[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Gibblewink]

I don't understand this "Parliament needs to sort itself out". Parliament knows it doesn't want to leave without a deal in place, and they are doing everything, correctly, according to the law, in order to ensure that doesn't happen. The Government has been given the responsibility to find that deal, and they are not doing so, and so as seems likely, the Government will be kicked out and we'll find a Government who can.

This isn't an unprecedented constitutional crisis, there are still many legislative and judicial pathways to pursue. The only mess is when those run out.

I'm going to have to disagree here. Your assessment would have been ok if we were approaching the 3rd "meaningful vote" on Mays deal, but all Parliament has been doing is pissing about and wasting time with pointless laws that have no actual effect unless the UK either revokes art 50 or votes through a WA. All those "rule out no-deal" effort are meaningless, because you WILL go out without no-deal the second the EU tires of giving you extensions, unless you actually decide to DO something.

[Jessicka]

I'm going to have to disagree here. Your assessment would have been ok if we were approaching the 3rd "meaningful vote" on Mays deal, but all Parliament has been doing is pissing about and wasting time with pointless laws that have no actual effect unless the UK either revokes art 50 or votes through a WA. All those "rule out no-deal" effort are meaningless, because you WILL go out without no-deal the second the EU tires of giving you extensions, unless you actually decide to DO something.

May should have brought the deal much earlier than she did, that was a failure on her part. After an earlier first rejection she would have been better placed to negotiate, both with Parliament and with the EU. Instead she tried to bulldoze her deal through. One way or another, we need to make up for that failure. It should have happened earlier but we are where we are, and kicking the UK out doesn't fundamentally change anything, other than punish a lot of people not involved in the talks - a deal still needs to be struck.

- - - Updated - - -

Everyone knows what Johnson is up to, and for the benefit of the terminally slow Amber Rudd even told us when she resigned, yet parliament continues to sit on its hands (as it has done throughout this process) in the hope they can capitalise on (or minimise) Johnson's failure to the benefit of their own parties.

Meanwhile businesses are going to wall because no-one knows what's going to happen next week let alone in six months time!

But they'll do something... any minute now...

There's a difference between knowing it, and proving it beyond reasonable doubt.

[Jessicka]

A deal would be nice to be struck; it doesn't really need to be. It is entirely possible to move on with no deal. Heck it is entirely possible to move on with no trade agreement as well.

Well, certainly the world would keep turning for most. But the reality is that people would lose their livelihoods, and frankly, people would die as a result of a lack of medicines, others with manageable conditions would start to find them less manageable. That's not exactly moving on.

[Gibblewink]

The point is Jessicka that the UK parliament has done absolutely NOTHING to get that deal struck. They wasted their indicative votes where they could have at least outlined a mandate, preferably a realistic and somewhat detailed one. When May announced her resignation they did bugger all and just waited for the Tories to find a new leader - very polite, but it didn't do much to expedite things.

I'm not advocating kicking the UK out, but I am absolutely advocating (metaphorically) kicking Parliament in the nuts for sitting on their hands while Her Majesty's Government fucked shit up.

[Jessicka]

The point is Jessicka that the UK parliament has done absolutely NOTHING to get that deal struck. They wasted their indicative votes where they could have at least outlined a mandate, preferably a realistic and somewhat detailed one. When May announced her resignation they did bugger all and just waited for the Tories to find a new leader - very polite, but it didn't do much to expedite things.

I'm not advocating kicking the UK out, but I am absolutely advocating (metaphorically) kicking Parliament in the nuts for sitting on their hands while Her Majesty's Government fucked shit up.

Government usually controls the timetable in Parliament. Getting those indicative votes in the first place was never guaranteed, and Government never actually asked them.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is Jessicka that the UK parliament has done absolutely NOTHING to get that deal struck. They wasted their indicative votes where they could have at least outlined a mandate, preferably a realistic and somewhat detailed one. When May announced her resignation they did bugger all and just waited for the Tories to find a new leader - very polite, but it didn't do much to expedite things.

I'm not advocating kicking the UK out, but I am absolutely advocating (metaphorically) kicking Parliament in the nuts for sitting on their hands while Her Majesty's Government fucked shit up.

Government usually controls the timetable in Parliament. Getting those indicative votes in the first place was never guaranteed, and Government never actually asked them.

[Pann]

May should have brought the deal much earlier than she did, that was a failure on her part. After an earlier first rejection she would have been better placed to negotiate, both with Parliament and with the EU. Instead she tried to bulldoze her deal through. One way or another, we need to make up for that failure. It should have happened earlier but we are where we are, and kicking the UK out doesn't fundamentally change anything, other than punish a lot of people not involved in the talks - a deal still needs to be struck.

You don't seem to get it - there is no other deal! There is not something better just around the corner.

There's a difference between knowing it, and proving it beyond reasonable doubt.

Rudd's told us, Varadkar's told us, Macron too - how much more proof do you need?

[Jessicka]

You don't seem to get it - there is no other deal! There is not something better just around the corner.

There still needs to be A deal. Even if the WA is agreed, there will still need to be a deal after that.

Rudd's told us, Varadkar's told us, Macron too - how much more proof do you need?

Boris to literally say "I've given up negotiating".

[Pann]

There still needs to be A deal. Even if the WA is agreed, there will still need to be a deal after that.

Boris to literally say "I've given up negotiating".

You are saying nothing.

It appears that quite literally there is nothing that you will cause you to place blame on parliament for their inaction but I guess if you set the bar the low enough you'll never be disappointed, eh?

- - - Updated - - -

No. 10's internal polling seems to suggest that an early election would not be a success for them and they would do worse than Theresa May.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/sta...17492065636352

Which begs the question why is Johnson so determined to get a snap election? Is he hoping that wind will shift once campaigning officially begins or is this deliberate misinformation that has been leaked in the hope that opposition will grant him his wish?

[draykorinee]

Not a bad time to leak an internal polling that 'suggests they'd lose', now will JC take the obvious bait...

[Skroe]

No. 10's internal polling seems to suggest that an early election would not be a success for them and they would do worse than Theresa May.

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/sta...17492065636352

Which begs the question why is Johnson so determined to get a snap election? Is he hoping that wind will shift once campaigning officially begins or is this deliberate misinformation that has been leaked in the hope that opposition will grant him his wish?

Stinks like an authorized leak.

[Skroe]

I do wonder if there is any will to change your parliamentary procedures when this mess is resolved. Because a lot of this mess comes from them. In US threads I see many US posters from both sides of the fence agree that certain parts of how their country is run are broken but here there is much more ambivalence and resistance to that.

I don't think the British are capable of it.

Brexit has laid bare a lot of what the British said about their system is BS, much like Trump has laid bare that a lot of masturbatory backpatting Americans have long done to themselves was also BS.

Consider the role of the Queen. As the Head of State, in theory the Queen's powers are vast and she would be able to act as the guardian of the nation, its institutions and the legitimacy of the political process. And yet, even on this matter, which is epochal in scope and may presage the break up of the United Kingdom in its wake (Indyref2 anyone?), the Queen refused to use her power to restrain he recklessness of three conservative Prime Ministers.

But at the same time, should an unelected monarch in her 90s have that power in the first place? Isn't calling for her to take action undemocratic? Well, she didn't ask for that power. And she inherited it. And a life time of service stretching back to World War II would certainly impart a level of moral authority - undemocratic as it may be - to any action he took. But the fact we have to think about this while zig zagging around obstructions that lead to us saying "we should defend liberal democracy by asking for a monarch to act unilaterally", shows the intrinsic nonsense of the entire arrangement. Queen Elizabeth could probably get away with it, because of who she is. Imagine if it was "King Charles" instead.

All of which means, the UK needs to become a republic and it needs an elected head of state that is rotated at regular intervals. This is a very new position for me. I have deep respect for British history and traditionalism in general. I believe in sustaining hallowed institutions. But it's quite clear, we're past the point where even a "largely ceremonial" yet elected and democratically legitimate Head of State would probably have intervened to try and halt the shit show. We can't be wedded to things like the mythology surrounding the ancient British monarchy if its modern incarnation basically blocks an actual head of state from fulfilling duties in the name of the broader interests state.

At an even deeper level, the UK needs a single written Constitution. They've been talking about that for years. The lack of transparency and predictability in the process, and the flagrant disregard for the rules shows that the current ad hoc system is extremely fragile.

There are serious democratic deficits as well. Consider how Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn were selected by their party. Consider how Rebel Tory MP's just got kicked out of it. Consider how there likely exists an anti-Brexit majority in Parliament, but that that majority can't act.


These are clear as day, and they won't fix it. The US by contrast, I think, will fix some things in the post-Trump era, which at least mercifully has an expiration date. We will not fix all things at all, but our own deficits have been laid bare, and I do believe action will be taken by them - by Democrats because they're more committed to democracy and good government, and by Republicans because once Trump is no longer in the picture and we have Democratic President, they'll be willing to Roleplay as such for a little while.

[Gibblewink]

Problem is that a largely ceremonial president would also not have had cause to act as the governments only crime is being utter shit - they haven't violated the rules. The most that could have been done is firing the government and holding another GE which isn't likely to have had much of an effect, and also smells of dictatorship.

[zealo]

The UK doesn't need to become a republic if they don't want to, so much as have a general reform of their political system in a similar vein as to what Sweden did in the 70s, another country that's still a monarchy after having been one for well over a thousand years.

The TL;DR of that particular process as it pertains to the monarchy is essentially that power to appoint and approve a government were formally transferred from the monarchy to parliament, stripping the king of political power remaining.

[Pann]

... the Queen refused to use her power to restrain he recklessness of three conservative Prime Ministers.

That would probably be because the UK is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen does not have these powers. But whatever...

[Jessicka]

You are saying nothing.

It appears that quite literally there is nothing that you will cause you to place blame on parliament for their inaction but I guess if you set the bar the low enough you'll never be disappointed, eh?

Government sets the terms of the conversation, Parliament literally gets to say 'Aye' or 'Nay' to whatever the Government asks of it. That is all. I don't know what more you expect them to do, short of toppling the Government, forming an alliance of opposition parties, and taking over Governance. Because short of that, what they can do is actually very limited.

They can only introduce policy and law occasionally, and only when the Speaker gives them opportunity. They can't go negotiate with Brussels, something which is done by the Civil Service, according to the instructions from the Government. And any indicative votes that are held, are just that, and non-binding; don't need to be built on, and are free for the Government to just handwave and say "well you can't decide, so meh".

[Skroe]

That would probably be because the UK is a constitutional monarchy and the Queen does not have these powers. But whatever...

She does. She has the power to withhold Royal Assent. It hasn't been done once since 1700 (1708 iirc), but she could do it.

And this is of sufficient magnitude to warrant a once-in-a-lifetime (for her), once in a 300 year historic intervention. She has the theoretical power to intervene when the elected government acts extra-constitutionally as well.

But this is kind of the point. The UK lacks an elected head of state that could make a rare, if extraordinarily political intervention to stabilize a problem that seemingly lacks a democratic resolution and is fundamentally destabilizing the nation. So it has to make due on a constitutional monarch to use her theoretical unexercised powers to engage in an even more extraordinary intervention. It's a set up that acts for a bad outcome that will further taint the legitimacy of the process and the integrity of the system.

In a saner, better structured system, an elected British President would have intervened to put the breaks on the Article 50 bill (until a withdrawal agreement was in place before hand), or even the referendum itself, or on this cockamamie undemocratic scheme to prorogue Parliament for its longest duration in 50 years. An elected British head of state would not have legislative powers of course, but would be able to stage legitimate political interventions when a party is acting recklessly, as passing the Article 50 bill was without striking and passing an agreement on withdrawal before hand. Now the UK will be asking for extension after extension until they can build a seemingly impossible-to-build political consensus.

It sounds revolutionary. But far from it's vision of timelessness, the UK (and it's constituent countries) has always changed to survive with the era it's in. For crying out lout, the UK didn't even have universal suffrage until 1928. Universal Male suffrage until 1918. The political structure of the country has to modernize. This current arrangement is insufficient and fundamentally harming the UK's global standing and future prospects.

And that' something I think you need to take away from this. Even if Brexit happens tomorrow, and all the predictions of doom are wrong, on pure influence and soft power fronts, we're looking at 20 years before the UK gets back to where it was in around 2007. Its gone from being the third or fourth most powerful country in the world to at best seventh, behind the US, China, Germany, Japan, France, Russia. And keep in mind, the first two (the US and China) are pulling away from the pack like a rocket, while the second two (German and Japan) and rising relative to everyone behind them on the list as well.

[Pann]

Government sets the terms of the conversation, Parliament literally gets to say 'Aye' or 'Nay' to whatever the Government asks of it. That is all. I don't know what more you expect them to do, short of toppling the Government, forming an alliance of opposition parties, and taking over Governance. Because short of that, what they can do is actually very limited.

They can only introduce policy and law occasionally, and only when the Speaker gives them opportunity. They can't go negotiate with Brussels, something which is done by the Civil Service, according to the instructions from the Government. And any indicative votes that are held, are just that, and non-binding; don't need to be built on, and are free for the Government to just handwave and say "well you can't decide, so meh".

Parliament has taken control of proceedings for the third time - they can instruct the government to as they wish.

No-one's saying that they can negotiate with Brussels - again you're not saying anything.

- - - Updated - - -

She does. She has the power to withhold Royal Assent. It hasn't been done once since 1700 (1708 iirc), but she could do it.

She does not. Her role is entirely ceremonial and she grants Royal Assent on the advice of her government.

Do you ever find it really tiresome when someone, who knows very little about your country, decides to share their uniformed opinion and lecture you about the US?

[Jessicka]

Parliament has taken control of proceedings for the third time.

No-one's saying that they can negotiate with Brussels - again you're not saying anything.

I don't know what you want me to add. You keep yelling it's Parliament's fault, and that they do 'something' without either understanding the limitations of their power, or even any suggestion of what that 'something' might be. Beyond just picking a nuclear option and doing it yesterday.

[Pann]

Bercow to stand down. This could be very significant if (more likely; when) parliament tries to take control of Brexit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49639828

It's very much getting to shit or get off the pot time for parliament!

[draykorinee]

I thought he was already going?

It's also still the governments fault there's no deal, not parliaments.