Brexit mega thread part 12: David Cameron: Return of the King

[SerendipityJane]

(previous thread)

That's "king" as a suffix not a prefix. Also part of a phrase.

Not all member states held referenda on the Treaty of Maastricht

Including the Tory led UK - despite it being discussed/requested/suggested quite a bit. The SOP was "we don't need referendums when we have representative democracy".

Obviously when we moved away from representative democracy, we needed referendums.

Globe,
I know its busy in Moscow right now
but please get them to correct the errors in your algorithm

There is a trend to get LLMs to dissemble LLMs.

https://www.theregister.com/2024/02/17/ai_models_weaponized/

https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/brexit-european-id-card-tourism-b2514433.html

Better not order pints

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/mar/17/complex-post-brexit-tax-rules-means-price-rises-for-wine-drinkers-in-britain

I can make my own .. did for many years and still have the kit.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-19/brexit-s-lasting-economic-and-financial-damage-looks-inescapable

Brexit’s Lasting Damage Is Looking Inescapable

I find it interesting that internationally there isn't a single country that has anything good to say about Brexits effect on the UK. With the exception of the Australia and New Zealands who have made a killing.

Certainly the US appear to have filed it under "and we thought Vietnam was a cluster fuck" and are intending to learn from it.

https://www.irishnews.com/opinion/irelands-friends-in-america-are-right-planning-for-a-border-poll-has-to-avoid-the-mistakes-of-the-brexit-shambles-the-irish-news-view-OY3G3NU7QNF5BFJPK27W47VJ4E/

The 1993 Copenhagen entry to the EU criteria states that all citizens must be able to participate in the political decision making at every level. That there have been two referendums in the past, 1975 and 2016, also sets a precedent.

GlobeTrotter2000

We participate by General Elections and used to participate by elections to the EU Parliament, not that the Brexiters tended to believe that. With the exception of Farage and Co of course, who were MEPs.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ireland-stormont-northern-ireland-british-dup-b2515127.html

@Peregrina

You missed out referendums. An application to re-join without a referendum would be seen as an admission by the government it was not sure it's what people wanted.

As per the Miller law passed in 2017, the UK was not allowed to leave the EU without a vote by parliament on the deal. The same law will apply to a re-join and any proposed deal will have to be supported by a majority of MPs.

To save face, and avoid any admission that UK's departure was a disadvantage to the EU, the UK will be offered a deal that is substantially worse than that what UK had before. This will be used as an argument not to re-join. It would also serve Brussels purpose of discouraging other members from leaving.

Also, Article 49 requires all members to agree an application to join the EU. This will likely be the biggest hurdle as most members will want assurance they will be better off. For example, Spain may demand that Gibraltar is relinquished by the UK before agreeing to accept UK application.

This creates a conundrum for France and Germany in particular as it may seem like an admission that EU needed the UK. Weaker countries would not be bothered about France and Germany losing face as they are net takers and couldn't care less if it increased the amount they can take from the EU.

As per the Miller law passed in 2017, the UK was not allowed to leave the EU without a vote by parliament on the deal. The same law will apply to a re-join and any proposed deal will have to be supported by a majority of MPs.

Read your own words. A "vote by parliament". Not "a referendum"...

And why are you patiently explaining nonsense about the deal we'll get when everyone on this thread knows this better than you do? It's people like you that have caused this situation where we will inevitably get a worse deal than we had. And yet it will still be far, far better than things are at the moment.

@GlobeTrotter2000 still on 'they need us more than we need them'? 🤣🤣🤣

Also, Article 49 requires all members to agree an application to join the EU. This will likely be the biggest hurdle as most members will want assurance they will be better off. For example, Spain may demand that Gibraltar is relinquished by the UK before agreeing to accept UK application.

No, it's much more likely that they won't want the UK back unless the Brexiters are finally seen off. The UK had the best deal going, wasn't satisfied and threw its toys out of the pram. The EU won't want to re-admit the UK and find 20 years down the line that the same nonsense gets repeated.

The same law will apply to a re-join and any proposed deal will have to be supported by a majority of MPs.

A new Parliament can propose whatever laws it likes and repeal old ones. It goes without saying that a majority of MPs will need to vote for it to get it passed.

The UK had the best deal going, wasn't satisfied and threw its toys out of the pram.
Who has the best deal in the EU now? I heard Poland was growing rapidly and will overtake the UK as most wealthy by 2030 but when I looked at contributions, it said they took the most out of the EU and the UK paid second most (and still would if still in), so surely Poland has a better deal? Or am I misunderstanding how the EU works?
I am trying to understand our relationship with the EU and what Labour should do for the future ie deals.

I am trying to understand our relationship with the EU and what Labour should do for the future ie deals.

In the event of a 250_+ majority, I guess the answer is pretty much what they want ...

"We hold all the cards" latest...

I believe there has been a rubicon crossed now. The whole narrative of Brexit has been "subtly" (remember we are dealing with the thicker than mince here, and they think its subtle) reframing of the Brexit debate in a manner that Aesop would have found familiar. Any and all economic damages reported are bruched away with "well of course what you poor remainers failed to grasp was that it was never about money, or prosperity or the country doing well"

My working theory is they have chosen this approach because it worked so well for immigration.

When you are defending something by having to point out what it wasn't supposed to be, you are on a hiding to nothing.

I am also struggling to believe the pinpoint precision with which the Tories are bombing their own election chances are the result of chance alone. Astoundingly the paranoia of some may have some basis - they have been well and truly shafted. And it was as easy as stepping back and letting the Brexiteers run the shop for 4 years. Napoleon having provided the strategy. The irony of which history books in the 2200s will highlight for students.

@HannibalHeyes Read your own words. A "vote by parliament". Not "a referendum"...

Read the leaflet sent to all UK households which said the Government will implement what you decide.

I had a leaflet that said the government will make the country richer more equal and deal with climate change.

So your argument is that neither was worth a hill of beans.

Doesn't matter which direction you take round a circle, my sciurine friend. You always meet somewhere.

@HannibalHeyes And yet it will still be far, far better than things are at the moment.

How can you know that?

@Peregrina No, it's much more likely that they won't want the UK back unless the Brexiters are finally seen off.

So, the EU is going to withdraw Article 50? Not a very democratic union if the rule is:

Once you join the EU, you can never leave the EU.

@2016MyLove so surely Poland has a better deal? Or am I misunderstanding how the EU works?

Poland has the best deal by far. Link is:

https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18794.jpeg

@SerendipityJane I had a leaflet that said the government will make the country richer more equal and deal with climate change.

Was there a referendum on climate change?