[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Mayhem]

Any call for a new vote could well fall flat on it's face given the potential mayhem kicking off in Spain. If Spain force control over Catalonia and are dumb enough to kill any civilians whilst the EU does nothing to intervene then expect that to play a major part in brexiters strategy to win votes.

What has this to do with what's happening in spain? Not even Scotland leaving the UK is comparable.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure that I can ignore something that hasn't been brought to my attention yet, however, that is beside the point. Now that A50 has been invoked, can Britain alone withdraw it? I don't know much about that process.

Well, apparently it is somehow the sole decision of the british people, although i don't quite understand how that checks out.

- - - Updated - - -

What do mean?

I guess he's talking about fptp as it's not very representative and representation is kind of a big part of a functioning democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

sort of impossible to pull that stunt; this sweet apple is poisoned. theresa may would save britain a lot of headache, but it would also kill her career.
my guess: if Brexit IS somehow removed nobody will have the balls in britain to call another referendum; the case is closed then.

I don't think May will survive any of this regardless of what happens.

[ranzino]

As Donald Tusk said it's possible for the UK to stop brexit, however he doesn't say if they would regain all their privileges or not. Will have to read up on this one as i think it's quite stupid to let a member invoke A50 and stop it whenever it's not checking out for them.

my guess: britain would lose the last benefits Cameron negotiated some months before the referendum took place. but they will have to stop that silly train and stop all negotiations very soon™-ish.
PM May was able to notify Tusk to invoke Brexit, so he will likely take another nice letter from her as "naah sorry, was just a joke, c'mon"-move.

Remember: EU does not meddle in parliamental affairs and decrees how a country debates its referendum. if westminster palace is silent about and May sends a letter of revoke, EU will take whatever May says as the will of UK.

[Noradin]

As Donald Tusk said it's possible for the UK to stop brexit, however he doesn't say if they would regain all their privileges or not. Will have to read up on this one as i think it's quite stupid to let a member invoke A50 and stop it whenever it's not checking out for them.

Did he say it is possible for the UK, or did he say it is possible for May (to make a proposal that might convince the other EU member states to let the UK stay)?
Because to me it sounded like the latter.

[cubby]

Well, apparently it is somehow the sole decision of the british people, although i don't quite understand how that checks out.

I'm right with you on that entire thought process, lol. First, when you mentioned it, I was like holy fuck, how did I not think about this already. Then, after that, I figured there is no way it's solely Britain's decision to withdraw A50. And now I'm caught up with "i don't know how that checks out". Interesting. Weird, but interesting.

I guess he's talking about fptp as it's not very representative and representation is kind of a big part of a functioning democracy.

The EC of the U.S. and fptp for Britain both suck, but for different reasons. What every country needs is the voting system, and I always forget the fucking name, where you list your top choices (say top 4) and if your person doesn't get picked, or something, then your vote goes to the next person on your list.

What sucks more is that I was poly sci/law school, so i should know the name.

[Mayhem]

my guess: britain would lose the last benefits Cameron negotiated some months before the referendum took place. but they will have to stop that silly train and stop all negotiations very soon™-ish.
PM May was able to notify Tusk to invoke Brexit, so he will likely take another nice letter from her as "naah sorry, was just a joke, c'mon"-move.

Remember: EU does not meddle in parliamental affairs and decrees how a country debates its referendum. if westminster palace is silent about and May sends a letter of revoke, EU will take whatever May says as the will of UK.

Well this isn't really about the referendum anymore. I also don't know if Tusk was intentionally leaving out the need for the 27 to agree to a no brexit or if the UK really can cancel it all by themself.

[Noradin]

What do mean?

Something other than FPTP, something that allows for more than two parties to matter and allows for democratic choice.
If they keep the current system then their politicans will continue to use the EU as scapegoat and we will be back in this mess every few years.

[Malacrass]

That would be terrible though. Having the EU in constant negotiations with it's partners about staying a part of the Union would make the Union not working at all rendering it basically a useless club where every member is always arguing about what benefits they should get out of it.

It might be terrible, but there is no way around it as it stands. A European superstate might be realised in the (very) distant future, but until that members will keep leaving/joining, whether we like it or not. With that in mind, and the fact that attitudes and opinions do change from generation to generation, I believe that well-regulated referendums are the way to go. And with well-regulated I don't mean individual members holding a referendum on a whim, but a general rule that, say after 20 or 25 years (a generation), the member states should sort out if the union is still for them. We would move away from the dream of the EU as a self-fulfilling prophecy, to a true union of economy AND values that the current people living here agree to.

Needless to say we would need certain automatisms in place when members leave, some sort of basic blue print how to treat an exit (as opposed to the chaos we have now), but that should be doable. Maybe the Brexit will even be that blue print.
Holding a referendum in all countries at the same time could be an idea, as I said in 20-25 year gaps. Long enough to plan, short enough to pull out if a member realises that pulling out might be the better idea.
And as for parties using referendums to pressure other members, that will always happen no matter what. Even on a state level, as we can see with Catalonia. But I see nothing wrong with the EU facelifting itself from generation to generation.

Also i don't quite get your analogy. Is the wife, the car or the salesman the EU? Because if it's the wife, then it would be either a new car or divorce, if it's the car then who the hell is the wife, and if it's the salesman who the fuck is the car and the wife?

The ambiguity is intentional, interpret it as you will!

Point I was trying to make, without projecting anything, is that everyone (should) understand the basic path to making an educated decision on a big topic. If people spend hours upon hours arguing about the acquisition of a car, they should put at least this much effort on -exit referendums. And even if they don't, splitting the Brexit in 2 referendums would have at least forced them to think twice, with more information on their hands.

[Mayhem]

I'm right with you on that entire thought process, lol. First, when you mentioned it, I was like holy fuck, how did I not think about this already. Then, after that, I figured there is no way it's solely Britain's decision to withdraw A50. And now I'm caught up with "i don't know how that checks out". Interesting. Weird, but interesting.

It really is, i have no idea how this would make sense.

The EC of the U.S. and fptp for Britain both suck, but for different reasons. What every country needs is the voting system, and I always forget the fucking name, where you list your top choices (say top 4) and if your person doesn't get picked, or something, then your vote goes to the next person on your list.

What sucks more is that I was poly sci/law school, so i should know the name.

I don't quite like the idea of it being a popularity contest. Though politicians despite the voting system whould be held more accountable for their decisions and well lies.

- - - Updated - - -

It might be terrible, but there is no way around it as it stands. A European superstate might be realised in the (very) distant future, but until that members will keep leaving/joining, whether we like it or not. With that in mind, and the fact that attitudes and opinions do change from generation to generation, I believe that well-regulated referendums are the way to go. And with well-regulated I don't mean individual members holding a referendum on a whim, but a general rule that, say after 20 or 25 years (a generation), the member states should sort out if the union is still for them. We would move away from the dream of the EU as a self-fulfilling prophecy, to a true union of economy AND values that the current people living here agree to.

Needless to say we would need certain automatisms in place when members leave, some sort of basic blue print how to treat an exit (as opposed to the chaos we have now), but that should be doable. Maybe the Brexit will even be that blue print.
Holding a referendum in all countries at the same time could be an idea, as I said in 20-25 year gaps. Long enough to plan, short enough to pull out if a member realises that pulling out might be the better idea.
And as for parties using referendums to pressure other members, that will always happen no matter what. Even on a state level, as we can see with Catalonia. But I see nothing wrong with the EU facelifting itself from generation to generation.



The ambiguity is intentional, interpret it as you will!

Point I was trying to make, without projecting anything, is that everyone (should) understand the basic path to making an educated decision on a big topic. If people spend hours upon hours arguing about the acquisition of a car, they should put at least this much effort on -exit referendums. And even if they don't, splitting the Brexit in 2 referendums would have at least forced them to think twice, with more information on their hands.

I do get your idea, however with our current economies and the strength of international corporations this sounds like a path to destruction every quarter century.

[Daws]

What has this to do with what's happening in spain? Not even Scotland leaving the UK is comparable.

More than you might think. A lot of calls are being made for a new vote, in such an event brexit supporters will pull out all the stops to show the downside of the EU. An EU that just sits around whilst Spain beats up Catalonians is a very big recruitment point for bringing people onboard the anti-EU side of things.

[Mayhem]

More than you might think. A lot of calls are being made for a new vote, in such an event brexit supporters will pull out all the stops to show the downside of the EU. An EU that just sits around whilst Spain beats up Catalonians is a very big recruitment point for bringing people onboard the anti-EU side of things.

Are those the very same people that are outraged about the EU having too much say about national issues?

[Daws]

Are those the very same people that are outraged about the EU having too much say about national issues?

Of course.

[Mayhem]

Of course.

Yeah, so they will just blame everything on the EU again. How very surprising. ^^

[Slant]

Why is it Britain can't just have another vote? Precisely what is stopping that from happening?

The thing about democracy is that you have to accept the one vote you get. That people may not have taken it seriously doesn't mean that they can just get another vote and redo the whole thing. Otherwise, we'd have an endless call for votes on the same topics until the "desired" result happened.

- - - Updated - - -

there was 1 vote, the public voted to leave 52 to 48 with the majority of leave votes being cast in England and Wales. then there was a snap election where the electorate overwhelmingly accepted the referendum result and 85% of votes cast in the general election were to parties who backed a hard Brexit - that is ending freedom of movement.

there doesn’t need to be any more votes on the subject. It has been decided by the will of the people to leave the eu. The only question now is how, and I think all support is now for a no deal. A new vote would be a spit in the face of democracy.

Considering that May's Government supported Brexit and got an almost defeat in the election, I wouldn't call it an overwhelmingly accepted result in the elections. That's you twisting facts so they fit your imagined reality rather than the way it should be, you adjusting your mental image to how the real world looks like.

- - - Updated - - -

de gaulle was an asshole and a cynic who at the last moment changed britain's entry details to give up our fisheries, dooming our waters to spain and france.

there's also a famous quote:

and for what it's worth, a no deal brexit is a victory for Britain because it's what the public have voted for. either eu capitulates and Britain wins, or Britains walks from talks and wins.

like i said earlier, checkmate. we've got you.

This isn't a game. This is you ruining your own economy, lying to your population and generally just wanting the world to burn. There is nothing constructive about Brexit. Case in point, nobody from the Brexit side ever had a plan for what to do if they actually won. Now they won, and they still don't have a plan over a year later. Well fucking done.

- - - Updated - - -

What the fuck is it with you and the fishing industry.

They think fishing is carrying the nation. It's just as ludicrous as anything else they claim as fact.

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently it is the will of the people to make the UK leave the EU but stay in France themselves.

Well... in a twisted sense, it even makes sense. The UK is holding the EU back. So get rid of them. EU will be able to progress at a higher pace, which in my book is a good thing. It's only logical to then move to the EU, as without the UK, it will be better than before. It's like he planned this whole thing from the start. Kind of genius, really. If you think about it and ignore his hating on the EU.

- - - Updated - - -

reversing brexit would be the beginning of the end of democracy for Britain and would mark our fall to germany and the eu.

it would be bad.

Yeah yeah, blabla nazi Germany, rambleramble. lol

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think May will survive any of this regardless of what happens.

I never thought she would, to be fair. She only got the job because nobody else wanted it. Everyone knew this job would burn a career and she sacrificed herself for her country. It's actually quite honourable how she went into this suicide mission with open eyes and despite her political conviction that it was a stupid idea.

[Shadowmelded]

Any call for a new vote could well fall flat on it's face given the potential mayhem kicking off in Spain. If Spain force control over Catalonia and are dumb enough to kill any civilians whilst the EU does nothing to intervene then expect that to play a major part in brexiters strategy to win votes.

They might use it as political capital but they'd just be exposing their hypocrisy and ignorance. The EU intervening would cement their conspiratorial notion that the EU is a burgeoning superstate flouting sovereignty.

[cubby]

The thing about democracy is that you have to accept the one vote you get. That people may not have taken it seriously doesn't mean that they can just get another vote and redo the whole thing. Otherwise, we'd have an endless call for votes on the same topics until the "desired" result happened.

Because changing your mind after discovering new information is so antithetical to the democratic process, right? Is stubborn determination down a destructive path also part of democracy?

Or are you ready to admit that changing your mind is actually ok?

[Kallisto]

The EC of the U.S. and fptp for Britain both suck, but for different reasons. What every country needs is the voting system, and I always forget the fucking name, where you list your top choices (say top 4) and if your person doesn't get picked, or something, then your vote goes to the next person on your list.

What sucks more is that I was poly sci/law school, so i should know the name.

Do you mean Alternate Vote or Preferential vote? If so I'm not sure if I am for that either.

I still stick with PR in which national voting % is reflected within parliament itself so if the national vote was 30% A 20% B 10% each for D E F G and H then parliament would be 30% A 20% B 10% each for D E F G. But i'd still take your one above what we have today in the UK

[Slant]

Any call for a new vote could well fall flat on it's face given the potential mayhem kicking off in Spain. If Spain force control over Catalonia and are dumb enough to kill any civilians whilst the EU does nothing to intervene then expect that to play a major part in brexiters strategy to win votes.

The irony of this is... the EU can't intercede in Catalonia. Why? Get this... it's BECAUSE SPAIN IS A SOVEREIGN NATION!

How Brexiteers aren't burning on the spot of shame even just suggesting that the EU should intercede is beyond me. Like... mindboggingly beyond me. Words just cannot describe the frustration at the hypocrisy in this topic from the other side. It just cannot be done.

You cannot say "we want our sovereignity back" and then go "the EU should infringe on Spanish sovereignity, because if they don't it's even more a reason to Brexit". That does not compute. It really doesn't. Not one bit. JESUS FUCK IT PHYSICALLY HURTS that's how much you cannot do that. Like... I'd have to literally find a trout and slap you guys around the forum with it that's how much it contradicts each other.

Does anyone, ANYONE here still argue that Britain should get out of the EU because "duh sovereignity"? Go ahead, make my day and bring that argument... I dare you.

[cubby]

Do you mean Alternate Vote or Preferential vote? If so I'm not sure if I am for that either.

I still stick with PR in which national voting % is reflected within parliament itself so if the national vote was 30% A 20% B 10% each for D E F G and H then parliament would be 30% A 20% B 10% each for D E F G. But i'd still take your one above what we have today in the UK

I'll find the name of it and repost. Slightly embarrassed that I can't remember the name.

[Slant]

Because changing your mind after discovering new information is so antithetical to the democratic process, right? Is stubborn determination down a destructive path also part of democracy?

Or are you ready to admit that changing your mind is actually ok?

Changing your mind and having another vote after a) enough time passed, b) customs and morals in the country changed a considerable degree or c) new information has come to light that righteously affects the decision is acceptable.

One year is not enough time.
Customs and morals in the country have not changed within that one year.
No new information has come to light since the referendum. Quite the opposite, every politician in the EU predicted exactly what is going on now. Britain has been warned time and again about the outcome and that these negotiations would hurt. That Britains voting exit ignored these warnings makes them stupid, but it doesn't mean they get to revote.

That's the thing about democracy. When they ask you for your vote, it's not a prank. You get that one vote. Better make it count, because a huge part of democracy is accepting the result, even if it doesn't suit you. That's the whole core idea of democracy. Doing revotes until "the right result" happens isn't democracy. It's also never going to work, because... who decides what "the right result" is? You? Me? The Government? The opposition? The Queen? Don't open Pandorra's box, is all I can say.

[Kallisto]

The thing about democracy is that you have to accept the one vote you get. That people may not have taken it seriously doesn't mean that they can just get another vote and redo the whole thing. Otherwise, we'd have an endless call for votes on the same topics until the "desired" result happened.

The thing about democracy is that it doesn't begin or end with a vote. ESPECIALLY when said vote has a massive flaw in it in which many who are legally entitled to vote in British elections were denied a vote in this referendum, and that the courts decided not to force the government to allow those barred from voting to be able to vote because in their own words "The vote was not binding in any way and therefore the government was under no obligation to allow anyone a vote." specifically calling the vote nothing more than a glorified opinion poll in which many were not asked if they wanted to remain or not.

Also with the whole Democracy thing many who voted for the leave vote are now dropping dead due to their elderly status. While those who were just below voting age by mere days were not allowed to vote on this even though they have more of a stake in the election than those who basically are in God's waiting room.

The whole referendum was designed from the ground up by Cameron to give the leave vote around 5-10% buff in the polls to appease his back benchers and keeping UKIP at bay. This has never been about the will of the people. This is a conservative power play at hand and the outright majority of us are being dragged along with something we did NOT vote for. 52-48 may have been the result on the night but if those who were denied the vote were given their lawful right to vote in this then remain would have won by around 5% (and then Dribbles, Floop and Farage would be screaming for neverendum)