RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:I did think that somehow they'd find way not to have the EU elections. What a fckin farce.... not that it wasn't already, but....

I'm not really sure why people are so annoyed or pretending to be annoyed. What's the problem with saying whilst we're negotiating our departure the UK is a country that upholds its legal commitments (other than perhaps the Good Friday Agreement?)?

We should have been cross at the idea we'd try to subvert the law as it was politically expedient

The point is pretty clear tbh.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:I did think that somehow they'd find way not to have the EU elections. What a fckin farce.... not that it wasn't already, but....

I'm not really sure why people are so annoyed or pretending to be annoyed. What's the problem with saying whilst we're negotiating our departure the UK is a country that upholds its legal commitments (other than perhaps the Good Friday Agreement?)?

We should have been cross at the idea we'd try to subvert the law as it was politically expedient

The point is pretty clear tbh.

We're all in a rush in the age of Donald to say bollocks to commitments and due process, and rather than worry people it's seen as a good thing

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
I'm not really sure why people are so annoyed or pretending to be annoyed. What's the problem with saying whilst we're negotiating our departure the UK is a country that upholds its legal commitments (other than perhaps the Good Friday Agreement?)?

We should have been cross at the idea we'd try to subvert the law as it was politically expedient

The point is pretty clear tbh.

We're all in a rush in the age of Donald to say bollocks to commitments and due process, and rather than worry people it's seen as a good thing

I think the major issue is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place and it's risible that we're electing officials for what may be a 4 month period. It's not the honouring our international obligations bit that's the issue, but the bit where we've fucked everything up so badly that we have to.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: The point is pretty clear tbh.

We're all in a rush in the age of Donald to say bollocks to commitments and due process, and rather than worry people it's seen as a good thing

I think the major issue is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place and it's risible that we're electing officials for what may be a 4 month period. It's not the honouring our international obligations bit that's the issue, but the bit where we've fucked everything up so badly that we have to.

Puja

I'd agree the idea we'd ever have been done in this time frame was lunacy, but now we're here it's thusly not a surprise and I'd prefer we honour our obligations

Though I do also think the European Parliament a waste of time and money, I'd have no issue with elected national governments simply submitting representatives or perhaps national parliaments on a proportional basis

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: The point is pretty clear tbh.

We're all in a rush in the age of Donald to say bollocks to commitments and due process, and rather than worry people it's seen as a good thing

I think the major issue is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place and it's risible that we're electing officials for what may be a 4 month period. It's not the honouring our international obligations bit that's the issue, but the bit where we've fucked everything up so badly that we have to.

Puja

well quite, I thought even a Diggers high on snowballs would have gotten that.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
We're all in a rush in the age of Donald to say bollocks to commitments and due process, and rather than worry people it's seen as a good thing

I think the major issue is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place and it's risible that we're electing officials for what may be a 4 month period. It's not the honouring our international obligations bit that's the issue, but the bit where we've fucked everything up so badly that we have to.

Puja

I'd agree the idea we'd ever have been done in this time frame was lunacy, but now we're here it's thusly not a surprise and I'd prefer we honour our obligations

Though I do also think the European Parliament a waste of time and money, I'd have no issue with elected national governments simply submitting representatives or perhaps national parliaments on a proportional basis

Oh God no.

That would be terrible. Remember not every country has an actually functioning (or used to be functioning) government. The Romanians would just be even more corrupt than now, and that's before you get to the fascists in government elsewhere.

However, if the EU wants an elected parliament, that has to be where the power resides. With the closed doors Commission running the show, it's a farce.

Stom wrote:However, if the EU wants an elected parliament, that has to be where the power resides. With the closed doors Commission running the show, it's a farce.

Yeah - about that.

You know that European election thing that everybody's been talking about? You'll never guess what it's for!

To my understanding, there's a European Parliament, which is elected by PR (and MORE democratic than, for example, our parliament).
Then there's the European Council - made up of the elected leaders of the individual countries - and hence democratic (and a damned site more so than, for example, the House of Lords).
And of course, there's the Comission - which is the civil service; no more or less democratic than anyone else's civil service. It MAY hold too much power; but it really doesn't "run the show" any more than anyone else's civil service. It enacts the decisions made by the elected representatives.

The decision making is held by the 2 democratic institutions.

The EU is MORE democratic than, for example, the UK - claims otherwise are what's known in the trade, as "lies"

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:However, if the EU wants an elected parliament, that has to be where the power resides. With the closed doors Commission running the show, it's a farce.

Yeah - about that.

You know that European election thing that everybody's been talking about? You'll never guess what it's for!

To my understanding, there's a European Parliament, which is elected by PR (and MORE democratic than, for example, our parliament).
Then there's the European Council - made up of the elected leaders of the individual countries - and hence democratic (and a damned site more so than, for example, the House of Lords).
And of course, there's the Comission - which is the civil service; no more or less democratic than anyone else's civil service. It MAY hold too much power; but it really doesn't "run the show" any more than anyone else's civil service. It enacts the decisions made by the elected representatives.

The decision making is held by the 2 democratic institutions.

The EU is MORE democratic than, for example, the UK - claims otherwise are what's known in the trade, as "lies"

Sorry, I got confused between the comm. and council. And I don't think the council is democratic. If it doesn't want to make meetings open, or allow anyone access to minutes, including it's own MEPs, then I think we can say there's something not quite right there.

But I'm not anti-EU. I think it has some wonderful concepts and things, it's just that it's seriously laden down with bureaucracy. Making it a bit of a pain to get anything done, or any case to get seen quick enough.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:However, if the EU wants an elected parliament, that has to be where the power resides. With the closed doors Commission running the show, it's a farce.

Yeah - about that.

You know that European election thing that everybody's been talking about? You'll never guess what it's for!

To my understanding, there's a European Parliament, which is elected by PR (and MORE democratic than, for example, our parliament).
Then there's the European Council - made up of the elected leaders of the individual countries - and hence democratic (and a damned site more so than, for example, the House of Lords).
And of course, there's the Comission - which is the civil service; no more or less democratic than anyone else's civil service. It MAY hold too much power; but it really doesn't "run the show" any more than anyone else's civil service. It enacts the decisions made by the elected representatives.

The decision making is held by the 2 democratic institutions.

The EU is MORE democratic than, for example, the UK - claims otherwise are what's known in the trade, as "lies"

Sorry, I got confused between the comm. and council. And I don't think the council is democratic. If it doesn't want to make meetings open, or allow anyone access to minutes, including it's own MEPs, then I think we can say there's something not quite right there.

But I'm not anti-EU. I think it has some wonderful concepts and things, it's just that it's seriously laden down with bureaucracy. Making it a bit of a pain to get anything done, or any case to get seen quick enough.

Yep. It’s incredibly bureaucratic and opaque, which is big stick to beat it with and one that could easily be removed from its detractors.

Also, the Commission isn’t like the civil service as it instigates policy, leads on trade deal negotiations, implements EU wide policies, drafts the EU budget etc. It’s actually pretty much what Diggers wants. A senior body that has representatives from each member country and a leader - Jean-Claude Drunker - elected by the leaders of the member countries. It’s a bit like having the Lords as the senior House in the UK with a few extra civil service powers thrown in. In essence it’s a political civil service that is more powerful than the more democratic bodies, which is everything you are meant to avoid. The EU works in a way where the less democratic/representative the body the more power it holds. Power is slowly moving towards the parliament but it is still essentially a rubber stamping body.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
We're all in a rush in the age of Donald to say bollocks to commitments and due process, and rather than worry people it's seen as a good thing

I think the major issue is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place and it's risible that we're electing officials for what may be a 4 month period. It's not the honouring our international obligations bit that's the issue, but the bit where we've fucked everything up so badly that we have to.

Puja

well quite, I thought even a Diggers high on snowballs would have gotten that.

It still should have been obvious from the outset we'd be in this position, getting upset about the obvious coming to pass is weird

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think the major issue is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place and it's risible that we're electing officials for what may be a 4 month period. It's not the honouring our international obligations bit that's the issue, but the bit where we've fucked everything up so badly that we have to.

Puja

I'd agree the idea we'd ever have been done in this time frame was lunacy, but now we're here it's thusly not a surprise and I'd prefer we honour our obligations

Though I do also think the European Parliament a waste of time and money, I'd have no issue with elected national governments simply submitting representatives or perhaps national parliaments on a proportional basis

Oh God no.

That would be terrible. Remember not every country has an actually functioning (or used to be functioning) government. The Romanians would just be even more corrupt than now, and that's before you get to the fascists in government elsewhere.

However, if the EU wants an elected parliament, that has to be where the power resides. With the closed doors Commission running the show, it's a farce.

For votes to have a legitimacy I'm basically looking for 70% voter turnout, ideally higher. EU parliamentary elections woefully fail such target. So pretending they have a democratically elected parliament seems to me a farce and we could simply skip the requirement tying the whole into national elections

Okay there's corruption, but I'm not sold smaller voter turnouts that promote the interests of the more rabid sections of society do anything to address that anyway

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
I think the major issue is that we should never have been in this situation in the first place and it's risible that we're electing officials for what may be a 4 month period. It's not the honouring our international obligations bit that's the issue, but the bit where we've fucked everything up so badly that we have to.

Puja

well quite, I thought even a Diggers high on snowballs would have gotten that.

It still should have been obvious from the outset we'd be in this position, getting upset about the obvious coming to pass is weird

The outset being the leave vote? Or the triggering of A50? Granted it's arguable that this degree of cockup was obvious even from that far out, but the original plans were to avoid this.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: well quite, I thought even a Diggers high on snowballs would have gotten that.

It still should have been obvious from the outset we'd be in this position, getting upset about the obvious coming to pass is weird

The outset being the leave vote? Or the triggering of A50? Granted it's arguable that this degree of cockup was obvious even from that far out, but the original plans were to avoid this.

Puja

again, quite.

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
It still should have been obvious from the outset we'd be in this position, getting upset about the obvious coming to pass is weird

The outset being the leave vote? Or the triggering of A50? Granted it's arguable that this degree of cockup was obvious even from that far out, but the original plans were to avoid this.

Puja

again, quite.

From the vote this looked unavoidable, either we'd have delayed A50 and secured some pre negotiations delaying us past this point or the negotiations would continue past this point unless we bizarrely conceded on everything point the EU raised

So being surprised now is surprising

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Puja wrote:
The outset being the leave vote? Or the triggering of A50? Granted it's arguable that this degree of cockup was obvious even from that far out, but the original plans were to avoid this.

Puja

again, quite.

From the vote this looked unavoidable, either we'd have delayed A50 and secured some pre negotiations delaying us past this point or the negotiations would continue past this point unless we bizarrely conceded on everything point the EU raised

So being surprised now is surprising

ah the gift of 20/20 hindsight. Or the prescience to predict events including May calling a snap election, in which she managed to miss an open goal. I'm assuming you put a huge bet on there being EU elections, as the odds must have been tremendous.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: again, quite.

From the vote this looked unavoidable, either we'd have delayed A50 and secured some pre negotiations delaying us past this point or the negotiations would continue past this point unless we bizarrely conceded on everything point the EU raised

So being surprised now is surprising

ah the gift of 20/20 hindsight. Or the prescience to predict events including May calling a snap election, in which she managed to miss an open goal. I'm assuming you put a huge bet on there being EU elections, as the odds must have been tremendous.

Be nice. It's not like a lot of people weren't saying the time frame is unrealistic ahead of time. If we knew what Brexit meant, other than Brexit, then maybe it'd have been possible to sort the WA, but maybe other problems than the Irish border would have resulted

Even if you'd thought it deliverable there had to be the strong possibility you'd be wrong

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
From the vote this looked unavoidable, either we'd have delayed A50 and secured some pre negotiations delaying us past this point or the negotiations would continue past this point unless we bizarrely conceded on everything point the EU raised

So being surprised now is surprising

ah the gift of 20/20 hindsight. Or the prescience to predict events including May calling a snap election, in which she managed to miss an open goal. I'm assuming you put a huge bet on there being EU elections, as the odds must have been tremendous.

Be nice. It's not like a lot of people weren't saying the time frame is unrealistic ahead of time. If we knew what Brexit meant, other than Brexit, then maybe it'd have been possible to sort the WA, but maybe other problems than the Irish border would have resulted

Even if you'd thought it deliverable there had to be the strong possibility you'd be wrong

I must have missed all those sooth sayers three years ago.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote: ah the gift of 20/20 hindsight. Or the prescience to predict events including May calling a snap election, in which she managed to miss an open goal. I'm assuming you put a huge bet on there being EU elections, as the odds must have been tremendous.

Be nice. It's not like a lot of people weren't saying the time frame is unrealistic ahead of time. If we knew what Brexit meant, other than Brexit, then maybe it'd have been possible to sort the WA, but maybe other problems than the Irish border would have resulted

Even if you'd thought it deliverable there had to be the strong possibility you'd be wrong

I must have missed all those sooth sayers three years ago.

I don’t know how, they basically rolled out the people who wrote A50 saying the conclusion on doing so was nobody would be stupid enough to initiate such a short countdown to leaving

And you seem like the sort to listen to Radio 4

Then the EU really should’ve allowed the UK’s requests for preliminary negotiations to start prior to A50 being triggered and should’ve allowed concurrent negotiations rather than demanding they be staggered.

Mellsblue wrote:Then the EU really should’ve allowed the UK’s requests for preliminary negotiations to start prior to A50 being triggered and should’ve allowed concurrent negotiations rather than demanding they be staggered.

I'm sure they would on pre A50 negotiations, concurrent would have been a bigger issue , but on this we folded far too quickly to pander to some absurdist notion we were getting on with delivering it.

But political problems were bound to delay such an enormous venture into foreign affairs. And quite frankly that we had no idea what we wanted is a much bigger problem, actually it still is, we've got Labour, Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party all being pro leave, and never mind agreeing with each other what Brexit means they don't bar the Brexit Party even agree with themselves what it means, and the Brexit Party is one drunken lunatic who doesn’t think having any actual policies to put before the electorate is valid

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Then the EU really should’ve allowed the UK’s requests for preliminary negotiations to start prior to A50 being triggered and should’ve allowed concurrent negotiations rather than demanding they be staggered.

I'm sure they would on pre A50 negotiations, concurrent would have been a bigger issue , but on this we folded far too quickly to pander to some absurdist notion we were getting on with delivering it.

But political problems were bound to delay such an enormous venture into foreign affairs. And quite frankly that we had no idea what we wanted is a much bigger problem, actually it still is, we've got Labour, Conservatives, UKIP and Brexit Party all being pro leave, and never mind agreeing with each other what Brexit means they don't bar the Brexit Party even agree with themselves what it means, and the Brexit Party is one drunken lunatic who doesn’t think having any actual policies to put before the electorate is valid

The EU categorically ruled out any negotiations prior to triggering A50 and refused to start negotiations until we agreed to the timetable. I don’t blame them, other than the fact it’s hardly the act of an ally to condemn talks to almost certain failure from the very outset.

I agree that there is no consensus to what different factions want. Though, how that sits with your belief that May should sort consensus prior to triggering A50 I don’t know.

Digby wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:
Be nice. It's not like a lot of people weren't saying the time frame is unrealistic ahead of time. If we knew what Brexit meant, other than Brexit, then maybe it'd have been possible to sort the WA, but maybe other problems than the Irish border would have resulted

Even if you'd thought it deliverable there had to be the strong possibility you'd be wrong

I must have missed all those sooth sayers three years ago.

I don’t know how, they basically rolled out the people who wrote A50 saying the conclusion on doing so was nobody would be stupid enough to initiate such a short countdown to leaving

And you seem like the sort to listen to Radio 4

Really? Was that immediately after the vote, when you claim it was obvious that we'd be having EU elections despite voting to leave.

And if that's meant to be some sort of insult, so be it. But I don't.

anyone see the Beeb documentary on Brexit from the EU point of view? I thought it was a spoof at first, like the Thick of It. But no, people really do behave like that. Everyone came out of it as an utter tosspot.

Banquo wrote:anyone see the Beeb documentary on Brexit from the EU point of view? I thought it was a spoof at first, like the Thick of It. But no, people really do behave like that. Everyone came out of it as an utter tosspot.

Can’t bring myself to watch it. The “we have our first colony” quote will have Brexit Party HQ smiling from ear to ear.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:anyone see the Beeb documentary on Brexit from the EU point of view? I thought it was a spoof at first, like the Thick of It. But no, people really do behave like that. Everyone came out of it as an utter tosspot.

Can’t bring myself to watch it. The “we have our first colony” quote will have Brexit Party HQ smiling from ear to ear.

That's the problem, it just confirms anti EU bias. They are just as big a set of tossers as our mob, just better organised and with a strategy.