Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42 · 05-07-2019 06:24PM

It is being entirely driven by the toffs at the top. The sudden concern for democracy, yet no one voted for No Deal TM was not even voted for by her own party.

Party manifestos are regularly ignored because of circumstances. But somehow, suddenly failure to deliver on a vague question imperils the whole of democracy!

This whole mess is entirely down to internal Tory infighting, so endemic that they couldn't even agree on how to leave.

McGiver · 05-07-2019 07:52PM

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Swiss people I have spoken with laughed at the idea that their part time army of weekend warriors defends the country.

But those are only reserves. RoI has none such.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The banks defend Switzerland.

Yes, partially.

Military personnel, total, % of labour force
RoI - 9,000 (3.86%)
CH - 21,000 (4.27%)

Military spending
RoI - $1b
CH - $4.6b

The RoI deficit is clear especially in spending, infrastructure and active reserves, but anyway...

/OT

McGiver · 05-07-2019 08:01PM

Podge_irl wrote:

A federal Europe is not happening, so your entire point is somewhat irrelevant.

This is the main point. It is moving towards that point but it is not imminent at all, realistically decades away and also all members will have to agree and I can see only small incremental slow steps being taken, like we have seen in last 30 years.

And if some sort of con-federation finally happens, given the complexity, variety and history, I can predict a Swiss type of a looser federation where federal government controls 10% of gdp at most, and individual states set their own budgets, taxation, legislation, police etc.

To compare budgets of the following 'federal governments':
Current EU budget - <1% GDP
Swiss federal government - 11% GDP
Canadian federal government - 20% GDP
US federal government - 40% GDP

ThePanjandrum · 05-07-2019 08:14PM

Instead, the EU passed this. The ‘Articles’ are the bit which are actually law. The 14 paragraphs under “whereas” are just explanation. So note Article 2 on the third and final page of the document (no one else seems to have). Here is what it says:

“This decision shall cease to apply on 31 May 2019 in the event that the United Kingdom has not held elections to the European Parliament in accordance with applicable Union law and has not ratified the Withdrawal Agreement by 22 May 2019.”

The vital words are in bold here, but not (sadly) in the original. Have we ratified the Withdrawal Agreement? Nope. That means that this second extension of time ceased to apply, as it says, on the 31 May. So according to EU law, we’ve gone. We’ve been outside the EU, without a WA or an Free Trade Agreement, for a whole month and we’re still not all dead yet. Remarkable.

Charles Day - Spectator - 05.07.19

So does that mean that the Brexit discussion is now ended and we have "no deal"?

"This" is https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019D0584&from=PT

A Dub in Glasgo · 05-07-2019 08:23PM

The Scottish hustings for the Tory leadership guys tonight and Hunt comes out with this bit of democracy in action

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1147176630843953152

BonnieSituation · 05-07-2019 08:26PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Scottish hustings for the Tory leadership guys tonight and Hunt comes out with this bit of democracy in action

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1147176630843953152

Even Boris wasn't stupid enough to explicitly rule it out. He knows that just strengthens the waverers who will go to the SNP when being faced with an English Toff telling Scottish people they can't have something.

fash · 05-07-2019 09:34PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Charles Day - Spectator - 05.07.19

So does that mean that the Brexit discussion is now ended and we have "no deal"?

As neither the UK not the EU nor third countries think so, who gives a sh*t?

ThePanjandrum · 05-07-2019 10:29PM

fash wrote: »

As neither the UK not the EU nor third countries think so, who gives a sh*t?

Everyone can think you've bought a house but if the law says that you haven't then you should be bothered, or is this a little subtle for you?

05-07-2019 10:46PM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Charles Day - Spectator - 05.07.19

So does that mean that the Brexit discussion is now ended and we have "no deal"?

"This" is https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32019D0584&from=PT

The UK did hole elections and has elected a new match of MEPs, so accordingly the UK are still in the running.

brickster69 · 05-07-2019 10:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK did hole elections and has elected a new match of MEPs, so accordingly the UK are still in the running.

And is a small word.

This decision shall cease to apply on 31 May 2019 in the event that the United Kingdom has not held elections to the
European Parliament in accordance with applicable Union law and has not ratified the Withdrawal Agreement
by 22 May 2019.

ThePanjandrum · 05-07-2019 11:08PM

brickster69 wrote: »

And is a small word.

This decision shall cease to apply on 31 May 2019 in the event that the United Kingdom has not held elections to the European Parliament in accordance with applicable Union law and has not ratified the Withdrawal Agreement by 22 May 2019.

Good spot, thanks.

Sand · 05-07-2019 11:12PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Swiss people I have spoken with laughed at the idea that their part time army of weekend warriors defends the country.

The banks defend Switzerland.

If the Swiss people think banks defend them, then you should have laughed at them.

05-07-2019 11:18PM

brickster69 wrote: »

And is a small word.

This decision shall cease to apply on 31 May 2019 in the event that the United Kingdom has not held elections to the
European Parliament in accordance with applicable Union law and has not ratified the Withdrawal Agreement
by 22 May 2019.

This means that they have to satisfy both conditions for the decision to cease to apply, they have satisfied one condition but not the other.
They did not ratify the withdrawal agreement but they did hold elections.
So therefore the conditions that cancel the agreement do not apply, the agreement is still in place.

eire4 · 05-07-2019 11:27PM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The Scottish hustings for the Tory leadership guys tonight and Hunt comes out with this bit of democracy in action

https://twitter.com/TheScotsman/status/1147176630843953152

Not surprising really. Classic Tory arrogance. Will likely only further motivate and strengthen the movement for a second independence referendum in Scotland if brexit does indeed official come to pass October 31.

Strazdas · 05-07-2019 11:41PM

eire4 wrote: »

Not surprising really. Classic Tory arrogance. Will likely only further motivate and strengthen the movement for a second independence referendum in Scotland if brexit does indeed official come to pass October 31.

"I'm a democrat and I remember that in that independence referendum, the SNP very clearly said that this would settle the outcome for a generation and I think they need to be true to what they promised the Scottish electorate, just as we are true to what we promised the British electorate in delivering Brexit."

This absolute garbage again. A country can hold one, two, five or ten referendums on the same subject if it so desires.

A Dub in Glasgo · 05-07-2019 11:56PM

Strazdas wrote: »

"I'm a democrat and I remember that in that independence referendum, the SNP very clearly said that this would settle the outcome for a generation and I think they need to be true to what they promised the Scottish electorate, just as we are true to what we promised the British electorate in delivering Brexit."

This absolute garbage again. A country can hold one, two, five or ten referendums on the same subject if it so desires.

You see the SNP did not say what the Tories claim they said, Salmond said in an interview with Marr in 2014 that it was 'in my opinion and it is just my opinion' and 'it is my view'

06-07-2019 12:02AM

And no one can deny the change to the landscape, since IndyRef

Strazdas · 06-07-2019 12:09AM

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

You see the SNP did not say what the Tories claim they said, Salmond said in an interview with Marr in 2014 that it was 'in my opinion and it is just my opinion' and 'it is my view'

It's funny how these 'will of the people' merchants actually despise referendums. As soon as one goes their way, they become violently opposed to ever holding another one again and even claim it would be 'undemocratic'.

They are authoritarians in fact and see referendums as merely a tool that can be cynically used to get their way.

The Brexit crowd are the least democratic people in the UK, not the most.

fash · 06-07-2019 04:31AM

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Everyone can think you've bought a house but if the law says that you haven't then you should be bothered, or is this a little subtle for you?

After 12 years the house is mine anyway by adverse possession - nicely illustrating the general point that even if there were some "Freeman of the land" style twisted interpretation through which you can argue that the UK has already left, it doesn't matter because the relevant actors act in accordance the UK not having left.

eagle eye · 06-07-2019 05:37AM

Strazdas wrote:

It's funny how these 'will of the people' merchants actually despise referendums. As soon as one goes their way, they become violently opposed to ever holding another one again and even claim it would be 'undemocratic'.

It doesn't matter which sides win a referendum, they will not want another one. It's ridiculous to use that argument against anybody.

Tropheus · 06-07-2019 08:17AM

Good piece by Marina Hyde in The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/05/ann-widdecomb-political-exhumation-insult-ignorance-brexit-party?CMP=share_btn_tw

Ann Widdecombe’s political exhumation adds insult to ignorance in Strasbourg

06-07-2019 09:05AM

Article in the independent.co.uk where junker wants to do away with the veto on tax. That won't help the remain side. It certainly won't help us either.

Professor Moriarty · 06-07-2019 10:04AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Article in the independent.co.uk where junker wants to do away with the veto on tax. That won't help the remain side. It certainly won't help us either.

Would you have a link? Can't find it.

06-07-2019 10:08AM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Would you have a link? Can't find it.

I can't link on this phone.

I'm only just noticing it's from 15th January 2019.

lawred2 · 06-07-2019 10:09AM

He's on the record saying this repeatedly.. this isn't anything new from Juncker..

And to be honest maybe it's high time MNs paid a bit (lot) more tax. The profits and cash piles are obscene. And super rich super powerful corporations are not exactly conducive to heathy societies..

Maybe the EU should lead the way and have a common tax base or common tax code for multi nationals..

Either way, that's a separate argument. The fact remains that this isn't anything new from Juncker

PeadarCo · 06-07-2019 10:11AM

Deleted User wrote:

Article in the independent.co.uk where junker wants to do away with the veto on tax. That won't help the remain side. It certainly won't help us either.

To be fair that's not exactly new. There are some EU politicians that would like to see the tax veto go. However it doesn't matter a damm if their bosses the member states don't agree to it. I can't imagine Ireland is the only country that would like to see the veto stay.

Professor Moriarty · 06-07-2019 10:12AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can't link on this phone.

I'm only just noticing it's from 15th January 2019.

Yeah that's what I thought. No worries.

Professor Moriarty · 06-07-2019 10:13AM

PeadarCo wrote: »

To be fair that's not exactly new. There are some EU politicians that would like to see the tax veto go. However it doesn't matter a damm if their bosses the member states don't agree to it. I can't imagine Ireland is the only country that would like to see the veto stay.

Juncker is on the way out anyway.

Christy42 · 06-07-2019 10:28AM

eagle eye wrote: »

It doesn't matter which sides win a referendum, they will not want another one. It's ridiculous to use that argument against anybody.

Hunt does not have to want one but if the Scottish people want one he should grant it anyway. He is not obliged to campaign for Scottish independence.

They are everything they hate about the EU (and a few things they made up about the EU too) and they seem to glory in it while giving out to the EU.

Sam Russell · 06-07-2019 12:22PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Hunt does not have to want one but if the Scottish people want one he should grant it anyway. He is not obliged to campaign for Scottish independence.

They are everything they hate about the EU (and a few things they made up about the EU too) and they seem to glory in it while giving out to the EU.

Is that not the cornerstone of the hypocrite? Do as I say, not as I do.

The whole Sottish Indy question is the mirror of the EU/Brexit issue - 'Stronger Together' vs 'Take back Control' Make our own Laws etc.

The irony of this attitude is beyond parody.

That Brexit Party charade in the EU parliament being more of the same - and on the day the USA are celebrating the revolution against British tyranny and Colonialism, she rants against the EU's colonisation of the UK - much of which was as a result of British pressure within the EU to set it up. It would be rejected as a sketch on Spitting Image as being beyond belief.

BBC - can you replace QT with 'Spitting Image'? - or even 'Yes, Minister'? I would love to see the puppets of AW or NF.

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments