The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[TrentVilla]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

It wasn't an objection , it was as Trent followed up on , the timing I found interesting  ,why 2 months later ?  ... Although the Italian referendum isn't directly linked to the EU , depending on who wins the re-percussions for the EU appear to be huge .

I'm not sure I'd say I was objecting as such but I guess I do think it's bad form. It's one thing commenting on the discussion but it's another to some two months later use what was said in those discussions to have a pop at the person on the other side of the table due to your own domestic issues.

Which takes me back to AWOL's original point on timing which you reference above.

On the 4th December the Italian's go to the polls as it's their turn to play the Referendum Game, shut that door! (Oddly appropriate) 

The referendum in Italy is a pretty big deal given that the Italian PM Matteo Randi has said he will resign should the vote on reform go against him.

If that were to happen what next for Italy? Well it is likely Five Star would continue to pick up votes. They were started in 2009 by a comedian as a protest party (sounds like UKIP doesn't it?) yet they are now the main opposition. They are the second largest elected party and they are growing.

There is a possibility that the result on the 4th could dethrone another PM and put Fice Star on a path to an election win. Guess what they are going to offer the Italian people if that happens? Yep another referendum but this time on their EU membership.

With Italy's economic issues and border problems who would be willing to bet against them following our lead?

So there is a huge amount at stake on the 4th so I think questioning Carlo Calenda's motives for going public is justified. It is easy to throw mud at Boris and it stick but even a little scrutiny suggests that there is more to this than genuine offence at Boris and his ways.

Some of the ruling parties in Europe know they are fighting for their political lives right now. The EU could quite easily crumble very quickly, long before we have even left.

[TrentVilla]

3 minutes ago, villakram said:

May and her merry band of Britishers on the other hand are painting themselves into a very strange strategic place. It might result in a good deal for the UK (Swiss etc. models are sort of good to go), but their political careers won't get to see it out.

I'm not sure that they have a great deal of choice, as for May she is just running with her moment which I doubt she can believe fell in her lap.

[villakram]

20 minutes ago, TrentVilla said:

I'm not sure I'd say I was objecting as such but I guess I do think it's bad form. It's one thing commenting on the discussion but it's another to some two months later use what was said in those discussions to have a pop at the person on the other side of the table due to your own domestic issues.

Which takes me back to AWOL's original point on timing which you reference above.

On the 4th December the Italian's go to the polls as it's their turn to play the Referendum Game, shut that door! (Oddly appropriate) 

The referendum in Italy is a pretty big deal given that the Italian PM Matteo Randi has said he will resign should the vote on reform go against him.

If that were to happen what next for Italy? Well it is likely Five Star would continue to pick up votes. They were started in 2009 by a comedian as a protest party (sounds like UKIP doesn't it?) yet they are now the main opposition. They are the second largest elected party and they are growing.

There is a possibility that the result on the 4th could dethrone another PM and put Fice Star on a path to an election win. Guess what they are going to offer the Italian people if that happens? Yep another referendum but this time on their EU membership.

With Italy's economic issues and border problems who would be willing to bet against them following our lead?

So there is a huge amount at stake on the 4th so I think questioning Carlo Calenda's motives for going public is justified. It is easy to throw mud at Boris and it stick but even a little scrutiny suggests that there is more to this than genuine offence at Boris and his ways.

Some of the ruling parties in Europe know they are fighting for their political lives right now. The EU could quite easily crumble very quickly, long before we have even left.

Freud wins again 

[TrentVilla]

2 minutes ago, villakram said:

Freud wins again 

It's a requirement of being Italian PM.

[ml1dch]

4 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

It wasn't an objection , it was as Trent followed up on , the timing I found interesting  ,why 2 months later ?

Isn't the obvious answer to that question "because Bloomberg requested an interview with him and asked him about it this week, not two months ago?"

He's not sent this out in a press-release. An interviewer has asked him a question, he's answered it and Bloomberg have released the interview. 

[OutByEaster?]

In fairness, maybe he waited 2 months in order to give Boris time to fundamentally change his views on just about everything. He seems to have that in his locker. 

 

[snowychap]

9 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

In fairness, maybe he waited 2 months in order to give Boris time to fundamentally change his views on just about everything. He seems to have that in his locker.

Two minutes seems a more than sufficient period for that.

[Xann]

 

[StefanAVFC]

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/11/21/comment-reader-ft-gone-viral-nails-remainerleaver-brexit-row/

Quote

So, this is how the debate reads so far. I kid you not, it’s practically verbatim:

 

Remainers (left holding the Brexit baby after the Leavers… left) “WTF?”

Leavers “We voted Brexit, now You Remainers need to implement it”

Remainers “But it’s not possible!”

Leavers “The People Have Spoken. Therefore it is possible. You just have to think positively.”

Remainers “And do what exactly?”

Leavers “Come up with a Plan that will leave us all better off outside the EU than in it”

Remainers “But it’s not possible!”

Leavers “Quit with the negative vibes. The People Have Spoken.”

Remainers “But even you don’t know how!”

Leavers “That’s your problem, we’ve done our bit and voted, we’re going to sit here and eat popcorn and watch as you do it.”

Remainers “Shouldn’t you do it?”

Leavers “It’s not up to us to work out the detail, it’s up to you experts.”

Remainers “I thought you’d had enough of experts”

Leavers “Remain experts.”

Remainers “There are no Leave experts”

Leavers “Then you’ll have to do it then. Oh, and by the way, no dragging your feet or complaining about it, because if you do a deal we don’t want, we’ll eat you alive.”

Remainers “But you don’t know what you want!”

Leavers “We want massive economic growth, no migration, free trade with the EU and every other country, on our terms, the revival of British industry, re-open the coal mines, tea and vicars on every village green, some bunting, and maybe restoration of the empire.”

Remainers “You’re delusional.”

Leavers “We’re a delusional majority. DEMOCRACY! So do the thing that isn’t possible, very quickly, and give all Leavers what they want, even though they don’t know what they want, and ignore the 16 million other voters who disagree. They’re tight trouser latte-sipping hipsters who whine all the time, who cares.”

 

[Jon]

12 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/11/21/comment-reader-ft-gone-viral-nails-remainerleaver-brexit-row/

 

Quite good. Although the problem Bremainers have is that Brexiters (incl Cruella who did and said very little during the referendum, and clearly is a committed Brexiter) are now at the helm of the ship, so even though they don't really know how to steer it, and in which direction (other than roughly towards 'Brexit'), they don't want anyone helping them. They want to steer it all by themselves, although nobody on board the boat elected them to do so (Cruella being appointed by a select few rather than elected to her role as 'Captain'). And they certainly don't want any help from other ship members, who may in fact be more adept at steering the ship.

Davy Jones' locker awaits, unless the rescue vessel Supreme Court in conjunction with the H of C can save the day.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, Jon said:

Davy Jones' locker awaits, unless the rescue vessel Supreme Court in conjunction with the H of C can save the day.

What does that "rescue" look like in your view? The HoC voting against submitting Article 50? If so what do you think the consequences of that might be? 

I recall you were a fan of Blair back in the day, what do you think of him, Branson and a collection of political ne'er do wells working together to oppose Brexit? An asset to the Remain camp? 

[peterms]

33 minutes ago, Awol said:

What does that "rescue" look like in your view? The HoC voting against submitting Article 50? If so what do you think the consequences of that might be?

Speaking as someone who thought neither leave nor remain were especially attractive options, I would say we do need rescuing from what May is about to do, which is to destroy any possible negotiating position by serving article 50, at which point the EU has all the power and we have none.

Until we serve it, we have a negotiating position, which is that if we don't see an acceptable deal, we won't serve it.  Despite the rhetoric about no negotiation, the EU will see failure to serve A50, but holding it in reserve, as one of the worst outcomes for them, magnifying uncertainty in countries like France and Italy.

The better course of action would be to say we need to achieve clarity on the terms of leaving, settle that in a form of provisional agreement that can be upheld, and hold a referendum on whether leaving on the terms which are by then known to be the best available is still acceptable to the majority.

Since May is placing the internal needs of the tory party far ahead of the needs of the country, if a court judgement can create the space to achieve a more rational way of handling the mess the tories have created, then that would be a help.

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, peterms said:

Speaking as someone who thought neither leave nor remain were especially attractive options, I would say we do need rescuing from what May is about to do, which is to destroy any possible negotiating position by serving article 50, at which point the EU has all the power and we have none.

Until we serve it, we have a negotiating position, which is that if we don't see an acceptable deal, we won't serve it.  Despite the rhetoric about no negotiation, the EU will see failure to serve A50, but holding it in reserve, as one of the worst outcomes for them, magnifying uncertainty in countries like France and Italy.

The better course of action would be to say we need to achieve clarity on the terms of leaving, settle that in a form of provisional agreement that can be upheld, and hold a referendum on whether leaving on the terms which are by then known to be the best available is still acceptable to the majority.

Since May is placing the internal needs of the tory party far ahead of the needs of the country, if a court judgement can create the space to achieve a more rational way of handling the mess the tories have created, then that would be a help.

That's an interesting view on the negotiating strategy. 

I like the idea of maximising the uncertainty for the EU to create leverage, but their discipline so far has been impressive regarding no negotiation before  notification. I think it suits them not to blink first and therefore maintain the status quo - the outcome they actually want. 

There's also the complicating factor of UK remaining members of the EU indefinitely if we can't get them to the table prior to notification!  That's not going to fly from a practical or a political perspective, given the genuine need to give effect to the public vote and deliver certainty for business as soon as humanly possible.

I also disagree that the EU holds all the negotiating cards after A50 because trade is only one element of any agreement that must run as a twin track alongside the disengagement negotiations. Security, intelligence and defence are our major trumps cards that don't get much recognition in the public debate around leaving.

If the EU point blank refuses to engage with the trade issue from the earliest stages then that is a casus belli to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty structures - Article 50 states that amongst other things the EU must negotiate the best possible relationship with the leaving member as part of the process.

So viewed in those terms refusing to trigger Article 50 until that is agreed makes good sense. Perhaps that's what they are doing now, just not trailing it in the press? 

The second referendum I totally disagree on, but Blair and his cronies in Westminster and the media will be pushing hard for it over the next few years. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Speaking as someone who thought neither leave nor remain were especially attractive options, I would say we do need rescuing from what May is about to do, which is to destroy any possible negotiating position by serving article 50, at which point the EU has all the power and we have none.

Until we serve it, we have a negotiating position, which is that if we don't see an acceptable deal, we won't serve it.  Despite the rhetoric about no negotiation, the EU will see failure to serve A50, but holding it in reserve, as one of the worst outcomes for them, magnifying uncertainty in countries like France and Italy.

The better course of action would be to say we need to achieve clarity on the terms of leaving, settle that in a form of provisional agreement that can be upheld, and hold a referendum on whether leaving on the terms which are by then known to be the best available is still acceptable to the majority.

Since May is placing the internal needs of the tory party far ahead of the needs of the country, if a court judgement can create the space to achieve a more rational way of handling the mess the tories have created, then that would be a help.

This is essentially exactly where I am right now. 

[Awol]

This works equally well for this thread or the US politics thread. 

Well worth 5 mins - imo. 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, peterms said:

Speaking as someone who thought neither leave nor remain were especially attractive options, I would say we do need rescuing from what May is about to do, which is to destroy any possible negotiating position by serving article 50, at which point the EU has all the power and we have none.

Until we serve it, we have a negotiating position, which is that if we don't see an acceptable deal, we won't serve it.  Despite the rhetoric about no negotiation, the EU will see failure to serve A50, but holding it in reserve, as one of the worst outcomes for them, magnifying uncertainty in countries like France and Italy....

Since May is placing the internal needs of the tory party far ahead of the needs of the country, if a court judgement can create the space to achieve a more rational way of handling the mess the tories have created, then that would be a help.

There's a lot in that, and she shouldn't have put the Tories ahead of the interests of the nation (not should Cameron).

The flaw with the "don't trigger A50" and give away our, er, Trump, card, is that it becomes undemocratic. People voted to live in a referendum, the result of which they were promised would be implemented. If the steps to implement it are not taken, then the Gov't loses its legitimacy, given the size of the issue at hand.

She made her statement way too soon, and for party reasons I agree, but she would have had to do it at some point - the error was in not using the trump card to get something while it remained in play. Though the EU 27 by just saying and holding to "no talks till you trigger A50" would have ultimately won the stand off, due to the legitimacy point.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

I also disagree that the EU holds all the negotiating cards after A50 because trade is only one element of any agreement that must run as a twin track alongside the disengagement negotiations. Security, intelligence and defence are our major trumps cards that don't get much recognition in the public debate around leaving.

Security, intelligence and defence are not trump cards, unless we act like Children, and if we were to act like children, we'd get treated like children. Basically, if we were to say "we're not co-operating or sharing intel/data etc. anymore unless you give us [whatever]" that would be immensely counter productive, it would put lives at greater risk and it would imperil the UK as well.

Once A50 is triggered the 2 year fixed time (unless extended by unanimous vote of all 27) simply runs until it stops and whatever is agreed is what it is. The "hurt" for the UK would be far worse than for the EU  27 and everyone on all sides knows it.

[peterms]

People were also told that we would stay in the single market, and that the health service would get big extra investment if we left.

For some that won't have made a difference.  For others it will.

It's entirely reasonable to say that circumstances have changed, things that were thought possible now don't seem so, and therefore people should have the opportunity to make the decision on the best available information.

In fact what seems unreasonable is to cling to the result of a vote made on flawed and sometimes deliberately misleading information, and say that it must be binding even if it turns out that was was claimed or assumed is in fact not the case.

It would be like deciding to buy a car, then finding out it had no engine and was powered by rubber bands, and saying that we made a decision and so must stick to it.  You can make a case why that should be so, but it seems to fly in the face of all reason.

Pretty obviously, the reason leavers wouldn't want a second vote with better information is that they fear they would lose it.

And I say this as someone who thinks the EU is an institution that should be radically changed,  because right now it's unsupportable.

[Awol]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Security, intelligence and defence are not trump cards, unless we act like Children, and if we were to act like children, we'd get treated like children. Basically, if we were to say "we're not co-operating or sharing intel/data etc. anymore unless you give us [whatever]" that would be immensely counter productive, it would put lives at greater risk and it would imperil the UK as well.

Once A50 is triggered the 2 year fixed time (unless extended by unanimous vote of all 27) simply runs until it stops and whatever is agreed is what it is. The "hurt" for the UK would be far worse than for the EU  27 and everyone on all sides knows it.

That's not exactly how I meant it but if, as some statements have indicated, our soon to be former political bezzies on the Continent actively set out to damage the UK simply for leaving political union then nothing should be off the table. 

That's not about being a child, it's about using the full spectrum of state influence and power to defend the national interest. 

I'd sell it as something like: "we would like to maintain and deepen our historic national commitment to our European allies defence and security, but if those very same allies set out to wilfully damage the UK economy we will have difficult choices to make around resource allocation. Or, don't piss up my back then tell me it's raining. 

It shouldn't be the first conversation with the EU but neither should it go unsaid forever if they really get nasty - which they might.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

That's not exactly how I meant it

Apologies. I think however you (or diplomats or negotiators) word it, threatening (even ever so gently) our neighbours and friends with actions which would make them (and us) less safe is both utterly unacceptable and likely to harden rather than soften attitudes in negotiations.