Politics, politics, politics

[the dza]

I think a Norway deal is a disaster. Even if it does stop the free movement of people.

We will have positioned ourselves as subservient to the EU, which to them is a ridiculous boost.

People like to play it down, but we are a massive asset to the EU, and we will have just given them the keys and told them to drive, we will just be in the back seat.

I would much rather a hard brexit, and whatever follows, than that.

That's why, with the makeup of the Tory party, I don't think such a deal would get through Parliament.

I think we could end up with no-deal and then a no-confidence vote in the government, with a GE to follow. I think there would be enough Tory MPs prepared to bring down the government in the event of a no-deal that the conditions for an early election in the Fixed-Term Parliament Act would be met. At that point, we could see Labour decide to go with a 2nd vote on the options as part of their manifesto.

Who the phuck knows though?

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

both? - "He said the party's 12 MPs - with one exception - were "solid" in their determination to stop Brexit."

re Norway this would mean no ECJ but EFTA court has ultimate jurisdiction and it also requires free movement outside of "EEA Agreement allows non-EU member states to opt out of the four freedoms if they are facing serious economic, societal or environmental strain." which I guess will be decided by the EFTA court if we try to impose it.

Note that the EFTA court has said that we could have two judges if we joined. They still really like the idea of adding the UK's heft. Whether the EEA collectively share this enthusiasm is moot.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

That's why, with the makeup of the Tory party, I don't think such a deal would get through Parliament.

I think we could end up with no-deal and then a no-confidence vote in the government, with a GE to follow. I think there would be enough Tory MPs prepared to bring down the government in the event of a no-deal that the conditions for an early election in the Fixed-Term Parliament Act would be met. At that point, we could see Labour decide to go with a 2nd vote on the options as part of their manifesto.

Who the phuck knows though?

Sadly, Labour's conference is going to end up with a weak, consolidated motion on second referendum that makes it a last resort.

And the manifesto is written pretty much by the leader's office and approved by the NEC; CLPs have less input than they do on conference resolutions, which are not really that binding on the party.

Both parties would go into GE with a commitment to "respect the referendum result".

 

[Gutter Boy]

both? - "He said the party's 12 MPs - with one exception - were "solid" in their determination to stop Brexit."

re Norway this would mean no ECJ but EFTA court has ultimate jurisdiction and it also requires free movement outside of "EEA Agreement allows non-EU member states to opt out of the four freedoms if they are facing serious economic, societal or environmental strain." which I guess will be decided by the EFTA court if we try to impose it.

I was just joking, but the Lib Dems are largely irrelevant and out of step with their small numbers and extreme Europhile position.

Norway is becoming the continent's long drop - having everyone bricking on us. If anything is going to see politics swing to the extremes even more, it would be a betrayal like that.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Norway has a place at the table when trade issues are discussed. The narrative about "subservience" is jingoistic nonsense.

Fortunately, the number of people in public life who take your position is declining. The ERG's failure to agree on a no-deal policy platform, and industry's collective decision to go public about the lunacy of no deal, government relations notwithstanding, have left the hard brexit option as the preserve of cranks, hobbyists, and the Daily Telegraph.

I am neither a crank, hobbyist, or Telegraph reader. And it is not jingoistic nonsense to suggest a Norway model leaves us at the EUs behest without a voice at the table.

My position has been consistent throughout - leave does indeed mean leave, and Id like to do so on trading terms.

The EU have nixed that completely - which leaves all in or all out as the only real options for me. Norway is simply a downgrade to our current status, bloody ridiculous.

I fully appreciate that all out could well be a disaster, and later lead to an all in decision being made. I am no real fan of the EU, but this would be preferable to me, than being handicapped with a half membership status.

I also, somewhat sado-masochistically, quite like the idea of an all out actually waking this country up. Sharpening our systems and institutions and in a GB Utopia way maybe re-aligning our values somewhat too.

With the hope that real politics will come to the fore, with real values, ideas and drive.

That's why, with the makeup of the Tory party, I don't think such a deal would get through Parliament.

I think we could end up with no-deal and then a no-confidence vote in the government, with a GE to follow. I think there would be enough Tory MPs prepared to bring down the government in the event of a no-deal that the conditions for an early election in the Fixed-Term Parliament Act would be met. At that point, we could see Labour decide to go with a 2nd vote on the options as part of their manifesto.

Who the phuck knows though?

Well thats true, who knows?

I know they are all self serving clams, looking to profit for themselves - and generally predict on those basis!

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

I am neither a crank, hobbyist, or Telegraph reader. And it is not jingoistic nonsense to suggest a Norway model leaves us at the EUs behest without a voice at the table.

My position has been consistent throughout - leave does indeed mean leave, and Id like to do so on trading terms.

The EU have nixed that completely - which leaves all in or all out as the only real options for me. Norway is simply a downgrade to our current status, bloody ridiculous.

I fully appreciate that all out could well be a disaster, and later lead to an all in decision being made. I am no real fan of the EU, but this would be preferable to me, than being handicapped with a half membership status.

I also, somewhat sado-masochistically, quite like the idea of an all out actually waking this country up. Sharpening our systems and institutions and in a GB Utopia way maybe re-aligning our values somewhat too.

With the hope that real politics will come to the fore, with real values, ideas and drive.




Well thats true, who knows?

I know they are all self serving clams, looking to profit for themselves - and generally predict on those basis!

We can definitely agree that all of this has exposed our systems and institutions as unfit for purpose. An economic shock followed by a severe medium-term decline doesn't feel to me like a good basis for reshaping them, though.

 

[monkeybarry]

So you reckon we'll get a Norway-type deal in the end? (Sorry for all the questions but you seem like a clever b*stard and sometimes I don't fully grasp your posts).

I could live with a Norway kind of deal. From the very beginning I thought we'd end up with that as the compromise, where all sides are left unhappy to a degree but the sky doesn't fall in. It's just all these conflicting groups in Parliament that confuses me on what will get voted through.

I hope we end up with a GE sharpish.

People forget how powerful the veto is.
FiviGi it up and staying "in" would be beyond stupid......so that's probably what will happen

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

We can definitely agree that all of this has exposed our systems and institutions as unfit for purpose. An economic shock followed by a severe medium-term decline doesn't feel to me like a good basis for reshaping them, though.

Necessity being the mother of invention and that...

 

[scaramanga]

People forget how powerful the veto is.
FiviGi it up and staying "in" would be beyond stupid......so that's probably what will happen

It's only powerful if the EU want it to be.

The UK used the veto against agricultural prices in the early 80s and it was ignored. Greece used it a few years after that and it was ignored. Luxembourg has a veto and has used it a few times over taxation, so now the EU is looking to make alignment of taxation a majority vote issue instead of a unanimous one.

Much like constitution changes that become treaties.

 

[r-u-s-x]

It's only powerful if the EU want it to be.

The UK used the veto against agricultural prices in the early 80s and it was ignored. Greece used it a few years after that and it was ignored. Luxembourg has a veto and has used it a few times over taxation, so now the EU is looking to make alignment of taxation a majority vote issue instead of a unanimous one.

Much like constitution changes that become treaties.

Just did a bit of googling on the 1980s "Veto" as I hadn't heard of it, apparently we have never used our Veto - we used a disputed gentleman's agreement for the purpose of blackmail - all before my time.

from 1994
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-lichfield-writes-the-first-of-a-1438345.html

"The third kind of veto, the Luxembourg Compromise, does not legally exist; it's a gentleman's agreement between members (disputed by some) that one country can indefinitely block a majority vote in the Council of Ministers if it believes that its 'very important interests' are threatened.

Britain has only once invoked the Luxembourg Compromise - over farm prices in May 1982 - and failed to make it stick. It has sometimes used, or at least threatened, its more formal veto rights. But vetoes are a little like nuclear weapons: they rarely have to be used but they do shape the frontiers of the negotiation."

and the reason it didn't stick..

"The first major crack in the practice of unanimity came in 1982 when the UK attempted to block the final adoption of the annual package of farm prices (details of which it had already agreed to) to extract concessions in separate negotiations on the Community's budget. This was perceived by other Member States to be almost a form of blackmail. The Community had to decide urgently on the agricultural prices for that year, and Britain was not objecting to the contents of that decision but merely using its supposed right of veto to extract concessions on another matter. This attitude provoked a sufficient majority of member states – including France – to take part in a vote openly putting Britain in a minority, and adopting the package. This was possible because the "bottom line", constitutionally, was the treaty provision for majority voting in this area, rather than the political understanding (and a disputed one at that) of the Luxembourg Compromise."

 

[scaramanga]

Just did a bit of googling on the 1980s "Veto" as I hadn't heard of it, apparently we have never used our Veto - we used a disputed gentleman's agreement for the purpose of blackmail - all before my time.

from 1994
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-lichfield-writes-the-first-of-a-1438345.html

"The third kind of veto, the Luxembourg Compromise, does not legally exist; it's a gentleman's agreement between members (disputed by some) that one country can indefinitely block a majority vote in the Council of Ministers if it believes that its 'very important interests' are threatened.

Britain has only once invoked the Luxembourg Compromise - over farm prices in May 1982 - and failed to make it stick. It has sometimes used, or at least threatened, its more formal veto rights. But vetoes are a little like nuclear weapons: they rarely have to be used but they do shape the frontiers of the negotiation."

and the reason it didn't stick..

"The first major crack in the practice of unanimity came in 1982 when the UK attempted to block the final adoption of the annual package of farm prices (details of which it had already agreed to) to extract concessions in separate negotiations on the Community's budget. This was perceived by other Member States to be almost a form of blackmail. The Community had to decide urgently on the agricultural prices for that year, and Britain was not objecting to the contents of that decision but merely using its supposed right of veto to extract concessions on another matter. This attitude provoked a sufficient majority of member states – including France – to take part in a vote openly putting Britain in a minority, and adopting the package. This was possible because the "bottom line", constitutionally, was the treaty provision for majority voting in this area, rather than the political understanding (and a disputed one at that) of the Luxembourg Compromise."

Would you want to do business with people who have a gentleman's agreement with you and weasel out on technicalities?

 

[r-u-s-x]

Would you want to do business with people who have a gentleman's agreement with you and weasel out on technicalities?

not arguing the moralities just pointing out the fact we have never used a Veto and as such it was not ignored.

*if we are to argue the moralities from the brief google it does seem like we were using a gentleman's agreement that we pass on issues we cant agree on in order to politic for another issue, seems pretty weasely to me and not very Gentlemanly. But as I said I don't really know enough about it to comment on the moralities.

 

[ShipOfTheseus]

Would you want to do business with people who have a gentleman's agreement with you and weasel out on technicalities?

Preferable to people like Gove who offer to sign a legal agreement on the basis that they plan to weasel out as soon as it's politically expedient to do so.

 

[scaramanga]

not arguing the moralities just pointing out the fact we have never used a Veto and as such it was not ignored.

*if we are to argue the moralities from the brief google it does seem like we were using a gentleman's agreement that we pass on issues we cant agree on in order to politic for another issue, seems pretty weasely to me and not very Gentlemanly. But as I said I don't really know enough about it to comment on the moralities.

What's the point in being in the club if we don't get our own way one way or another?

Either we can veto anything we want for any reason we want, or we should run in the other direction as fast as possible.

 

[scaramanga]

Preferable to people like Gove who offer to sign a legal agreement on the basis that they plan to weasel out as soon as it's politically expedient to do so.

Not a fan of Gove either.

 

[r-u-s-x]

What's the point in being in the club if we don't get our own way one way or another?

Either we can veto anything we want for any reason we want, or we should run in the other direction as fast as possible.

Only child?

Either you know the point of belonging to a club where you don't always get your own way or you don't and I wont convince you. Who wants to join the Scara club.... erm no takers.

 

[scaramanga]

Only child?

Either you know the point of belonging to a club where you don't always get your own way or you don't and I wont convince you. Who wants to join the Scara club.... erm no takers.

I know why some people might prefer to be a part of a group where others decide their future - I detest the idea.

 

[StephenH]

I know why some people might prefer to be a part of a group where others decide their future - I detest the idea.

Bad experience in your Cub pack back in the day?

 

[r-u-s-x]

I know why some people might prefer to be a part of a group where others decide their future - I detest the idea.

Like a country or your local government? Split from the UK, referendum now!

 

[scaramanga]

Like a country or your local government? Split from the UK, referendum now!

Some provisions are unavoidably communal because there's no way of splitting them. I agree (reluctantly) to share street lighting with others as there's no way of providing my own without sharing it - same goes for defence and roads. But I always know better than the government what is best for me, so the less they are involved in what I do, the better. Far better to have smaller, localised government because a centralised policy suits nobody. The EU (when acting as anything other than a simple trading bloc) is one step of further removal than our own government.

If I don't like government policy, I can (and have) see my MP and have them lobby (which they did successfully) on my part. That's almost as good as me doing so myself. That option is not available to me with EU decisions.

Edit: That granularity does go a bit further. I'd very much like England to split from the UK and I'd like the South East to split from the rest of England, given a chance.