[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Kiri]

What would be an acceptable deal in your mind?

Actually, I think the more pertinent question would be how morally bankrupt brexiteers would be to openly rejoice over their government lying to them just because that gives them the policy outcome they want.
But I guess the answer to that question is somewhat obvious.

[Northern Goblin]

I don't get what you think is happening in PR. Unless you set it up as a basic constituency-only system, you have national lists over which the top echolon is decided by the party, not the electorate. I am not aware of any country doing a thing like that.

As an example, Merkel (or soon AKK) would always be in parliament, whether she won a local constituency or not. Since she won her local constituency, her "list spot" gets bumped down to the next one. If he wins his constituency, it gets bumped down to #3.. and so on, and so forth until you have people losing their constituency, then they can get into Parliament according to the list spots the party gets based on the overall election result.

PR doesn't change the people at the top of the party. Neither does size. It's not the top 300 in a party that are the problem. The problem in the UK is the top 10 people. And you'll never get rid of those, because that would actually be undemocratic. The party has to be able to choose who their leaders are. That's what democracy means.

Yes, and most parties won't be prioritising the majority of their useless idiots at the top of the list, would they?

The Tories aren't going to put in idiots like Chope and Francois over the likes of Hammond and Lidlington if they're given a small quota to fill.

The top 10 are far from the worst elements of this Conservative government. You haven't yet witnessed some of the horrors that lie within the ERG. You will should Johnson be leader though, they make Gove look competent.

[Acidbaron]

This is something the UK needs to become very much aware off, you think a no deal can't happen because you vote all sort of retarded and pointless amendments on your side. The EU simply doesn't care about those things your parliamentarians vote for.

A No deal will happen because this won't go on forever, this won't be tolerated forever and people are getting increasingly frustrated with the UK childish behaviour.

[Northern Goblin]

It's not so much that no deal can't happen, but taking every measure to ensure it won't happen.

When we say "No deal cannot happen" we don't mean it's impossible beyond the realms of mortal mean, it means we cannot allow for it to happen.

Those amendments are preventing us heading straight towards it without any opportunity to change course.

[Mayhem]

It's not so much that no deal can't happen, but taking every measure to ensure it won't happen.

When we say "No deal cannot happen" we don't mean it's impossible beyond the realms of mortal mean, it means we cannot allow for it to happen.

Those amendments are preventing us heading straight towards it without any opportunity to change course.

That's nice, but if you can't bring anything forward it will be no-deal regardless.

[Northern Goblin]

That's nice, but if you can't bring anything forward it will be no-deal regardless.

Sure, but you'll see revocation before you see no deal.

That's what we mean by not letting it happen.

[Slant]

It's not so much that no deal can't happen, but taking every measure to ensure it won't happen.

When we say "No deal cannot happen" we don't mean it's impossible beyond the realms of mortal mean, it means we cannot allow for it to happen.

Those amendments are preventing us heading straight towards it without any opportunity to change course.

What he's trying to say, and what I've tried to point out a thousand times... regardless of how many times your politicians decide in the House of Commons to make "no-deal" an illegal option, rejecting it, saying it must not happen, vote "against" it...

If by October 31st the UK has not ratified the WA or revoked A50, no-deal is going to happen. Those are the two options you have to avoid no-deal. And neither one has gotten even close to being passed.

So, yes. It's a nice sentiment. And we know when you say you "cannot allow it to happen" you actually mean "someone will have to revoke A50". But that is as much fantasy as Brexiteers thinking you'll be "alright". Right now, there is no indication anyone but BoJo will be PM, this is the UK's one realistic shot at getting a new PM before the time's out, I dare say. The Queen won't fucking touch this topic with a ten foot pole, we all know that despite the amusing musings on her revoking it in a last ditch effort... I mean, crackpot theory right there. So, who's gonna do it? And with what legitimacy? Remember, the UK not only has to find a PM to revoke it, the EU basically outright stated that the UK'd have to oblige to the same conditions to revoke it that they used when invoking. This is the bit where the EU relies on the UK acting within its own constitutional bounds, as a sovereign nation, btw. So the UK also has to find a Parliament that will repeal the law that got A50 invoked in the first place. Tell me, how many times do you think it'll take for Parliament to reject such a motion before anyone will stand up and say "Well.. fuck?"

But perhaps I misunderstand completely again in all the fucked up rephrasing so you don't feel personally attacked. Let's ask... when you say "When we say "No deal cannot happen" we don't mean it's impossible beyond the realms of mortal mean, it means we cannot allow for it to happen.", what specifically do YOU think YOU personally can do to "not allow it to happen"?

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but you'll see revocation before you see no deal.

That's what we mean by not letting it happen.

Press F for respectful doubt...

[Northern Goblin]

Making no deal illegal means that at the 11th hour, you'll see a revocation happen. The reason people don't want to do it early is in large part political suicide, what you'll see happen is equivalent to when they stop the bomb timer at 00:01 on Mission Impossible. I get for the sake of stability and being able to move on from this shitshow you'd like it sooner, we all would. But *politics*


Parliament can rebel against Government, it's unconventional, and largely doesn't happen because most of the time Government has a super majority and can keep the back benchers in check to put through all their legislation.

This Parliament can introduce and amend Government legislation, that if it passes the Government would then try to vote against (as has happened before, and will likely do again with this changed Northern Ireland bill) so regardless of who is Prime Minister, the House of Commons has the ability to act in a way that leaves the PM powerless (and if it's Boris, this will happen a few times, enjoy)

As for what I can do personally, my own MP is for revoking A50, and certainly opposes no deal. If they were pro no-deal, I could seek to get them replaced via petition that would trigger a by election, and look to vote in someone more favourable.

There are so many loopholes, rarely used rules and some forgotten rules that are all coming into play as legal teams for various parties and interest groups pour over the details.

In any case, while no-deal IS the default so long as A50 remains active, it is not an inevitability, and not something that the UK will head to without credible opposition.

- - - Updated - - -

As for the Queen, I've not seen any theory on her revoking it, nor does she have the power to.

What she has the right to, as head of state, is meet with the rest of the EU leaders at the next gathering. Traditionally this never happens, the Prime Minister goes in her stead.

But if a further extension is needed, the theory is that to break convention and have her travel, as is her sovereign right, and speak instead of Boris, would be far more successful. Personally I would not be in favour of such a move, as we have kept the crown out of direct interference in politics since 1931 (afaik, I may be wrong but the King George instructing the forming of a national government was the last instance where the sovereign had a straight up hand in the affairs of state)

[Slant]

Oh right, I muddled that up, they wanted her to ask for an extension, not revoke. Still think it's a crackpot theory, why would she touch this subject. She's the only one coming out of this whole affair with a clean vest.

I wish you good luck with your "politics" and betting heavily on an eleventh hour fix. Personally, I'll handle my business with the perspective of the UK being out on November 1st.

[Northern Goblin]

Personally I don't think she will ever utilise her powers that lie outside the Bagehot rights (to be informed, to encourage and to warn) but at the same time if it did happen, I wouldn't bat an eyelid as frankly not much surprises me anymore over this. I'll be sad that it had to happen though.

I'm hoping we don't have to get to the eleventh hour (I mean we've been there once before with an extension) and that things occur sooner. But I'm confident if we do get there, there are enough Parliamentarians ready to do the right thing, as indicated by recent votes.

Next big step is what the Labour party does on Monday with this VoNC in Corbyn, and then the conclusion of the NI bill and the results of the Conservative leadership election.

Then we get absolutely nothing happening till September -.-

[Acidbaron]

It's not so much that no deal can't happen, but taking every measure to ensure it won't happen.

When we say "No deal cannot happen" we don't mean it's impossible beyond the realms of mortal mean, it means we cannot allow for it to happen.

Those amendments are preventing us heading straight towards it without any opportunity to change course.

As that documentary in my opinion points out correctly, those amendments are merely there to give the people the impression that they are doing something about the brexit, it's a game, an act, a pointless display of showmanship.

Considering the next PM you'll get is all populist, zero substance. A no deal will happen, what little good will is left is already squandered and if not the new PM will make sure it will using Brexit as a personal stage act.

You are banking on someone showing a spine and recalling a50 what you state yourself is political suicide, this is so out of character you might as well expect the PM to convert to Islam openly, that's how unlikely it is. It is even so that the hardliners stand to make a profit out of the brexit and these hardliners have taken control of the tories.

Second thing you are hoping for is yet another extension, while with each previous extension it has left a bad taste in the EU's mouth. Because no progress is made on every turn, at best threats are made from the UK towards the EU, thinking they are dealing with some sort of former colony they can strong arm.

It is even believed so that the extensions granted were not to do the UK a favour but to allow even more businesses to move out of the UK in a less painful manner and to allow the member states to better prepare.

[Slant]

As that documentary in my opinion points out correctly, those amendments are merely there to give the people the impression that they are doing something about the brexit, it's a game, an act, a pointless display of showmanship.

Considering the next PM you'll get is all populist, zero substance. A no deal will happen, what little good will is left is already squandered and if not the new PM will make sure it will using Brexit as a personal stage act.

You are banking on someone showing a spine and recalling a50 what you state yourself is political suicide, this is so out of character you might as well expect the PM to convert to Islam openly, that's how unlikely it is. It is even so that the hardliners stand to make a profit out of the brexit and these hardliners have taken control of the tories.

Second thing you are hoping for is yet another extension, while with each previous extension it has left a bad taste in the EU's mouth. Because no progress is made on every turn, at best threats are made from the UK towards the EU, thinking they are dealing with some sort of former colony they can strong arm.

It is even believed so that the extensions granted were not to do the UK a favour but to allow even more businesses to move out of the UK in a less painful manner and to allow the member states to better prepare.

And if recent voices are to be trusted, the EU considers the preparation process to be concluded. As I said, all indicators point to a full stop to this madness on October 31st. I would bet money on no further extensions being granted.

[dribbles]

People are still talking about extensions? Did they not hear what Boris said about that yesterday?

"Why would we have another extension? I don’t think there is any appetite in the UK for another extension, nobody wants it. I certainly won’t have it. And don’t forget how it works — at the moment the UK leaves legally on October 31, that is the law."

As he turns the Brexit dept. into the Ministry of No Deal.

I know people say they are not Sun readers, so I suppose it is to be expected they can't know what he said. So, just a one page read, you won't know if all you read is the Guardian, a paper of wishful thinking, he'll hardly be reported in there...

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit...eu-exit-plans/

Glad to be of service.

[Northern Goblin]

There's really not much to say other than I disagree with your assertions on a vast number of points you put forward.

But I'll correct you on one thing, it's not so much that I'm hoping for a third extension, but that certain events, if taken as a final decision, will require an extension to impliment. At that point the decision is already made and any extension as a matter of would not be us kicking the can down the road further.

Which would be a vast difference to the last two extensions that were asked for with no actual plan.

For example (purely for the sake of this thread) Parliament passes a second referendum act that is legally binding and the result will be implimented within a week of it taking place. To pull that off, they'd need an extension to get everything done.

Where I'm optimistic is that if something like the above were presented to the EU27, with a clear destination, no further haggling or wrangling of the details and a decisive answer, they'd extend purely to see this through to what would be its conclusive end.

[Slant]

Referendum or GE, those are the conditions for a new extension. Why do people in the UK keep ignoring what the EU says?

[Northern Goblin]

Referendum or GE, those are the conditions for a new extension. Why do people in the UK keep ignoring what the EU says?

No idea, but those essentially were the ones I had in mind. Nothing else really warrants another extension in my opinion.

[Muzjhath]

Because, for some reason, we appear to think we're either in a great position or have some sort of bargaining power. Eventually, people will have to realise what an utter joke we've become.

I think it'll take at least 20 years for the English UKers to realize that.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Referendum or GE, those are the conditions for a new extension. Why do people in the UK keep ignoring what the EU says?

They haven't been listening to what the EU has been saying for the last 4 years, why would they start now?

[Pann]

Maybe BoJo will not be that bad - https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKCN1UF0ON

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

BoJo is the ultimate career politician. He does what he needs to do in the moment to further his career (i.e. become PM). He swapped allegiance to Leave when he thought it would destabilise Cameron's position so that he could launch a leadership challenge. He moved to hardcore No Deal to weaken May's position and force her to resign. He continues with No Deal to woo the party membership to become PM.

After all that work, is he really going to willingly put Corbyn in the position where he could realistically win a vote of no confidence and trigger a General Election? If BoJo stays true to form, the people who put him in No. 10 are going to be disappointed on 1st November. He does not want to take the record of "shortest tenure" from George Canning, who was in office for only 119 days (a record that has stood for 192 years).

However, the EU (also Ireland, according to Simon Coveney) are not prepared to re-write the WA. They are only going to change the wording of the accompanying political statement of intent. I do not see a way around the Backstop without finding a way to make the Irish border work for Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and the EU. Credible progress toward that goal could, along with a General Election and a Referendum) be a reason for the EU to grant another extension.