Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Famine]

So, basically, Mr. Johnson has told both his government and the EU to go 🤬 themselves,...and one of the people in charge of making sure the PM doesn't break the law failed to do so? Maybe this is me being...an American, but that's kinda hilarious, in a really sad way.

Not quite, no.

Boris told Parliament that he would not negotiate an extension with the EU, not that he would not write the letter he was legally required to write. He has indeed sent the letter he was legally required to send, to the barest minimum possible legal standard, along with a letter explaining that this letter was sent as a legal requirement, and a third, personal, letter stating his own position that an extension is neither required not desired.

He has met his legal obligations, while maintaining his position that it's this or an October 31st no deal.

Can you be kicked out of the EU if your politicians don't agree on anything and current extension is over?

Yes. Although the UK Parliament has voted against it (and everything else), the default position is that at 23.59 on October 31, the UK will cease to be a member of the European Union.

We could have a referendum on the final deal however. Seems that is what Labour are going to push for.

Without an extension that will be logistically impossible, and the referendum question - and result - can only be whether to accept this version of the Withdrawal Agreement or not. "Not" would mean leaving with no deal.

 

[cirno2duo]

I am ashamed to live in this country at this point, lol. True democracy doesn't and will never exist - the UK are probably one of the worst in Western world (by this I mean Western/parts of Central Europe and North America) for covering things up and deliberately delaying things due to the lack of organisation or seriousness taken whatsoever. All while pretending to be under a democratic system.

Even Trump at least does something, even if it's stupid, and I dislike him, but he's still less of a clown than the entire UK's employed politicians.

If politics weren't simply a pack of lies and coverups all the time to benefit only the people who are highest up the ladder and nobody else (scrapping the class system or something is not what I want btw), maybe there would be less complaining.

 

[yas]

When they make the film of this

Good, it can challenge Guiding Light for number of episodes.

 

[Famine]

I am ashamed to live in this country at this point, lol.

The "lol" there truly cementing the earnestness of the statement.

True democracy doesn't and will never exist - the UK are probably one of the worst in Western world (by this I mean Western/parts of Central Europe and North America) for covering things up and deliberately delaying things due to the lack of organisation or seriousness taken whatsoever. All while pretending to be under a democratic system.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I am ashamed to live in this country at this point, lol. True democracy doesn't and will never exist - the UK are probably one of the worst in Western world (by this I mean Western/parts of Central Europe and North America) for covering things up and deliberately delaying things due to the lack of organisation or seriousness taken whatsoever. All while pretending to be under a democratic system.

Even Trump at least does something, even if it's stupid, and I dislike him, but he's still less of a clown than the entire UK's employed politicians.

If politics weren't simply a pack of lies and coverups all the time to benefit only the people who are highest up the ladder and nobody else (scrapping the class system or something is not what I want btw), maybe there would be less complaining.

Our democratic system is comparable to a number of countries around.

Whilst this does need changing you can't lay the blame entirely at politicians feet. Traditional media and social media spread lies more effecticley than any politician does, and they are the ones that make the big money, that's where the greed propogates the lies.

 

[nostradavor2]

What's wrong with Italy?

 

[NotThePrez]

What's wrong with Italy?

Based on some very quick google-fu, Italy is known for having a very unstable political construct, sometimes being described as a "flawed democracy." Italy's government is known for being fairly fragmented ideologically, somewhat similar to the political structure in the U.S., and similar to what's currently taking place in the U.K.

Apparently Italy has had its government re-organized 66 times since WWII, as of the writing of this article from 2018.

Also, Italy's government did indeed collapse late last August, primarily for economic reasons. The Prime Minister offered his resignation to the President of Italy. Instead, the President got talks going between Italy's two major parties, and both sides came to an agreement, forming Italy's 66th cabinet,...and the PM kept his job...?

I'm probably missing some key details, but the TL;DR seems to be that Italy (and to a certain extent the UK currently) look at political stability and do their best J Jonah Jamenson impressions.

 

[nostradavor2]

Thanks for clearing it up.
I though its just going to be just one or two posts about "bad" M. Salvini.
He presented good ideas but he's full of **** to and does what is best for him.. Won everything by claiming far right while I'm not very sure he is (he was part of leftist parties in the past). Thanks for normal post again.
I also think Bolsonaro and Trump are actually controlled opposition (well currently not opposition but you dig what im saying).

 

[MatskiMonk]

Good, it can challenge Guiding Light for number of episodes.

I was thinking something more like a 'Never Ending Story' reboot, set not in Fantasia, but in Westminster. David Cameron hides in a book store after being chased by Euroskeptics from his own party, whilst there he finds a book entitled Brexit: The Never Ending Story... and from then on, the nation is sucked into a dimension where the 'Nothing' is taking over parliament.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I was thinking something more like a 'Never Ending Story' reboot, set not in Fantasia, but in Westminster. David Cameron hides in a book store after being chased by Euroskeptics from his own party, whilst there he finds a book entitled Brexit: The Never Ending Story... and from then on, the nation is sucked into a dimension where the 'Nothing' is taking over parliament.

Don't suppose you could nip in there and ask him if he thought it was a good idea to offer a referendum on the EU as a sop to the loony right of his party when he didn't think he was going to win the election?

 

[Famine]

I'm probably missing some key details, but the TL;DR seems to be that Italy (and to a certain extent the UK currently) look at political stability and do their best J Jonah Jamenson impressions.

Very few "Western" nations can hold a candle to Italy. I mean, it even has its own Wikipedia article on corruption, which somewhat outlines the fact that there is a pretty severe problem (the UK does not). And just check out the "Legal Problems" and "Controversies" sections of Silvio Berlusconi's own Wikipedia page.

Just for reference, in 1998 the USA tried to remove its President from power because he got a handie from an intern. Berlusconi was holding sex parties with prostitutes. In fact in 2010 Berlusconi was actually boning at least one underage hooker and, despite being initially found guilty, he was acquitted on appeal of both using his position to cover it up and - despite the court acknowledging he'd boned her and she was an underage hooker - having sex with a child prostitute on the basis that having sex with a child aged 14-17 isn't illegal in Italy, nor is prostitution. As he denied paying her and she denied being in receipt of payment for sex (despite the case having started with her being arrested on suspicion of stealing several thousand Euros, and Berlusconi literally lying to police about her identity within hours, while in another country, to have her released), the appeal court decided that "the fact is not a crime".


And that's without even touching on Camorra...


I should also have put the EU's flag in there, because... well, this:

The European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker's best buddy, lawyer friend and previously chief enforcer (Head of Cabinet to the President of the Commission) Martin Selmayr has suddenly been promoted to the highest civil service position in the Commission - secretary-general - despite not being able to get the position by appointment due to not having served the required time in sufficiently senior roles.

How? Well, his experience meant that he was able to secure appointment to the role of deputy secretary-general, which became vacant in January. His appointment was confirmed at a meeting on February 21st.

The next order of business at that meeting was the resignation of the standing secretary-general, Alexander Italianer. In order to prevent a gap at the top of the civil service tree, Juncker then promoted the deputy secretary-general to the position of secretary general... which was his buddy Martin Selmayr who had just been appointed DSG five minutes previously.

Head of European Central Bank (ECB) is part of a "secretive" group of bankers and financiers called "The Group of Thirty". There's actually 33 of them, which tells you something about how Europe does its sums (if Italy and Greece didn't), and to be honest, they're not that secretive.

The European Ombudsman* says that this looks a bit bad, the head of the ECB being part of an influential group of bankers which tries to create, steer and lobby for financial policy, and says he should resign. In fact it said ""The ECB president's membership of the G30 could give rise to a public perception that the independence of the ECB could be compromised", you know, what with the ECB supposedly operating in oversight over the bankers who are also in G30.

He says no.

The Ombudsman says no, really, quit.

The European Parliament votes to say he can stay in G30, by 500:115, while it "notes" the Ombudsman's "opinion"...

The European Parliament investigated the appointment of Selmayr and found that the "two-step nomination of the Secretary-General could be viewed as a coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law". The European Ombudsman then opened an investigation, as several MEPs had also made complaints. She found the appointment to be "maladministration", citing:
1. The Commission held a selection procedure for Deputy Secretary-General not for the purpose of filling that role, but for the sole purpose of ensuring that Mr Selmayr would become eligible for reassignment as Secretary-General.
2. By keeping the retirement of Mr Italianer secret until the last moment, a situation of artificial urgency was created that facilitated the appointment of Mr Selmayr as Secretary-General. Yet despite the appearance of urgency, nothing would have prevented the Commission from launching a procedure to identify and evaluate candidates for Secretary-General before Mr Italianer’s retirement in late March.
3. A risk of a conflict of interest arose regarding the involvement of Mr Selmayr (and/or his subordinates in the President’s Cabinet) in the decision-making leading to the creation of the Deputy Secretary-General vacancy and the approval of the vacancy notice for that position (a vacancy for which it was highly likely that Mr Selmayr knew he would apply, and later did so).
4. The committee of senior officials which interviewed Mr Selmayr for the Deputy Secretary-General post was not constituted in accordance with the applicable rules.
She also recommended a specific procedure for appointing a Secretary-General. The Commission met to discuss it in September, apparently came up with nothing and then told the Ombudsman that there was nothing illegal about what it did so there.

The Parliament then created another resolution in December to say it "emphasises that Mr Selmayr must resign as Secretary-General and calls on the Commission to adopt a new procedure for appointing its Secretary-General, ensuring that the highest standards of transparency, ethics and the rule of law are upheld.". The Ombudsman published her findings today, which reconfirms the fact that the appointment was bent, bent, illegal (she changed her mind from "a risk of a conflict of interest arose" to "a conflict of interest arose", which she notes is against the EC's own rules) and bent.

Is Martin Selmayr still in his post? Of course he is.

 

[Liquid]

And that's without even touching on Camorra...

Or Giulio Andreotti.

 

[Daz555]

Hope there is no extension so your politicians have to make up their mind, either take the deal or no deal brexit. It's really pathetic at this point. Can you be kicked out of the EU if your politicians don't agree on anything and current extension is over?

you can't repeat referendums until it yield result you want.

I really get where you are coming from but not sure it would really be a repeat referendum though. It would be an entirely new question for the public to answer.

I would say though that IF there a confirmatory referendum we are only asked to vote on a deal that Parliament has already agreed to and moved forward with the required legislation to make the referendum result binding. This is in effect how it was done when we joined the EEC. Parliament agreed we would, and how we would, and then asked the people if they agreed or not.

If we'd done that in 2016 we would not have had the last 3.5yrs of a ******** to suffer through.

 

[Dotini]

IMVHO, the UK's problem is too much democracy.

It was way too democratic for you to have a referendum. You had a 52% yes vote, which because of the crushing landslide MoV, will always remain the putrid elephant in the room - until it's either hauled away or you learn to live with it. In the US with our two-party system, binary choices are much easier. With all your fractious undisciplined parties, mustering a majority can be too big a challenge. So now you are left steeping in masochism. I earnestly recommend you try to kill the elephant with another referendum, fight fire with fire and not a colander of wet noodles. Trouble is, what if the results are the same or even worse?

 

[BobK]

Just for reference, in 1998 the USA tried to remove its President from power because he got a handie from an intern.

Actually it was for lying under oath about it, but okay.

 

[Milouse]

I am ashamed to live in this country at this point, lol. True democracy doesn't and will never exist - the UK are probably one of the worst in Western world (by this I mean Western/parts of Central Europe and North America) for covering things up and deliberately delaying things due to the lack of organisation or seriousness taken whatsoever. All while pretending to be under a democratic system.

That's because UK is very democratic, with a strong Parliament, that this situation can't be sorted out. Too many opposing forces at work. Authoritarian regimes doesn't have this kind of "problem". And since the PMs have been elected after the (flawed) Brexit referendum, it can hardly be more democratic.

Even Trump at least does something, even if it's stupid, and I dislike him, but he's still less of a clown than the entire UK's employed politicians.

This message has not been approved by Kurds.

If politics weren't simply a pack of lies and coverups all the time to benefit only the people who are highest up the ladder and nobody else (scrapping the class system or something is not what I want btw), maybe there would be less complaining.

I don't see who you're talking about.

"Is Martin Selmayr still in his post? Of course he is."

Regarding this February quote, it is worth mentioning that Selmayr has been demoted from his Secretary-General of the European Commission position this summer and will be replaced by Ilze Juhansone in the following weeks. Maybe slow, but not so rotten European institutions.

 

[Tired Tyres]

IMVHO, the UK's problem is too much democracy.

It was way too democratic for you to have a referendum. You had a 52% yes vote, which because of the crushing landslide MoV, will always remain the putrid elephant in the room - until it's either hauled away or you learn to live with it. In the US with our two-party system, binary choices are much easier. With all your fractious undisciplined parties, mustering a majority can be too big a challenge. So now you are left steeping in masochism. I earnestly recommend you try to kill the elephant with another referendum, fight fire with fire and not a colander of wet noodles. Trouble is, what if the results are the same or even worse?

But you have a binary choice and the person with the most votes isn't sat in the Whitehouse....

Another referendum? 1 to 4 percent in favour of remain with a lower turn out. Interesting times.

 

[Famine]

Actually it was for lying under oath about it, but okay.

Can I just check how that moves Clinton's offence on the scale compared to actually having sex with a child prostitute? Is Berlusconi still worse, at least?

Regarding this February quote, it is worth mentioning that Selmayr has been demoted from his Secretary-General of the European Commission position this summer and will be replaced by Ilze Juhansone in the following weeks. Maybe slow, but not so rotten European institutions.

Indeed, but it's still a case of a man being handed a job, by subterfuge, for which he was not qualified by virtue of being a close colleague of someone in power and then, despite being found to be "a coup-like action" by both the Parliament and the Ombudsman (the person who represents the interests of the public), refusing any overtures to stand down and staying in post for 18 months.

And then there's still the guy in charge of the ECB that regulates the bankers in the G30 which tries to influence banking policy... of which he is a member.

The UK can't hope to reach that level of corruption. Well, reach but not maintain, given that Blair gave every government contract he could to his mates, and Brown deliberately set about a fire-sale of our gold to prop up his mates in a failing foreign bank.

 

[Tired Tyres]

BBC News - Brexit deal vote ruled out by Speaker John Bercow
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50128740

 

[TenEightyOne]

BBC News - Brexit deal vote ruled out by Speaker John Bercow
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50128740

He's taking some heat but it's the right decision. The motion was debated in the extra-ordinary session on Saturday and can't be presented in the same sitting of Parliament. The fact that the PM withdrew the motion after debate but before a vote is irrelevant. That's the first real wrong-foot from the current PM and his cronies, unless you count picking Boris Johnson as the figurehead.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Very few "Western" nations can hold a candle to Italy. I mean, it even has its own Wikipedia article on corruption, which somewhat outlines the fact that there is a pretty severe problem (the UK does not). And just check out the "Legal Problems" and "Controversies" sections of Silvio Berlusconi's own Wikipedia page.

Just for reference, in 1998 the USA tried to remove its President from power because he got a handie from an intern. Berlusconi was holding sex parties with prostitutes. In fact in 2010 Berlusconi was actually boning at least one underage hooker and, despite being initially found guilty, he was acquitted on appeal of both using his position to cover it up and - despite the court acknowledging he'd boned her and she was an underage hooker - having sex with a child prostitute on the basis that having sex with a child aged 14-17 isn't illegal in Italy, nor is prostitution. As he denied paying her and she denied being in receipt of payment for sex (despite the case having started with her being arrested on suspicion of stealing several thousand Euros, and Berlusconi literally lying to police about her identity within hours, while in another country, to have her released), the appeal court decided that "the fact is not a crime".


And that's without even touching on Camorra...


I should also have put the EU's flag in there, because... well, this:

I used to work at an office with an Italian and a Mexican. One time they got into an argument about which country was more corrupt, each championing their own native homeland as worse. Eventually they agreed that Mexico was more corrupt, but that they learned everything they knew from Italy.

 

[MatskiMonk]

This really is all getting terribly silly now.

2nd referendum, binding;

No Deal Exit; it's what satisfies the Leave vote most accurately.

Revoke A50; it's what satisfies the Remain vote most accurately.

Any other option is just posturing.

 

[Touring Mars]

It frankly beggars belief that the process is so shambolic - I still cannot understand how the EU and UK can possibly agree a deal when the whole thing is basically being done in the wrong order.

The UK Parliament now has to vote on the Withdrawal Bill, but can change it in any way it sees fit... but the EU have already approved the deal and will (in all likelihood) refuse to accept any further changes - it doesn't take a genius to figure out where this is going to lead.

 

[Famine]

This really is all getting terribly silly now.

2nd referendum, binding

The issue I have with the notion of a second referendum is that the results of the first haven't been enacted yet.

People keep bringing up the notion of voting over and over again - MPs voting on bills, general elections, whatever - citing that no vote is ever permanent and people might have changed their mind... but we always actually put the result into action before there's any other votes. We don't vote for a new government after five years without having had the one we voted for in-between.

The original referendum wasn't legally binding until it was - it was an advisory referendum that everyone promised would happen no matter the result, and then the result was put into law. We haven't actually implemented the result - which is to leave the European Union - yet, so a second referendum would be inappropriate unless it's on how we leave.

 

[Pupik]

So who will take up the EU spot left by Great Britain: Swedish House Mafia or Swizz Beatz?

Asking for a Donald Trump, so use small words and all-caps.

 

[PocketZeven]

Hope there is no extension so your politicians have to make up their mind, either take the deal or no deal brexit. It's really pathetic at this point. Can you be kicked out of the EU if your politicians don't agree on anything and current extension is over?



you can't repeat referendums until it yield result you want.

The result would probably be the same with a second, third and fourth referendum. Many were misinformed by the Pro-brexit movement (like Johnson).

Maybe a referendum on a second referendum.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The issue I have with the notion of a second referendum is that the results of the first haven't been enacted yet

The first referendum was not in a position to be actioned of itself and nor would a second be - the first generated a legal bill (not voted on by the public but by the House) that has yet to be enacted due to the inability of the House to agree the further pathways, legislations and amendments. The first referendum provided a mandate for action by a very narrow margin, but on what terms? The Leave process and outcomes that were promised are not being delivered. The post-Leave situation that is being presented now isn't the one that was offered to Leave voters, and arguably the actual outcome of the referendum is in doubt thanks to the illegal activities that appear to have taken place on both sides of the debate.

I don't see an issue with returning to the country three years later for a new mandate that's far more thoroughly and accurately informed than it was during the campaigning of 2015 and 2016. Again, it won't be a binding mandate and will require legislation in the House to make it so, but that part of the situation doesn't really change - it just clarifies the job of the constituency representatives.

 

[Touring Mars]

The issue I have with the notion of a second referendum is that the results of the first haven't been enacted yet.

People keep bringing up the notion of voting over and over again - MPs voting on bills, general elections, whatever - citing that no vote is ever permanent and people might have changed their mind... but we always actually put the result into action before there's any other votes. We don't vote for a new government after five years without having had the one we voted for in-between.

The original referendum wasn't legally binding until it was - it was an advisory referendum that everyone promised would happen no matter the result, and then the result was put into law. We haven't actually implemented the result - which is to leave the European Union - yet, so a second referendum would be inappropriate unless it's on how we leave.

I could see a 'People's Vote' happening, but if there is to be a second public vote, the only fair way to do it would be to ask the British people if they approve of the deal or not, followed by a second vote on what to do if the answer is no.

The first vote would be on the deal itself. If the vote is yes, then MPs should be compelled to approve the deal. If the vote is no, however, it should then go to another vote on whether to revoke Article 50. If that vote is yes, then we stay in the EU. But if that vote is no, then we leave with no deal.

 

[PocketZeven]

The first referendum was not in a position to be actioned of itself and nor would a second be - the first generated a legal bill (not voted on by the public but by the House) that has yet to be enacted due to the inability of the House to agree the further pathways, legislations and amendments. The first referendum provided a mandate for action by a very narrow margin, but on what terms? The Leave process and outcomes that were promised are not being delivered. The post-Leave situation that is being presented now isn't the one that was offered to Leave voters, and arguably the actual outcome of the referendum is in doubt thanks to the illegal activities that appear to have taken place on both sides of the debate.

I don't see an issue with returning to the country three years later for a new mandate that's far more thoroughly and accurately informed than it was during the campaigning of 2015 and 2016. Again, it won't be a binding mandate and will require legislation in the House to make it so, but that part of the situation doesn't really change - it just clarifies the job of the constituency representatives.

The one important thing people have learned from the Brexit Vote, is that it is a good example of how binding referendums are a bad idea.

 

[TenEightyOne]

The one important thing people have learned from the Brexit Vote, is that it is a good example of how binding referendums are a bad idea.

I haven't learnt that and I'm not sure a lot of other people see it that way either. It's too easy to extend that thinking to local or General elections, for example, and that's a mainstay of any semblance of democratic process.