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

[blandy]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

Quote

It is clear, however, that the approach to EUWA powers is, at least in multiple important places, inconsistent with the promised course of action. The result is that important policy changes are more likely to go undeliberated at a time when the risk of that happening is already very high.

 

I wonder if parliament (both Houses) can (or will) take up the fact that  what's being attempted is " inconsistent with the promised course of action". I wonder if there will be trouble making/assertion of role (delete as apllicable) as a consequence?

[peterms]

On 21/03/2019 at 21:03, jackbauer24 said:

@tonyh29 Sorry, I'm going to 'pick' on you as a Brexiteer but in the genuine hope of seeing the other side of the argument. Everything too quickly resorts to name calling, or sarcasm and I want a proper conversation with a Leaver that is based on a willingness to listen rather than speak/preach. I know that's not a very political attitude!!

So forgetting a lot of the intricacies of the debate can I ask some simple questions?

1. What 'Leave' did you vote for? Customs union or WTO or other (a May type deal)

2. Do all of the above beat 'Remain'?

3. If not all Leavers want the same thing, how can they argue they are the majority?

4. This sounds patronising but isn't meant as such - do you feel tricked or did you expect some 'bluster'?

5. Why is Leave so against a People's Vote if it could actually give them their Leave on a much quicker time scale? 

I really struggle to see the other side of the argument on this one and I'm normally pretty good at seeing both sides. There are just too many contradictions on the Leave side and I'd love a proper conversation to explain the thinking of a Brexiteer. Even if I don't agree, I just want to understand the rationale.

I was very unmoved by either option.  On balance, I might have voted leave, but my son persuaded me that I should use my vote for him as it was his future, he couldn't vote and I would be dead anyway.  So I voted remain.

The problem with "remain and reform" is that the treaties basically entrench a neoliberal approach, and now that has been achieved, shifting the EU on anything major is pretty much impossible due to the power of veto.  Looking at things like the Growth and Stability Pact, the nonsense that is the Euro, and the appalling way they asset-stripped Greece to bail out the mistakes of banks in western Europe, there's a lot wrong with the EU, and I can't see that changing unless there is some kind of existential crisis that forces a reappraisal of some of the framework of how it operates.  It's a deeply unattractive institution in those respects, despite the obvious advantages in other ways.

But the problem with "leave" is that the people who are driving it seem to be motivated by a wish to deregulate, lower standards, rush into very disadvantageous treaties with countries like the US, restrict freedom of movement and generally make most of us worse off.  That would be worse than the current arrangement.  So the best option, of leaving the institution but staying within the trading bloc and maintaining common regulatory standards seems not what most brexiters are looking for, although it might be the option which best reaches a compromise between the leave and remain camps (@blandy touched on this recently, I think).

From where we are now, any outcome will be divisive, especially if it is seen to be the product of manoeuvring and chicanery, so it would be better to repeal A50 and have an extended national discussion about what outcomes we most want and how they could best be achieved.  But at present, too many people on both sides are still seeing it as a zero-sum game which you either win or lose, and I don't detect much appetite for a more open and fluid discussion.

 

[snowychap]

31 minutes ago, blandy said:

I wonder if parliament (both Houses) can (or will) take up the fact that  what's being attempted is " inconsistent with the promised course of action". I wonder if there will be trouble making/assertion of role (delete as apllicable) as a consequence?

I can't see what they can do apart from get a bit shirty and take it in to consideration the next time something like this is asked for. But the next lot will just say that they aren't this lot or that these were extreme circumstances or...

The thing is if the next lot don't have to really 'ask', i.e. they have a decent enough majority to steamroller their things through, they might well point to this use of SIs as a new precedent.

Edit: There may be something they can do but I'd have thought that the people in that article (the ones with the knowledge) would have suggested it. Going back to Mark Elliott's original blogs/evidence to select committee(s) on the subject, I don't think he said there was anything that could be done - hence his/the concern at the time.

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by snowychap

[bickster]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I bet someone will be along in a moment to claim that's a million people

2000 - 3000 would be my guess

[StefanAVFC]

Democracy in action folks

[tonyh29]

11 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Democracy in action folks

I thought you were asking for referendum vote 2  .. surely you'd be in favour of a 3rd or even a 4th vote ?

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

I might have voted leave, but my son persuaded me that I should use my vote for him as it was his future, he couldn't vote and I would be dead anyway

 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

I thought you were asking for referendum vote 2  .. surely you'd be in favour of a 3rd or even a 4th vote ?

You do realise, I know that the question asked in ref 2 would be substantially different to that which was asked in ref 1.

MV3 is exactly the same shite as in MV1 and MV2 and that's without going into the time differentials between the votes.

You, sir, are disingenuously comparing oranges with orangutans

[blandy]

2 hours ago, peterms said:

The problem with "remain and reform" is that....

...there's a lot wrong with the EU, and I can't see that changing unless there is some kind of existential crisis that forces a reappraisal of some of the framework of how it operates.  It's a deeply unattractive institution in those respects, despite the obvious advantages in other ways.

But the problem with "leave" is that the people who are driving it seem to be motivated by a wish to deregulate, lower standards, rush into very disadvantageous treaties with countries like the US, restrict freedom of movement and generally make most of us worse off.  That would be worse than the current arrangement.  So the best option, of leaving the institution but staying within the trading bloc and maintaining common regulatory standards seems not what most brexiters are looking for, although it might be the option which best reaches a compromise between the leave and remain camps (@blandy touched on this recently, I think).

From where we are now, any outcome will be divisive,... so it would be better to repeal A50 and have an extended national discussion about what outcomes we most want and how they could best be achieved.  But at present, too many people on both sides are still seeing it as a zero-sum game which you either win or lose, and I don't detect much appetite for a more open and fluid discussion.

A couple of comments on this - firstly, I think the EU will get worse, rather than better. I think further integration/commonality and further cumbersome procedures which fudge stuff will come into play because it's so unwieldy at times and because a fair chunk of the other member coutries want that. The ones that don't, with or without the UK, will stuggle against that - maybe stop it, maybe not.

Dead right that all the throbbers in the tory party want to leave to get rid of all the protections that the EU offers ordinary people - workers rights, enviro protection, food standards and whatever. 

Revoking A50 would , I'd imagine, be the most "divisive" path to take (It's what I'd do personally, but I'm not sure parliament will, unless under extreme duress (about to "no deal", when unless a pretty unlikely chain of events were to occur ( a mentalist being in charge of the Gov't on Apr 12th.) the PM would pull it. ) 

[Wainy316]

Finally a benefit!  I love getting stamps in my passport.

 

Brussels confirms return of border checks under no-deal Brexit

British travellers will need to get passport stamped and may be asked about purpose of visit

 

 The European commission said its Brexit no-deal plans “cannot replicate the benefits of being an EU member”. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

British travellers will get a stamp in their passport every time they enter and leave the European Union in the event of a no-deal Brexit, the European commission has confirmed.

The announcement on border checks was revealed days after the British government secured a short extension that shifts the Brexit deadline to 12 April.

“The risk of a no-deal scenario is becoming increasingly likely,” an EU official said. The EU’s Brexit no-deal plans “cannot replicate the benefits of being an EU member” and were not “mini-deals or a negotiated no deal”, but unilateral measures to avoid disruption for the EU side, the official said.

In an information notice, the commission confirmed that UK nationals would have the right to visa-free travel for short stays in the EU (90 days in any 180-day period), if the UK grants the same arrangement to citizens of all EU member states. “Your passport will be stamped both when you enter the EU and when you leave it, so that this period of 90 days, which is visa-free, can be calculated.”

In another return to the past, British travellers may be asked by border guards to provide information on the purpose of their visit and means of subsistence during their stay. Luggage would be subject to customs checks.

No deal would also mean the return of duty-free and the right of British travellers to claim a refund of VAT paid on goods during their stay in the EU, provided they have the right documents.

The commission also confirmed British travellers would lose their right to access healthcare through the European health insurance card, and phone companies would no longer be obliged to waive roaming charges for British travellers in the EU.

The EU increasingly believes that a no-deal exit on 12 April is likely, after handing Theresa May a three-week extension to find a way out of the Brexit impasse. The British government would get a longer extension only if it agreed by that date to take part in European elections on 23 May.

European commission officials have visited all 27 member states to check on no-deal plans. Countries that trade heavily with the UK are hiring hundreds of customs officers and are building border inspection posts to restart checks on animal, food and plant products. The Netherlands plans to recruit 900 customs officers at the port of Rotterdam, France is taking on 700 and Belgium 300-400. More than half of these officers are already working and the rest are expected to be in post by the end of 2019 or early 2020.

The plan for the Irish border remains uncertain. An official said the commission was in talks with the Irish government to ensure that EU law is upheld. “[Checks] will have to be done where they belong but that doesn’t mean we want to see visible infrastructure at the border,” the official said.

While preparations were being taken “extremely seriously”, delays could not be avoided: “Disruption will occur and nothing will be smooth … There will be frictions, it’s pretty clear.”

If the UK crashes out of the EU on 12 April, the government will have six days to decide whether to pay its dues into the 2019 EU budget, so enabling British farmers, researchers and other recipients to receive EU funds.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/25/brussels-confirms-return-of-border-checks-under-no-deal-brexit?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR2wMyUw2XzLn2lx2vW0nsLH2pHjrd8kx3C4C11GDDDnk8HOwcXJXIFtKzU

[tonyh29]

50 minutes ago, bickster said:

You do realise, I know that the question asked in ref 2 would be substantially different to that which was asked in ref 1.

MV3 is exactly the same shite as in MV1 and MV2 and that's without going into the time differentials between the votes.

You, sir, are disingenuously comparing oranges with orangutans

Where does it say under the definition of democracy that the wording on every vote has to be different  ?  I bet if you read back through all the peoples vote stuff when it first started   the argument was all along the lines of "people are allowed to change their mind"  , there wasn't a postscript of  " as long as its a differently worded question" 

 

[peterms]

32 minutes ago, blandy said:

Revoking A50 would , I'd imagine, be the most "divisive" path to take

I suggest it on the basis of returning to a further referendum to choose between tangible, available options whose implications have been fully explored and explained, which would take far longer than the time available.

But I think the people who are asking for revocation just want to stay in, and like the leavers, they don't want to countenance any possibility of the other option.  And whether people would believe the options would be presented again is unlikely, especially given what the press would be up to in the meantime.  So in practice it would be divisive, whatever the theoretical attractions.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, tonyh29 said:

Where does it say under the definition of democracy that the wording on every vote has to be different  ?  I bet if you read back through all the peoples vote stuff when it first started   the argument was all along the lines of "people are allowed to change their mind"  , there wasn't a postscript of  " as long as its a differently worded question" 

 

half reading again

1 hour ago, bickster said:

and that's without going into the time differentials between the votes

plus in the democracy that is our Parliament, it clearly states in Erskine May that the question cannot be brought forward in the same session unless the content is substantially different and it has been this way since the 1600's. See Bercow's ruling on this very matter only last week. So that's where it says it, in the rulebook that governs the mother of all parliaments

 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, peterms said:

I suggest it on the basis of returning to a further referendum to choose between tangible, available options whose implications have been fully explored and explained, which would take far longer than the time available.

But I think the people who are asking for revocation just want to stay in, and like the leavers, they don't want to countenance any possibility of the other option.  And whether people would believe the options would be presented again is unlikely, especially given what the press would be up to in the meantime.  So in practice it would be divisive, whatever the theoretical attractions.

You've confused me (easily done). I don't follow all of the logic.

If we revoke A50, then there is no longer any leave negotiation with the EU, no draft deal, it's all gone. There are no "available options", surely? We're just at where we were say 8 years ago - a member of the EU, only this time with a bunch of furious throbbers all pulsing away about betrayal.

If we revoke A50, then by definition of ending the process to leave before we've left, then yes, we will stay in. Anyone wanting to Leave is not going to call for it to be revoked, so what you wrote is right, logically, there - but did you mean that, or did you mean anyone calling for a second ref wants to stay in?  Because while that may be the case, it is unknowable and utterly of no consequence. They clearly do countenance the possibility of another option happening. A second ref would be (IMO) less divisive than revoking A50 (I'd revoke, 'cus **** the throbbers, it's less bad than any other deal or no deal). A ref on "you asked to leave, this is what leave looks like, do you still want it? " is far less of a divisive thing than "you asked to leave, but no". A ref has the advantage of being able to say "we're not trying to stop it, we're offering you a chance to confirm it".

Like I said, if I was King of the Land I'd can it. too much lies etc. Sort out the rest after, but parliament has to be a bit more...edemocratic. 

 

[snowychap]

which leads to the following thread:

 

All of which may now have some relevance if it is indeed the government's intention to try and bring forward some sort of motion on the WA on its own - so not complying with S.13 of the Withdrawal Act (thus that would still be necessary) but perhaps enough for the EU to satisfy requirements for the longer extension.

[villa4europe]

25 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Where does it say under the definition of democracy that the wording on every vote has to be different  ?  I bet if you read back through all the peoples vote stuff when it first started   the argument was all along the lines of "people are allowed to change their mind"  , there wasn't a postscript of  " as long as its a differently worded question" 

we're not allowed to change our minds after 3 years of having our eyes opened to how inept our negotiators are but within the space of 2 weeks after getting their bollocks tickled in a way that we will never be told the details of MPs can change theirs?

i personally have no confidence in there being fair motives for some of these mind changes, it feels corrupt as **** to me

 

[bickster]

More unicorns

[peterms]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

If we revoke A50, then there is no longer any leave negotiation with the EU, no draft deal, it's all gone. There are no "available options", surely?

What has happened over the last couple of years, all the discussions, all the work, doesn't disappear, and would be built upon.  However, we all know that we're not ready to leave, and I don't think that's all down to the way the talks have been handled, it's largely because it is a more difficult process than can be managed in the 2-year timespan arbitrarily picked some years previously when the provision was drawn up.

If we revoked, the EU would say that they won't enter any negotiations until A50 is served.  They said that before.  But it's not in the best interest of a sensible and amicable solution to hold that position, and we should invite them to reconsider.  They won't want to, because they wouldn't want the whole thing to be open-ended, and they also quite like the pressure being on us.  The alternative of having a recalcitrant member country starting to be obstructive and vetoing things would be worse, and I think they might reconsider.

So the aim would be to hold discussions without a deadline, to find which options could be available, to assess them, and then to take a decision.

It's not something that's going to happen, starting from where we are now, but I think it would have been a preferable way to do it.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, peterms said:

I think it would have been a preferable way to do it.

Indeed. 

The rest of the post - I don't see it like you do at all, but that's by the by.

[StefanAVFC]

MV3 not happening tomorrow

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by StefanAVFC