So I've only paid a small amount of attention to all this Brexit nonsense

[WES]

so perhaps someone can explain a couple of things to me:

1) this terrible, horrendous, utterly awful agreement that is a betrayal of our country and the Brexit vote etc etc etc - this lays out how we will leave, right? It says nothing about our long term relationship i.e. trade deals, with the EU which is what will really matter to us, right? So it is relevant only to the extent that it impacts our ability to agree a long term relationship that is as good as possible for the UK. Is that right?

2) I have seen a rather large number of seemingly educated people suggest that the UK could be stuck in a customs union for all perpetuity should the EU not allow us to leave. This is surely incorrect. The UK can do a hard Brexit any time it wants by simply no longer playing by EU rules, is that not correct?

The phrase much 'ado about nothing' comes to mind.

[Sir C]

so perhaps someone can explain a couple of things to me:

1) this terrible, horrendous, utterly awful agreement that is a betrayal of our country and the Brexit vote etc etc etc - this lays out how we will leave, right? It says nothing about our long term relationship i.e. trade deals, with the EU which is what will really matter to us, right? So it is relevant only to the extent that it impacts our ability to agree a long term relationship that is as good as possible for the UK. Is that right?

2) I have seen a rather large number of seemingly educated people suggest that the UK could be stuck in a customs union for all perpetuity should the EU not allow us to leave. This is surely incorrect. The UK can do a hard Brexit any time it wants by simply no longer playing by EU rules, is that not correct?

The phrase much 'ado about nothing' comes to mind.

The point is rather that the agreement lays out a framework for never actually Brexiting in any meaningful sense. I refer you to my previous predictions of the issue being fudged so that the establishment would, in future years, be able plausibly to claim to have abided by the result of the referendum, but without actually ever changing anything.

The agreement just fudges things along and lays the gorundwork for the further fudging to come.

It is a betrayal of democracy and, in effect, the establishment of a dictatorship utterly unaccountable to the views of the citizens of this country.

Welcome to the Stalinist EUSSR.

[WES]

The point is rather that the agreement lays out a framework for never actually Brexiting in any meaningful sense. I refer you to my previous predictions of the issue being fudged so that the establishment would, in future years, be able plausibly to claim to have abided by the result of the referendum, but without actually ever changing anything.

The agreement just fudges things along and lays the gorundwork for the further fudging to come.

It is a betrayal of democracy and, in effect, the establishment of a dictatorship utterly unaccountable to the views of the citizens of this country.

Welcome to the Stalinist EUSSR.

Hmmm, most of that reads as though you agree with what I said but that you think that when it comes down to negotiating what really matters - our future relationship with the EU - that the people involved will bottle it and negotiate a very watered down Brexit.

That's possible - of course - but I would point out that during this set of negotiations the UK has pretty much no leverage whatsoever beyond the threat of no deal (something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid) as we're the ones asking to leave while at the same time making it clear we want access to the common market. That pretty much puts all the cards in the EU's hands. It's true that by making it clear what we expect with respect to the Irish border that we weakened our position a bit but I doubt it made much difference, they had all the cards they needed anyway.

As I pointed out a few days ago to Monty, what May has been asked to achieve is exceptionally difficult given our lack of leverage. And I doubt very much whether any deal agreed at this point would have been much different.

When we will have leverage is during the future relationship negotiations as at that point the impact of our leaving with no deal will be very clear to the EU countries at the table. I fail to see why we would be pessimistic about our ability to negotiate a deal that benefits those involved at that point.

And failing that, I still fail to see why we should be so afraid of no deal. As I said, much ado about nothing.

[Pokster]

Hmmm, most of that reads as though you agree with what I said but that you think that when it comes down to negotiating what really matters - our future relationship with the EU - that the people involved will bottle it and negotiate a very watered down Brexit.

That's possible - of course - but I would point out that during this set of negotiations the UK has pretty much no leverage whatsoever beyond the threat of no deal (something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid) as we're the ones asking to leave while at the same time making it clear we want access to the common market. That pretty much puts all the cards in the EU's hands. It's true that by making it clear what we expect with respect to the Irish border that we weakened our position a bit but I doubt it made much difference, they had all the cards they needed anyway.

As I pointed out a few days ago to Monty, what May has been asked to achieve is exceptionally difficult given our lack of leverage. And I doubt very much whether any deal agreed at this point would have been much different.

When we will have leverage is during the future relationship negotiations as at that point the impact of our leaving with no deal will be very clear to the EU countries at the table. I fail to see why we would be pessimistic about our ability to negotiate a deal that benefits those involved at that point.

And failing that, I still fail to see why we should be so afraid of no deal. As I said, much ado about nothing.

So basically well done to the idiot that decided giving the population this vote was a good idea..... total **** up from start to finish as you end up pissing off practically everyone in the country.. wd dc

[Monty92]

Hmmm, most of that reads as though you agree with what I said but that you think that when it comes down to negotiating what really matters - our future relationship with the EU - that the people involved will bottle it and negotiate a very watered down Brexit.

That's possible - of course - but I would point out that during this set of negotiations the UK has pretty much no leverage whatsoever beyond the threat of no deal (something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid) as we're the ones asking to leave while at the same time making it clear we want access to the common market. That pretty much puts all the cards in the EU's hands. It's true that by making it clear what we expect with respect to the Irish border that we weakened our position a bit but I doubt it made much difference, they had all the cards they needed anyway.

As I pointed out a few days ago to Monty, what May has been asked to achieve is exceptionally difficult given our lack of leverage. And I doubt very much whether any deal agreed at this point would have been much different.

When we will have leverage is during the future relationship negotiations as at that point the impact of our leaving with no deal will be very clear to the EU countries at the table. I fail to see why we would be pessimistic about our ability to negotiate a deal that benefits those involved at that point.

And failing that, I still fail to see why we should be so afraid of no deal. As I said, much ado about nothing.

"something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid"

The so-called hard Brexiteers have not done this. The ones that many Brexit voters would prefer were leading the negotiations.

[WES]

"something we routinely tell everyone we want to avoid"

The so-called hard Brexiteers have not done this. The ones that many Brexit voters would prefer were leading the negotiations.

Yes that's true but as has now been pointed out to you twice, at this point it wouldn't have made any difference because the EU holds all the cards anyway and we are not currently negotiating the future relationship, only the logistics of how we will exit. This negotiation actually means very little so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

[Burney]

The point is rather that the agreement lays out a framework for never actually Brexiting in any meaningful sense. I refer you to my previous predictions of the issue being fudged so that the establishment would, in future years, be able plausibly to claim to have abided by the result of the referendum, but without actually ever changing anything.

The agreement just fudges things along and lays the gorundwork for the further fudging to come.

It is a betrayal of democracy and, in effect, the establishment of a dictatorship utterly unaccountable to the views of the citizens of this country.

Welcome to the Stalinist EUSSR.

We have established that WES doesn't really understand or care about democratic principles and imagines that all that matters is whether business flows smoothly. Trying to explain the democratic issues with the Brexit deal to him is like trying to explain vegetarianism to a shark.

[Monty92]

Yes that's true but as has now been pointed out to you twice, at this point it wouldn't have made any difference because the EU holds all the cards anyway and we are not currently negotiating the future relationship, only the logistics of how we will exit. This negotiation actually means very little so I'm not sure what all the fuss is about.

I don't see why it's improbable that a genuine threat of No Deal would not have lent the entire negotiations - including the withdrawal agreement - a different complexion.

[Burney]

I don't see why it's improbable that a genuine threat of No Deal would not have lent the entire negotiations - including the withdrawal agreement - a different complexion.

Well of course it would have done. A negotiation from which you're not prepared to walk away is not a negotiation, it's a document of surrender.

[WES]

I don't see why it's improbable that a genuine threat of No Deal would not have lent the entire negotiations - including the withdrawal agreement - a different complexion.

What do you think we would have gained by doing this? How would the exit deal have been different had we done that and how would that have been likely to impact our future relationship negotiations?

[Monty92]

Well of course it would have done. A negotiation from which you're not prepared to walk away is not a negotiation, it's a document of surrender.

Have you been following the Spectator's to and fro with Downing Street? It does truly seem this deal is as bad as anyone could possibly have imagined.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/mays-brexit-deal-40-rebuttals-to-no-10s-rebuttals/

[WES]

We have established that WES doesn't really understand or care about democratic principles and imagines that all that matters is whether business flows smoothly. Trying to explain the democratic issues with the Brexit deal to him is like trying to explain vegetarianism to a shark.

You seem to be missing the point. Which is that the exit deal won't substantially change what we eventually negotiate. Democratic issues are orthogonal to this point.

[Norn Iron]

You seem to be missing the point. Which is that the exit deal won't substantially change what we eventually negotiate. Democratic issues are orthogonal to this point.

The withdrawal agreement is legally binding. Agreeing this deal puts the UK on the back foot when negotiating future terms with the EU.

[Burney]

Have you been following the Spectator's to and fro with Downing Street? It does truly seem this deal is as bad as anyone could possibly have imagined.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/mays-brexit-deal-40-rebuttals-to-no-10s-rebuttals/

Unfortunately, yes. It makes a profoundly depressing read. Particularly as we have signed up to things that we didn't need to that are simply an embarrassment.

In my more paranoid moments over the last two years I've imagined the idea was to deliberately create a deal so bad that it made the idea of remaining palatable. I've dismissed these thoughts as absurd - no British PM would dream of doing such a thing.

I'm no longer dismissing the thought. This is a Remain stitch-up. :-(

[Burney]

You seem to be missing the point. Which is that the exit deal won't substantially change what we eventually negotiate. Democratic issues are orthogonal to this point.

And you repeatedly miss the point that in a democracy, democratic issues are never orthogonal.

[Sir C]

So basically well done to the idiot that decided giving the population this vote was a good idea..... total **** up from start to finish as you end up pissing off practically everyone in the country.. wd dc

"Hmm, the majority of the population want something that doesn't suit their betters, we'd better gag them and not allow them a say."

Strange idea of democracy you've got there.

[Rich]

Unfortunately, yes. It makes a profoundly depressing read. Particularly as we have signed up to things that we didn't need to that are simply an embarrassment.

In my more paranoid moments over the last two years I've imagined the idea was to deliberately create a deal so bad that it made the idea of remaining palatable. I've dismissed these thoughts as absurd - no British PM would dream of doing such a thing.

I'm no longer dismissing the thought. This is a Remain stitch-up. :-(

I'm a leetle bit on the fence about it. However, I suspect May asked for what she wanted and was promptly told to do one by the EU. Unfortunately, leaving with no deal will 100% hurt most of the people that voted for Brexit (though I accept they didn't know what they were voting for at the time).

I think we'll need a final referendum to decide whether we want to accept the deal we do have or remain. I highly doubt we will leave with no deal since it means that everybody loses.

[Burney]

I'm a leetle bit on the fence about it. However, I suspect May asked for what she wanted and was promptly told to do one by the EU. Unfortunately, leaving with no deal will 100% hurt most of the people that voted for Brexit (though I accept they didn't know what they were voting for at the time).

I think we'll need a final referendum to decide whether we want to accept the deal we do have or remain. I highly doubt we will leave with no deal since it means that everybody loses.

Your solution is, of course, what this abject surrender was designed to achieve. Like I say, a Remain stitch-up.

[Monty92]

"Hmm, the majority of the population want something that doesn't suit their betters, we'd better gag them and not allow them a say."

Strange idea of democracy you've got there.

Yes, although polling also suggests that the majority of the population advocate the death pelanty.

[WES]

And you repeatedly miss the point that in a democracy, democratic issues are never orthogonal.

So if we attempt to negotiate a future relationship with the EU, they play hardball and we then leave on a hard Brexit (something that the current agreement does not prevent) - what would be your democratic issue?

[WES]

I'm a leetle bit on the fence about it. However, I suspect May asked for what she wanted and was promptly told to do one by the EU. Unfortunately, leaving with no deal will 100% hurt most of the people that voted for Brexit (though I accept they didn't know what they were voting for at the time).

I think we'll need a final referendum to decide whether we want to accept the deal we do have or remain. I highly doubt we will leave with no deal since it means that everybody loses.

Too many people state this as though it was fact; I have yet to see a sensible, objective analysis that makes it clear that it is fact.

And most of the people saying this, also told us that voting for Brexit would cause the economy to crash.

[Monty92]

Too many people state this as though it was fact; I have yet to see a sensible, objective analysis that makes it clear that it is fact.

And most of the people saying this, also told us that voting for Brexit would cause the economy to crash.

This fella is a highly outspoken Brexiteer who thinks No Deal would be a total disaster (he favours the Norway model)

http://peterjnorth.blogspot.com/

[Burney]

"Hmm, the majority of the population want something that doesn't suit their betters, we'd better gag them and not allow them a say."

Strange idea of democracy you've got there.

The thing that makes me laugh is that the fùcking morons who parrot this line never, ever have the imagination to consider that this logic might one day be applied to something they want. And, of course, in that situation when they have it denied them on the grounds that it is inconvenient, they will squeal like pigs, throw their hands up in horror and wonder aghast how this could have happened.

Pricks.

[Sir C]

Yes, although polling also suggests that the majority of the population advocate the death pelanty.

So... because you are so superior to hoi polloi, you should be allowed to decide which matters they get to have a say in?

My word, you're a very special person indeed. Please may I touch you?

[Burney]

So if we attempt to negotiate a future relationship with the EU, they play hardball and we then leave on a hard Brexit (something that the current agreement does not prevent) - what would be your democratic issue?

I would have no democratic issue with that. However, that is not what is going to happen. The government has in effect ignored the vote to leave and repeatedly lied that we were to leave the SM, CU and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. In defiance of its democratic mandate as defined by its manifesto, the government has not negotiated a Brexit in any meaningful sense. It has effectively signed up to a deal whereby we remain on vastly less favourable terms, in return for which we see an end to FOM. That deal leaves us effectively impotent in any negotiations on a future relationship.

[Burney]

Yes, although polling also suggests that the majority of the population advocate the death pelanty.

What's wrong with advocating the death penalty? :shrug:

[Monty92]

So... because you are so superior to hoi polloi, you should be allowed to decide which matters they get to have a say in?

My word, you're a very special person indeed. Please may I touch you?

I'm just wondering if there's any limits to the extent that you believe the greater number should exercise greater power?

[Monty92]

What's wrong with advocating the death penalty? :shrug:

Nothing at all. But I'n not sure I favour a referendum about it (maybe I do, I haven't really thought about it).

[Burney]

I'm just wondering if there's any limits to the extent that you believe the greater number should exercise greater power?

There are lots of things wrong with the tyranny of the majority, but it still remains preferable to the tyranny of the minority.

[Pokster]

"Hmm, the majority of the population want something that doesn't suit their betters, we'd better gag them and not allow them a say."

Strange idea of democracy you've got there.

???? What the hell are you on about

[Burney]

Nothing at all. But I'n not sure I favour a referendum about it (maybe I do, I haven't really thought about it).

I don't feel strongly enough about it to advocate a referendum, but wouldn't object if there were one.

I certainly think it's preferable that we get to decide on it rather than have that decision taken out of our hands by EU diktat (which is currently the case).

[Sir C]

I'm just wondering if there's any limits to the extent that you believe the greater number should exercise greater power?

Personally, I don't believe in universal suffrage. People under 30, poor people, women, jews, these people have no judgement and allowing them to vote in important matters is madness. But then I don't pretend to be some sort of hand-wringing liberal democrat. :shrug:

[eastgermanautos]

There are lots of things wrong with the tyranny of the majority, but it still remains preferable to the tyranny of the minority.

I am not so sure about that. Particularly if the tyrannical minority is advocating violent overthrow of the existing state. A minority advocating this is my preference.

[Sir C]

???? What the hell are you on about

Who wrote this? "So basically well done to the idiot that decided giving the population this vote was a good idea"?

Clue: you did.

[Burney]

I am not so sure about that. Particularly if the tyrannical minority is advocating violent overthrow of the existing state. A minority advocating this is my preference.

Fine. If you openly advocate authoritarianism and the totalitarian crushing of the individual will, good luck to you (not really - I hope you get thrown out of a helicopter as you richly deserve).
However, this argument assumes that most people in general believe liberal democracy to be a good idea.

[Pokster]

Who wrote this? "So basically well done to the idiot that decided giving the population this vote was a good idea"?

Clue: you did.

The vote was a complete cock up, you end up with a leave vote and then the final outcome is so fudged that practically everyone in the country doesn't like it... so well done to DC for having such a black and white vote when 1 side had an infinite amount of options so you were guaranteed to piss people off.

And if you put things in speach marks isn't that meant to be a direct quote, not you just making it uip for the sake of it??

[WES]

I would have no democratic issue with that. However, that is not what is going to happen. The government has in effect ignored the vote to leave and repeatedly lied that we were to leave the SM, CU and the jurisdiction of the ECJ. In defiance of its democratic mandate as defined by its manifesto, the government has not negotiated a Brexit in any meaningful sense. It has effectively signed up to a deal whereby we remain on vastly less favourable terms, in return for which we see an end to FOM. That deal leaves us effectively impotent in any negotiations on a future relationship.

I'm not sure how you can possibly say that given that we haven't even begun to negotiate the future relationship in any detail? :shrug:

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

So... because you are so superior to hoi polloi, you should be allowed to decide which matters they get to have a say in?

My word, you're a very special person indeed. Please may I touch you?

his winkie c. His flapless winkie man! Can you imagine anything more deeply repugnant?

[eastgermanautos]

Fine. If you openly advocate authoritarianism and the totalitarian crushing of the individual will, good luck to you (not really - I hope you get thrown out of a helicopter as you richly deserve).
However, this argument assumes that most people in general believe liberal democracy to be a good idea.

Even as there is, in all the ancient books, a before and an after, an egg and a chicken, a formless void and then its division into night and day, so must there first be liberal democracy before me and my friends take over. Then watch out!!