4 ms·

What realistic concessions could the EU offer? No possible offer could get through the current UK parliament while we're so dysfunctional.

makomk 7y ago
Realistically, I don't think the EU is going to offer any concessions that would solve the problems that parliament has with it, but that doesn't mean the problems aren't real. In particular, the current offer trashes the part of the Good Friday Agreement which the government's current coalition partner cares about by eroding Northern Ireland's status as part of the UK, and the backstop tramples on the constitutional requirement that no parliament may bind its successor by tying us to the EU until they permit us to leave. The EU seems to think that the Good Friday Agreement consists of only the parts which help them, and the only way out of the backstop problem was to make the GFA problem much worse. We can't just solve this by deciding the EU is impossible to leave and giving up either, because again there's that pesky bit in the constitution about parliaments not being able to bind their successors. Whilst we have other international commitments about stuff like war crimes which could technically be argued to violate this, irrevocably transferring the power to create laws across many areas to a foreign body goes right to the core of what it's meant to prevent. Clever arguments about how we could technically leave, it's just not possible in practice don't solve this - our constitution is based on principles, it's not computer code where if you find a way around the literal rules you can get through.
- addicted 7y ago
  The backstop extending to the UK was a UK requirement. And the backstop bonds the hands of a future parliament as much as any international agreement does. That’s a completely ridiculous argument. The backstop isn’t magically more powerful than any other treaty a country may sign and have their parliaments approve.
  - makomk 7y ago
    The backstop extending to the UK was something Theresa May came up with as a compromise to reduce the problems with the Good Friday Agreement and hopefully make it more acceptable to the DUP than what the EU came up with originally. Which is why, as I said, we could've avoided it but only at the cost of making that other problem worse. It also ended Theresa May's career and lead to the most spectacular rejection of a key government bill by Parliament in its entire history. Also, most of the international agreements the UK has signed up to are unilaterally revokable - unlike the backstop - for pretty much that reason. There's a few exceptions, but the ones I've seen Brexit opponents cite are things like war crimes restrictions, not giving up control over most of out domestic laws. Americans should also bear in mind that the rule against parliaments binding their successors is the only protection against (say) a party voting to transfer law-making power to a body they think will be more pro-business than the opposition. There's no requirement for a supermajority or a referendum, as would be required to amend your country's constitution. (In fact we don't even have a codified constitution that can be amended!) Our joining the EU scraped through the House of Commons with a 50.7% majority basically on the whim of one party.
    - jashmatthews 7y ago
      Doesn’t the GFA itself have no exit clause?

makomk 7y ago

Realistically, I don't think the EU is going to offer any concessions that would solve the problems that parliament has with it, but that doesn't mean the problems aren't real. In particular, the current offer trashes the part of the Good Friday Agreement which the government's current coalition partner cares about by eroding Northern Ireland's status as part of the UK, and the backstop tramples on the constitutional requirement that no parliament may bind its successor by tying us to the EU until they permit us to leave. The EU seems to think that the Good Friday Agreement consists of only the parts which help them, and the only way out of the backstop problem was to make the GFA problem much worse. We can't just solve this by deciding the EU is impossible to leave and giving up either, because again there's that pesky bit in the constitution about parliaments not being able to bind their successors. Whilst we have other international commitments about stuff like war crimes which could technically be argued to violate this, irrevocably transferring the power to create laws across many areas to a foreign body goes right to the core of what it's meant to prevent. Clever arguments about how we could technically leave, it's just not possible in practice don't solve this - our constitution is based on principles, it's not computer code where if you find a way around the literal rules you can get through.

addicted 7y ago
The backstop extending to the UK was a UK requirement. And the backstop bonds the hands of a future parliament as much as any international agreement does. That’s a completely ridiculous argument. The backstop isn’t magically more powerful than any other treaty a country may sign and have their parliaments approve.
- makomk 7y ago
  The backstop extending to the UK was something Theresa May came up with as a compromise to reduce the problems with the Good Friday Agreement and hopefully make it more acceptable to the DUP than what the EU came up with originally. Which is why, as I said, we could've avoided it but only at the cost of making that other problem worse. It also ended Theresa May's career and lead to the most spectacular rejection of a key government bill by Parliament in its entire history. Also, most of the international agreements the UK has signed up to are unilaterally revokable - unlike the backstop - for pretty much that reason. There's a few exceptions, but the ones I've seen Brexit opponents cite are things like war crimes restrictions, not giving up control over most of out domestic laws. Americans should also bear in mind that the rule against parliaments binding their successors is the only protection against (say) a party voting to transfer law-making power to a body they think will be more pro-business than the opposition. There's no requirement for a supermajority or a referendum, as would be required to amend your country's constitution. (In fact we don't even have a codified constitution that can be amended!) Our joining the EU scraped through the House of Commons with a 50.7% majority basically on the whim of one party.
  - jashmatthews 7y ago
    Doesn’t the GFA itself have no exit clause?