Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gaffers]

Thing is, if there had been as much public say and involvment of such an important decision back in '92,'99,'03 and especially '09 then we would have had a membership that the majority of the public could have gotten behind or at least shaped in some way through democratic means.  Instead we have had decades of conflating being elected a representative of the people with being given an agenda to do whatever someone likes vis-a-vis Europe.  All parties are guilty of this.

We finally had a vote for in or out at a point where the UK was increasingly frustrated with the EU and because Cameron had the guile to oppose Junker's election to high office he deliberately made it difficult for the then PM.  This was probably the nail in the coffin for the EU's relationship with the UK.  Until the EU makes itself a club that citizens wish to identify with rather than just be a member of because it is convenient/easy/good for the economy/etc then it will continuie to have a problem with the people it is supposed to represent.

Remember that they gave Ireland a referendum on closer integration about a decade ago and it failed.  So they had another until it finally passed.  The EU is not a democratic institution.  It is an institution masquerading as a democratic body.  To even consider a second vote on Brexit is absurdly unequal in the balance of public voice.  PM Brown signed us up to the current incarnation of the EU despite the fact that polls showed the majority of the public were against it.  Where were the cries for a public vote then?

[Doctor Gollum]

(war, Brexit etc) 

I know Brexit is going badly*, but I think war is a bit of a stretch..

*at least, according to all the wailing and gnashing of teeth I see on the Internet, here included. I mean, I even saw (elsewhere, not here) someone repeating that they "couldn't see how the ladybits who voted leave could sleep at night" ffs. We've gone right back to the vitriol and hatred of two years ago..


Actually, maybe a good war is what we need.. thin the herd a little.

All I meant was that the 1922 Committee could turn around and say that the no confidence motion is duly noted but not currently appropriate or in the country's best interest

[LC0112G]

Thing is, if there had been as much public say and involvment of such an important decision back in '92,'99,'03 and especially '09 then we would have had a membership that the majority of the public could have gotten behind or at least shaped in some way through democratic means.  Instead we have had decades of conflating being elected a representative of the people with being given an agenda to do whatever someone likes vis-a-vis Europe.  All parties are guilty of this.

We finally had a vote for in or out at a point where the UK was increasingly frustrated with the EU and because Cameron had the guile to oppose Junker's election to high office he deliberately made it difficult for the then PM.  This was probably the nail in the coffin for the EU's relationship with the UK.  Until the EU makes itself a club that citizens wish to identify with rather than just be a member of because it is convenient/easy/good for the economy/etc then it will continuie to have a problem with the people it is supposed to represent.

Remember that they gave Ireland a referendum on closer integration about a decade ago and it failed.  So they had another until it finally passed.  The EU is not a democratic institution.  It is an institution masquerading as a democratic body.  To even consider a second vote on Brexit is absurdly unequal in the balance of public voice.  PM Brown signed us up to the current incarnation of the EU despite the fact that polls showed the majority of the public were against it.  Where were the cries for a public vote then?

What you are saying is going some way to understanding the UK constitution, and what 'Parliament is Sovereign" actually means. In the UK, 'the people' aren't sovereign - they have no say in the day to day, week to week, month to month or year to year running of the country, or any agreements that the govt enters into.

Parliament took powers from the King back in the 1600's. It did not pass those powers to the people - it kept them for itself. In effect parliament replaced a single dictator (the King) by itself. The only powers the public have are those granted to the public by parliament, and those powers can be revoked. Women only got the vote in 1918/21 because parliament voted to give them that right. Parliament can revoke that right.

So as things stand, the treaties we entered into in '92,'99,'03 and '09 did not (and still would not) require public approval. Infact it can be argued that they don't even need parliamentary approval because international treaties are (arguably) govt to govt agreements under crown prerogative.

So the next time you see someone write something like "we had a referendum and the majority ordered the govt to..." you can safely assume the writer doesn't understand our parliamentary democracy. The public have no right to order the govt/parliament to do anything - they can only give an opinion. Because, ultimately Parliament is Sovereign.

[Varche]

Thing is, if there had been as much public say and involvment of such an important decision back in '92,'99,'03 and especially '09 then we would have had a membership that the majority of the public could have gotten behind or at least shaped in some way through democratic means.  Instead we have had decades of conflating being elected a representative of the people with being given an agenda to do whatever someone likes vis-a-vis Europe.  All parties are guilty of this.

We finally had a vote for in or out at a point where the UK was increasingly frustrated with the EU and because Cameron had the guile to oppose Junker's election to high office he deliberately made it difficult for the then PM.  This was probably the nail in the coffin for the EU's relationship with the UK.  Until the EU makes itself a club that citizens wish to identify with rather than just be a member of because it is convenient/easy/good for the economy/etc then it will continuie to have a problem with the people it is supposed to represent.

Remember that they gave Ireland a referendum on closer integration about a decade ago and it failed.  So they had another until it finally passed.  The EU is not a democratic institution.  It is an institution masquerading as a democratic body.  To even consider a second vote on Brexit is absurdly unequal in the balance of public voice.  PM Brown signed us up to the current incarnation of the EU despite the fact that polls showed the majority of the public were against it.  Where were the cries for a public vote then?

What you are saying is going some way to understanding the UK constitution, and what 'Parliament is Sovereign" actually means. In the UK, 'the people' aren't sovereign - they have no say in the day to day, week to week, month to month or year to year running of the country, or any agreements that the govt enters into.

Parliament took powers from the King back in the 1600's. It did not pass those powers to the people - it kept them for itself. In effect parliament replaced a single dictator (the King) by itself. The only powers the public have are those granted to the public by parliament, and those powers can be revoked. Women only got the vote in 1918/21 because parliament voted to give them that right. Parliament can revoke that right.

So as things stand, the treaties we entered into in '92,'99,'03 and '09 did not (and still would not) require public approval. Infact it can be argued that they don't even need parliamentary approval because international treaties are (arguably) govt to govt agreements under crown prerogative.

So the next time you see someone write something like "we had a referendum and the majority ordered the govt to..." you can safely assume the writer doesn't understand our parliamentary democracy. The public have no right to order the govt/parliament to do anything - they can only give an opinion. Because, ultimately Parliament is Sovereign.

Quite but you missed out that the EU cleverly trumps all. For example Italy's parliament has set a budget but the EU doesn't like it so they have to set another or be fined.

[Kevin Wood]

Thing is, if there had been as much public say and involvment of such an important decision back in '92,'99,'03 and especially '09 then we would have had a membership that the majority of the public could have gotten behind or at least shaped in some way through democratic means.  Instead we have had decades of conflating being elected a representative of the people with being given an agenda to do whatever someone likes vis-a-vis Europe.  All parties are guilty of this.

We finally had a vote for in or out at a point where the UK was increasingly frustrated with the EU and because Cameron had the guile to oppose Junker's election to high office he deliberately made it difficult for the then PM.  This was probably the nail in the coffin for the EU's relationship with the UK.  Until the EU makes itself a club that citizens wish to identify with rather than just be a member of because it is convenient/easy/good for the economy/etc then it will continuie to have a problem with the people it is supposed to represent.

Remember that they gave Ireland a referendum on closer integration about a decade ago and it failed.  So they had another until it finally passed.  The EU is not a democratic institution.  It is an institution masquerading as a democratic body.  To even consider a second vote on Brexit is absurdly unequal in the balance of public voice.  PM Brown signed us up to the current incarnation of the EU despite the fact that polls showed the majority of the public were against it.  Where were the cries for a public vote then?

What you are saying is going some way to understanding the UK constitution, and what 'Parliament is Sovereign" actually means. In the UK, 'the people' aren't sovereign - they have no say in the day to day, week to week, month to month or year to year running of the country, or any agreements that the govt enters into.

Parliament took powers from the King back in the 1600's. It did not pass those powers to the people - it kept them for itself. In effect parliament replaced a single dictator (the King) by itself. The only powers the public have are those granted to the public by parliament, and those powers can be revoked. Women only got the vote in 1918/21 because parliament voted to give them that right. Parliament can revoke that right.

So as things stand, the treaties we entered into in '92,'99,'03 and '09 did not (and still would not) require public approval. Infact it can be argued that they don't even need parliamentary approval because international treaties are (arguably) govt to govt agreements under crown prerogative.

So the next time you see someone write something like "we had a referendum and the majority ordered the govt to..." you can safely assume the writer doesn't understand our parliamentary democracy. The public have no right to order the govt/parliament to do anything - they can only give an opinion. Because, ultimately Parliament is Sovereign.

Indeed, but how long can a parliament persist with pushing through policies which do not have national support? Eventually the work of ministers starts getting hampered by the fact that they find themselves dangling from lamp posts.

[Sir Tigger KC]

And here's the issue with May's 'deal'   

If the ludicrous backstop is deployed, we cannot withdraw unilaterally as they have agreed that it can only end by mutual consent.

In my opinion, the ONLY way that the Irish border issue can be solved is through the future trading relationship, but the EU have refused to talk about the future, insisting on the backstop.  Incidentally, this probably contravenes A50, as A50 says that the withdrawal agreement takes account of the future relationship, but there is nothing beyond a bland non binding political statement of good faith. 

There is now no incentive for the EU to engage in any meaningful way on any innovative border solutions, as all they have to do is insist it is impossible and the only way is the customs union...permanently.  Sabine Weyland (Barnier's deputy) has publicly said that the customs union will form the basis of the future trade agreement.

If there is no agreement that sorts the border issue by the end of the transition, then the backstop comes into force and we are trapped.  The UK won't have the ability to pursue an independent trade policy, we will have no say in the EU's trade policies, yet they will have the ability to grant access to UK markets to any old Tom, Dick or Harry.  And there isn't a damn thing we can do!

Some sovereignty.... 

[LC0112G]

Quite but you missed out that the EU cleverly trumps all. For example Italy's parliament has set a budget but the EU doesn't like it so they have to set another or be fined.

No. The UK Parliament can decide to ignore the EU, or anyone else for that matter. However, doing so would undoubtedly result in a reaction from the other 27 EU members since we would be breaking treaty obligations that previous parliaments had agreed to follow. So the UK's choice then becomes do we want to stay in the club and follow all the rules we have previously helped draft and agreed to, or do we want to leave the club and do our own thing. There can be no cherry picking of which rules we want to follow and which we don't if we want to stay in the club.

I have no knowledge of Italy's constitutional situation. Joining the Euro undoubtedly means they have treaty obligations to other Euro nations. If those treaties involve budgetary conditions then they should either follow them, or leave the Euro. I would expect that as a sovereign nation they have the choice, so it's which they want the most.

[LC0112G]

Indeed, but how long can a parliament persist with pushing through policies which do not have national support? Eventually the work of ministers starts getting hampered by the fact that they find themselves dangling from lamp posts.

The answer to that is for however long the Police/Army decide to uphold/enforce the laws that parliament subjects it's people to. 

[LC0112G]

And here's the issue with May's 'deal'   

If the ludicrous backstop is deployed, we cannot withdraw unilaterally as they have agreed that it can only end by mutual consent.

In my opinion, the ONLY way that the Irish border issue can be solved is through the future trading relationship, but the EU have refused to talk about the future, insisting on the backstop.  Incidentally, this probably contravenes A50, as A50 says that the withdrawal agreement takes account of the future relationship, but there is nothing beyond a bland non binding political statement of good faith. 

There is now no incentive for the EU to engage in any meaningful way on any innovative border solutions, as all they have to do is insist it is impossible and the only way is the customs union...permanently.  Sabine Weyland (Barnier's deputy) has publicly said that the customs union will form the basis of the future trade agreement.

If there is no agreement that sorts the border issue by the end of the transition, then the backstop comes into force and we are trapped.  The UK won't have the ability to pursue an independent trade policy, we will have no say in the EU's trade policies, yet they will have the ability to grant access to UK markets to any old Tom, Dick or Harry.  And there isn't a damn thing we can do!

Some sovereignty.... 

Wrong, again. What part of Parliament is sovereign is difficult to understand?

This or any future parliament can decide to unilaterally revoke any agreement/treaty. One parliament cannot bind the actions of a future parliament. It's true that any other deals that rely on the Withdrawl Agreement would come crashing down too, but if parliament want's to tear everything up and start again from scratch it can. Trouble is, that risks landing us in a situation like North Korea which has no international trade to speak of.

What we can't do is tear up the Withdrawl agreement and continue trading with the EU in the same way we currently do (during the transition period), or in whatever way is agreed during negotiations.

[Sir Tigger KC]

Parliamentary sovereignty is not difficult to understand.

In fact  along with 17400000 people I voted to restore the sovereignty that Parliament has slowly but surely given away to Brussels over the last 45 years or so, but it seems that the government and parliament dosn't want it.

It remains to be seen whether Parliament asserts that sovereignty that you keep banging on about and rejects this agreement, but in my opinion at least, if they do, they will be doing so for all the wrong reasons. IE to force a GE for narrow party political reasons, or to reverse the result of the referendum. 

Anyway I think it was clear from my post that I meant that there would be little we can do under the terms of this agreement, so I don't know why you keep bringing up Parliamentary sovereignty? 

[Varche]

And here's the issue with May's 'deal'   

If the ludicrous backstop is deployed, we cannot withdraw unilaterally as they have agreed that it can only end by mutual consent.

In my opinion, the ONLY way that the Irish border issue can be solved is through the future trading relationship, but the EU have refused to talk about the future, insisting on the backstop.  Incidentally, this probably contravenes A50, as A50 says that the withdrawal agreement takes account of the future relationship, but there is nothing beyond a bland non binding political statement of good faith. 

There is now no incentive for the EU to engage in any meaningful way on any innovative border solutions, as all they have to do is insist it is impossible and the only way is the customs union...permanently.  Sabine Weyland (Barnier's deputy) has publicly said that the customs union will form the basis of the future trade agreement.

If there is no agreement that sorts the border issue by the end of the transition, then the backstop comes into force and we are trapped.  The UK won't have the ability to pursue an independent trade policy, we will have no say in the EU's trade policies, yet they will have the ability to grant access to UK markets to any old Tom, Dick or Harry.  And there isn't a damn thing we can do!

Some sovereignty.... 

Wrong, again. What part of Parliament is sovereign is difficult to understand?

This or any future parliament can decide to unilaterally revoke any agreement/treaty. One parliament cannot bind the actions of a future parliament. It's true that any other deals that rely on the Withdrawl Agreement would come crashing down too, but if parliament want's to tear everything up and start again from scratch it can. Trouble is, that risks landing us in a situation like North Korea which has no international trade to speak of.

What we can't do is tear up the Withdrawl agreement and continue trading with the EU in the same way we currently do (during the transition period), or in whatever way is agreed during negotiations.

I cannot see that. it is like comparing lemons to beach rocks. North Korea has very little International trade because of sanctions due to its nuclear ambitions . The UK would still have a massive amount of trade on WTO or better terms.

What is totally unacceptable about this agreement is the knock on effect that the outcome will have on us all regardless of where we live or nationality. Trade should have been a condition of the agreement on the table today. Well done Barnier and May. I expected common sense to apply but instead spite reigns supreme. They did tell us this the day after the vote in fairness.


Aaron. "couldn't see how the ladybits who voted leave could sleep at night" ffs. We've gone right back to the vitriol and hatred of two years ago..  Spot on. I, understandably, am on some expat forums. Plenty of that vitriol on there despite it being a remain like agreement and it is from remainers against those "thickos" that voted leave!  It is going to take a special leader to meld the Uk back into shape next year. Someone earlier likened it to war. I think that is a fair analogy apart from hopefully there won't be any killing. The government is going to have to be able to react very quickly to sort out issues post 29th March especially if we crash out.

[STEMO]

But this how a democracy works. If you have a nation where 52% of the population are 'thickos' and 48% are 'not thickos', then the thickos will always win a vote that has only two options. If there was only two political parties, the thickos would permanently govern.
Whining cannot change this, discussion and persuasion possibly could. Not thickos could say that the thickos only voted this way because they were fed a crock of shite before the referendum. Promises that not thickos could see would be impossible to deliver. But it's all moot, we are where we are, live with it.

[Kevin Wood]

What is totally unacceptable about this agreement is the knock on effect that the outcome will have on us all regardless of where we live or nationality. Trade should have been a condition of the agreement on the table today. Well done Barnier and May. I expected common sense to apply but instead spite reigns supreme. They did tell us this the day after the vote in fairness.

Yes, it's not as if we didn't have agreements about such things with our European allies before the EU. It's just that Brussels have cynically bundled in all the common sense policies of neighbouring countries with similar aims along with their personal political ambitions which the UK electorate have found to be wanting. Now, we can't have the common sense without signing up to the batshit stuff.

[Doctor Gollum]

Here's the thing though...

Article 50 only sets out the leaving process. What happens afterwards and any terms etc cannot be begun until the A50 bit is done. This is why there has to be the transition phase to thrash out any long term items such as trade/customs etc deals/details.

The backstop is what will happen if the transition period fails to reach agreement to all the details. This is why it is so vague. Until March 29th and the end of A50, none of these details can be formally addressed.

The second, smaller document submitted yesterday is a prelude to the final arrangements which will form the basis of post transition... ie our ultimate place as a separate entity to the EU.

A hard/no deal Brexit is the most simplistic of alternatives with everything set by WTO rules and hard borders. This could yet happen at one of two points...

1. On March 29th if the EU fails to unanimously sign off on yesterday's submission; or...

2. At the end of the transition period if there's no progress with the details outlined within yesterday's submission and, significantly, both UK and EU agree that it would be better than invoking the Backstop.

Brexit could never realistically be a simple line in the sand. It is, in fact, a long drawn out process that we are about a third of the way through...

Whilst it's not a great foundation for a long-term deal, yesterday's submission is about as good as it gets as far as getting the A50 process signed off

[ronnyd]

Surprised that Rods2 has been quiet on this, or, have i missed something?