Brexit Negotiations

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Agema:
I'm about 99% sure it's unrelated.

Then I shall take your word for it

One way or another, a key thing to remember about Daniel Hannan is that he's desperately close to being the biggest and most objectionable twat in a party with an unusually high quantity of unusually despicable twats. Behind Philip Davies, but ahead of Boris Johnson sort of level.

The MEPs tend to be a more extreme kind of awful as compared to their national counterparts. I think there's a PHD to be had studying the masochistic tendencies of people who abhor European cooperation with all their heart and soul but also never fail to vote in European elections.

Baffle2:
The important thing to remember is that it's going to be nothing like Mad Max, even though no one was actually worried about that possibility. Unless we're going to import vast quantities of sand from our new trading partners, who we will get fantastic deals with, then it might be a little bit like Mad Max.

If some pro-Brexit people have no better argument left than saying "it won't be a Mad Max style apocalypse", that does speak for itself.

Honestly, who in their right might could think that this argument would ever convince people to look forward to the event ?

Baffle2:
The important thing to remember is that it's going to be nothing like Mad Max, even though no one was actually worried about that possibility. Unless we're going to import vast quantities of sand from our new trading partners, who we will get fantastic deals with, then it might be a little bit like Mad Max.

I don't know, now that it's become a Brexit promise I have to assume it's a lie. I mean you guys will be okay, Tom Hardy IS British after all.

ineptelephant:

The MEPs tend to be a more extreme kind of awful as compared to their national counterparts. I think there's a PHD to be had studying the masochistic tendencies of people who abhor European cooperation with all their heart and soul but also never fail to vote in European elections.

Indeed.

My general perception of British MEPs is that they are largely second-rate strivers and chancers who for one reason or another wouldn't quite cut it as MPs (too embarrassing, ideologically extreme, incompetent, etc.) and were shuffled off to serve the party in a less domestically noticeable position. That or they just got lucky with a protest vote or something.

To be fair, I expect at least a few voluntarily headed there out of genuine interest in European politics, albeit as you note sometimes with very anti-EU attitude.

Satinavian:
If some pro-Brexit people have no better argument left than saying "it won't be a Mad Max style apocalypse", that does speak for itself.

Honestly, who in their right might could think that this argument would ever convince people to look forward to the event?

The art of the British government on Brexit is to say as many words as possible without conveying any useful substance of what the hell's going on.

Needless to say, that approach is wearing a thin with everyone else in the entire world, who are screaming for some sense of clarity and direction.

CheetoDust:

Baffle2:
The important thing to remember is that it's going to be nothing like Mad Max, even though no one was actually worried about that possibility. Unless we're going to import vast quantities of sand from our new trading partners, who we will get fantastic deals with, then it might be a little bit like Mad Max.

I don't know, now that it's become a Brexit promise I have to assume it's a lie. I mean you guys will be okay, Tom Hardy IS British after all.

I believe we're still waiting for the economic apocalypse we were promised...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/chief-economist-of-bank-of-england-admits-errors

Basically, no one knows what will happen but as ever it will be neither as good or as bad as the extremists on either side would like it to be.

ineptelephant:
The MEPs tend to be a more extreme kind of awful as compared to their national counterparts. I think there's a PHD to be had studying the masochistic tendencies of people who abhor European cooperation with all their heart and soul but also never fail to vote in European elections.

Eh, this seems like a bizarre point. What do you expect people who oppose the state of European politics to do? Launch an open revolt? General strikes?

No, they engage through the political process. In the same manner which all change should come about, in an ideal world.

ErrrorWayz:

I believe we're still waiting for the economic apocalypse we were promised...

A little early to conclude that the damage isn't real, since Britain hasn't yet left the EU.

Catnip1024:
Eh, this seems like a bizarre point. What do you expect people who oppose the state of European politics to do? Launch an open revolt? General strikes?

No, they engage through the political process. In the same manner which all change should come about, in an ideal world.

These are not people who dislike the direction of EU politics and want to have a role in changing that direction, though; these are people who, by their own admission, want nothing to do with it.

ErrrorWayz:

Basically, no one knows what will happen

Except for us who know GFA will be breached and a hard border will be put up if Britain doesn't resolve the border dispute.

Silvanus:
These are not people who dislike the direction of EU politics and want to have a role in changing that direction, though; these are people who, by their own admission, want nothing to do with it.

Must have missed this what with the Sunday Purge and all...

There was (prior to the Brexit referendum) no means of properly opposing membership of the EU. So what legitimate political activity do you have? You either take up the seats and obstruct the process, or you don't do anything and everyone assumes you are quietly endorsing the EU.

I mean, it's not that much different from Sinn Fein running for UK parliament seats.

Catnip1024:
Must have missed this what with the Sunday Purge and all...

There was (prior to the Brexit referendum) no means of properly opposing membership of the EU. So what legitimate political activity do you have? You either take up the seats and obstruct the process, or you don't do anything and everyone assumes you are quietly endorsing the EU.

I mean, it's not that much different from Sinn Fein running for UK parliament seats.

You do realise that Sinn Fein MPs don't actually sit in parliament, right? They stay at home.

Sitting in the European Parliament is not legitimate political action against EU membership, though, because that's not on the table there.

They have the same recourses that all of us do for domestic political issues. Protest or voting at home.

Silvanus:
You do realise that Sinn Fein MPs don't actually sit in parliament, right? They stay at home.

Sinn Fein take a more moral stance due to the whole swearing an oath of allegiance aspect. Afaik, MEPs do not, and subsequently the barrier is not there. How Sinn Fein would act if they could take up seats without swearing allegiance, or how UKIP would act if they had to, is pure speculation.

They also don't take salary's, which is another point in their favour, but considering NI is a net recipient of the UK whereas the UK is a net contributor to the EU, the argument is again not a simple read-across.

Sitting in the European Parliament is not legitimate political action against EU membership, though, because that's not on the table there.

It is a platform from which to deliver a message. It allows cross-european opposition to EU integration.

I mean, feel free to disagree with it, but it is a legitimate position to take.

Ninjamedic:

Except for us who know GFA will be breached and a hard border will be put up if Britain doesn't resolve the border dispute.

I'm not sure Britain's not going to resolve anything, because it's run by a bunch of fuckwits who lack the moral resources and political cohesion to carry out a task of the magnitude of Brexit.

At the current moment, I think their plan is a hard border and just hoping it doesn't rile everyone up too much. They just kinda don't want to have to say so.

Catnip1024:
Sinn Fein take a more moral stance due to the whole swearing an oath of allegiance aspect. Afaik, MEPs do not, and subsequently the barrier is not there. How Sinn Fein would act if they could take up seats without swearing allegiance, or how UKIP would act if they had to, is pure speculation.

They also don't take salary's, which is another point in their favour, but considering NI is a net recipient of the UK whereas the UK is a net contributor to the EU, the argument is again not a simple read-across.

Indeed it's not. This was rather my point-- what Sinn Fein do and what anti-EU MEPs do isn't really comparable.

Farage, for instance, takes his salary and makes substantial additional claims. Does this not undermine his constant complaints about how much money MEPs take?

It is a platform from which to deliver a message. It allows cross-european opposition to EU integration.

I mean, feel free to disagree with it, but it is a legitimate position to take.

The purpose of the European Parliament is not to pontificate on issues outside of those up for a vote. This is hijacking.

Catnip1024:
, the argument is again not a simple read-across.

Nobody is saying it is, you're the one that brought up Sinn Fein to justify the anti-EU MEP's actions because it's "not that much different". You should probably stop pointing put all the ways it's different.

CheetoDust:
Nobody is saying it is, you're the one that brought up Sinn Fein to justify the anti-EU MEP's actions because it's "not that much different". You should probably stop pointing put all the ways it's different.

Except for the mahoosive way that it is similar, given they both engage with a political system they have no intention of properly abiding by. Which is the reason it was brought up.

Catnip1024:
Except for the mahoosive way that it is similar, given they both engage with a political system they have no intention of properly abiding by. Which is the reason it was brought up.

But they don't participate in the UK parliament. They don't vote, don't table anything, don't suggest amendments, don't make speeches, don't even turn up.

Silvanus:

Catnip1024:
Except for the mahoosive way that it is similar, given they both engage with a political system they have no intention of properly abiding by. Which is the reason it was brought up.

But they don't participate in the UK parliament. They don't vote, don't table anything, don't suggest amendments, don't make speeches, don't even turn up.

They engage with the political system. They are obstructing actual MPs from actually representing the constituencies interests. The parallels are there, whether or not you want to see them.

Silvanus:

Catnip1024:
Except for the mahoosive way that it is similar, given they both engage with a political system they have no intention of properly abiding by. Which is the reason it was brought up.

But they don't participate in the UK parliament. They don't vote, don't table anything, don't suggest amendments, don't make speeches, don't even turn up.

They also don't take salaries or any type of pension from the UK government. Their expense claims directly related to travel and work can be reimbursed though.

Something tells me that English anti-EU MEPs like Trump's blonder brother don't forgo their EU-paid salaries.

Catnip1024:
They engage with the political system. They are obstructing actual MPs from actually representing the constituencies interests. The parallels are there, whether or not you want to see them.

You would consider mere obstructionism through non-attendance to be comparable political engagement to attending parliament regularly, voting, debating, claiming salary and expenses etc?

That's... well, it's just a little bit silly.

Silvanus:

Catnip1024:
They engage with the political system. They are obstructing actual MPs from actually representing the constituencies interests. The parallels are there, whether or not you want to see them.

You would consider mere obstructionism through non-attendance to be comparable political engagement to attending parliament regularly, voting, debating, claiming salary and expenses etc?

That's... well, it's just a little bit silly.

Sinn Fein could go further in not taking part. They do run as a party to be voted for and they apparently receive enough votes for at least some seats. They could also not engage by just ignoring parliament and its elections alltogether. Which would make them even less effective. This seems to be one of the risks of saying things like 'why be an anti-EU MEP'. Presumably these people take issue with certain EU policy trends and they entered the EP to make EU policy as non-invasive as possible. Now in practice it might be the case that some of these anti-EU MEP's are total prats who waste everybodies time because as you said earlier, they use their position to 'pontificate on issues outside of those up for a vote'. In theory though, I don't take issue with being an anti-EU MEP. (well, I do, but because I am pro-EU, not because I think it is somwhow an illegitemate way of doing politics)

So I kinda see where Catnip is coming from. When you don't like something you don't radically disassociate yourself from it, you try to improve it and that ussually means engaging with it, of neccesity somewhat on its own terms because that is more effective.

Firstly, I am not sure why anyone we need argue that Sinn Fein MPs and Euroskeptic MEPs necessarily should use the same tactics.

Not only that, but Sinn Fein and Euroskeptic MPs have very different positions. Sinn Fein fundamentally believes that the UK does not have a legitimate right to include Northern Ireland - it took Ireland by conquest and unfairly split off and kept NI when it gave the rest of Ireland independence. Taking the UK government's for their salaries and sitting in Westminster implicitly endorses the UK's ownership of NI, and thus is ideologically unacceptable.

In contrast, Euroskeptic MEPs do not query the legitimacy of the EU to have powers over the UK in certain areas, because the UK joined the EEC by referendum and voluntarily agreed to subsequent treaties according to its own sovereignty.

If people can't see the difference between obstructionism as a form of protest and nakedly profiting from an organisation you're meant to oppose then I frankly don't know what to say.

Agema:
Firstly, I am not sure why anyone we need argue that Sinn Fein MPs and Euroskeptic MEPs necessarily should use the same tactics.

To recap the previous, they both engage with a political system that they don't endorse or agree with.

And yes, absenteeism is engaging with said system, because you occupy a seat that would otherwise be represented.

I'm not saying either are good / bad. What I objected to was the insinuation made earlier that if you are eurosceptic, you shouldn't take part in the European political processes. That's just a bizarre claim. The only way to get change at all is to engage with the system, or have a complete revolution.

Catnip1024:

I'm not saying either are good / bad. What I objected to was the insinuation made earlier that if you are eurosceptic, you shouldn't take part in the European political processes. That's just a bizarre claim. The only way to get change at all is to engage with the system, or have a complete revolution.

That's not true. The ability to withdraw from the EU rests-- as it has always rested-- in the UK government. The referendum, and the following votes in parliament and triggering of article 50, took place domestically.

The power to leave the EU exists, and is nothing to do with the European Parliament. It's nonsense to imagine that in order to obtain that goal they must engage with a body which fundamentally has nothing to do with whether the UK is a member.

Catnip1024:
To recap the previous, they both engage with a political system that they don't endorse or agree with.

That is still no reason for why they should use the same tactics. It assumes, quite illogically, that there is only one way to do something.

And yes, absenteeism is engaging with said system, because you occupy a seat that would otherwise be represented.

Yes, and so atheism is a religion because it's still a belief about metaphysical reality.

Sinn Fein do not have a problem with certain forms of "engaging", but it seems to me no-one is arguing that they refuse to engage at all. Providing political representation for their voters is not a problem. Going to Westminster, swearing an oath of allegiance to the British state and helping the British state govern NI is a problem for a political party that fundamentally rejects the notion that the UK has any right to NI.

I'm not saying either are good / bad. What I objected to was the insinuation made earlier that if you are eurosceptic, you shouldn't take part in the European political processes. That's just a bizarre claim.

Depends what you want to do.

The only way to get change at all is to engage with the system, or have a complete revolution.

If you don't believe the UK should be part of the EU, the ideal body to join to bring about political change is the House of Commons, because that is the body with the power to withdraw the UK from the EU.

Agema:

Catnip1024:

The only way to get change at all is to engage with the system, or have a complete revolution.

If you don't believe the UK should be part of the EU, the ideal body to join to bring about political change is the House of Commons, because that is the body with the power to withdraw the UK from the EU.

This would be my point. The EU parliament has no say or impact over whether Britain stays in the EU. Its up to individual member states in their own governments. Becoming an MEP with a stated goal of leaving the EU is not the same as Sinn Fein because Sinn Fein have no other possible local government to engage in. Northern Ireland cannot legally split from the UK unless it is ratified by the UK-run Northern Ireland government. That simply isn't the same as the EU. Its false equivalence because anti-EU MEPs are not engaging with the actual mechanism for leaving the EU, they serve merely to obstruct its functions. Sinn Fein have no such luxury.

EDIT: I'm going to do a /snip/ direct quote here because I fear that a quote within a quote won't appear in the inbox. Apologies if its unnecessary, but just to be sure.

Catnip1024:
snip

ineptelephant:
snip

Well, it still didn't work, but ah well.

I mean, it was never meant as a direct parallel by any means, rather an example, but my response would be that absenteeism doesn't get you independence through the existing processes either. And:

anti-EU MEPs are not engaging with the actual mechanism for leaving the EU, they serve merely to obstruct its functions

could equally be applied to Sinn Fein MPs.

Catnip1024:

anti-EU MEPs are not engaging with the actual mechanism for leaving the EU, they serve merely to obstruct its functions

could equally be applied to Sinn Fein MPs.

Except it can't because the Sinn Fein MPs don't take their seats, their salaries, or their pensions.

You're drawing a false equivalence to handwave away the anti-EU MEP actions.

Avnger:

Catnip1024:

anti-EU MEPs are not engaging with the actual mechanism for leaving the EU, they serve merely to obstruct its functions

could equally be applied to Sinn Fein MPs.

Except it can't because the Sinn Fein MPs don't take their seats, their salaries, or their pensions.

You're drawing a false equivalence to handwave away the anti-EU MEP actions.

It still obstructs the functions of the UK law-making process. It obstructs representation of the Northern Irish constituencies they block. It still refuses to engage with the actual process for gaining independence.

There's no need for any sort of equivalence. I don't particularly care about anti-EU MEP actions. I don't feel the need to continually vilify those I disagree with.

Catnip1024:
It still obstructs the functions of the UK law-making process. It obstructs representation of the Northern Irish constituencies they block. It still refuses to engage with the actual process for gaining independence.

No, the process for gaining independence is a Northern Irish referendum on continued union with Great Britain (c.f. Scotland 2014). The decision to hold such a referendum would most likely be Stormont's... where Sinn Fein take their seats.

Of course, they would need official permission from Westminster for a NI referendum to be valid. And if NI government was suspended, all referendum powers would revert to Westminster. But in either case, Sinn Fein do not need to take their Westminster seats, not least because they can only hold a practical maximum of 18 of the UK's ~650 seats.

They'd get referendum permission by negotiating directly with the UK government (again, see Scotland 2013-2014), which if in agreement would simply whip its own MPs into passing any necessary bill.

Catnip1024:
Well, it still didn't work, but ah well.

Damn. That may well be because I forgot and had to put it in an edit, apologies. Next time!

I mean, it was never meant as a direct parallel by any means, rather an example, but my response would be that absenteeism doesn't get you independence through the existing processes either.

That is true, NI won't get independence by Sinn Fein refusing to register and vote in Westminster if (and only if) Westminster is the only method for Northern Ireland to secede. More on that below.

Catnip1024:

anti-EU MEPs are not engaging with the actual mechanism for leaving the EU, they serve merely to obstruct its functions

could equally be applied to Sinn Fein MPs.

Is Stormont (When it runs) not the mechanism for leaving the UK? Sinn Fein don't take their seats in Westminster, granted, but given the tiny amount of power that they would weild there that''s hardly surprising. Perhaps I am speaking from ignorance, do Sinn Fein not even engage in local Northern Irish politics? I was under the impression that they refused to engage across the Irish Sea, not in their own "domestic" realm. Apologies if I need correcting, its been a few long days and cursory searching has yielded nothing but talk of Westminster.

ineptelephant:
Is Stormont (When it runs) not the mechanism for leaving the UK?

It needs Westminster approval. Which makes sense for the same reason it does in Scotland - just because people vote for the nationalist / secessionist party does not always mean they back independence. Most likely, the Northern Irish legislature would ask Westminster for a referendum.

Sinn Fein do (theoretically) take part in Stormont. Which is half the reason Stormont is currently not functioning. The other half being the DUP.

Agema:
The decision to hold such a referendum would most likely be Stormont's... where Sinn Fein take their seats.

Of course, they would need official permission from Westminster for a NI referendum to be valid.

It isn't Stormont's decision then, Stormont goes asking for permission. It's Westminster's decision, much like it is in the case of Scotland.

Also bear in mind how much of a clusterfuck it would be to try and get a referendum out of Stormont, when they can't even agree on how to do regular stuff.

Catnip1024:
It needs Westminster approval. Which makes sense for the same reason it does in Scotland - just because people vote for the nationalist / secessionist party does not always mean they back independence. Most likely, the Northern Irish legislature would ask Westminster for a referendum.

If secession was a cornerstone policy of that secessionist party that seems like a strange assumption to make. Can we make that assumption about the cornerstone policies of other parties? Why trust anyone at all?

Regardless, I can see your point. I still have a quibble or two over the differences between MEPs and Sinn Fein in terms of being part of two different spheres but I understand the broad comparison.

Sinn Fein do (theoretically) take part in Stormont. Which is half the reason Stormont is currently not functioning. The other half being the DUP.

Stormont is hardly a place of... elegant debate. Which is understandable, considering how it came about and the circumstances that it continues in.

ineptelephant:
If secession was a cornerstone policy of that secessionist party that seems like a strange assumption to make. Can we make that assumption about the cornerstone policies of other parties? Why trust anyone at all?

Regardless, I can see your point. I still have a quibble or two over the differences between MEPs and Sinn Fein in terms of being part of two different spheres but I understand the broad comparison.

Well, the example here would be the SNP. The Scots vote for the SNP more because they want better powers for Scotland, not because they actually want independence, as the referendum showed.

Catnip1024:
It isn't Stormont's decision then, Stormont goes asking for permission. It's Westminster's decision, much like it is in the case of Scotland.

Yes, it is Stormont's decision. Because Westminster isn't going to run a referendum unless someone asks it to. You're confusing the difference between making a decision and being empowered to make a decision.

Also bear in mind how much of a clusterfuck it would be to try and get a referendum out of Stormont, when they can't even agree on how to do regular stuff.

And that's going to last forever, is it?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here