SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
posted by
martyb
on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:37PM
from the Third-Verse-Same-As-The-First dept.
from the Third-Verse-Same-As-The-First dept.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46509288
"Prime Minister Theresa May has called off Tuesday's crucial vote on her Brexit deal so she can go back to Brussels and ask for changes to it.
"As it stands the deal 'would be rejected by a significant margin' if MPs voted on it, she admitted."
The biggest stumbling block appears to be the issue between Ireland and Northern Ireland. In particular, what the borders will look like in terms of what people and goods will need to do or not do in order to cross it.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Brexit Status Once Again in Limbo
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 92 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:43PM (36 children)
The vote happened, UK should leave the EU and go back to whatever situation existed before or negotiate new treaties with everyone. Why is this taking so long? It seems like rejection of democracy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @12:58PM (9 children)
It was and is. Here is the rundown [threadreaderapp.com] and here's the problems with no deal. [threadreaderapp.com] Just as non-compete agreements are unenforceable in civil employment contracts, the article 50 process should allow negotiation of trade deals over it's 2 year time line. Trump was right, the EU should be sued and the retard that signed the UK into such a unilateral treaty should also be given a bill for resulting economic damage - payable before his head is removed for treason.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:11PM (2 children)
She's not your pm. She's the eu's puppet. Brits you need to rise up and toss her into the channel.
(Score: 4, Informative) by PiMuNu on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:54PM
> She's the eu's puppet.
She really isn't.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday December 13 2018, @04:36PM
They are still ruled by a monarch that they pay for. They aren't rising up anytime soon.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:47PM (5 children)
No he wasn't. Trump is an idiot, and doesn't understand the EU (or the UK come to that).
All the EU regulations the Brexit wankers whine on about are regulations the UK helped create, as a member of the EU.
That's how the EU works, and when self-interested arseholes like Boris Johnston lie about the £350 million extra the NHS will get he's doing it to further his own agenda, which is completely about what's best for Boris.
He's not the only one.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @10:22PM (4 children)
The people don't appoint the Commission or the Council. Councilors are not accountable to their people and Commissioners are not accountable at all. Nice try though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @10:51PM (3 children)
Until ratified by the EU parliament, no council or commission shit become normative.
And then, each country in EU need to create their own laws, which in no small number of times many country parliaments refused.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @11:48PM (2 children)
*sigh*
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:12AM (1 child)
How does that make them unaccountable?
That's just parliamentary privilege. Every civilised country has that for their elected people, the EU have extended it to their civil servants.
Let's not go full retard by pretending it protects them from every aspect of their lives, OK?
In the US you guys have full immunity for anybody who can buy it, so it's not that different really.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @10:35AM
The executive is not elected by the people, it is not answerable to the people and yet they are immune from prosecution. This makes them unaccountable. We are communicating in a language called "English" and there's no ambiguity in the meaning of the word unaccountable in the present context.
When are the public elections for the EU council and commission held then?
Speak for yourself!
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @02:10PM
We have already established what you are madam and we're just haggling about the price.
(Score: 5, Informative) by fritsd on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:07PM (5 children)
The UK wants to leave the EU. OK.
The UK *doesn't* want to go back to whatever situation existed before:
- the UK has greatly benefited from the low-friction trade the past 40 years, so much even, that they believe it will magically continue once they exited the EU, and is in no way caused by their Single Market and Customs Union membership.
- the UK doesn't want to go back to putting signs up everywhere in London: "if you leave your bag unattended for more than a minute(*), we'll send in the bomb squad and blow it up, on your costs".
(I found that quite a curious sign in train stations).
So basically it's like the linguistically cumbersome phrase they have: "they want to have their cake and eat it"
which means: "they want to have their cake, eat their cake, and then afterwards still have their cake", similar to the much clearer French phrase:
"ils vont le beurre, l’argent du beurre, et le sourire de la crémière" [wiktionary.org]
So that's why it took so long (2 years). Oh, and the government didn't dare to tell the people that their combined demands were impossible. That too.
(*) don't remember exactly how it was phrased or if it said how many minutes.
(Score: 3, Informative) by choose another one on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:51PM (4 children)
> The UK wants to leave the EU. OK.
The UK electorate was asked this in a referendum, and that is the majority view.
> The UK *doesn't* want to go back to whatever situation existed before
Wrong. The "UK"s opinion on this is not known - no one has asked that in a referendum. Opinion polls proved worthless in the previous referendum.
It is very possible that a majority in the UK do want to go back to the 70s - Jeremy Corbyn does and there are many who support him, possibly enough for him to win an election.
> So that's why it took so long (2 years). Oh, and the government didn't dare to tell the people that their combined demands were impossible.
No, the people's only demand was to leave the EU, nothing more nothing less, no specifics on how to do it. The demands are coming from government politicians and from business etc. via lobbyists, and that applies to both sides of the negotiations.
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:43PM
It is indeed, quite likely that the majority would like to return to the days when the sun never set on the British empire.
This is unlikely to be feasible. In particular, I doubt you would get many of today's women to wear Victorian fashions,
and the working class would not accept the employment terms and conditions now they are mostly literate.
Actually, the vote was within 1% - and would far better be interpreted as "don't know" than a majority wanting anything.
(Particularly since no one told them leaving involved no food).
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @10:01PM
Yeah, the referendum gave a nice broad requirement: "leave the EU" but you can't implement a broad requirement (just think how many ways you could implement the requirement "I want a program to paint pictures" - few of them are adobe photoshop) so they need to refine it into an actual specification for what the voters want and then the steps to implement. But doing that refinement without involving the voters directly makes it very unlikely they'll end up with what they want.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:29AM (1 child)
The people were lied to by the self-interested upper-class who want to run the UK just like they used to.
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
The guys who ran the whole Brexit nonsense have all shifted their financial interests out of the UK, into Europe, and that absolute scumbag Nigel Lawson (you know, Lord Lawson, who stole taxpayers money) is even a French permanent resident now.
I'm sorry but if you really think Brexit is going to be good for Britain, you're deluding yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @10:18AM
Bullshit!
Bullshit
Autonomy is always good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)
Because the process of exiting the EU is stated to take two years after signing Article 50. That two years is up at the end of March, 2019.
There is a lot (and I mean a lot) involved. Imagine any democratic country having to renegotiate all of their trade agreeements, immigration treaties and visitation/tourism policies in only two years.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday December 12 2018, @04:46PM
Article 50 said "MAX 2 years", though. Sorry for the nitpicking.
(Score: 2) by iamjacksusername on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:14PM
Political consensus is painful, takes forever, and nobody is ever happy with the result. But, it is absolutely necessary in a democracy. If they wanted it simple,the ruling Government could say, "Let the Queen decide it all." But they did not - they are choosing to let the mechanisms of democracy work.
The UK voted to leave: that is the only thing that has been decided. Now, it is time for everyone to work out what happens next. There are 100,000 details that need to be worked out; everything from the judicial implications of EU court rulings no longer being valid precedent to figuring out what do about EU citizens working in the UK to deciding what regulations on garbage disposal to throw away or keep. This will take time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:16PM (1 child)
The situation that existed before? Do you mean the British Empire (I don't think India, Australia, Canada, half of Africa etc. would want to rejoin), World War II, the Irish "troubles" or needing to be bailed out by the IMF in the 1970s?
Or perhaps you yearn for that rose-tinted interval in the 1950s/60s when everything seemed wonderful because food rationing had just ended, there was still lots of employment and profit in rebuilding all the shit that got blown up in the war, when we had good old fashioned imperial units, bendy bananas and the death penalty, and young people politely roamed the shires catching smugglers while quaffing lashings of ginger beer?
Its a rejection of a badly thought-out referendum designed by a moron who thought everybody loved him and assumed that he was going to win, and had no clue how to deal with the result.
We could have had a sensible referendum with 3 or 4 choices between A; "remain", B "Norway-type-agreement (with some compromises on sovereignty)" or C "hard WTO brexit and fuck the consequences" - with instant-runoff voting. Still could (and now we've got a specific option B). If you think that a 3-way choice would confuse the public - or can't face the possibility that A might win now we've had 2 years to debate the issue - then shut the fuck up about "democracy".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:20PM
You could be an EU employee with that attitude!
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 12 2018, @05:52PM (9 children)
The problem with "no deal" is that it will really really screw up the UK's economy. Trade with the EU amounts to approximately 10% of the UK's GDP. For USAians who don't understand how big of a deal it is, this would be a loss approximately on the same scale as the US suddenly not having the entire economy of California any longer. Even if it only caused a 50% drop in EU trade, that's still like the USA operating without the metropolitan area of New York City.
The real problem is that Brexit was always a stupid idea, and the politicians are now stuck trying to make that stupid idea not quite so stupid.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @06:08PM (5 children)
"The real problem is that Brexit was always a stupid idea, and the politicians are now stuck trying to make that stupid idea not quite so stupid."
centralization of power, especially to unelected parasites is incredibly stupid. if you can't control you local government what makes you think you can control your state government? If you can't control the fucking traitors in the state capital what makes you think you can control the shameless whores in the national capital? if you can't control those raving reptillians, what makes you think you can control some international con artists like the EU?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 12 2018, @07:37PM (3 children)
Centralization of power being bad is not something I'm willing to accept as axiomatic. Sometimes, a distributed power structure makes a better decision than a centralized power structure would. Sometimes it's the other way around.
For example, the EU definitely has treated Greece very badly during the latest economic crisis. On the other hand, the latest economic crisis didn't turn into a major war like several pre-EU economic crises have. It's not like there aren't any tradeoffs involved here.
As for who controls the EU, the appointed representatives are a bit like how the US senate was originally created to represent the state government's interests. If you want to change what your nation is doing on the European Council, the way to go about that is changing your national government.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:24PM
I marvel at how people can just come up with fake reasons for decentralization and argue against them.
It has nothing to do with whether a "better decision" is made, it has to do with how bad things get when the "wrong" person is making decisions. I mentioned before on here that there is some sort of connection between so-called "liberal" political ideas and making strawman arguments. It is really deserving of study.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 12 2018, @10:06PM (1 child)
UK trade deficit [hhttps] with the EU is £67 billion (£28 billion surplus in services less £95 billion in goods). UK trade surplus with non-EU countries is £41 billion. The UK accounts for 15% of EU GDP. [europa.eu] The EU not doing a good faith, mutually beneficial deal is a stupid idea.
Price controls are usually bad [iea.org.uk] if not always EU butter mountain level bad.
Greece should never have been admitted to the Eurozone. Europe is simply a sub-optimal currency area. [city.ac.uk] I think you already know this.
Not yet. [businessinsider.com] Western governments allowed companies to off-shore global growth. When government borrowing was based on growth projections, printing money and importing "human capital" simply suspends the inevitable.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:51AM
but
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8536862.stm [bbc.co.uk]
That's probably why Greece was admitted; and it was fun for awhile.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:56PM
And is also not true. It's another one of the Brexiteer's lies, along with £350 million extra for the NHS and how the rest of the world will be lining up to trade with the UK.
I mean, my country is keen to negotiate a trade deal with the UK, but frankly they don't have much to offer us, and we produce much that they want, so we'll see how that goes I suppose.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:44PM (2 children)
Why would trade stop with the EU once they left?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday December 12 2018, @08:46PM
It wouldn't stop completely, but it would be substantially more expensive. Hence the "Lopping off New York City" version of the no deal scenario.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by legont on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:53AM
More than half of her Majesty businesses never filed a custom declaration.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Dr Spin on Wednesday December 12 2018, @09:22PM (3 children)
The vote happened, UK should leave the EU and go back to whatever situation existed before or negotiate new treaties with everyone. Why is this taking so long? It seems like rejection of democracy.
In short, as has been observed by outsiders with an axe to grind: "Brexit is not the UK shooting itself in the foot - they are shooting much higher than that". The reality is, the alternative to Brexit is having food to eat. However, reality is not acceptable to people in high places.
Disclaimer: yes I do have experience of international transport logistics and the food distribution industry.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @12:14AM (1 child)
Meh, sounds like chicken littling from the usual suspects. Just leave the EU and keep everything exactly the same then change the policies/treaties one by one then.
Also, the government shouldnt be in charge of the food supply for your entire nation to begin with, that is a bad idea...
(Score: 1) by mmarujo on Monday December 17 2018, @01:07PM
That's the thing!
Those traties were not signed by the UK, they were signed by the EU, meaning once the UK leaves it will no long have access to them
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 13 2018, @03:21AM
Oh, we're blaming the "wrong" choice in the Brexit referendum on the Rrrussians now too?