schmittel wrote: » I think the Lib Dem policy is actually very clever given their particular circumstances. ... Revoke policy provides a strong reason to vote Lib Dem for both Labour and Tory voters. It also helps them in Scotland to defend against rising SNP vote. The current Tory seats are up for grabs, and there will be plenty of Scots who would like to vote to stay in EU and UK. Vote for Lib Dems so. Indeed if I was a Lib Dem strategist I would be tempted to run in all seats in Northern Ireland. Allow those who want to remain in EU a clear voting opportunity to do so, not tied up in sectarian politics. ... The Lib Dems biggest problem is their leader, not their policy.
schmittel wrote: » I'd say that's a risk that the Lib Dems are perfectly prepared to take, even it annoys the SNP. It is reasonable to assume that those Tory gains in 2017 reflected the Remain in UK vote, which for many is the biggest driver of their voting intention. If you are a Scottish voter and want to Remain in UK and EU who do you vote for? Lib Dem seems to be the obvious choice. I think it is reasonable for Lib Dems to go after that vote. (Unless Swinson wants to do a backroom deal to protect her own seat!)
Bit cynical wrote: » I'm afraid though he has achieved something. A more brexiteer oriented deal and a less watertight version of the backstop.
Bit cynical wrote: » Just another reflection on this. You say Johnson's threat of no deal was hollow. But then why did MPs feel the need to force him to request an extension?
Bit cynical wrote: » But not a tenable constraint to have when negotiating. You have to be able to walk away. I can see why these MPs voted that way but it was not to help the UK get a better deal; it was to undermine negotiations.
lawred2 wrote: Parliament simply took away the crayons from the man childs in government who went around acting like this Brexit lark was all about who postured and shouted the most. The 'threat' of walking away was empty bluster.
Bit cynical wrote: » Just another reflection on this. You say Johnson's threat of no deal was hollow. But then why did MPs feel the need to force him to request an extension? It means that they believed he was willing to go through with his promise. If they believed it, then it is not inconceivable therefore that others believed it too - that he was hell-bent on leaving no matter what. So there is a certain contradiction in your post here.
Bit cynical wrote: » Well no, under the original May deal, all of the UK was to be under a customs arrangement with the EU during the transition period. This was formally scrapped in the Johnson deal.
Bit cynical wrote: » And leading up to the deal? There was certainly talk on this forum to the effect that the EU should not grant any further extensions and it wasn't just the British media saying that France was getting tired of extensions. It is true that a lot is the same as May's deal but it is important to remember that things like the CTA and EU citizens rights were already planned to continue even in the event of no deal. But the border arrangements and trade during the transition period are worse under Johnson's deal than May's from Ireland's perspective. If there was genuinely no chance of no deal (for example because France or Hungary or some other country objected to an extension) then the EU would not have entertained Johnson. They could simply have insisted on Mays deal and the UK would have been forced to either accept or eventually revoke A50. Remember that before Johnson took over, negotiations had been closed. No further negotiations. No changes to the backstop etc. That was the position of many people on this forum. Then Johnson gets into No. 10 on a ticket of leaving the EU no matter what. The Benn Act weakened him; there is no doubt about that but not sufficiently to do a deal which was worse from the perspective of the EU country most affected by Brexit other than the UK. I would still submit that the reason for this was that the threat during negotiations of no deal still remained despite the Benn Act.
robinph wrote: » The biggest threat to the EU has always been its breakup, not a former member leaving with no deal. Yes a no deal would be damaging for Ireland, a minor annoyance for the rest of the EU. But by a long distance the only thing the EU actually cares about is that it continues to exist. Johnson had nothing to bargain with the EU on, only a few threats to his own parliament if they happened to not be paying attention at the time.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » The customs union isn't worth a farthing for the service industries that have a £29Bn surplus with the EU.
Field east wrote: » Up to this morn I thought that the brexit idea was a mad one, but after reading these figures - even if they are even ‘half true’ - I have looked in the Oxford Dictionary for a word to describe the mad decision taken and I could not find such a word. The word ‘ suscide’ does not even remotely capture it..
Deleted User wrote: » It's not always about economics. For many people, it's about restoring democratic control to their own institutions, monitoring migration, and having their voices heard. Many people would rather suffer some sort of GDP loss in the hope for restoring the above.
Field east wrote: » Up to this morn I thought that the brexit idea was a mad one, but after reading these figures - even if they are even ‘half true’ - I have looked in the Oxford Dictionary for a word to describe the mad decision taken and I could not find such a word. The word ‘ suscide’ does not even remotely capture it.. WHERE is the UK going to get the market to replace the EU market it currently has access to? Who is going to be in charge of standards re for example all the rights, ; goods services standards? Will there be any ‘reaction’ from that section of the public that may not benefit from a completed Brexit re dip in living standards, wages , etc if such an environment comes about
volchitsa wrote: » That may or may not be true, we don't know because it isn't what the Leave campaign ran on.
Deleted User wrote: » For many people, it's about restoring democratic control to their own institutions, monitoring migration, and having their voices heard.
Deleted User wrote: » The serious players in the Leave campaign were united that a vote to Leave the EU was a vote: (1) To leave the Single Market (a pre-requisite for (3) below)
Deleted User wrote: » The serious players in the Leave campaign were united that a vote to Leave the EU was a vote: (1) To leave the Single Market (a pre-requisite for (3) below) (2) To leave the Customs Union (to sign trade deals) (3) To control borders (4) To restore control over moneys sent to the EU True, a deal was promoted as having been possible. Perhaps if the UK didn't have the worst Prime Minister, in Theresa May, in modern times, things would have panned out much differently. Her "negotiating" stance was incredible. Now that we know she "wept" on hearing the referendum result, it was no surprise that, on becoming PM, her attitude was one of "damage limitation". That was her weakness, and the EU capitalised on it. But ultimately, those 4 criteria above still stand. People are happy to agree to a compromise, as long as it approximates - in some pragmatic and realistic form - to this image.
volchitsa wrote: » That may or may not be true, we don't know because it isn't what the Leave campaign ran on. It was run on "easiest deal in the world", lots of money to be saved by not giving it to EU bureaucrats hence extra money available to spend on the NHS etc. Oh and Boris Johnson (among others) was clear that they would stay in or very closely aligned with the single market. Rewriting what "many people" want based on complete speculation is frankly a bit odd. If you were English I'd say it's because you're a Brexiter. If you're not, then it's puzzling.
VinLieger wrote: » Give me exact factual examples of what democratic control they lost under the EU please, and what they will gain outside it. They already could control their borders as has been well documented since the 2016 referendum they simply chose not to. If they really wanted their voices heard they should have approved the previous referendum on dumping FPTP as a voting system which has meant in the last 80 years only 1 government has been elected by a majority of the electorate and its was a coalition.
VinLieger wrote: » Oh really?
Deleted User wrote: » The structures of the EU are themselves fundamentally undemocratic; the Commission; the lack of substantive power in the EP. Furthermore, there is also a question of distance. Many people simply cannot name their own MEP, not because they're distinterested in politics, but because power is almost abstractly galaxies away from their local interests that they no longer wish to see that same Commission and power-deficient parliament, ruling over them. They wish to restore a system in which power is more local to home. Second, the European Court of Justice is supreme over the UK's Supreme Court. Incidentally, that very same ECJ had a court ruling in which judges favored a ruling of their own interests. Third, the EU is now manufacturing an armed force in which member states are bound by an unelected "EU foreign minister". This is clearly an anti-democratic means to centralise yet more power. Fourth, in the case of Italy and Greece, outright subversion of democracy by installing puppet technocats post the financial crash. Fifth, how the EU has rejected every other democratic decision. Mr Juncker himself stated, "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties". I could go on, but you probably know the rest. The point is this: restoring democracy is not just about having the UK parliament generate its own laws (60% were made by the EU), but also about how UK voters (and many now across Europe) are dissatisfied with how the EU has acted, how it has reacted, and how it continues to centralise power to become a United States of Europe (as stated by Verhofshadt a few weeks ago). That long-term vision is what the UK voted against, just as much as it did to restore immediate law-making powers. In those conveniently excised excerpts, Farage is responding to questions about how the UK would be "relegated to the status of Norway". Farage then defends Norway as having more control and having very positive economic and social indices. What the video doesn't show, is that Farage goes on to say how the UK wouldn't go for a "Norway deal", but a bespoke "UK deal" that reigns in more control along the lines of what I described in a previous post.
Deleted User wrote: » But ultimately, those 4 criteria above still stand. People are happy to agree to a compromise, as long as it approximates - in some pragmatic and realistic form - to this image.
Christy42 wrote: » How many of those laws made in the EU were agreed upon by UK representatives (either directly elected or nominated by elected representatives)? How much of the 60% is just minor laws. The EU didn't install a government anywhere. Ask 100 people to name their local MP/TDs. Let's see how many right answers you get. Who would think of sole rule by a party with 37% of the vote would be democracy? Farage has been a big player for years and yet his main time in politics was people voting against him. Cummings has become incredibly powerful in UK politics. How many people voted for him? The EU has not disregarded any democratic decision. It has accepted the UK decision to leave. It is not obliged to implement the UKs policies any more than Ghana is however which is what the UK seems to be expecting since they can't seem to do it themselves. Not the vote in the UK was a farce. It has been mentioned it would have been thrown out had it been legally binding. How is tin pot style referendum democracy? Democracy is running a vote with anti corruption rules enforced.
Deleted User wrote: » Now that we know she "wept" on hearing the referendum result, it was no surprise that, on becoming PM, her attitude was one of "damage limitation". That was her weakness, and the EU capitalised on it.
Deleted User wrote: » I'm fascinated; do you believe there are any democratic deficits within the EU - not only now, but in terms of its stated future trajectory?
Deleted User wrote: » The structures of the EU are themselves fundamentally undemocratic; the Commission; the lack of substantive power in the EP. Furthermore, there is also a question of distance. Many people simply cannot name their own MEP, not because they're distinterested in politics, but because power is almost abstractly galaxies away from their local interests that they no longer wish to see that same Commission and power-deficient parliament, ruling over them. They wish to restore a system in which power is more local to home.
Second, the European Court of Justice is supreme over the UK's Supreme Court. Incidentally, that very same ECJ had a court ruling in which judges favored a ruling of their own interests.
Third, the EU is now manufacturing an armed force in which member states are bound by an unelected "EU foreign minister". This is clearly an anti-democratic means to centralise yet more power.
Fourth, in the case of Italy and Greece, outright subversion of democracy by installing puppet technocats post the financial crash.
Fifth, how the EU has rejected or outright ignored many other democratic referendums. Mr Juncker himself stated, "there can be no democratic choice against the European treaties".
I could go on, but you probably know the rest.
The point is this: restoring democracy is not just about having the UK parliament generate its own laws (60% were made by the EU), but also about how UK voters (and many now across Europe) are dissatisfied with how the EU has acted, how it has reacted, and how it continues to centralise power to become a United States of Europe (as stated by Verhofstadt a few weeks ago).
That long-term vision is what the UK voted against, just as much as it did to restore immediate law-making powers.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
