Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[MJW (ya that one)]

They are being sincere because Remain would become the new default. The fact that they could change their mind again doesn't change that. They would also pass it at the last possible moment leaving no time for an emergency ruling before the deadline and due to the Europhile nature of the ECJ they wouldn't have what it takes to cause Hard Brexit. It's like a game of Jenga.

[Krill]

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.u...article-50

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.com/2018/1...nt-to.html

Finally, on the conditions for revocation, the submission in writing is straightforward enough: the EU institutions could surely work out whether a revocation was genuine or not, in light of the publicity that would obviously accompany it. The requirement of an ‘unequivocal and unconditional’ revocation, ending the withdrawal process on unchanged terms, suggests that the notification of revocation must confirm that the UK is not intending to renegotiate its membership or to send another notification shortly afterward. Implicitly if the UK revocation arguably did either of those things then the legal question would arise of what the European Council could do about it. It could either refuse to accept the notification, with the result that the UK might then challenge that decision; or it could simply decide to cross that bridge when it came to it, either refusing to renegotiate membership or (more problematically) to accept a fresh notification of withdrawal if that followed shortly after a revocation of the first notice (again, that decision could then be challenged).

There is absolutely no way that the law to require a referendum can be done before 29/3/19: In the UK, a referendum has to be enacted by legislation. So not only does the legislation need to occur before Article 50 is revoked (because that law needs to go through all necessary processes and receive royal assent), but it realistically has to happen hand in hand with the vote to revoke Article 50.

Then the EU refuses to accept notification, stating it is illegal, and forces the UK to lodge the case with the ECJ. Meanwhile, the EU just acts as if No Deal has passed and all the economic damage happens anyway. The ECJ couldn't do anything in that situation, it would be the countries themselves that instigate the No Deal protocols. You are acting like the EU just goes "Hur Dur OK then" like a moron. And Remain as a default? There is no default in that situation.

[darrelljs]

Trump just did his part for Remain.

Krill, would you vote the same way with the benefit of hindsight?

Darrell

[Krill]

Yes, and I'll be damned if I vote a certain way simple because "I believe my vote will be ignored so I might as well vote for what I expect will happen".

If you view the relationship between any country and the EU as that of an abusive relationship, it makes more sense. You don't want to leave your partner because you are threatened, controlled, and it's too dangerous to leave? But you ignore the dangers of staying in place? You partner denies that they are abusive is irrelevant, but the threaten you, that if you leave they will find you and hurt you? That's not a relationship that it's healthy to be a part of. Obviously this is a simplistic way to view it, but it's not that unreasonable an analogy.

[Gustaran]

You partner denies that they are abusive is irrelevant, but the threaten you, that if you leave they will find you and hurt you?

You see, that part shows the delusion of British politics. It's more like divorcing your wife, but still expecting to use her car whenever you see fit. Then when you are denied access, you start to loudly complain that she wants to punish you for the divorce.

The talk about about the spiteful EU is just a silly narrative, because it's easier for Brexiteers to label the inherent disadvantages of a Brexit deal as "revenge" by the EU instead of admitting that the assumptions about the UK's negotiating position and tactics were completely illusionary from the beginning.

What do you think is going to happen once the UK starts to negotiate all these other supposedly great trade deals? Get a glimpse here:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/01/busin...index.html

And concerning the "threatening" behaviour of the EU:

[Krill]

My god that is an ugly pant suit, and an editorialized title from a privately owned newspaper that has an owner who has an axe to grind: the relevant quote is "Punishing Britain would be a calamitous act of self harm". Oh Look, Italy is in recession and Germany's growth has stalled. I'm not seeing where what May said was wrong (and in reality, I don't think she has said much over the last 2.5 years that has been unreasonable, it's everyone else that has been weird). That's a really weak example of May playing up the Eu as "Threatening".

You see, that part shows the delusion of British politics. It's more like divorcing your wife, but still expecting to use her car whenever you see fit. Then when you are denied access, you start to loudly complain that she wants to punish you for the divorce.

? There is a split of assets in either separation. It's fairer to say that the Free Trade Agreement is the "expecting to use her car when you see fit" part of the analogy (and let us all be clear: these go both ways, the UK wants to use the car, but the EU wants to access to the dog ie fishing rights etc), and we aren't even close to working that stage out right now. I'd say it's closer to the "You can't leave unless you give me the house" part of a divorce RE: £40m payment, which is why a No Deal is going to be rough not just economically, but how do you patch up that relationship afterwards? If we think it was vicious before (and I don't), I think it is going to seem like a battle to the death afterwards.

But I think you're missing the point I'm making: it's not the negotiating since 2016 that is "abusive", and I don't think the EU is abusive. It's the directions that both societies are taking are pushing them apart. One wants to travel the world, the other wants to buy a house and settle down. "Threatening" is just a way to describe it.

Also, a trade deal with the US is just a stupid idea. Just stick to what is in place already.

[ipecac]

The EU is falling apart, so the real question is not whether to leave but when to leave. Most likely it is better to leave before things get really messy.

No they can't! That is the sodding ECJ ruling

There is absolutely no way that the law to require a referendum can be done before 29/3/19

With so much at stake, trusting in the rule of law is not something I'd do.

[AdrienIer]

The EU is falling apart

Quite the opposite : this mess has proven that the EU is far more united than everyone thought. The fact that it has spoken with only one voice throughout the Brexit negotiations (the voice of Michel Barnier), that even the most unruly members like Hungary and Poland stayed in line, and that literally no other country is seriously speaking of leaving the EU (despite the fears that brexit would make others follow suit) are very good signs for the stability and strength of the union.

[Gustaran]

Interesting interview with former UK ambassador to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers in the German news magazine "Der Spiegel":

DER SPIEGEL: Would a different prime minister have done better than Theresa May?

Rogers: They would have had different priorities. Immigration and the free movement of people is the central question for Theresa May. She wants to reduce the numbers of people coming into the UK both from inside and outside the EU. The consequence was always obvious: Once you end that, you can't have free movement of goods, services and capital. So you have to leave the single market. And if you want a fully autonomous trade policy, you cannot stay in the customs union either.

DER SPIEGEL: What is your view of the role the EU has played in the negotiations. Do you think they trying to "punish" the UK as many Brexiteers claim?

Rogers: I don't. If you deliberately leave the club, it has automatic consequences, and some of them are unpleasant. Of course there is a risk: For the British public, who has no reason to understand every detail, it looks as if the Europeans have set up a process to maximize the British pain. I don't think they have.

DER SPIEGEL: Have the Europeans done everything right?

Rogers: They have set up a very well-structured technocratic process which delivers legal text. But I think that European leaders spent too little time thinking about how the future of the continent should look after Brexit. That is a mistake.

Whole interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/worl...55789.html

[MJW (ya that one)]

Hungry and Poland are unimpressive due the $ received from the EU and ignoring it. France and Germany can drag everyone else along but they might fall someday. Merkel is a lame duck and Marcon is at 27%. There also have been individual nations negotiating with the UK if No Deal happens; it's been really half-assed and not getting a lot of attention because no-one expects No Deal to happen, but shows there are cracks. That being said this is the EU's weakest moment: strong enough to annoy but not strong enough to extort. They survive indefinitely if they get through the next recession. They might lose Hungry and Poland due to them not being like the other members but it would stop there.
------
ECJ's emergency rulings only take two weeks or so. UK is okay taking it. Brexiteers and Remainers would also be okay because they would think it would help them win (EU looking bad for Brexiteers and Leaving looking bad for Remainers).

I wonder what would happen if the ECJ ruled against unilateral revoke. There was enough time for a Second Referendum so Coburn would go for that or prop up May against ERG. He doesn't have what it takes to cause the UK to crash out to gain a poltical edge.