BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

Stevo_666

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.

I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1663910885084078083

Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....

Or the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, come to that ("no question of leaving the Single Market or Customs Union"). Or the Tories claiming to be the party of low taxes.

And just a reminder that all the changes in the EEC/EU were the subject of internationally negotiated treaties (negotiated by representatives from the national governments) and national ratifications by democratically elected governments.

Apart from that, you might have a point.

Two wrongs etc.

And it doesn't change the point that the EU deliberately increased its scope and reach bit by bit to minimise resistance. Take each of the initiatives that were voted on in isolation and they probably look pretty innocuous, but add them all up and you can see what the game is.

Oh, and let's not forget the episodes where some of these treaties were rejected by certain electorates, who were then invited to vote again until they got the 'right' answer.

uk was free to veto

it didn't

democracy in action

Only for those areas where the veto exists. There were pluses,enty where it was QMV and the EU has been trying to extend QMV to more areas, unsurprisingly

sungod

Stevo_666 said:

sungod said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.

I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1663910885084078083

Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....

Or the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, come to that ("no question of leaving the Single Market or Customs Union"). Or the Tories claiming to be the party of low taxes.

And just a reminder that all the changes in the EEC/EU were the subject of internationally negotiated treaties (negotiated by representatives from the national governments) and national ratifications by democratically elected governments.

Apart from that, you might have a point.

Two wrongs etc.

And it doesn't change the point that the EU deliberately increased its scope and reach bit by bit to minimise resistance. Take each of the initiatives that were voted on in isolation and they probably look pretty innocuous, but add them all up and you can see what the game is.

Oh, and let's not forget the episodes where some of these treaties were rejected by certain electorates, who were then invited to vote again until they got the 'right' answer.

uk was free to veto

it didn't

democracy in action

Only for those areas where the veto exists. There were pluses,enty where it was QMV and the EU has been trying to extend QMV to more areas, unsurprisingly

the veto on one thing could still be used to apply pressure on other decisions, trade-offs are made, deals get struck, all sides declare victory

politicians may talk in absolutes, but they spend most of the time fudging

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.

I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1663910885084078083

Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....

Or the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, come to that ("no question of leaving the Single Market or Customs Union"). Or the Tories claiming to be the party of low taxes.

And just a reminder that all the changes in the EEC/EU were the subject of internationally negotiated treaties (negotiated by representatives from the national governments) and national ratifications by democratically elected governments.

Apart from that, you might have a point.

This goes against the principle that a government shouldn't bind its successor.

Also, the government spent a lot of money sending everyone a letter explaining what leaving would mean.

I think history has taught us that these decisions did not bind successor governments.

The UK leaving the EU proved that the government in early 2020 wasn't bound by the decisions of a previous government to stay in the EU. But the decision was very binary in nature. Previous governments had bound future governments into EU membership being an all or nothing choice. The option to undo the impact of specific treaties etc. whilst keeping the rest in place wasn't there. Obviously, that's a feature of how the EU works (no cherry-picking, no cakeism etc.) but equally it's unhelpful for anyone to suggest that the actions of previous governments re EU treaties hadn't hamstrung the government of the day in a way that purely domestic decisions don't.

kingstongraham

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

kingstongraham

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

rick_chasey

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

Stevo_666 said:

briantrumpet said:

I hope Dunt is right. He's a fairly blunt commentator, and calls out Starmer plenty, but I think he's on the right lines here.

I suspect what is going to happen is that change will be incremental, with no headline-grabbing earthquakes ("We'll re-join the Single Market!") until we've almost got there in practice, so the emotive terminology has lost its toxicity to those for whom the terminology matters.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1663910885084078083

Another way of putting it is that the only way they think they can achieve this is by not being honest with the electorate. Not dissimilar to the continual scope creep by the EU which was a contributing factor in the UK now being an ex EU member....

Or the dishonesty of the Leave campaign, come to that ("no question of leaving the Single Market or Customs Union"). Or the Tories claiming to be the party of low taxes.

And just a reminder that all the changes in the EEC/EU were the subject of internationally negotiated treaties (negotiated by representatives from the national governments) and national ratifications by democratically elected governments.

Apart from that, you might have a point.

This goes against the principle that a government shouldn't bind its successor.

Also, the government spent a lot of money sending everyone a letter explaining what leaving would mean.

I think history has taught us that these decisions did not bind successor governments.

The UK leaving the EU proved that the government in early 2020 wasn't bound by the decisions of a previous government to stay in the EU. But the decision was very binary in nature. Previous governments had bound future governments into EU membership being an all or nothing choice. The option to undo the impact of specific treaties etc. whilst keeping the rest in place wasn't there. Obviously, that's a feature of how the EU works (no cherry-picking, no cakeism etc.) but equally it's unhelpful for anyone to suggest that the actions of previous governments re EU treaties hadn't hamstrung the government of the day in a way that purely domestic decisions don't.

It's almost like Tories don't understand what a "union" means unless it's related to Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

The right to leave only came into effect in 2009 though, so everything Blair agreed to couldn't be undone.

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

The right to leave only came into effect in 2009 though, so everything Blair agreed to couldn't be undone.

That was when the process was codified. You are welcome to believe a fantasy that it was not possible before then if you wish.

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

pblakeney

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

Even the ones that we had a veto against?

kingstongraham

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

We left.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

We left.

Doesn't help if a Conservative government wanted to undo Blair's changes and return to the UK-EU relationship of 1997.

Your argument is that a new law can be undone by changing thousands of others at the same time. Much like arguing that an invasive species should not be of concern because it can be eliminated by napalming everything.

Whilst it is a logical argument, it is not something I really agree with.

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

We left.

Thanks. But you're completely missing my point, which is that re the EU, the UK government in early 2020 was "bound" by the decisions of its predecessors to either leave, or continue accepting all EU laws, including the ones that it didn't like. There is no mechanism for an EU member state to unilaterally change anything other than the binary status of "in or out?"

wallace_and_gromit

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

We left.

Doesn't help if a Conservative government wanted to undo Blair's changes and return to the UK-EU relationship of 1997.

The biggest irony of course is that the big thing the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party didn't like was free movement, which a predecessor Tory government voted into existence!

kingstongraham

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

We left.

Thanks. But you're completely missing my point, which is that re the EU, the UK government in early 2020 was "bound" by the decisions of its predecessors to either leave, or continue accepting all EU laws, including the ones that it didn't like. There is no mechanism for an EU member state to unilaterally change anything other than the binary status of "in or out?"

We can retain any unilateral laws we want, and get rid of the ones we don't.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

We left.

Thanks. But you're completely missing my point, which is that re the EU, the UK government in early 2020 was "bound" by the decisions of its predecessors to either leave, or continue accepting all EU laws, including the ones that it didn't like. There is no mechanism for an EU member state to unilaterally change anything other than the binary status of "in or out?"

We can retain any unilateral laws we want, and get rid of the ones we don't.

How does the election of MEPs work in this hypothetical world?

kingstongraham

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

We left.

Thanks. But you're completely missing my point, which is that re the EU, the UK government in early 2020 was "bound" by the decisions of its predecessors to either leave, or continue accepting all EU laws, including the ones that it didn't like. There is no mechanism for an EU member state to unilaterally change anything other than the binary status of "in or out?"

We can retain any unilateral laws we want, and get rid of the ones we don't.

How does the election of MEPs work in this hypothetical world?

What do MEPs have to do with us after we have left the EU?

kingstongraham

We chose to pool our sovereignty, and then we chose not to.

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

kingstongraham said:

Plenty of decisions make it more difficult for future governments to change course.

True, but signing up to an EU treaty made it legally impossible for a future government to unilaterally change course in respect of the subject matter of the treaty.

Not without diffiulties, sure, but again - history has shown this to be incorrect.

Can you provide an example, please? AFAIK the only unilateral right to change things that an EU member has is to leave. Other than that, all the rules have to be applied.

We left.

Thanks. But you're completely missing my point, which is that re the EU, the UK government in early 2020 was "bound" by the decisions of its predecessors to either leave, or continue accepting all EU laws, including the ones that it didn't like. There is no mechanism for an EU member state to unilaterally change anything other than the binary status of "in or out?"

We can retain any unilateral laws we want, and get rid of the ones we don't.

We can now. But only because we're no longer in the EU. Prior to leaving, we couldn't.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

We chose to pool our sovereignty, and then we chose not to.

It isn't binary though. If a government moves from 3/10 sovereignty pooling to 4/10, the next government doesn't get to move back to 3. Its choice is either 0 or 4.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

We chose to pool our sovereignty, and then we chose not to.

It isn't binary though. If a government moves from 3/10 sovereignty pooling to 4/10, the next government doesn't get to move back to 3. Its choice is either 0 or 4.

You do know how a union works, right?

I'm not really sure you're taking the political reality of a union of 28/27 sovereign countries into account in your analysis here.

wallace_and_gromit

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

We chose to pool our sovereignty, and then we chose not to.

It isn't binary though. If a government moves from 3/10 sovereignty pooling to 4/10, the next government doesn't get to move back to 3. Its choice is either 0 or 4.

You do know how a union works, right?

I'm not really sure you're taking the political reality of a union of 28/27 sovereign countries into account in your analysis here.

I can't speak for TBB here, but the point isn't to say "Unions shouldn't work this way" or "The EU doesn't require pooling of sovereignty" etc. It is to say that decisions taken by the government of a member state re ratifying a treaty reduce the flexibility in legal terms (i.e. some combinations of preferences are simply not possible legally) that future governments of that country have to operate unilaterally.

This ends the centuries-old state in the UK that "no Parliament can bind its successor". If that really bothers you then you'll want to leave the EU. If it bothers you a bit but you want to stay in the EU for the wider benefits then you shrug your shoulders and carry on.

pblakeney

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

kingstongraham

Could parliament legally undo Scottish devolution?

surrey_commuter

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

We chose to pool our sovereignty, and then we chose not to.

It isn't binary though. If a government moves from 3/10 sovereignty pooling to 4/10, the next government doesn't get to move back to 3. Its choice is either 0 or 4.

You do know how a union works, right?

I'm not really sure you're taking the political reality of a union of 28/27 sovereign countries into account in your analysis here.

I can't speak for TBB here, but the point isn't to say "Unions shouldn't work this way" or "The EU doesn't require pooling of sovereignty" etc. It is to say that decisions taken by the government of a member state re ratifying a treaty reduce the flexibility in legal terms (i.e. some combinations of preferences are simply not possible legally) that future governments of that country have to operate unilaterally.

This ends the centuries-old state in the UK that "no Parliament can bind its successor". If that really bothers you then you'll want to leave the EU. If it bothers you a bit but you want to stay in the EU for the wider benefits then you shrug your shoulders and carry on.

surely this means we were not allowed to leave?

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

We chose to pool our sovereignty, and then we chose not to.

It isn't binary though. If a government moves from 3/10 sovereignty pooling to 4/10, the next government doesn't get to move back to 3. Its choice is either 0 or 4.

You do know how a union works, right?

I'm not really sure you're taking the political reality of a union of 28/27 sovereign countries into account in your analysis here.

I can't speak for TBB here, but the point isn't to say "Unions shouldn't work this way" or "The EU doesn't require pooling of sovereignty" etc. It is to say that decisions taken by the government of a member state re ratifying a treaty reduce the flexibility in legal terms (i.e. some combinations of preferences are simply not possible legally) that future governments of that country have to operate unilaterally.

This ends the centuries-old state in the UK that "no Parliament can bind its successor". If that really bothers you then you'll want to leave the EU. If it bothers you a bit but you want to stay in the EU for the wider benefits then you shrug your shoulders and carry on.

surely this means we were not allowed to leave?

Our hands were tied.

wallace_and_gromit

kingstongraham said:

Could parliament legally undo Scottish devolution?

Yes.

wallace_and_gromit

surrey_commuter said:

wallace_and_gromit said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

kingstongraham said:

We chose to pool our sovereignty, and then we chose not to.

It isn't binary though. If a government moves from 3/10 sovereignty pooling to 4/10, the next government doesn't get to move back to 3. Its choice is either 0 or 4.

You do know how a union works, right?

I'm not really sure you're taking the political reality of a union of 28/27 sovereign countries into account in your analysis here.

I can't speak for TBB here, but the point isn't to say "Unions shouldn't work this way" or "The EU doesn't require pooling of sovereignty" etc. It is to say that decisions taken by the government of a member state re ratifying a treaty reduce the flexibility in legal terms (i.e. some combinations of preferences are simply not possible legally) that future governments of that country have to operate unilaterally.

This ends the centuries-old state in the UK that "no Parliament can bind its successor". If that really bothers you then you'll want to leave the EU. If it bothers you a bit but you want to stay in the EU for the wider benefits then you shrug your shoulders and carry on.

surely this means we were not allowed to leave?

I assume this is a p*ss take as you know perfectly well that under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, any member state can leave the EU. (And even pre-Lisbon, stopping contributions and passing legislation to disapply all EU laws would likely have achieved the same end position!)

wallace_and_gromit

pblakeney said:

I am confused, and not for the first time. 😉
I thought that we had left and this was all behind us.

We have. I've been talking about the situation that applied prior to leaving, in response to an observation up-thread that leaving the EU demonstrated that a Parliament couldn't bind its successor.