E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

The dissatisfaction has been there for years. The embers were there, but it's Putin who's stoking the political fires and promoting protectionism as a solution.

 

Hmm I’m sure Putin is a very smart man but that’s a very complex game to play.

Personally I think its down far more to technological advances and historical contexts are starting to return.

 

Russia has got strategists too. Read the Wiki; it's interesting.

And:

 

Something i don't understand: If Mrs May is going to the EU to sign off on her deal towards the end of the month what are MPs going to be voting on in December, they talk about a meaningful vote and they've forced the government to do an impact analysis on what her deal vs no deal vs staying in would have but isn't it all rather academic if the deal has already been signed off?

 

The "meaningful vote" is "meaningful" in an academic sense.

 

I can feel the Brexit logic seeping into you.

Seriously though when she signs on the dotted line this month isn't that it, no backsies.

 

I hadn't heard of Dugin before today, but it validates all my suspicions and fears.

EDIT: Further research threw up this. Dugin's supporting website for "The Forth Political Theory", the underpinning doctrine of the contemporary far-right - http://www.4pt.su/en

and this - https://www.geopolitica.ru/en - It's notable that the site's Latin subtitle translates to "Carthage must be Destroyed"

Finally - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union

 

From a historical pov nothing is that surprising in that list tho apart from maybe the American one, seems like a "make Russia great again list"
Prior to the world wars Britain was always an outlier in Europe, Germanic countries always will dominate central europe due to geographic location and the french are generally to busy fighting themselves.

 

Like in December 2017 with the Irish backstop agreement, you mean?

 

It is a "make Russia great again" playbook. And it is notable that events are transpiring today that align with its objectives --and that Russia has clearly tried to influence all of them.

 

While the "meaningful" vote of MPs is about as binding as the referendum was she will need parliament to implement whatever is in the final deal into UK law, so voting it down would be an indication that the required support ain't going to happen, effectively forcing her to change her strategy, or jump her political career off her own personal brexit cliff.

 

I think that Theresa May is trying to balance the Will of the People™ against the country's economic interests in terms of trying to stay opted into as many EU benefits as she can, while opting out of the obligations she never liked anyway. She has tried to do that by making hard Brexit noises but pursuing soft Brexit goals behind the scenes. By the time the hard Brexiteers catch on, it is too late to change anything. I suspect she knows quite well that can kill her PM-ship, but perhaps (being the vicar's daughter) she'd rather be known in history as the PM who martyred herself for the good of the country, than a PM who drove the country off a cliff for her own political career (cf BoJo).

She made a bunch of big mistakes along the way, of course; not managing people's expectations, the GE, not realising that what she says at home will be listened to in the EU as well.

 

@Anfield, I think i maybe having one of those days/weeks as I'm still utterly confused, i thought parliament was sovereign and the Gina Miller case proved that, along with not allowing the PM to act unilaterally because Brexit effects not only foreign affairs where she can act that way but domestic where she can't.

Or has it already been given the green light from parliament because of something else? Like i said i think I'm being particularly slow on this issue.

 

The key thing is that it isn't as simple as signing an agreement.

You basically have three stages for a deal to take effect after it has been negotiated:
Signing
Ratification
Implementation

The first one she could always do without parliament, the second one she can't do without parliament due to the Gina Miller case, the last one she could never do without parliament.
However the power to do the first one on her own is rather theoretical as an agreement that is merely signed isn't worth the paper its printed on plus if she signed an agreement on her own that didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing through parliament for the next two stages it would be a huge international embarrassment for the UK and due to the significance of the agreement her career would be deader than the LibDems.

 

I told you i was being thick, i had to read up on what ratification was.

I think i understand now, although she can sign it that in itself doesn't give it legal authority as parliament needs to basically say that she had the legal authority to do that and that they agree to what she signed.

 

I thought that's what all the 'Henry VIII Powers' bollocks was for. Precisely so they could do without parly [under the guise of 'we don't to bother/tie up parliament with years of brexit related changes']

 

Yup, the PM's powers derive from Parliament. That is why Cameron's promise to enact the EU Referendum was meaningless; Parliament had passed the EU Referendum bill as an advisory one.

Unfortunately Parliament subsequently ratified enacting the EU Referendum --even though the majority thought it was a terrible idea. But as H.L. Mencken said: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

 

Partially, but its absurdly complex as it would require a very deep delve into differences between primary and secondary legislation, statutes and statutory instruments, also legal precedents, devolution, what exactly the MPs signed up to with the withdrawal bill where they kind of approved Henry VIII Powers etc... on top of all that you then have the possibility of MPs taking legal action against the government over a specific use of them, basically we'd have to dismantle the way the entire UK government works while also considering millions of pages of relevant court documents.

But among experts on that sort of thing the consensus appears to be that MPs ultimately still have the ability to intervene against things they don't like despite Henry VIII Powers, of course if they will actually try or if they will relax while scamming expenses like usual is a different question.

 

When history judges us i hope someone calls out the utter ineptitude of the politicians we sent into bat, our Ex-Ex-Brexit secretary penned a short article on Conservative Home recently and besides being full of the usual flowery rhetoric about how wonderful Brexit could be if we only did it his way there's also a line in it that highlights how the people in charge of delivering our sunny uplands don't have the first clue about what they're doing.

Obviously it's beyond the person who was in charge of negotiating on our behalf so I'll spell it out just in case anyones left in any doubt, the transition period is what he was negotiating, without 'a deal' there will be no transition period, if we leave with no deal you can't negotiate a free trade agreement during the transition period because you've not agreed a transition period.

How anyone has any confidence left that Brexit is going to deliver on what they were promised in the lead up to the referendum is beyond me, it's bad enough that our first Brexit secretary spent months not even being aware of what his job description entailed but to then find out the person we replaced him with thought the deal he was in charge of negotiating was a bit naff is beyond a joke.

 

"The UK government will be in charge of implementing Brexit" was always one of the best arguments in favour of voting remain, of course every time one brought it up before the referendum leavers just laughed....