281–290 of 1001 posts
Don't fully understand UK government structure but is it possible for the labor party to take over leadership and revoke article 50 before the deadline?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no Canada+ on the table and there never was, it's just "Canada" without the "+": a set of trade liberalization measures that cover some physical goods and very few services. It's a bad match for Britain's needs: http://www.policyreview.co.uk/eu-uk-canada/ It's hard to understand why Germany or France, who stand to gain from excluding the powerful UK service sector from the EU financial markets, would think t…
Donald Tusk has repeatedly offered "Canada +++" to Great Britain. (Not to the United Kingdom, as part of their "we're going to annex Northern Ireland as a punishment beating" approach.) > UK still needs to respect the EU regulations WHEN EXPORTING TO THE EU, yes. The ~90% of UK businesses that don't do any trade with the EU do not. Those trading with the rest of the world outside the EU - a majority of the UK's trade…
I'll be the first to admit: I'm an American. I fundamentally do not understand Brexit. I understand the following timeline: 1. A largely disseminated, nation-wide vote occurs, bolstered by nationalist sentiment, that the EU is bad for the UK. This vote results in a conclusion that UK should leave the EU. 2. This is controversial, due to the majority of the populace in general not desiring to leave the EU, but not vot…
2. I am not sure how you can claim the majority of the populace is against leaving the EU. A national vote demonstrated the opposite. And it's not clear that another vote now wouldn't yield the same result (the recent polls are roughly where they were a few months before the first vote).
3. May is the prime minister. The head of state (the queen) being essentially an honorific title, she is in charge (she has control of the red button!). But parliament has more power in the UK than in the US and she answers to parliament.
4. The terms of trading between the EU and the UK, as agreed with the EU, requires the UK to abide to EU laws without having any say on them. Brexiters are against as they don't accept this loss of sovereignty (they typically would like a free trade deal with the EU but without loss of sovereignty). Remainers are against as they don't really want to leave the EU in the first place, and are trying to force a way out of Brexit.
I don't think you can call the result of referendum "stupid" and ignore it. That would seem very anti-democratic to me. I don't know how the whole thing will play out. Right now it seems that the potential outcomes are:
a. Brexit being postponed from March to June (unlikely to be later as this is when the new EU parliament starts after the spring elections, and unlikely to help in any way other than kicking the can down the road).
b. May being defeated at the vote on Wednesday, new general elections, whoever wins will have to deal with the same problem and likely with the same outcome (the EU is unlikely to concede much).
c. A new referendum (but May repeatedly ruled it out, and again nothing says it will yield another result)
d. The EU making significant enough concessions in the short term that could help PM agreeing to the deal. Germany hinted they would be open, while France ruled it out today.
e. Leaving the EU without a deal, resulting in short term trade disruptions and an adverse economic impact on the medium term.
f. Parliament cancelling Brexit. Many MPs would probably prefer that option, but this is ignoring the result of a referendum, which is a really worrying outcome for a democracy and would likely boost a populist vote down the line.
There aren't any obvious good solution, everything comes at a cost. Which is why the public opinion is terribly divided.
Of course it "failed". The government did everything it could to sabotage it and arrive at as unfavorable a set of exit conditions as possible. Even if she did want to get a good deal, May doesn't strike me as a cutthroat negotiator. Couple this with her unwillingness to abide by the will of the people (the size of the voting margin is somewhat irrelevant in a properly functioning democracy), and you get this. This w…
In 2005, the Conservative party manifesto included a pledge to call a second referendum on the Welsh assembly, with the option to abolish it.
The people who are saying that we should respect the result of this referendum have a proven track record of not respecting the results of other referendums.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no Canada+ on the table and there never was, it's just "Canada" without the "+": a set of trade liberalization measures that cover some physical goods and very few services. It's a bad match for Britain's needs: http://www.policyreview.co.uk/eu-uk-canada/ It's hard to understand why Germany or France, who stand to gain from excluding the powerful UK service sector from the EU financial markets, would think t…
> It's hard to understand why Germany or France, who stand to gain from excluding the powerful UK service sector from the EU financial markets No they don't. Germany and France contain consumers of services as well as providers.
On the other hand, it's a nice little boost to French or German politicians to be able to talk about financial services industry growth and have a bit more tax revenue to play with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is really curious. Are there any systems that govern well that don’t recognize democratic principles? I’m trying to figure out how the U.K. can make decisions given that very few will have a literal majority given that there are so many non-voters (eg, babies and comatose). What is a better form of determining the will of the people than an election? In the US there is a constitution so huge changes can’t be mad…
Define "govern well". Is that where the will of the people is aligned as closely as possible to public policy and government action? Is it where their quality of life is most improved regardless of their desires? It's a hard question to answer. China governs very well as an autocracy, if I had to measure by the quality of life of its citizens. Yes, their will is not expressed through representation, but China has don…
My ideal state is where the government executed the will of the people in spirit but not in letter. (Ie, people want heroin literally but happiness and freedom in spirit)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some might say that a good outcome is one where the people can freely make their own choices and accept the consequences. The plight of the British might serve as a cautionary tale informing the decisions of some other country, that's certainly a good thing in some sense. Democracy is not guaranteed to deliver prosperity or lead only to the correct decisions, yet it's the best system we have.
That reminds me of the Despair demotivational poster "Mistakes: It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others."
Edit: Clearly one glass of wine too many...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
May's deal permanently blocks the UK from ever fully leaving the EU without the EU's permission, meaning that anyone who wants to leave won't support it. It also removes almost all the benefits of remaining in the EU, meaning Remain supporters hate it too. Oh, and for bonus points it effectively makes Northern Ireland no longer fully part of the UK, meaning that the DUP (the Northern Ireland unionist party which the…
The UK is a sovereign country -- how is it possible for them to never be able to do something without someone else's permission?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The referendum was non-binding. It would be entirely legitimate for Parliament to say "We can't obtain a satisfactory outcome and have opted to remain in the EU as it's a superior economic option." You don't continue to take your sovereign nation over the cliff because of an unreasonable minority of citizens (whether or not they were a majority of those who voiced their opinions in said referendum).
It was, nevertheless, the directly expressed will of the people. This is very much the social contract that holds the society together, and makes the government accountable to the people. Would you rather they just did as they please?
The Brexit promise is something nobody can deliver on. It was a lie, you cannot force the EU to accept an unfavorable trade deal. If only for the reason that it would set an exceptionally bad precedent and everybody would want their own deal, to pick and choose the parts of EU membership that are favorable to them, leading the EU to implode. Somebody needs to own up to that lie and accept that a "no deal" outcome, wh…
Maybe? If you think that most of the people are actually looking at or arguing about the implementation of any specific policy (I'd suspect this is the minority). It seems more likely people are just arguing about which tribe they're a part of. In that case nobody cares about what the best outcome is or what the truth is. If you can get a brexit deal passed that still allows the UK to 'brexit' in name only, but other…
Most of the people I see raging about it are either EU residents of the UK or people who work with EU residents of the UK. They're arguing about concrete impacts on their lives.