Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[DB83]

I am not so sure that the British Govnmt actually negotiated the deal that has been 'signed off' is representative of the democratic wishes of the electorate.

One had a chief negotiator - Ollie Robbins - that was an ardent remainer. One had a PM who was, if she ever admitted to it, a remainer. Anyone else was, including the Brexit ministers, were just cannon fodder. So the ultimate deal was always going to be pro.

Then you have a Parliament that is predominantly pro.

One can always question individual motives for such a stance.

But I will take humbrage at an earlier remark that the UK is seen as a bully. The UK represented one vote from 28. Hardly a bully even with a veto it could hardly influence.

Maybe one should ask a French or even a German normal citizen if they had the choice between distant dogma, that the EU has become, or complete self-rule, AND their own currency, I would bet my last drachma on what they would choose. Had Le Penn had won the presidential vote one might be getting a different discussion now.

France has a totally different agenda to that of Germany. Germany might have lost two major 20thc wars yet has emerged stronger than the countries that jointly defeated it.

One can argue, maybe correctly, that a consequence of European Union means no more such wars. But it is still the case that to the loser the spoils. And the ultimate power.

[Roger Allott]

Originally Posted by DB83

But I will take humbrage at an earlier remark that the UK is seen as a bully.

In Artford, Ereford hand Ampshire, urricanes ardly hever appen.


.

[laberbacke]

Originally Posted by DB83

But I will take humbrage at an earlier remark that the UK is seen as a bully. The UK represented one vote from 28. Hardly a bully even with a veto it could hardly influence.

Like I've argued before, most of what Britons are unhappy about in their country are problems that can be traced back to Downing Street and Parliament, not to Brussels and Strassbourg. British politicians love to blame Brussels for British problems, and for EU policies they themselves signed off on - what ever will all those "but Brussels made us do it!" MPs do once the boogeyman is gone?

Like I've also argued before, if you want to enfranchise yourself and become part of the 21st century, why not start right at home and get rid of the monarchy and aristocracy? I'm a citizen. So are my friends in France. You are the subject of a hereditary monarch with no democratic legitimization whatsoever. Your monarchy isn't even a modest "middle class" monarchy like the ones in Scandinavia, but full of expensive pomp and imperial glory, an anachronism and living testament to an unjust class system.

The European Commission that scoundrel and others like to criticize repeatedly as "undemocratic" is at least appointed by the elected governments of the member states, and the European Parliament is elected by the people. That's a hell of a lot more legitimate than the head of your country is.

Originally Posted by DB83

Maybe one should ask a French or even a German normal citizen if they had the choice between distant dogma, that the EU has become, or complete self-rule, AND their own currency, I would bet my last drachma on what they would choose. Had Le Penn had won the presidential vote one might be getting a different discussion now.

The approval rating of the EU is at 75% here in Germany. I can't speak for France. Of course we aren't happy with everything the EU does either, or with its deficits of democratic legitimacy. But we don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Unlike Britons, we are far more risk averse with this kind of political brinksmanship, which is understandable, given our ancestors' colossal fuck-ups.

Originally Posted by DB83

France has a totally different agenda to that of Germany. Germany might have lost two major 20thc wars yet has emerged stronger than the countries that jointly defeated it.

One can argue, maybe correctly, that a consequence of European Union means no more such wars. But it is still the case that to the loser the spoils. And the ultimate power.

France and Britain both have a larger military, nuclear weapons, and a permanent seat with veto power in the Security Council. Germany has none of these hard power assets. Of course the German GDP is larger - it has a 23% larger population.

I'm glad that you mention that little European problem called wars in a byline. Yes, as long as the European Union endures, there will be no wars between its member states. Now, with respect to the British hardships in both World Wars, they are absolutely dwarfed by the death and destruction in other member states, so maybe Britons can't similarly appreciate what a colossal, historic accomplishment that is in and of itself!

My grandfather barely made it back from Stalingrad, his brother died in France. The worst rivalry we have today is the one on the football field. Their generation could only dream of the Europe that we take for granted. If they knew that so many people today would be ready to throw this dream away over minor disagreements, they'd call today's generation spoiled and insane.

If the EU fails, we will go back to individual nation states competing with each other, and it will only be a matter of time before such competition will turn violent somewhere on the continent. One and a half thousand years of constant strife between the collapse of the last Unified European state - Rome - and the formation of the European Union - is ample proof of that.

I'd take Jean-Claude Juncker over the likes of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco any day of the week. We are a fortunate generation indeed if he is the worst European leader people can come up with.

[hoss]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

It seems to me that the insistence on a migration policy that incites popular -- and populist-- resentment everywhere is more than annoying to Brits, its corrosive to the EU project.

1. Isn´t it somehow funny that European nations that two centuries ago set out to conquer other continents are now hysterical about being "conquered" themselves? Is this an indication of a deep rooted guilty conscience or is it that Europeans can only think of migration as being something aggressive?


2. Globalization does not only concern the ease of transaction of funds and goods. As the world is being progressively interwoven, other barriers are taken down as well. That also means that you can´t duck away from problems in other parts of the world because sooner or later they will appear on your doorstep. After the decolonization Europe has disregarded almost anything that happened south of the Mediterranean. We did not help those people build countries where they could live in safety and prosperity. We should not be surprised that people move to where the wealth is if we did nothing to move the wealth to where the people are. One should rather be surprised that it did not happen much earlier.

[Devius]

MPs could end up supporting another Brexit referendum if "none of the other options work", Tony Blair has said.

The ex-prime minister said there could be majority support for a new EU poll if Parliament ended up "gridlocked".

He urged Theresa May to "facilitate" the process by "running all options" by MPs first, including Norway and Canada-style alternatives as well as her deal.

But Labour frontbencher Angela Rayner says another referendum could increase division in the UK.

Details:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46565064

Cheers BLIAR - I wasn't in favour of a second referendum anyway, but now you're involved, I am 100% dead against it....

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by palo5

I'm sorry if it sounds like that, but the EU are being realistic. They know very well that UK can change its laws when it's left, and they want to prevent UK doing that unilaterally. Their motive is to protect a Member (Republic of Ireland) which is understandable

If you're miffed in a "what,-you-don't-trust-us-and-our-national-honor?" sense, you should remember from your training that contracts are not meant to have loopholes. Would you sign a contract with loopholes?

It's not about trust: it's about accountability. If you agree with accountability, you'll understand the EU's position

A loophole is a means by which a contract party wriggles free of their obligations and breaks their agreement but without technically breaking the contract. It normally arises from a vagueness or omission in the wording of the contract. Any contract loophole arises from the error of the people who drafted the wording.

On the other hand, it is normal for contracts to contain terms and conditions which which grant remedies to either party in case the other party does not fulfil their agreement. What would Britain's remedy be if the EU seeks to perpetuate Britain's "backstop" situation by not engaging properly with free trade negotiations?

[jacques22]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

What would Britain's remedy be if the EU seeks to perpetuate Britain's "backstop" situation by not engaging properly with free trade negotiations?

You have the answer in this BBC article:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46569699

The key bits here:
BBC Brussels reporter Adam Fleming said the fact that the EU said it would use its "best endeavours" to get a future trade deal that would get rid of the need for a backstop - even if the backstop came into force - was seen as important by British officials who said it meant the UK could go to an independent arbitration panel if they felt the EU was dragging its feet.
(...)
She has a written statement from her 27 fellow leaders confirming - reconfirming, really - that the Irish backstop is an insurance policy which would only ever be temporary.
If the backstop is activated, then the EU would use its "best endeavours" to negotiate a trade deal, which would mean it could be deactivated. That wording is crucial, say British officials, because it means the UK could refer the EU to the independent arbitration panel established in the Brexit treaty if London felt Brussels was moving too slowly.

The EU and May did the sensible thing by having a backstop, which was the only way to preserve the Good Friday Agreement. As long as the EU and the UK disagree on a solution to the Irish border, there will be that backstop.

You can only blame the British Cabinet for failing to come up with a decent proposal. Their MaxFac was a nonsensical fantasy. No technology will ever replace human checks on animals and food.
The EU came up with 3 decent proposals, and each of them was rejected by the UK:
1. Giving Northern Ireland free access to the Single Market (the UK refused because it wanted to have free access too, and then the Cabinet claimed that proposal would violate the UK's territorial integrity);
2. Having a de facto border along the Irish Sea with checks in ports and airports (again, the Brits said it would divide the UK's territorial integrity, even though there are already checks in ports and airports, the big difference being that they would significantly increase with Brexit);
3. Having checks anywhere in the UK, that is, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That solution was a no-brainer because it didn't divide the UK's teritorial integrity. The only issue is that it would add red tape and prevent frictionless trade, but that's the inevitable result for leaving the SM and CU.

Leavers are complaining about the backstop, but it's the UK which created that mess. EU membership gave birth to the Good Friday Agreement and helped bring peace in Ireland. By pulling out of the EU, the UK will create an instable environment for Ireland. As one of the parties that signed the GFA, the UK has the moral and legal responsibility to preserve the peace in Ireland and prevent a hard border.

[bacchus61]

I am probably Mr McThicky from thick land but could someone explain why a second referendum would be undemocratic?
People who voted to stay wanted just that, to keep the equilibrium. Those who voted leave could be split into three groups:
1) Hard Brexit. Let's leave at any cost, we are stronger than those 27 other nations and we do not need them
2) If we leave we can get the best of both worlds, continue trading with the EU as if nothing has happened and also secure favourable deals elsewhere
3) Some sort of compromise of the above
It is now evidently clear that number 2 is not available so it is either hard Brexit or May's deal.
If we assume, I know the acronyme, that the above represented an equal split of leave voters then, what ever the outcome of Parlements vote, it could only be supported by a third of the voters who chose to leave the EU. That would represent a policy that was supported or favoured by 17% of the electorate. How is that democratic?
I understand that those in the two other groups will still accept the deals on offer to leave but let's find out.
Hard Brexit
May's deal
Stay
Biggest wins

[hoss]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

What would Britain's remedy be if the EU seeks to perpetuate Britain's "backstop" situation by not engaging properly with free trade negotiations?

See, you have a weak negotiating position!

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by laberbacke

If the British Parliament votes that deal down, a deal their own government negotiated for over two years, the consequences will be disastrous and long-lasting. No one, not the EU, nor China, nor the US, will be much inclined in the future to enter in years-long negotiations with the UK, with the possibility of wasting millions of man hours on deals that could just as well fall apart in a deeply divided Parliament, representing a people that have no idea what they want the role of their country in the world to be.

Thank you, laberbacke. The Brits, having at one time or another pissed on every other country, express great shock that nobody is inclined to do them any favors, no matter how much they whine. Brexit is a wound they knowingly inflicted on themselves, and now they are pissing themselves because nobody wants to fix their stupidity.