The Consequences of Brexit (part 3)

One thing I don't really understand about this whole Brexit thing is the "the country has voted, now we should all work to make it happen" malarky. No, as close as damn it half the country voted either way.

Bugger if I'm going to help - you voted it, you sort it out. Chances are I'll be OK so I'm buggered if I'll help replace decent EU legislation with some witchcraft that the Tory party is going to bring in. Working Time Directive ? Sod that, if you don't work 100 hours a week you can be sacked immediately.

Possibly it wouldn't have been so bad if the Labour party were in charge but with the Tories ? I bet they're ringing their hands with the chance to bring back debtors prisons and other Victorian values

One thing I don't really understand about this whole Brexit thing is the "the country has voted, now we should all work to make it happen" malarky. No, as close as damn it half the country voted either way.

If it had been a clear and proper decision, then I think that would be right: we should work together to do what is best for the country.

It was not a clear and proper decision: it was a misinformed and misinterpreted piece of advice, give to a body that is all but incapable of taking advice, so we should all work together to bring down that body and either reform or replace it.

But this is the policy that we have democratically decided upon. There are obvious and logical advantages to working collaboratively on something as essential as energy, so you need to make the case for the advantage of abandoning that collaboration.

 

 

 

You have to really stretch the definition of democracy to find even a shred of truth here.

One thing I don't really understand about this whole Brexit thing is the "the country has voted, now we should all work to make it happen" malarky. No, as close as damn it half the country voted either way.

 

Bugger if I'm going to help - you voted it, you sort it out. Chances are I'll be OK so I'm buggered if I'll help replace decent EU legislation with some witchcraft that the Tory party is going to bring in. Working Time Directive ? Sod that, if you don't work 100 hours a week you can be sacked immediately.

 

Possibly it wouldn't have been so bad if the Labour party were in charge but with the Tories ? I bet they're ringing their hands with the chance to bring back debtors prisons and other Victorian values

I tend to agree with this.

I have practically zero interest in helping make this work.

But I do have a big interest in watching May fail. I don't believe she or her government can cope with what is coming.

I tend to agree with this.

 

I have practically zero interest in helping make this work.

 

But I do have a big interest in watching May fail. I don't believe she or her government can cope with what is coming.

Oo,I don't know about that,the penny might be starting to drop:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/brexit-uk-backing-away-from-threat-to-leave-with-no-deal-say-eu-diplomats

Theresa May

EU diplomats claim conciliatory signals from UK officials are an attempt to lower the temperature as Theresa May prepares to send the UK’s article 50 letter on Wednesday. Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters

Patrick Wintour Diplomatic Editor

Tuesday 28 March 2017 06.32 BST Last modified on Tuesday 28 March 2017 07.12 BST

European diplomats based in the UK say the British government is stepping back from its threat to leave the EU without a trade deal if negotiations break down.

In private, say diplomats, UK officials recognise the “havoc” that this would cause, and have come to regret the threat to turn the UK into a deregulated offshore tax haven, implicit in Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech in January, when she warned that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal”.

They claim the conciliatory signals from UK government officials are an attempt to lower the temperature asthe prime minister prepares to send the UK’s article 50 letter on Wednesday, triggering the start of two years of intensive Brexit negotiations.

Many EU diplomats told the UK government in the wake of May’s Lancaster House speech that the threat jarred with the tone of the rest of what she said, and had made it harder to build a political consensus for a deal in Europe.

One UK-based ambassador, with deep knowledge of the European Union, said: “They [british ministers] have realised that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ won’t fly. They are worried about people in this country who have an ideological and political intention of creating chaos. The civil service have told them it would create havoc.”

The EU diplomats revealed their anxiety that May has been too willing to bend to the prevailing wind with some of her own backbenchers and the Brexit-supporting press, setting up expectations that they believe she will struggle to meet.

You have to really stretch the definition of democracy to find even a shred of truth here.

Well yes, the European Parliament is elected by some kind of obscure "proportional representation" system which means that there is a half reasonable chance that the party one votes for might actually get a seat. Quite the antithesis of what the UK traditionally hold as democracy, so I can understand where you are coming from on that point...

Oo,I don't know about that,the penny might be starting to drop:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/28/brexit-uk-backing-away-from-threat-to-leave-with-no-deal-say-eu-diplomats

 

 

 

 

Theresa May

EU diplomats claim conciliatory signals from UK officials are an attempt to lower the temperature as Theresa May prepares to send the UK’s article 50 letter on Wednesday. Photograph: Yves Herman/Reuters

 

Patrick Wintour Diplomatic Editor

Tuesday 28 March 2017 06.32 BST Last modified on Tuesday 28 March 2017 07.12 BST

European diplomats based in the UK say the British government is stepping back from its threat to leave the EU without a trade deal if negotiations break down.

 

 

 

In private, say diplomats, UK officials recognise the “havoc” that this would cause, and have come to regret the threat to turn the UK into a deregulated offshore tax haven, implicit in Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech in January, when she warned that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal”.

 

They claim the conciliatory signals from UK government officials are an attempt to lower the temperature asthe prime minister prepares to send the UK’s article 50 letter on Wednesday, triggering the start of two years of intensive Brexit negotiations.

 

Many EU diplomats told the UK government in the wake of May’s Lancaster House speech that the threat jarred with the tone of the rest of what she said, and had made it harder to build a political consensus for a deal in Europe.

 

One UK-based ambassador, with deep knowledge of the European Union, said: “They [british ministers] have realised that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ won’t fly. They are worried about people in this country who have an ideological and political intention of creating chaos. The civil service have told them it would create havoc.”

 

The EU diplomats revealed their anxiety that May has been too willing to bend to the prevailing wind with some of her own backbenchers and the Brexit-supporting press, setting up expectations that they believe she will struggle to meet.

She does whatever she feels the Daily Mail and the Sun want.

It's so brazen. Either she is scared of them or she agrees with them. Either way it means ignoring the wishes of half of the electorate.

Well yes, the European Parliament is elected by some kind of obscure "proportional representation" system which means that there is a half reasonable chance that the party one votes for might actually get a seat. Quite the antithesis of what the UK traditionally hold as democracy, so I can understand where you are coming from on that point...

The European parliament is not in charge. If they were in charge I wouldn't raise this issue. I prefer Bundestag-style PR with top-up lists rather than straight party-list PR, but that's peripheral to this discussion.

I cannot emphasise this enough. The European parliament is not in charge over there. They're subordinate to the Commission which is not elected.

The European parliament is not in charge. If they were in charge I wouldn't raise this issue. I prefer Bundestag-style PR with top-up lists rather than straight party-list PR, but that's peripheral to this discussion.

 

I cannot emphasise this enough. The European parliament is not in charge over there. They're subordinate to the Commission which is not elected.

I take it you've never watched the "Yes, (Prime) Minister." series.

Come back and discuss when you have educated yourself a little.

I take it you've never watched the "Yes, (Prime) Minister." series.

Come back and discuss when you have educated yourself a little.

Sure I have. You're aware that it's a satirical comedy and not a documentary right?

There's a civil service in the EU as well you know, but that's peripheral to the matter at hand.

I guarantee I possess a great deal more education than your good self. Otherwise you would have some idea how power is distributed in the EU and of the transferred competencies and resulting directives.

Is this all you have left? References to 1980s satire. Maybe take a break and come back when you have something of value to offer.

Sure I have. You're aware that it's a satirical comedy and not a documentary right?

It is well known to accurately illustrate the balance of power between the civil service and the government. Likewise there is a similar relationship at the EU.

The commission may not be elected, but it is a fallacy that they act without the say so of the parliament.

---------- Post added 28-03-2017 at 10:00 ----------

Is this all you have left?

Left? You have not yet put forward a sound argument needing to be countered.

It is well known to accurately illustrate the balance of power between the civil service and the government. Likewise there is a similar relationship at the EU.

The commission may not be elected, but it is a fallacy that they act without the say so of the parliament.

It's not remotely apt.

In your example the Minister would be the Commission, as that's the commission's job, and the civil service would be the EU civil service. Neither is elected at the EU level.

---------- Post added 28-03-2017 at 10:02 ----------

You're arguing in favour of technocracy over democracy. That's what you're doing. Both with the idea that we should tolerate the transfer of power from our own elected parliament to the EU commission, and with the idea that the referendum results should be ignored.

I think a lot of internationalists are reluctantly stuck in that position.

You need to own it.