Support NeoGAF

[accel]

What I want as an answer is what the UK can offer the EU in negotiations that will make the EU think it is a good idea to offer common market access whilst also allowing limits on freedom of movement.

I disagree with the premise of the question. It does not happen like that and it's the wrong way to look at it. The UK and the EU will discuss what to do and one of the options will perhaps be the EEA. That's it. The EU will decide for themselves whether or not they are fine with the UK potentially invoking article 112, because it is in the agreement and the UK will be in a position to invoke it. The UK and the EU might talk about it (although I doubt it). The "but will you promise not to invoke article 112" might be there on some level as well. Same for "what we have in mind is a quota preserving the current status quo". If - and when - someone asks the question "OK, what will you give us so you can invoke article 112", which you insist on, the answer will perhaps be "what would you want". It's negotiations. I doubt it will happen like that, but, fine, say it happens like that, the UK might participate in some program it wouldn't have participated otherwise. What would be enough and for what size of the quota / what other terms, I don't know.

 

[nickcv]

I honestly think it's not going to be much of an issue anyway... people won't be coming to UK that much anymore.

Heck I know a lot of immigrants, me included, that are already preparing for a plan b, and I know several who gave up on the idea of coming over here.

Anecdotal for sure, but the whole image of the country changed already. Migrating to UK doesn't seem like a great idea anymore.

 

[accel]

The bolded is not true.
What is meant by fullest possible realization is described in further Articles (1, 28 to 35 for the movement of people).

The word "possible" is in the eyes of the UK. If other countries disagree and think what's possible for the UK is more than the UK think about that themselves, there are processes for resolving that.

The preamble is a declaration of intent; the actual treaty then defines the freedom of movement, and there are no quotas in there. I actually even explicitly states "no restriction" for the right of residence.

The intent is no quotas. But that's not possible. Under the current circumstances. That would be the argument.

 

[KingSnake]

It reads like those scam ads on websites.

"Here is this one amazing trick to get the Single Market without freedom of movement, EU diplomats hate him!"

Nigerian prince or UK official? Whom to trust? Tough choice.

 

[Jisgsaw]

No, the word "possible" is in the eyes of the UK. If other countries disagree, there are processes.

Point taken, the preamble doesn't force the UK to not make quotas.

The rest of the treaty does, however. If the UK disagrees with Articl 28 and 31, pray tell, why would it sign the EEA?
If you say "because Art. 112", we're back to bad faith.

 

[shinra-bansho]

You have a bizarre view of international treaties, negotiations and trade agreements.

It's exactly as Kabbles put it. It's the exact way to look at it.

It's not, here become party to this multilateral existing trade agreement, but wink wink, do what you want afterwards wink wink.

I don't know why anybody bothers.

 

[accel]

You have a bizarre view of international treaties and trade agreements.

Always ready to extend my horizons.

It's exactly as Kabbles put it. It's the exact way to look at it.

It's not, here become party to this multilateral existing trade agreement, but wink wink, do what you want afterwards wink wink.

I don't know why anybody bothers.

That's an explanation?

OK.

Invoking article 112 is not doing what you want, it's right there in the agreement. But I said as much already.

 

[shinra-bansho]

The explanation is the EU and other parties to the EEA are not going to let the UK enter into the EEA, with the express intention of abusing the EEA to try and unilaterally limit one of the four fundamental freedoms of the Union and single market.

Because the EU will negotiate with its own interests in mind not Britain's.

And moreover they are not completely and utterly stupid, despite whatever perception there may be in the UK.

This is the premise under which any such negotiation would occur.

Okay, then why would the EU offer the UK a deal that gives it everything it wants without giving anything in return? You've still not made clear what the UK has to offer that will make the EU want to conclude a deal that is so favourable to the UK, and so unfavourable to it.

Your premise is continually basically "The EU is dumb, and it will just roll over."

 

[tuxfool]

Or a hardworking citizen with a family and mortgage struggling to earn a decent living in an industry that has seen downward pressure on wage levels due to an influx of cheap tradesmen despite having spent 5 years on low pay gaining qualifications.

I voted to remain but freedom of movement has negatively affected my life quite considerably over the last decade. In fact my income has reduced by around 20%.
I don't consider myself a nationalist scumbag and certainly don't lay the blame at the door of the immigrants trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.
Th fact that the member states economic situations don't match is the problem.

That sucks, but ultimately one has to ask if such a position is sustainable in the face of globalization. One cannot be insulated from its effects forever; had your wages stayed the same, would your industry have remained competitive? If it hasn't despite the drop in labour costs, then the blame can't really be solely due to the freedom of labour. The fact that you voted remain despite your troubles tells me that you understand this.

While I was painting with a wide brush, it is clear to me that many did not think about some of these issues, they cut off their nose in spite of their face. Will their situation really improve with decreased labour competitiveness? In most cases, probably not.

 

[Zaph]

Well we have 2 red lines then

The UK on free trade with border controls

The EU on free trade with free movement

someone will have to give

Well, one option is something that only benefits us and we have virtually no leverage. It would also literally signal the beginning of the end for the EU as we know it, by triggering a very serious domino effect with member states.

I wonder who will give...



But seriously, it absolutely infuriates me that all other issues and politics are being drowned out while we patiently wait for the Brexiters to slowly come to terms with Reality™. I appreciate the tactical reasoning for May giving Leavers their team of fanatics, but this country has so much other shit we need to deal with.

 

[accel]

The explanation is the EU and other parties to the EEA are not going to let the UK enter into the EEA, with the express intention of abusing the EEA to try and unilaterally limit one of the four fundamental freedoms of the Union and single market.

Because the EU will negotiate with its own interests in mind not Britain's.

And moreover they are not completely and utterly stupid, despite whatever perception there may be in the UK.

It's not abusing. Invoking safeguard clauses is normal.

Just in case, do you know how the negotiations like this happen in general? It's one set of very technical specialists - not politics - preparing a big document trying to cover all bases, and the other set doing the same. Then they exchange these big documents, try to quickly cross off as many of the things that they agree on to close them, try to work as many of the things that they disagree on out of scope so they don't have to spend time on them. That goes for many iterations. And only then the few show-stoppers that are left are handed to the politics. Inputs of experts, etc. It's 90% technical. It's not some guys from the EU and some guys from the UK sitting around a table and being tough with each other. *That's* why in this particular case asking "what would the UK give to be able to invoke article 112" is a wrong question to ask. That likely won't even be discussed specifically, it will all be covered in general terms of whether or not the EU are fine with the UK in the EEA and being subject to all its provisions - including being able to invoke article 112. The only way this becomes a question is if there is big politics being intentionally built around it. That's it.

Your premise is continually basically "The EU is dumb, and it will just roll over."

It's not the EU being dumb, they aren't dumb, it's you and others treating article 112 for what it is not. And the process being different from how they, I don't know, sell companies.

 

[PdotMichael]

Or a hardworking citizen with a family and mortgage struggling to earn a decent living in an industry that has seen downward pressure on wage levels due to an influx of cheap tradesmen despite having spent 5 years on low pay gaining qualifications.

I voted to remain but freedom of movement has negatively affected my life quite considerably over the last decade. In fact my income has reduced by around 20%.
I don't consider myself a nationalist scumbag and certainly don't lay the blame at the door of the immigrants trying to make a better life for themselves and their families.
Th fact that the member states economic situations don't match is the problem.

So about which industry are we talking here?

 

[Jisgsaw]

It's not abusing. Invoking safeguard clauses is normal.

As I wrote, Art. 28 and 31 clearly establish a total freedom of people to work(note: with a little asterisc for workers, "public policy") and reside respectively.

So yes, it is abusing. If you need a safeguard the minute after having signed the document, you have per definition negotiated in bad faith. And after three month, you'll be taken in front of an arbitrator that will make you revoke your actions.

 

[Camp Freddie]

House insurance policies often say you can claim accidental damages.
That does not mean they will pay out if you sign up with the intention of having an accident.
Nor will the company sell you the policy if you walk into their office while boasting to your friends that you're going to 'accidentally' burn your house down.

If we keep our publicly-stated commitment to restricted movement, the EU/EEA will simply not allow us to sign treaties that say we are committed to free movement.

If we signed up to a treaty in bad faith, our international reputation would be completely destroyed. We would never get those favourable free trade deals that Brexiteers think everyone is desperate to offer us.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm aware of how trade negotiations work. I come from a country that actually has them.

The EEA isn't a trade negotiation. It's an existing agreement.
And it will require the agreement of the all parties within the EEA.

I'm also aware it's not a man named Mr EU talking to a man named Mr UK.

The basic premise of negotiations is still as noted by Kabouter. What are you offering in return? Who has greater leverage? What are the ramifications of any concession? What are the ramifications of not making that same concession?

Your entire scenario still boils down to the EU, or if you prefer, it's army of negotiators are dumb, they don't care about the interests of the EU, and will just give the UK's three dozen free reign.

 

[PdotMichael]

Why should other states in the EEA accepts that the UK triggers article 112 and greenlight it every 3 months based on article 113 although freedom of movement was called the most important condition in any possible UK & EU deals?

Your entire scenario still boils down to the EU, or if you prefer, it's army of negotiators are dumb, they don't care about the interests of the EU, and will just give the UK's three dozen free reign.

Isn't it like the running gag with the UK's mindset about the EU? The higher goals of the unified Europe were never important (well, the UK's history is basically trying to archive the opposite) but just what can the UK get out of it.

 

[DiGiKerot]

It's not abusing. Invoking safeguard clauses is normal.

Not, it's not. If you need to invoke a safeguard clause in order to make a deal palatable in the first place, then that deal does not get signed. It's that simple.

 

[Armaros]

This entire argument relies on the supposition that the UK can find a loophole in the EEA, and the EU says. "OH LOOK YOU GOT ME, YOU WIN, YOU GET SINGLE MARKET AND CAN TAKE WHAT YOU WANT OUT"

 

[Jisgsaw]

The intent is no quotas. But that's not possible. Under the current circumstances. That would be the argument.

Sorry, didn't see your edit.
The intent is no quota.
Article 31 is explicitly no quota. The other articles also point to no quotas.

If no quotas is not possible in current circumstances, you don't sign the treaty. Anything else is negotiating in bad faith. I hope you understand that negotiating anything on bad faith is a move the UK can't afford right now.

 

[accel]

I'm aware of how trade negotiations work. I come from a country that actually has them.

The EEA isn't a trade negotiation. It's an existing agreement.
And it will require the agreement of the all parties within the EEA.

I'm also aware it's not a man named Mr EU talking to a man named Mr UK.

The basic premise of negotiations is still as noted by Kabouter. What are you offering in return? Who has greater leverage? What are the ramifications of any concession? What are the ramifications of not making that same concession?

Your entire scenario still boils down to the EU, or if you prefer, it's army of negotiators are dumb, they don't care about the interests of the EU, and will just give the UK's three dozen free reign.

That this isn't a strictly trade negotiation, but rather a negotiation about exit, with trade bundled in implicitly (see the excerpt from Article 50 (2) which I cited so we don't waste time on whether or not trade is part of it), does not matter in this case. All complex, multi-faceted deals like this get done the same way - as I described.

Look, you are aware of these things and you know how they work (and don't get me wrong, I believe you), but your objection to what I said is not something specific like "yes, but ..." or "you are wrong here, there is ...", it's just "throw away everything you wrote, or don't throw it away, I don't care, but Kabouter is right and you are wrong (no explanation how and why)".

I mean, fine, you are right, I am wrong, because I don't know why. /shrug

Sorry, didn't see your edit.
The intent is no quota.
Article 31 is explicitly no quota. The other articles also point to no quotas.

If no quotas is not possible in current circumstances, you don't sign the treaty. Anything else is negotiating in bad faith. I hope you understand that negotiating anything on bad faith is a move the UK can't afford right now.

The circumstances are temporary and the entire deal is temporary. It would have been fine with no bad faith even without that, but with that, it's triply fine.

If you disagree, great, let's agree to disagree, because these are basic principles, we've hit the foundations. I mean, I could try and make some analogy, but there will always be "it's different".

 

[Jisgsaw]

The circumstances are temporary and the entire deal is temporary.

Then you don't enter the EEA. You draft a treaty based on the EEA, but different from it, with this bit in it (and you hope the EU signs it (which it probably won't)).
The EEA is NOT a temporary organization.

It would have been fine with no bad faith even without that

No it would not.
For reference, random definition of negotiating in bad faith:

bad faith
1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a "bad faith" contract or "bad faith" offer.

The bolded is EXACTLY what you are advocating. However you try to spin it in your head, Article 31 is quite explicit the EU citizen should have total freedom of residence; not granting this, or directly taking measures to prevent this after having signed the treaty, is as per definition, negotiating on bad faith.

Now, do I have to explain to you why, while this doesn't explicitly prevent the UK from doing it, it would be a bad idea to do it?

If you disagree, great, let's agree to disagree, because these are basic principles, we've hit the foundations.

You know, you can also disagree that the Earh is round, that doesn't make it less true.
What I state are hard facts, with 0 interpretation in them. What you state are hypothetical scenarios where everybody bows down to the UK and bends all their treaties to please them.


Edit: what you probably want to advocate is that the UK signs a EEA deal with an additional clause giving the UK a right on quotas (which is still nuts, but less so than what we're talking about before).
And then we go back to Kabouter's point: why the hell would the EU accept that?
Or in your views of how negotiation go, the UK negotiator put an additional clause to the EEA agreement. The EU negotiator then see it in their review. Why don't they directly delete it?

 

[Ucchedavāda]

Since the UK is so keen on getting exemptions, perhaps the EU should allow the UK to transition into the EEA, conditioned on it being exempt from articles 112-4. The UK can always choose to leave if it does not like those terms.

Spoiler

Pie in the sky, much like thinking that the UK can just pull a quick one.

 

[accel]

Then you don't enter the EEA.

Ugh.

The EEA might be best for everyone, because it is a canned deal, no need to invent anything.

Invoking a safeguard once in EEA does not mean you don't intend to fulfill the EEA agreement - to the contrary, you are acting strictly according to it. Entering the EEA with an intent to invoke a safeguard similarly does not mean you are entering with an intent to not fulfill the EEA agreement - again, invoking a safeguard is completely within the agreement, you are fulfilling it. You are equating EEA with "EEA without the safeguards". You can't do that. There is no bad faith here.

No, I don't want to advocate that the UK tries to enter something that is similar to EEA but with an additional provision equivalent to the safeguard. If we could have negotiations in some parallel universe where they would take however many years of that universe's time and only a month or a year of our time, it would have been different - but then I'd have advocated for negotiating the entire exit at once (and yes, that would include limits on freedom of movement). But we have what we have - both the EU and the UK, and the safeguard clause works. If it doesn't work for the EU, they will say so.

 

[PdotMichael]

Can we please stop?

 

[Jisgsaw]

Ugh.

The EEA might be best for everyone, because it is a canned deal, no need to invent anything.

Then you accept total freedom of movement, as it is quite explicitly a part of the deal.
If you don't want freedom of movement, then you have to invent something.

Again, Art. 112 is a temporary safeguard in respect to unexpected major difficulties (full disclosure: this part is interpretation). Three things that aren't the case in the scenario you are advocating.
And Art. 112 is not explicitly about freedom of movement, unlike those other Articles I linked earlier.

Invoking a safeguard once in EEA does not mean you don't intend to fulfill the EEA agreement - to the contrary, you are acting strictly according to it. Entering the EEA with an intent to invoke a safeguard similarly does not mean you are entering with an intent to not fulfill the EEA agreement - again, invoking a safeguard is completely within the agreement, you are fulfilling it. You are equating EEA with "EEA without the safeguards". You can't do that. There is no bad faith here.

Invoking a safeguard directly after having signed a deal means you don't agree with one clause of the deal at the moment of your signature.
Again, however you spin it, that is bad faith.
In the case of Lichtenstein for example, it wasn't bad faith, because for all intent and purposes, it did intend to accept free movement (and did do so for a while) at the moment of the signature. Changing circumstances made them turn tail on that, to which the EEA agreed to considering the circumstances.

Art. 112 doesn't explicitly say you have a right to establish quotas unilaterally (or even multilaterally). If it did, it would make the whole treaty moot, as it contradicts many major Articles of the treaty.

What you can do to make this not a bad faith case, is explicitly and formally (i.e. included in the treaty) inform your intent to use Art. 112 in that way as soon as you enter. But again, then we're back to our other point: why the hell should the EEA sign that?

No, I don't want to advocate that the UK tries to enter something that is similar to EEA but with an additional provision equivalent to the safeguard. If we could have negotiations in some parallel universe where they would take however many years of that universe's time and only a month or a year of our time, it would have been different - but then I'd have advocated for negotiating the entire exit at once (and yes, that would include limits on freedom of movement). But we have what we have - both the EU and the UK, and the safeguard clause works. If it doesn't work for the EU, they will say so.

Remember a few weeks ago when everybody was saying that UK had a bad negotiation position?
Well that is why.

I know it doesn't fit your expectation, but the EEA treaty is what it is, and it does include unconditional freedom of movement, and no, Art. 112 can and would be overturned if it were used in the manner described (in addition to making your negotiating position even worse).

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Well we have 2 red lines then

The UK on free trade with border controls

The EU on free trade with free movement

someone will have to give

You are forgetting the possibility of no EEA market access for the UK. That's the alternative, one which will certainly be far more unpalatable to the UK than to the EU.

 

[PdotMichael]

Article 113 will stop any attempts of misusing article 112. Why should just the Eastern European countries alone greenlight such behaviour? And if everything would be so easy then the UK could have triggered article 112 already.

People should stop talking to a maniac.

 

[accel]

Article 113 will stop any attempts of misusing article 112. Why should just the Eastern European countries alone greenlight such behaviour? And if everything would be so easy then the UK could have triggered article 112 already.

People should stop talking to a maniac.

Until UK exits EU, it can not invoke article 112 by itself, only EU can.

And I love you too.

PS: Just noticed - want an answer to your "why should Eastern European countries greenlight..."?

 

[PdotMichael]

Sure crazy, how the UK couldn't get that article 12 triggered but somehow can as powerless EEA state and the other ones will accept it.

 

[accel]

Sure crazy, how the UK couldn't get that article 12 triggered but somehow can as powerless EEA state and the other ones will accept it.

Because being in the EU means giving your power away to the EU in various questions, including this one.

That was the last post from me to you, learn some manners.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

So from what I've read over the last four pages, am I right in understanding that if May chooses to start the process to exit in 2017 and the EU cannot come to an agreement to extend the negotiating period, the UK will essentially be sure to have to revert to WTO trading requirements until they can get a deal with the EU ten years from now or whatever?

And that would be for trade with everyone, right, until they can re-negotiate deals with every country that they currently trade with, because as of now, the trade deals the UK operates under are EU trade deals?

 

[Jisgsaw]

So from what I've read over the last four pages, am I right in understanding that if May chooses to start the process to exit in 2017 and the EU cannot come to an agreement to extend the negotiating period, the UK will essentially be sure to have to revert to WTO trading requirements until they can get a deal with the EU ten years from now or whatever?

And that would be for trade with everyone, right, until they can re-negotiate deals with every country that they currently trade with, because as of now, the trade deals the UK operates under are EU trade deals?

It's even worse than that: the two years of the rt. 50 is for negotiating the administrative and juristic exit from the EU. Not to establish a new trade deal.

So yeah, you are correct.

 

[PdotMichael]

Because being in the EU means giving your power away to the EU in various questions, including this one.

That was the last post from me to you, learn some manners.

That article 113 doesn't exist and Europe will suddenly decide to ignore the principles of an unified Europe for the special snowflakes from the island.

Get your basics about European politics and law straight before trying to lecture other people about manners.

 

[Voysa Reezun]

It's even worse than that: the two years of the rt. 50 is for negotiating the administrative and juristic exit from the EU. Not to establish a new trade deal.

So yeah, you are correct.

OK, so actually executing Article 50 is essentially economic suicide. I don't see how the UK receovers from leaving for decades and decades. Why would May explicitly make a statement that she would execute Article 50? Now she's going to be held to that, and she and her party are going to get blamed for what happens when the UK starts the process.

I have another dumb question - during the two years where the UK unravels itself from the EU, do they still have access to the single market, or do they immediately revert to WTO rules for trade as soon as they execute Article 50? I'd assume the former, and I'm sure someone has answered this, but I want to make sure that I understand.

 

[Jisgsaw]

OK, so actually executing Article 50 is essentially economic suicide. I don't see how the UK receovers from leaving for decades and decades. Why would May explicitly make a statement that she would execute Article 50? Now she's going to be held to that, and she and her party are going to get blamed for what happens when the UK starts the process.

There were a lot of incomprehensible things that happened in the last weeks.

I have another dumb question - during the two years where the UK unravels itself from the EU, do they still have access to the single market, or do they immediately revert to WTO rules for trade as soon as they execute Article 50? I'd assume the former, and I'm sure someone has answered this, but I want to make sure that I understand.

Until two years after the invoking of Art. 50, the UK is still a complete part of the EU. the only limitation is that it (logically) is asked to leave the room when questions concerning the EU position in the negotiation of the Brexit is underway.

 

[Psychotext]

I'm sat here in a B&B and find myself reading a daily fail before bed. It's like peaking into a different world. Most of what I've seen on GAF and the web has been flipped. May is domination Euro talks and Britain is forging forward to its inevitable destination as financial leader of the free world.

Where can I get some of what they're smoking?

 

[Goldrusher]

I'm sat here in a B&B and find myself reading a daily fail before bed. [...] Where can I get some of what they're smoking?

Simply roll up yesterday's edition. It's all in the ink.

 

[Audioboxer]

I'm sat here in a B&B and find myself reading a daily fail before bed. It's like peaking into a different world. Most of what I've seen on GAF and the web has been flipped. May is domination Euro talks and Britain is forging forward to its inevitable destination as financial leader of the free world.

Where can I get some of what they're smoking?

You're going to give me nightmares in my sleep tonight.

 

[Palculator]

There were a lot of incomprehensible things that happened in the last weeks.

Until two years after the invoking of Art. 50, the UK is still a complete part of the EU. the only limitation is that it (logically) is asked to leave the room when questions concerning the EU position in the negotiation of the Brexit is underway.

Wait... was your name always misspelled?

 

[Halph n Halph]

That sucks, but ultimately one has to ask if such a position is sustainable in the face of globalization. One cannot be insulated from its effects forever; had your wages stayed the same, would your industry have remained competitive? If it hasn't despite the drop in labour costs, then the blame can't really be solely due to the freedom of labour. The fact that you voted remain despite your troubles tells me that you understand this.

While I was painting with a wide brush, it is clear to me that many did not think about some of these issues, they cut off their nose in spite of their face. Will their situation really improve with decreased labour competitiveness? In most cases, probably not.

I work in the construction industry, more specifically I work shop fitting and the interior fit-outs of bars/ restaurants etc and my industry is hugely affected by economic downturns.
Remain would have made my short-term future a little more secure but freedom of labour is difficult for me to support.
Let me repeat that I do not begrudge migrant workers doing the best for their families and moving to Britain, but if six workers from the EU come to the UK temporarily and share a house sharing the rent / bills etc between them , How can i compete with the pay rates they can work for when I have the same financial commitments to meet alone?

 

[inoperativ]

I work in the construction industry, more specifically I work shop fitting and the interior fit-outs of bars/ restaurants etc and my industry is hugely affected by economic downturns.
Remain would have made my short-term future a little more secure but freedom of labour is difficult for me to support.
Let me repeat that I do not begrudge migrant workers doing the best for their families and moving to Britain, but if six workers from the EU come to the UK temporarily and share a house sharing the rent / bills etc between them , How can i compete with the pay rates they can work for when I have the same financial commitments to meet alone?

I feel for you man. And I'm not going to pretend I have some magic solution. All I can say is I worked for a steel factory back home in Finland during summers in my undergrad (2010-2011 specifically) and even with our "ridiculous" wages and freedom of movement -- I made about €3k a month -- there were enough jobs to go around, in fact we'd have to pull double shifts regularly to cover the orders. Britain is in a special situation in that most people speak English in the EU so there's more pressure on you than anyone else. I don't blame British workers for the way they voted, I understand it's a symptom of a broken system which you had little part in forming. But the problems were never specifically EU problems, they are problems with how the UK economy are run. Quite a few people I know have been getting shit for their accents/the way they look recently which is fucking stupid and I can't really can't forgive that, as much as I sympathise with you.

Edit: too much beer I'm shitfaced.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I mean, fine, you are right, I am wrong, because I don't know why. /shrug

Glad that's cleared up.

You keep expecting extensive explanation for why your hypotheticals make no sense at even cursory look. They don't require any more than what's been given.

Up is not down. The world is not flat. It doesn't sit on the back of four elephants and a space turtle.

 

[Joe]

Is there some unfortunate amusement in seeing some leave voters who voted leave because they didn't want to be governed by unelected EU officials are now being governed by an unelected Theresa May or is that just my lack of UK politics understanding speaking?

 

[Tak3n]

Is there some unfortunate amusement in seeing some leave voters who voted leave because they didn't want to be governed by unelected EU officials are now being governed by an unelected Theresa May or is that just my lack of UK politics understanding speaking?

We don't vote for prime ministers, we never have, you vote for your local MP

 

[Camp Freddie]

We don't vote for prime ministers, we never have, you vote for your local MP

That is true, but only in the same way that it is technically true that the Queen (and not the party) appoints the prime minister.

People vote for a local mp based on the party, manifesto and pm they support. The pm has changed and key manifesto pledges have been abandoned, so people are going to feel a bit miffed.

 

[SporeCrawler]

That is true, but only in the same way that it is technically true that the Queen (and not the party) appoints the prime minister.

People vote for a local mp based on the party, manifesto and pm they support. The pm has changed and key manifesto pledges have been abandoned, so people are going to feel a bit miffed.

Hmm sounds very similar to european politics to me

European council is basically the elected government of each memberstate, european parliament is directly elected, european commission is appointed by european council and the elected goverments of each memberstate hmm

 

[Jisgsaw]

Wait... was your name always misspelled?

Haha, yes. I was 13 when I first used that username, and very bad at English at the time; I thought that was the correct spelling of jigsaw. Now I just stick with it; at least the username is usually not taken, unlike jigsaw.

That is true, but only in the same way that it is technically true that the Queen (and not the party) appoints the prime minister.

I still find it baffling that in a constitutional monarchy, the argument "but the EU is not democratic" was used...

 

[Joni]

We don't vote for prime ministers, we never have, you vote for your local MP

That isn't the argument the Tory party used about Brown and europe.

 

[Meadows]

That is true, but only in the same way that it is technically true that the Queen (and not the party) appoints the prime minister.

People vote for a local mp based on the party, manifesto and pm they support. The pm has changed and key manifesto pledges have been abandoned, so people are going to feel a bit miffed.

Actually technically you don't - you are voting purely for that individual, not their party.

 

[kmag]

You know what is an interesting thought experiment. Thinking about the sort of concessions the individual EU countries might want to come to any sort of deal with the UK.

On that note from the Gibraltar Chronicle.

The Spanish Government will veto the terms of any Brexit negotiation between the UK and the EU that sought to include Gibraltar, Spain’s acting Foreign Minister José Manuel García-Margallo said yesterday.
The minister said once the UK activates the withdrawal process under Article 50 of the EU treaty, the European Council must agree the broad terms of the withdrawal negotiation “by unanimity”.
Against that context, Spain would “make clear that Gibraltar does not belong to the UK” and would “have the right to veto” if it did not agree with the negotiation framework, Sr García-Margallo said.
He said once the UK was outside the EU, Gibraltar must be seen as “a third territory”, adding that Brexit would have “very serious consequences for Gibraltar economy and for the Spanish workers who worked there”.
The British Government has said that Gibraltar will be “fully involved” in the negotiations to withdraw from the EU.
But Spain insists it must not be included and must instead be treated as a bilateral matter between Madrid and London.