[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Pann]

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.

Parliament have decided that the government's job is not up to scratch and have taken control of the proceedings it is therefore on them to do a better job.

I fully understand the limitations of parliament's power - they could accept the deal, they could back no-deal, they could even, if they wanted, instruct Johnson to revoke A50 or they could instruct him to negotiate a deal that includes a CU or SM membership and he would have no choice but to comply. Yet they do not - they seek a delay.

They could even end Johnson's premiership but they repeatedly put things off, presumably in the hope that somehow it will all work itself out on its own.

[Jessicka]

Parliament have decided that the government's job is not up to scratch and have taken control of the proceedings it is therefore on them to do a better job.

I fully understand the limitations of parliament's power - they could accept the deal, they could back no-deal, they could even, if they wanted, instruct Johnson to revoke A50 or they could instruct him to negotiate a deal that includes a CU or SM membership and he would have no choice but to comply. Yet they do not - they seek a delay.

They could even end Johnson's premiership but they repeatedly put things off, presumably in the hope that somehow it will all work itself out on its own.

They're not going to do anything until 19th October, when Boris said he'd have a deal during the EU conference. That's been pretty clear for the last few days. Then they call a VoNC, General Election, and accept either whatever deal he comes back with, or work to the extension.

Until then, nothing new is going to happen, except maybe more Tory MP haemorrhaging.

[Pann]

I thought he was already going?

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

There is a deal - it is 600 pages long and has been agreed with the EU - but parliament do not want this deal. They, also, don't want anything else and think that sending the government away to get something better from the EU, when there is absolutely no incentive for the EU to re-open negotiations because whatever they come up with will be rejected, is a solution to the problem.

So, yes, this part of the mess is parliament's fault.

[Skroe]

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...?noredirect=on

This would give Johnson an option to force its hand: Advise Queen Elizabeth II to withhold royal assent from the anti-no-deal bill. The monarch retains the power of an absolute veto, but it has not been used since the early 18th century. Convention requires her to give assent to a bill backed by Parliament, but convention also dictates that she follow the advice of her prime minister. Since the prime minister has always controlled Parliament, she has thus always assented to the bill. But what will she do if her ministers advise a veto in the face of a parliamentary majority that refuses to take power?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal...rles-III-Queen

The reigning monarch has always needed to give his or her royal assent to parliamentary Bills in order to make them into law.

In modern times, the monarch acts on the advice of the government and the royal assent is considered a formality.

The last time that it was refused was in 1707, when Queen Anne vetoed a Bill on the Scottish Militia on the advice of ministers.
Barrister Anthony Hook says: “Today, if a British monarch even suggested they might block Parliament’s will by withholding Royal Assent there would be Parliamentary and public outrage.

“This has been the political reality for centuries.”

Theoretically the Queen, Charles or any other future monarch could refuse to give assent on the advice of his or her ministers, however the consensus is that this would never happen.

She can. It's just convention not to. And that's again the ENTIRE point. In the United States, we're seeing the Trump Administration, more than anything else, defy convention - the unwritten rules - that normalize our system. And it's forcing us to take a very critical look at that system and turning some of those unwritten rules into written rules in the future, just to prevent a repeat. Consider the move to mandate the release of Tax Returns by people running for public office. There hasn't been a need to have such a law in place until now because everyone has done it for 40 years. Then Trump didn't. Now laws are being put on the books to that effect.

Having a head of state having theoretically exorcisable moderating power, but from a practical angle, unusable power is the *entire* problem in the case of the monarchy. Either the power is usable or it isn't. That's the benefits of a tightly defined system of rules that the UK lacks.

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?

I've travel to the UK a few times a year. I know a fair bit about the country. But my opinion isn't uninformed at all. Instead of owning the problem we all see, you're downplaying it to save face. It is pointless. That doesn't make the problem go away. In the US, we don't downplay Trump and the threat he represents at all. In fact there is a chance we may even be overstating him. Not a big chance, but a chance.

It also doesn't make any sense because one of the two things I mentioned: formalizing the "British Constitution" into a singular document that defines the powers, roles and limitations of government, has been in the political mainstream. The creation of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in 2005 to replace the judicial power of the House of Lords, and the Fixed Term Parliaments Act of 2011 just speaks to the fundamental institutional reform that the UK is in practice - not just in theory - capable of as it modernizes its fundamental structures to make them more consistent with modern Western Democracies. A formal, singular British Constitution is a necessary and consistent step in that process, which is why it's been discussed for years. A shift from a monarchy to a republic is also something that's come up from time to time. That's probably much longer term, but as part of any formal British Constitution, either the power of the sovereign would have to be explicitly defined and that power be usable (as in: convention goes away), or that power would need to be translated to a new elected office.

And yet you're sitting here, being Baghdad Bob, not just about the magnitude of the UK's political crisis, but on the failure of Britain's system to rally a response to it.

It makes no sense at all.

[mvaliz]

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!

Aww man, I finally just started to warm up to the guy after the berratings he vocally delivered a few days ago...

[Skroe]

Yeah without Bercow good luck to parliament trying to take control again.

He is standing down because the Johnson gang was coming for him, plain and simple.

But frankly, I wouldn't blame him if he just wants out of the shitshow.

[Jessicka]

There is a deal - it is 600 pages long and has been agreed with the EU - but parliament do not want this deal. They, also, don't want anything else and think that sending the government away to get something better from the EU, when there is absolutely no incentive for the EU to re-open negotiations because whatever they come up with will be rejected, is a solution to the problem.

So, yes, this part of the mess is parliament's fault.

There is a withdrawal agreement that sets up interim treaties that apply as long and until both parties agree they're no longer needed. i.e. when a new raft of trade agreements are done.

It marks the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end. Part of the reason it's so unacceptable to Brexiteers is because we already know that such new trade deals could be a decade or more in the making which the Brexiteers won't necessarily have control over terms of.

[Dhrizzle]

The government of the time had a majority in parliament so your point is moot. And seeing as parliament agreed to passing the European Union Referendum Act 2015 I am not sure where you're trying to go with this.

It is not a moot point - having a majority does not mean that the government is guaranteed to be able to do whatever it wants, recent events show that MPs can and will vote against party lines.

Not sure what your point is about the Referendum Act as it did not give the government carte blanche to do whatever they like post-referendum and besides Parliament has changed since that time.

And? Does that somehow change the fact that the government, of the time, committed to enacting the referendum result?

Not, it makes it irrelevant as the government at that time did not have the power to guarantee the commitment and has since ceased to exist.

None of which was relevant as the spending irregularities were not known at the time.

I'm not sure what country you come from but in the UK illegal activities remain illegal even if they are discovered after the fact.

[mvaliz]

He is standing down because the Johnson gang was coming for him, plain and simple.

But frankly, I wouldn't blame him if he just wants out of the shitshow.

On a side-note, what's you're take on the theory that the EU may issue a requirement for a 2nd referendum attached to the next extension? I'm thinking (hoping) that Macron is just playing bad-cop to have an extra excuse to slip a 2nd referendum requirement in with the next extention.

Personally I think the EU's well in its rights at this point. After 3+ years of "Clusterfuck, extention, repeat" with Zero Progress - the UK public (indeed the entire world) is far more informed now to allow a 2nd vote on both sides (primarily that it's clearly harder/difficult/problematic than it was originally advertised to be), and I feel there's enough time to pass for the EU to be well within their rights to ask for a 2nd vote without (or rather, despite) people shouting "But DEMOCRAZY!".

[Breccia]

Bercow to stand down.

Who the hell is...damn, the head of the House of Commons is spending time with his family? Blimey!

[Skroe]

On a side-note, what's you're take on the theory that the EU may issue a requirement for a 2nd referendum attached to the next extension? I'm thinking (hoping) that Macron is just playing bad-cop to have an extra excuse to slip a 2nd referendum requirement in with the next extention.

Personally I think the EU's well in its rights at this point. After 3+ years of "Clusterfuck, extention, repeat" with Zero Progress - the UK public (indeed the entire world) is far more informed now to allow a 2nd vote on both sides (primarily that it's clearly harder/difficult/problematic than it was originally advertised to be), and I feel there's enough time to pass for the EU to be well within their rights to ask for a 2nd vote without (or rather, despite) people shouting "But DEMOCRAZY!".

I don't know. I think that's the kind of thing that they may on the inside want to do, but it hasn't been the EU's style at all in this. It would be a coercive move, and so far the EU has emphatically "won" Brexit by not being coercive at all and letting the UK get in its own way through sheer ineptitude and recklessness.

Macron's playing the bad cop for sure, but it's almost certainly a coordinated strategy to limit British negotiating options and define parameters. European countries have engaged in those tactics vis a vis the US on countless issues going back to the 1940s.

I think the EU would be in its rights to just expel the UK if such a mechanism existed or were legal, given how the UK's uniquely shameful fucking performance on this matter for years on end now. I think the most aggressive thing the EU would do though would be to just let the UK hard Brexit out, but that depends on how ready they are with their own preparations.

My personal opinon: this was always going to end one of two ways. Either Brexit was never going to happen (through normalized long term delays, or a potential indefinite delay, or through a repeal of Article 50 or a referendum), or the UK political system would fail to take up the challenge and the UK would Hard Brexit. I don't think any deal was going to happen ever. I think the EU pretty much knew that as well.

- - - Updated - - -

The likely next speaker by he way:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsay_Hoyle

[Dhrizzle]

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.

The idea that the Queen would ever step forward and unilaterally decide to reign in Parliament is nothing short of fancy. The powers held by the monarchy only exist to aid the legal functioning of Parliament, if she ever did act it would only be under advice from the privy council or some other facet of the civil service.

In practice the head of state is the Prime Minister, they are the ones who wield executive power by leading the government whilst sovereignty ultimately rests with Parliament and the legislative branch.

The problem with the UK's politics is to do with FPTP and a lack of confidence in the democratic system due to the need for tactical voting or a sense that votes are wasted in certain areas.

[Skroe]

The idea that the Queen would ever step forward and unilaterally decide to reign in Parliament is nothing short of fancy. The powers held by the monarchy only exist to aid the legal functioning of Parliament, if she ever did act it would only be under advice from the privy council or some other facet of the civil service.

In practice the head of state is the Prime Minister, they are the ones who wield executive power by leading the government whilst sovereignty ultimately rests with Parliament and the legislative branch.

The problem with the UK's politics is to do with FPTP and a lack of confidence in the democratic system due to the need for tactical voting or a sense that votes are wasted in certain areas.

Again, this is exactly the problem I'm describing. You forgot a word here:

"In practice the head of state is the Prime Minister"

The word you missed is "de facto" is in

"In practice the de facto head of state is the Prime Minister"

Arrangements of power and responsibilities on a de facto basis are intrinsically unstable.

Again an argument for a formal UK Constitution that clearly defines powers and limitations.

[Mayhem]

snip

Come on Skroe, the Rs will filibuster the shit out of the next democratic presidency. I really doubt just because Trump isn't in office anymore republican senators suddenly grow a spine.

[Leobald]

There is a deal - it is 600 pages long and has been agreed with the EU - but parliament do not want this deal.

The government doesn’t want it either.

[Skroe]

Come on Skroe, the Rs will filibuster the shit out of the next democratic presidency. I really doubt just because Trump isn't in office anymore republican senators suddenly grow a spine.

I don't think you quite got what I was saying.

When there is a Democratic President, if a Democratic Senator puts up a bill that will limit the power of Presidents, Republicans then and there would vote for it. They'll suddenly rediscover their republican (small r) values.

Our system will be reformed because a Democratic House will deal with a Republican Senate to put new rules that reign in the powers of the executive that a Democratic President is then occupying. It's the only way it happens, because Republicans will never do it with a sitting Republican President.

But to potentially restrain a Democratic one? Yeah they'll jump at that. Democrats will be doing the right thing for the right reason, while Republicans the right thing for the wrong.

That clear it up?

[Pann]

She can. It's just convention not to. And that's again the ENTIRE point.

She can't, read what you've quoted.

This would give Johnson an option to force its hand: Advise Queen Elizabeth II to withhold royal assent from the anti-no-deal bill. The monarch retains the power of an absolute veto, but it has not been used since the early 18th century. Convention requires her to give assent to a bill backed by Parliament, but convention also dictates that she follow the advice of her prime minister. Since the prime minister has always controlled Parliament, she has thus always assented to the bill. But what will she do if her ministers advise a veto in the face of a parliamentary majority that refuses to take power?

- - - Updated - - -

There is a withdrawal agreement that sets up interim treaties that apply as long and until both parties agree they're no longer needed. i.e. when a new raft of trade agreements are done.

It marks the end of the beginning, rather than the beginning of the end. Part of the reason it's so unacceptable to Brexiteers is because we already know that such new trade deals could be a decade or more in the making which the Brexiteers won't necessarily have control over terms of.

The EU have said time and time again that they will not agree a trade deal without the basic parts of the WA.

[Skroe]

Oh and there is this. MPs giving praise to Bercow now.



That's the opposition (Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, etc) on the right and the Conservatives on the left.

Bercow was previously a Conservative FP and a front bencher at various points.

Classy people couldn't even show up to say a few nice words about a colleague.

[Pann]

It is not a moot point - having a majority does not mean that the government is guaranteed to be able to do whatever it wants, recent events show that MPs can and will vote against party lines.

Not sure what your point is about the Referendum Act as it did not give the government carte blanche to do whatever they like post-referendum and besides Parliament has changed since that time.

Well it is.

I didn't say that it did. I asked where you were going with your point.

Not, it makes it irrelevant as the government at that time did not have the power to guarantee the commitment and has since ceased to exist.

What? The government did not cease to exist. The government committed to enact the referendum result and so did May's government - these are things that actually happened - I honestly don't know why you're trying to claim otherwise.

I'm not sure what country you come from but in the UK illegal activities remain illegal even if they are discovered after the fact.

And? I've not claimed otherwise but it's good to see that you again resort the to you must be foreigner argument.

[Skroe]

She can't read what you've quoted.

I think you're having a difficult relationship with the definition of the word "convention", which is explicitly used in the part you bolded and has been used repeatedly by me.

Convention is the problem at work here. She can, but she doesn't because of convention. But that doesn't mean she can't. She can. She just doesn't because of tradition.

A better system would have those powers explicitly allowed or denied, preferably to a democratically elected head of state. Because as another poster put, the de facto head of state through the convention that the queen follows the advice of the prime minister, is the Prime Minister and his "executive". A better system would be one where "de facto" isn't used in terms of division of powers.