[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Pann]

This could be interesting; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8649001.html

[dribbles]

Then why the hell did you put her in charge. Why didn't you put in charge a true brexiter at heart like Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson? oh that's right, they quit as soon as shit got real. Someone has to step up and take care of the mess

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...

tick tock indeed. In Europe too, we can't wait for this mess to be over.

Yes I can imagine you want the mess to be over, me too. How is Toulouse btw? As Paris, your capital, is razed to the ground this weekend do you think French citizens are enjoying the benefits of EU membership? You do have to ask if it wasn't for EU climate change regulation enforcement on fuels if the Arc de triomphe wouldn't be in flames today.

If only remainers at the time of the referendum had pointed out the benefits of EU membership I've seen some cry on here. The reason they didn't and still don't now is because there aren't any. Look at France this weekend for an example of what the EU does to its members....

No wonder refugees from the EU are attempting to swim the English channel this weekend trying to escape it, it's winter, how desperate and how bad life must be in the EU to take such a risk?

Not long now eurochums, I hear Dec 12th ish for non ratification by the UK sovereign parliament of Junckers junk deal and our very lucky escape.

[Noradin]

The Council of Europe stuff is a separate issue:

CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Article 2.2: No one shall be condemned to the death penalty, or executed.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-cont...3:FULL&from=EN

So you are agreeing with me?
The UK cannot do it anyway, even if the leave the EU.

They did not lose any sovereignty that way.

Same as they would not lose any sovereignty when entering into an international treaty stating "the moon is not made of cheese and no government shall have to right to use it to feed to their homeless". You cannot lose something you do not have in the first place.

[Teleros]

This could be interesting

If they're sensible they'll leave the validity of the referendum out of it. You don't screw with this stuff if you want people to have any faith left in the system.

Beyond that... meh. Highly partisan piece trying to push a narrative, colour me shocked :P .

Incidentally, yeah there were irregularities in the campaign, something that old Guido Fawkes has enjoyed pointing out:

https://order-order.com/tag/electoral-commission

The Leave.EU campaign was also not the official pro-Brexit one, so given the Independent article's focus on them, it seems a bit dodgy that this could somehow undo Brexit.

Meanwhile, spending by both Leave.EU and the main Vote Leave campaign, fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, was found by the Electoral Commission to have broken the law.

The same Electoral Commission that the High Court described as... well, not too good:
https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/f...-court-defeat/
https://order-order.com/2018/09/21/a...-court-ruling/

Oh, and this is a fun one too:
https://order-order.com/2018/08/02/e...ain-collusion/

[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 . .

On the blame topic, I think it comes down to how one bridges the gap from collectives to individuals. If one wants to blame the brexiteer, one can point out that is is their duty to remain informed, and if the system of disinformation is overpowering, to become politicians themselves and fix it. If one wants to blame a class of people, they can point out what the collective does independently of some good apples being dragged along.
On this particular, I said before that I would be angry at the political class, because I feel swayed the same way at home. But, in honesty, I recognize that I apply these methods arbitrarily.

Even when one makes the case of blaming the systems, the individuals affected by the system will at some point bridge that gap and see how it translates onto themselves. What would a brexiteer think when they hear "it's not your fault, you're just immunized against facts"?.
There's probably some political science behind this, but I wouldn't know where to start :S.

[Teleros]

So you are agreeing with me?
The UK cannot do it anyway, even if the leave the EU.

I just gave the death penalty as a random example of something the EU forbids the UK from doing. Which it does. Worst case scenario, I gave a poor example because that specific example is also covered by the Council of Europe's ban on the death penalty. Oh well. Pick any one of the scores of things where the EU has supremacy over UK law and where the Council of Europe is not involved.

Now if you want to get really specific about the death penalty, then sure, the UK would also have to withdraw from, or change the rules in, the Council of Europe too.

Btw read your link.

Where in that ghastly block of text does it say that Article 2 is not binding on a member state, exactly?

[Pann]

Ultimately I don't see any way you can challenge the referendum and not damage the trust of the people even further Even if they have all the facts in their side, everyone has been told repeatedly for so long that this was the will of the people that I am not sure how you get to take that back in any way other than giving them a new vote.

I don't think the outcome will make any difference to Brexit however we must absolutely know the legality of the Brexit referendum and that rules were followed. If anything this may allow us to put the accusations against Leave.EU to bed and to move on.

[Pann]

If they're sensible they'll leave the validity of the referendum out of it. You don't screw with this stuff if you want people to have any faith left in the system.

I disagree with this stance; we have rules to ensure that elections and referendums are as a level playing field and free from bias as possible, although they are not perfect there are something that both leave and remain votes should hold dear.

I fail to see how ignoring the potential flouting of our laws would restore any faith in the system.

[Noradin]

I just gave the death penalty as a random example of something the EU forbids the UK from doing. Which it does. Worst case scenario, I gave a poor example because that specific example is also covered by the Council of Europe's ban on the death penalty. Oh well. Pick any one of the scores of things where the EU has supremacy over UK law and where the Council of Europe is not involved.

Why would I have to pick one, you do so and we will see if you do better this time.
I don't think you will be able to find one that was forced upon the UK without their consent.

BTW.:Temporary delegation of sovereign duties is not a loss of sovereignty, because the ability to delegate said duties and powers itself is a core part of sovereignty.

[Pann]

I agree, I also think that tying it to Brexit itself is a fools errand. It's more important to actually get a ruling on if this was illegal or not.
And honestly, the referendum has already been ruled as advisory. Doesn't matter what May says about enforcing the Will of the People, she has no legal responsibility to do so for Brexit so the referendum result not being valid does not legally change anything about Brexit.

It is always going to be tied to Brexit simply because the allegations centre around the Brexit referendum unfortunately this brings a lot of noise with it.

The Government promised to enact the result of the referendum therefore May has political responsibility to follow through the Will of the People regardless of whether or not the law compels her to do so.

Quite frankly if it is found that the rule breaches were serious enough to deem the referendum result as void I would hope that the people would be sufficiently outraged that their will shifts to protecting our democracy. However this is unlikely to happen and to be quite honest the best outcome for the UK is that the court concludes there was no wrong doing.

[Teleros]

I disagree with this stance; we have rules to ensure that elections and referendums are as a level playing field and free from bias as possible, although they are not perfect there are something that both leave and remain votes should hold dear.

I agree, but it looks like the Electoral Commission is (a) biased and (b) utterly incompetent.

I fail to see how ignoring the potential flouting of our laws would restore any faith in the system.

Because for the last two-ish years, practically everyone's been assuming that the referendum was binding, from ordinary people all the way on up to the (Remainer) PM Theresa May, Juncker, et al. Now if some un-elected High Court judge steps in and says "nope, it's illegal, back to square one everyone" it turns the whole thing into a farce. To me, this would say that the Remoaner elites are desperate enough to do anything to stop Brexit, and that I should no longer place any trust in the democratic process. Logically then if I can't do that... yeah.

Incidentally, if this is enough to overturn the entire referendum process it will bring all future such referendums to a grinding halt. Let's say I desperately want to block Scottish independence - all I do is join an unofficial pro-independence campaign, get it to break the law, and anonymously give the authorities a tip-off, assuming nobody out there is watching & able to do it anyway. Even if I get caught, a few years in prison or w/e is a small price to pay for stopping it. Provided you have enough willing saboteurs you can rinse & repeat ad infinitum.

Finally, there is also a legal principle I believe that basically says that if a law was passed and everyone assumed it was legal etc, but it was much later found out to be illegal, then the proper response is to treat the law as having been legal for anything done under it. To give an example, if it turned out that the birthers were right and Obama wasn't born in the US, and thus was never eligible to be President, you wouldn't suddenly undo everything passed during his 8 years.

[Noradin]

I mean ANY trade deal will be a delegation of power.

Some of them come with a ceding of power and sovereignty... if you have them with the USA as the smaller party for example.

- - - Updated - - -

Because for the last two-ish years, practically everyone's been assuming that the referendum was binding, from ordinary people all the way on up to the (Remainer) PM Theresa May, Juncker, et al. Now if some un-elected High Court judge steps in and says "nope, it's illegal, back to square one everyone" it turns the whole thing into a farce. To me, this would say that the Remoaner elites are desperate enough to do anything to stop Brexit, and that I should no longer place any trust in the democratic process. Logically then if I can't do that... yeah.

Why is it automatically on the "Remoaner elites" if the High Court judges the referendum as illegal?
Is it because your definition of "Remoaner elites" is "those who have an opinion different from mine"?

[Teleros]

Why is it automatically on the "Remoaner elites" if the High Court judges the referendum as illegal?

Anti-Brexit = Remoaner.
Elite = speaks for itself.

Is it because your definition of "Remoaner elites" is "those who have an opinion different from mine"?

No, those would just be Remoaners :P .

[Kallisto]

I don't think the outcome will make any difference to Brexit however we must absolutely know the legality of the Brexit referendum and that rules were followed. If anything this may allow us to put the accusations against Leave.EU to bed and to move on.

I believe if I read correctly the referendum from a legal standpoint was nothing more than a glorified opinion poll (Yes in practice it was more) with spending limits. But in the end due to nature of British laws the non binding part pretty much means only the campaigns can be hurt, not the result because in legal terms there is no result to overturn.

[Noradin]

Anti-Brexit = Remoaner.
Elite = speaks for itself.

So you are telling me that judges doing their job are potential remoaners solely on the basis of whether someone broke the law?
It has nothing to do with their personal opinions, as soon as some Brexiteers (who fought for Brexit) happen to be criminals the judges that happen to get to preside over the case automatically get to be "Remoaners".
What if say Farage gets accused of theft? Would the judge presiding get to be a "Remoaner" in the hypothetical case that there was undeniable evidence?

You are aware that judging the referendum "illegal" would have legal consequences for the ones responsible but would not affect the parliaments decision to have a Brexit anymore than invocing the "Will of the People" takes away the responsibility of the MP to act in the best interest of the UK?
The referendum was a non-binding opinion poll, the parliament is sovereign, if they tell you the "have to respect the will of the people" then they are simply lying to you to use it as a scapegoat.

It being illeal would mean nothing for Article 50, either, the EU only cares for what the official representative of the UK had to say, not how that came to be internally. That is part of being a sovereign nation.

[Teleros]

So you are telling me that judges doing their job are potential remoaners solely on the basis of whether someone broke the law?

No. I am telling you that judges invalidating the result of the referendum on the basis of this case are Remoaners.

It may be that the Leave.EU campaign broke the law. It may also be that they did it by following the advice of the Electoral Commission. It may be something else. Whatever the case may be, that's not what I'm concerned about.

You are aware that judging the referendum "illegal" would have legal consequences for the ones responsible but would not affect the parliaments decision to have a Brexit anymore than invocing the "Will of the People" takes away the responsibility of the MP to act in the best interest of the UK?

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.

The referendum was a non-binding opinion poll

There's some debate over that, but w/e.

the parliament is sovereign, if they tell you the "have to respect the will of the people" then they are simply lying to you to use it as a scapegoat.

The Crown in Parliament under God is sovereign. They still have to respect the will of the people however, because (a) MPs get voted into office, and (b) lampposts make great gallows :P .

It being illeal would mean nothing for Article 50, either

So you don't think the anti-Brexit crowd, both in the UK & EU, would do their best to say it invalidates the result, and that the whole process must stop, or at least start over?

[Huehuecoyotl]

There's some debate over that, but w/e.

There isn't any debate over that at all. It wasn't binding, which is the reason why the discovery that it was a flawed vote hasn't automatically stopped it. If it had been binding, there wouldn't have been any choice about cancelling the outcome and having a rerun. Isn't it odd that you wouldn't know that?

[Pann]

I agree, but it looks like the Electoral Commission is (a) biased and (b) utterly incompetent.

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.

Because for the last two-ish years, practically everyone's been assuming that the referendum was binding, from ordinary people all the way on up to the (Remainer) PM Theresa May, Juncker, et al. Now if some un-elected High Court judge steps in and says "nope, it's illegal, back to square one everyone" it turns the whole thing into a farce. To me, this would say that the Remoaner elites are desperate enough to do anything to stop Brexit, and that I should no longer place any trust in the democratic process. Logically then if I can't do that... yeah.

Incidentally, if this is enough to overturn the entire referendum process it will bring all future such referendums to a grinding halt. Let's say I desperately want to block Scottish independence - all I do is join an unofficial pro-independence campaign, get it to break the law, and anonymously give the authorities a tip-off, assuming nobody out there is watching & able to do it anyway. Even if I get caught, a few years in prison or w/e is a small price to pay for stopping it. Provided you have enough willing saboteurs you can rinse & repeat ad infinitum.

Finally, there is also a legal principle I believe that basically says that if a law was passed and everyone assumed it was legal etc, but it was much later found out to be illegal, then the proper response is to treat the law as having been legal for anything done under it. To give an example, if it turned out that the birthers were right and Obama wasn't born in the US, and thus was never eligible to be President, you wouldn't suddenly undo everything passed during his 8 years.

Judges are impartial and there to rule on the law. If the referendum does turn out be void due to the illegal actions of certain leavers then we should all be asking serious questions as to how this has happened and what was the motivation behind there actions. And surely it should be those that seek to undermine our democratic processes that should be the focus our anger and not the remoaner elites. I would say that if we allow people to undermine democracy it does far more damage to our democracy than ignoring it.

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

I have never heard of this law.

- - - Updated - - -

I believe if I read correctly the referendum from a legal standpoint was nothing more than a glorified opinion poll (Yes in practice it was more) with spending limits. But in the end due to nature of British laws the non binding part pretty much means only the campaigns can be hurt, not the result because in legal terms there is no result to overturn.

Yep, I remember reading that when both remain and leave's overspending came to light that had the referendum been legally binding it would have been ruled void.

[ranzino]

May wrote a letter of invocation of Art50 herself, not the 17m people. it was also taken to HoC, which represents the populace.
to attack the first referendum will lead to nowhere but of course the simple truth: it was advisory at best.
so government can stop their "but but will of the people !!!" campaign and revoke on their own, without a second ref.

[Kiri]

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.




Judges are impartial and there to rule on the law. If the referendum does turn out be void due to the illegal actions of certain leavers then we should all be asking serious questions as to how this has happened and what was the motivation behind there actions. And surely it should be those that seek to undermine our democratic processes that should be the focus our anger and not the remoaner elites. I would say that if we allow people to undermine democracy it does far more damage to our democracy than ignoring it.

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

I have never heard of this law.

- - - Updated - - -



Yep, I remember reading that when both remain and leave's overspending came to light that had the referendum been legally binding it would have been ruled void.

Yeah, but sadly, that is becoming more and more the norm these days. I made this point earlier today, but the US is still a focal point for most of the world. If it becomes possible in the US to simply decry bias and incompetence at any judge that does not rule the way you want them to, then it becomes normal to do the same at home as well.