[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Pann]

In the context of the article, the idea clearly being put forward is this:

1. Judge rules against Leave.EU.
2. Also, the referendum is now illegal.
3. Therefore Brexit is stopped.

Just saying for a second that Brexit is stopped due to this, I think the only course of action would be to re-run the original referendum (although I do not think this a good idea going forward but I have no other solution). Isn't in the whole of the UK's interests to ensure that the result is not tainted regardless of the outcome?

[Pann]

There is no way for the UK to not act on Brexit without having a second referendum that would not lead to a lasting crisis of confidence on UK democracy imo, whatever the facts may be.

I don't think there is any solution that is not going to result in people losing faith in UK democracy which is why I hope that the court thoroughly examines the case before them and finds that there is no case to answer. If it is found that the referendum should be declared void then it is not going to be pretty.

[Teleros]

It is now in the hands of the High Court and not the Electoral Commission.

I must say that I find it worrisome that people now attack the institutions that are there to protect our democracy rather than the people that seek to undermine it.

If they deserve it, why not? The High Court found the Electoral Commission to have completely screwed up its one job already.

Judges are impartial and there to rule on the law.

Ideally, yes. In reality... well, ever heard of George Jeffreys?

https://infogalactic.com/info/George...Baron_Jeffreys

Not to mention the US Supreme Court. If the judges were all impartial then the narrative about them being left- or right- wing wouldn't make any sense.

If the referendum does turn out be void due to the illegal actions of certain leavers

What about the potentially illegal actions of certain Remoaners? Those Guido Fawkes linked I gave above mentioned some very suspicious activity on the part of pro-EU campaigns, particularly at the end of the referendum process, yet there's been no proper investigation of them. If they're both breaking the law does it cancel out? What about if they broke the law but sincerely thought the were not, because they were following botched Electoral Commission advice? Would they have voided the referendum if the illegal actions involved only £4M instead of £8M, or whatever (and what does that say about our view of the public and its gullibility)? Plenty more questions to ask IMHO before any judge can try to void the referendum.

Again though, the key thing is that this is all about crafting a particular narrative. If the referendum is void then everything based on that referendum, such as invoking Article 50, is void, thus the whole Brexit thing needs to be cancelled so we can (preferably at some very indeterminate point in the future) hold a new referendum, and this time make sure those damn Brexiteers don't win it, etc etc etc. Even if that's not how it works legally, that can be how it works politically.

In order for this point to come to pass we would need to assume that our authorities are really quite dim.

Looking at Theresa May & her negotiations, that seems a perfectly sensible thing to assume :P .

I have never heard of this law.

Legal principle, not law - and I admit, it's only one of those things I've heard of. I mean, it makes sense - per my example, imagine the utter chaos that would result from trying to undo everything under Obama's presidency - but I couldn't even tell you the name of the principle itself.

- - - Updated - - -

Just saying for a second that Brexit is stopped due to this, I think the only course of action would be to re-run the original referendum (although I do not think this a good idea going forward but I have no other solution). Isn't in the whole of the UK's interests to ensure that the result is not tainted regardless of the outcome?

No, for the reasons I explained in my earlier post. It'll turn every referendum into a farce, and could potentially spread to elections as well. "Electoral fraud detected in such-and-such constituency - hold everything and re-run until we get a perfect (according to whom?) process!" is not a good idea.

[Mayhem]

No, for the reasons I explained in my earlier post. It'll turn every referendum into a farce, and could potentially spread to elections as well. "Electoral fraud detected in such-and-such constituency - hold everything and re-run until we get a perfect (according to whom?) process!" is not a good idea.

You understand that the logical conclusion from your point is that you are ok with buying votes?

[Pann]

If they deserve it, why not? The High Court found the Electoral Commission to have completely screwed up its one job already.

Right? And doesn't the fact that Electoral Commission's errors have been highlighted and dealt with by the courts show that the system works?

Ideally, yes. In reality... well, ever heard of George Jeffreys?

I am not sure that we should label the judges of today as biased because of the actions of one over 300 years ago.

Not to mention the US Supreme Court. If the judges were all impartial then the narrative about them being left- or right- wing wouldn't make any sense.

US courts have nothing to do with the UK.

What about the potentially illegal actions of certain Remoaners? Those Guido Fawkes linked I gave above mentioned some very suspicious activity on the part of pro-EU campaigns, particularly at the end of the referendum process, yet there's been no proper investigation of them. If they're both breaking the law does it cancel out? What about if they broke the law but sincerely thought the were not, because they were following botched Electoral Commission advice? Would they have voided the referendum if the illegal actions involved only £4M instead of £8M, or whatever (and what does that say about our view of the public and its gullibility)? Plenty more questions to ask IMHO before any judge can try to void the referendum.

Again though, the key thing is that this is all about crafting a particular narrative. If the referendum is void then everything based on that referendum, such as invoking Article 50, is void, thus the whole Brexit thing needs to be cancelled so we can (preferably at some very indeterminate point in the future) hold a new referendum, and this time make sure those damn Brexiteers don't win it, etc etc etc. Even if that's not how it works legally, that can be how it works politically.

If they have broken the law they should be punished regardless of which side of the debate they are on. I would also add that Guido is far from impartial and that thus far it is only the actions of those on the leave side that have attracted the attention of the National Crime Agency.

Looking at Theresa May & her negotiations, that seems a perfectly sensible thing to assume :P .

That's as may be, however it would be people that are experienced and trained in investigating criminals and criminal actions that would be looking into it and not May and her team. I suppose you could hope that Theresa May was put in charge of any investigations but I think that is as likely as your plan be a) successful and b) remaining undetected.

Legal principle, not law - and I admit, it's only one of those things I've heard of. I mean, it makes sense - per my example, imagine the utter chaos that would result from trying to undo everything under Obama's presidency - but I couldn't even tell you the name of the principle itself.

Ultimately it is a lot easier to undo one referendum in the face of illegalities than it would be to undo the actions of a two term president, however had Obama been found not to have been eligible to hold office I am sure that his presidency would be declared void and the policies he passed would be reviewed.

No, for the reasons I explained in my earlier post. It'll turn every referendum into a farce, and could potentially spread to elections as well. "Electoral fraud detected in such-and-such constituency - hold everything and re-run until we get a perfect (according to whom?) process!" is not a good idea.

You are basically saying that not applying the law is greater deterrent to those who wish to break the law than enforcing it and punishing criminals. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[Teleros]

You understand that the logical conclusion from your point is that you are ok with buying votes?

Yes, because clearly the logical thing to do is to go right to the other extreme . There's no way I could have been making a more nuanced view, say about these specific circumstances.

BTW, isn't buying votes exactly what politicians do all the damned time anyway? "Vote for me and I'll do X" is buying votes when all is said and done.

= = =

Right? And doesn't the fact that Electoral Commission's errors have been highlighted and dealt with by the courts show that the system works?

Have they been dealt with though? The High Court found the EC to have screwed up big time, but that doesn't mean the EC is reformed.

I am not sure that we should label the judges of today as biased because of the actions of one over 300 years ago.

No, but...

US courts have nothing to do with the UK.

They're still fellow humans like us, and still work with much of the same legal code (US law incorporates all pre-Revolutionary English Common Law).

If they have broken the law they should be punished regardless of which side of the debate they are on.

Agreed. My issue is more with the political / partisan issues involving trying to void the referendum.

I would also add that Guido is far from impartial and that thus far it is only the actions of those on the leave side that have attracted the attention of the National Crime Agency.

True, but given the heavy support given to the anti-Brexit side by Whitehall in the referendum itself, you'll find plenty of Brexiteers ready & willing to believe that the NCA's attention may have been politically influenced.

Ultimately it is a lot easier to undo one referendum in the face of illegalities than it would be to undo the actions of a two term president, however had Obama been found not to have been eligible to hold office I am sure that his presidency would be declared void and the policies he passed would be reviewed.

I think a lot of Republicans would be just dying to declare everything he'd done null & void (and vice versa if Trump turned out to not be born in the USA or w/e), but I don't think it'd get through the courts. Re "undoing the referendum" though, in terms of cancelling Brexit it isn't obviously on the same scale as 8 years of a president or w/e, but rolling it back would still be a mammoth task, given all the decisions people have been making based on it going ahead.

You are basically saying that not applying the law is greater deterrent to those who wish to break the law than enforcing it and punishing criminals. It makes no sense whatsoever.

It's more a case of trying to be realistic. If £8M of money is enough to invalidate a nationwide referendum years after the fact, frankly that doesn't bode well for any future referendums, or elections. That's about 12p per person for the entire UK population, or 22p per voter in the referendum. By all means lock up Arron Banks or w/e if he committed a crime, but let's not pretend this invalidates the result.

Meanwhile, the government spent over £9M on pro-EU leaflets to be sent to every home in the country (the official Remain budget was capped at £7M, BTW). Then in the last week of campaigning, five new Remainer campaigns popped up and possibly colluded, but the EC won't investigate them, and similarly refuses to investigate evidence of Remain campaign overspending brought to it by Priti Patel MP. It will however investigate Leave.EU because it suspects foreign money to the tune of about £8M of having been involved.

It strikes me as one of those situations where you have to say:

1. Yes, Bob broke the law & has been punished (or didn't and hasn't been, as the case may be).
2. Shut up and stop trying to turn the clock back because the other side won.

I see parallels in all this of some of the opposition to Trump as GEOTUS. The result is the "wrong" one, so it must be made delegitimised, and any flaws of the "right" result swept under the carpet.

[Pann]

Have they been dealt with though? The High Court found the EC to have screwed up big time, but that doesn't mean the EC is reformed.

No, it means that a mistake was made, the mistake was discovered and rectified. The EC making a mistake doesn't mean that it needs reforming. And let's not forget that although the High Court found that the EC had misinterpreted the rules it still agreed that Vote Leave had broken the law.

Agreed. My issue is more with the political / partisan issues involving trying to void the referendum.

If it is found that no rule breaking took place there will be no need to void anything however if the court does find that serious rule breaking has taken place then I think that we should at least examine the referendum result.

True, but given the heavy support given to the anti-Brexit side by Whitehall in the referendum itself, you'll find plenty of Brexiteers ready & willing to believe that the NCA's attention may have been politically influenced.

The NCA do not act at the behest of politicians nor will they be swayed one way or the other. Quite frankly I feel your mistrust is misguided and should instead be directed at those who have brought the Brexit result under the scrutiny of the law

I think a lot of Republicans would be just dying to declare everything he'd done null & void (and vice versa if Trump turned out to not be born in the USA or w/e), but I don't think it'd get through the courts. Re "undoing the referendum" though, in terms of cancelling Brexit it isn't obviously on the same scale as 8 years of a president or w/e, but rolling it back would still be a mammoth task, given all the decisions people have been making based on it going ahead.

Whilst it would be a mammoth task I have no doubt that every single policy enacted whilst he was in office would be independently scrutinised.

It's more a case of trying to be realistic. If £8M of money is enough to invalidate a nationwide referendum years after the fact, frankly that doesn't bode well for any future referendums, or elections. That's about 12p per person for the entire UK population, or 22p per voter in the referendum. By all means lock up Arron Banks or w/e if he committed a crime, but let's not pretend this invalidates the result.

Meanwhile, the government spent over £9M on pro-EU leaflets to be sent to every home in the country (the official Remain budget was capped at £7M, BTW). Then in the last week of campaigning, five new Remainer campaigns popped up and possibly colluded, but the EC won't investigate them, and similarly refuses to investigate evidence of Remain campaign overspending brought to it by Priti Patel MP. It will however investigate Leave.EU because it suspects foreign money to the tune of about £8M of having been involved.

It strikes me as one of those situations where you have to say:

1. Yes, Bob broke the law & has been punished (or didn't and hasn't been, as the case may be).
2. Shut up and stop trying to turn the clock back because the other side won.

I see parallels in all this of some of the opposition to Trump as GEOTUS. The result is the "wrong" one, so it must be made delegitimised, and any flaws of the "right" result swept under the carpet.

We don't know exactly what Banks is being investigated for, all we know is that he and others are being investigated on suspicion of committing multiple criminal offences.

The difference being that the government leaflets were all above board. The EC has not refused to investigate Patel's claims, it investigated and found that there were no grounds to suspect that the rules had been broken stating "The Commission has not been provided with, or found evidence for an investigation to be opened."

It seems to me that this is a case of flinging muck at the wall and seeing what sticks and rather than proving that EC is biased or remain acted dishonestly it instead calls in to question Patel's motivations.

The claim that EC refuses to investigate remain is not accurate, it investigated and fined the Lib Dems £18,000 for "failing to provide acceptable invoices or receipts for 80 payments” and Britain Stronger in Europe (now Open Britain) £1,250 with regard to not providing three invoices and for declaring some spending in aggregate rather than individual payments.

The fact that leave have been fined more and are under further investigation suggests that their rule breaking was more serious than remains rather than there being bias against them.

I don't know if stopping Brexit is the right answer however I believe that whatever result anyone of us wanted it should never be more important than ensuring our democratic process is fair and free from bias.

[Vankrys]

Because like most politicians in the UK, and including the most unpopular French president in history right now, the limpets don't know when to go and keep clinging on, but a brexiteer UK leader is coming don't worry...perhaps in France soon too...

Macron is unpopular because he is aligning more with hard capitalism ideas, like making it easier to hire and fire workers. French population is attached to its very heavy worker protection laws, which may or may not be why our industries aren't as competitive as they could be.

The UK have far less worker protection programs, and the UK government is far less generous than French government regarding unemployment benefits. Of course, the French don't like when their cushy life is taken away, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do in order to remain competitive.

How to you lean in the balance of industry competitiveness vs worker protection laws?

[Teleros]

And let's not forget that although the High Court found that the EC had misinterpreted the rules it still agreed that Vote Leave had broken the law.

Based on EC advice though, which is... amusing.

If it is found that no rule breaking took place there will be no need to void anything however if the court does find that serious rule breaking has taken place then I think that we should at least examine the referendum result.

Maybe - but again, my point was that, per the Indie article's narrative, the High Court should not be voiding any results based on this case.

The NCA do not act at the behest of politicians nor will they be swayed one way or the other.

I wish.

Quite frankly I feel your mistrust is misguided and should instead be directed at those who have brought the Brexit result under the scrutiny of the law

It's not like I don't have some misgivings over Arron Banks, it just seems to me that the other side is engaged in far worse.

Whilst it would be a mammoth task I have no doubt that every single policy enacted whilst he was in office would be independently scrutinised.

I shudder at the thought - and I'm a Trump guy.

We don't know exactly what Banks is being investigated for, all we know is that he and others are being investigated on suspicion of committing multiple criminal offences.

It's over £8M that was used to fund some of the Brexit campaigns. The EC said it was suspicious over the source of the money, and here we are.

The difference being that the government leaflets were all above board. The EC has not refused to investigate Patel's claims, it investigated and found that there were no grounds to suspect that the rules had been broken stating "The Commission has not been provided with, or found evidence for an investigation to be opened."

This is the same Commission that doesn't need to hear both sides of the story and all that, though. I guess it just boils down to my having far less faith in the independence of these bodies than you.

[Slant]

Those bodies aren't supposed to be independent. They're supposed to represent our interests.

[Pann]

Based on EC advice though, which is... amusing.

Courts do not work that way, they don't act on anyone's advice, they rule on law and the evidence presented before them.

Maybe - but again, my point was that, per the Indie article's narrative, the High Court should not be voiding any results based on this case.

The fact that the referendum was advisory means that High Court cannot void the result. However if they do find that there is serious wrong doing which would have resulted in the referendum being declared void then I think that the result should at least be looked at.

I wish.

No need to wish it is true.

It's not like I don't have some misgivings over Arron Banks, it just seems to me that the other side is engaged in far worse.

Like what? So far no evidence has arisen to even suggest that this is the case.

It's over £8M that was used to fund some of the Brexit campaigns. The EC said it was suspicious over the source of the money, and here we are.

True, however we do not know the full extent of the accusations against Banks.

This is the same Commission that doesn't need to hear both sides of the story and all that, though. I guess it just boils down to my having far less faith in the independence of these bodies than you.

The commission listened to Patel's side of the story and found there was no case to answer.

[Teleros]

Courts do not work that way, they don't act on anyone's advice, they rule on law and the evidence presented before them.

I mean Vote Leave, not the courts.

I think the rest... "I guess it just boils down to my having far less faith in the independence of these bodies than you."

[Pann]

I mean Vote Leave, not the courts.

I think the rest... "I guess it just boils down to my having far less faith in the independence of these bodies than you."

Ah, gotcha.

Our legal system isn't perfect and it does make mistakes however I do not believe that the judiciary is politically influenced.

[dribbles]

Macron is unpopular because he is aligning more with hard capitalism ideas, like making it easier to hire and fire workers. French population is attached to its very heavy worker protection laws, which may or may not be why our industries aren't as competitive as they could be.

The UK have far less worker protection programs, and the UK government is far less generous than French government regarding unemployment benefits. Of course, the French don't like when their cushy life is taken away, but that doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do in order to remain competitive.

How to you lean in the balance of industry competitiveness vs worker protection laws?

Over zealous EU employee protection laws are terrible for the people they are supposed to help and terrible for industry who have to compete in global markets.

To see how bad they are for workers you only have to look at the unemployment figures in many EU countries. They prevent workers from being able to work by disincentivising employers from hiring. That is less likely in the UK now, even moreso after Brexit.

They are bad for everyone. Another reason for a no deal Brexit and to get out of the EU and its protectionist policies.

To pay someone in France 2000 euro a month costs the employer what about 4000 euro? Crazy, and they daren't fire them. The barman who works for 6 months on the med during the summer can expect 90% of his pay for sitting on his arse through the winter, year in year out, paid for by his summer employer. That still true? Crazy.

But the French are rioting because of high EU imposed "green tax" fuel prices/policies no? Not worker protections... At least that is how it is being reported here.

Even before the riots Macron had the lowest approval rating of any French president, I bet its even worse today. How long has he got left? It is like a race to the bottom between Merkel, May and Macron - hard to know who is winning that. The EU has destroyed the competence of national politicians as the good people choose other career avenues.

Brexit will fix that for the UK, obviously not for EU nations unless of course they leave too, and the decision of national politicians matter once again.

[Kiri]

Over zealous EU employee protection laws are terrible for the people they are supposed to help and terrible for industry who have to compete in global markets.

To see how bad they are for workers you only have to look at the unemployment figures in many EU countries. They prevent workers from being able to work by disincentivising employers from hiring. That is less likely in the UK now, even moreso after Brexit.

They are bad for everyone. Another reason for a no deal Brexit and to get out of the EU and its protectionist policies.

To pay someone in France 2000 euro a month costs the employer what about 4000 euro? Crazy, and they daren't fire them. The barman who works for 6 months on the med during the summer can expect 90% of his pay for sitting on his arse through the winter, year in year out, paid for by his summer employer. That still true? Crazy.

But the French are rioting because of high EU imposed "green tax" fuel prices/policies no? Not worker protections... At least that is how it is being reported here.

Even before the riots Macron had the lowest approval rating of any French president, I bet its even worse today. How long has he got left? It is like a race to the bottom between Merkel, May and Macron - hard to know who is winning that. The EU has destroyed the competence of national politicians as the good people choose other career avenues.

Brexit will fix that for the UK, obviously not for EU nations unless of course they leave too, and the decision of national politicians matter once again.

Approval ratings are not necessarily indicative of competency. Implementing long-term beneficial policies to remain competitive generally results in lower approval ratings, just like implementing obviously pointless ones. Isn't that one of the arguments used by leave? That there might be some shortfalls after Brexit, but the UK will ultimately benefit? That, too, would lead to a drop in approval ratings.
Those things are really only indicative of how one's work is perceived, not how well it is done in general. A populist giving handouts to the people bankrupting the government will have incredible approval ratings, while someone making hard, but necessary decisions will have a low one. But if you just look at the ratings, you cannot extract such information at all.

[padie]

Over zealous EU employee protection laws are terrible for the people they are supposed to help and terrible for industry who have to compete in global markets.

To see how bad they are for workers you only have to look at the unemployment figures in many EU countries. They prevent workers from being able to work by disincentivising employers from hiring. That is less likely in the UK now, even moreso after Brexit.

They are bad for everyone. Another reason for a no deal Brexit and to get out of the EU and its protectionist policies.

To pay someone in France 2000 euro a month costs the employer what about 4000 euro? Crazy, and they daren't fire them. The barman who works for 6 months on the med during the summer can expect 90% of his pay for sitting on his arse through the winter, year in year out, paid for by his summer employer. That still true? Crazy.

But the French are rioting because of high EU imposed "green tax" fuel prices/policies no? Not worker protections... At least that is how it is being reported here.

Even before the riots Macron had the lowest approval rating of any French president, I bet its even worse today. How long has he got left? It is like a race to the bottom between Merkel, May and Macron - hard to know who is winning that. The EU has destroyed the competence of national politicians as the good people choose other career avenues.

Brexit will fix that for the UK, obviously not for EU nations unless of course they leave too, and the decision of national politicians matter once again.

The EU does not have a direct role in raising taxes or setting tax rates. The amount of tax you pay is decided by your government, not the EU.

[Mayhem]

Yes, because clearly the logical thing to do is to go right to the other extreme . There's no way I could have been making a more
nuanced view, say about these specific circumstances.

That's not the extreme. You don't come across as someone with nuanced views.

BTW, isn't buying votes exactly what politicians do all the damned time anyway? "Vote for me and I'll do X" is buying votes when all is said and done.

no

[Deleted]

And realistically, no amount of facts can fix decades of conditioning. Which is why I cannot really blame Brexiteers that harshly. Even in my shit tier EU member country, politicians almost never blamed the EU outside of the Communist party . . .

Is your country somewhere in the Balkans? Because the situation used to be the same.

In Croatia, our Communist party blames the EU for everything, but thus far no mainstream political party has ever blamed the European Union for anything. They usually say that the European Union is a good framework and that we need to find our place within that framework.

Last 2-3 years have been interesting, as there is a new political party on the scene, called the Living Wall. They are something similar to Corbyn, but also with a fair amount of antagonism towards the EU and America. They have been exploding in popularity, now they are third most popular party, will be second in time.

[Slant]

Greece. Our Communist party are Stalinists, of course they hate NATO, the EU, the USA and everything that ever opposed the USSR. Now Greeks in general also are not particularly fond of the USA and ambivalent about NATO but before the crisis the majority was fond of the EU and even after people are at best ambivalent with most of the serious press (anyone not clearly populist) not particularly against the EU and treating everything pragmatically.

Which is the healthiest approach, tbh. I'm just glad that Greeks stopped the hate on Germany. :P I know someone that thought about cancelling their vacation trip to Greece back in the days of the crisis. When they returned they reported that everyone was super friendly, though. Granted, the tourist areas will be more EU friendly by nature than the Athenians, I suppose.

[Kiri]

The EU does not have a direct role in raising taxes or setting tax rates. The amount of tax you pay is decided by your government, not the EU.

In the eyes of Dribbles, every bad thing that happens is the fault of the EU. If it rains on a day he wants to go to the beach, then that is because the EU weather machines.