing anything but kick the can down the road. We’ll have to live with this shit even longer. Why doesn’t she just give up? It’s unbelievable. 

If true, that the delay is 3 weeks or more, that's about 1/4 of the time left.  It must be tactical to give no time to an alternative.

This realy is a disgraceful abuse of process and fundamentally is not democratic in any form.

Thank heavens we voted for Cameron though since I'd hate to see what Milliband would have been like if worse...

Stephen packer posted:

Watching the way the EU has operated I think it's done what it is there to do- looking after the interest of the EU27. 

Stephen, your faith is touching but utterly misplaced. Like all large entrenched bureaucratic structures, the EU now exists solely to perpetrate itself - any higher purpose it may once have had is now subsumed by the drive to enforce The Project (a federal Europe) and to ensure that the bureacracy and its attendant big business lobbyists endure.

It does not exist to "look after the interests of the EU27" because it does not like sovereign states. It is there purely to look after its own interests and those of neoliberal/globalist business.

There is much pious claptrap spouted about the EU, but here's a question for Bremaniancs and Eurofanatics - why is it proving so hard to leave an organisation supposedly built on harmony and co-operation? The sophistry and cretinous intransigence of Juncker, Barnier and the rest over the past couple of years is every bit as egregious as Johnson, Fox and Mogg's blather.

I don't expect an answer, but hey - I'm an optimist at heart...

Hmack posted:

Ok Mike,

So is your position now that leaving with 'no deal' is preferable to remaining in the EU?

If so, do you have an answer to the seemingly impossible to answer question of what then happens to the Irish border? 

No nothing like that at all,  I don't like the TM deal (as it stands)    I like a no deal crash out even less,  & I can't agree agree to cancel brexit as that is denying the will of the people - or at least not without a 2nd referendum that does approve such a move.

The Irish border question is not impossible,  far from it.  I worked in Ireland for many years in an industry with close relations to road & sea transport & that included meetings with Irish & UK customs & veterinary organisations.  Even when I retired 9 years ago,  cross border processes were more & more frequently using 'technical' procedures - electronically verifying & pre-approving the freight movement.   As I understand it that is now the norm in many sectors.    It will need to become the norm on both sides,  it will mean the Irish will face an unwanted cost to get it completed quickly (before 2020),  so maybe it needs an offer of a contribution towards the management of the install process & cost be funded by UK. 

Stephen packer posted:
hungryhalibut posted:

So, it seems that May will shortly be announcing a delay in the vote until the new year. Incapable of doing anything but kick the can down the road. We’ll have to live with this shit even longer. Why doesn’t she just give up? It’s unbelievable. 

If true, that the delay is 3 weeks or more, that's about 1/4 of the time left.  It must be tactical to give no time to an alternative.

This realy is a disgraceful abuse of process and fundamentally is not democratic in any form.

Indeed, the does look like TM's end game - many commentators noted early on in TM's premiership that she was instinctively a Remainer, and her strategy would be to delay & frustrate the process until there was no option left but to remain. That would account for her managing to deliver such an underwhelming deal. But presumably there is always the danger that she delivers instead either a no-deal Brexit (which it's quite apparent she doesn't want), or falls foul of Parliamentary process. Adding the facility to withdraw Art 50 also this late in the game would represent a danger to this strategy - but maybe the logjam will be broken by the Tories finally rustling up the requisite 48 votes? Whatever, it's apparent that it's all going to happen very quickly now...

Kevin-W posted:
Stephen packer posted:

Watching the way the EU has operated I think it's done what it is there to do- looking after the interest of the EU27. 

Stephen, your faith is touching but utterly misplaced. Like all large entrenched bureaucratic structures, the EU now exists solely to perpetrate itself - any higher purpose it may once have had is now subsumed by the drive to enforce The Project (a federal Europe) and to ensure that the bureacracy and its attendant big business lobbyists endure.

It does not exist to "look after the interests of the EU27" because it does not like sovereign states. It is there purely to look after its own interests and those of neoliberal/globalist business.

There is much pious claptrap spouted about the EU, but here's a question for Bremaniancs and Eurofanatics - why is it proving so hard to leave an organisation supposedly built on harmony and co-operation? The sophistry and cretinous intransigence of Juncker, Barnier and the rest over the past couple of years is every bit as egregious as Johnson, Fox and Mogg's blather.

I don't expect an answer, but hey - I'm an optimist at heart...

I always find it curious why people patronise and then ask a rhetorical question in an insulating way.

Anyway... Why is it proving so hard for the UK to leave? Simply because our cabinet/government/parliament had not agreed what we wanted before we issued A50.

We issued A50 with no preparation and since then May has done her damnedest to drag the country along her vision for brexit, beset by the ERG on one side and Europhile Tories on the other. Compounded by the reliance on the DUP and the lack of a functioning opposition.

This could have been done much faster if we had agreed what we wanted, but we cannot; as soon as it is documented we argue about it and it disappears.

Apparently there may have to be a vote on whether she can defer tomorrow's vote. She might well lose that vote and be forced to hold the other vote; which she would then lose...

You couldn't make it up.

TM's time must have come; but does a change of leader at this moment actually help anyone? The clock continues to tick, or rather clang loudly.

Bruce

Hey - perhaps the one person we should be congratulating in this whole sorry mess is Vladimir Putin.

It appears that the Russians very successfully influenced the result of the US Presidential Election, and by all accounts supported and contributed to the funding of the UK's Brexit campaign. Both the US and the UK are more politically divided than ever, the EU, NATO and the UN have been significantly weakened. Who could possibly have predicted this?

Perhaps the reality is that Putin has simply played a blinder and we have fallen lock stock and barrel into his trap! 

Add Reply

Likes (2)
fathings catPcd
×
×
×
×