Uk Referendum on The EU Announced for 23rd June.

[GuppyShark]

Acknowledging that my statement was too sweeping and that Parliament has delineated powers as an entity.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I wouldn't say your statement was too sweeping, as Parliament would be obliged to obey Her Majesty in such a case, but there would be nothing to stop them legislating against her afterwards.

Though since MP's have to swear an oath of allegiance to her and her successors, legislating against the Monarchy may be legally possible but they'd be breaking their oaths to do so, and while politicians breaking promises is hardly new, this would be a whole extra level of breaking promises which I suspect would see the MPs involved ejected from government, possibly violently.

[K. A. Pital]

Meanwhile TTIP negotiations are in complete disarray and thanks to UK's departure as America's henchman in the EU, opposition is intensifying among national leaders too.

I wish only complete death would come sooner to the Trans Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact, but even if it is a reprieve produced by the chaos, it is still very welcome. A solid "No" to shitty US standards of life, employment, food and goods quality in Europe, ever, that is what we need to hear loud and clear.

That's kind of a disingenuous summation of the situation; Hollande has outright said he's gonna veto it. Which means TTIP is dead. Irrespective of Brexit or not. He's been saying it since May and last week he's doubled down on it.

Irrespective of Hollande, Britain flying out of the EU will be the last nail in that coffin. Hollande said he'd veto it in the current form. Which is a bit milder than full stop.

But yeah, I hope it is dead for good.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As someone who has only heard of TTIP in passing on this board, what exactly is so awful about it?

[Crown]

As someone who has only heard of TTIP in passing on this board, what exactly is so awful about it?

The fact that we can't tell you what's so awful about it because it's been entirely negotiated behind closed doors by the Politburo Commission and our only elected representatives (MEPs) are not allowed to read it at leisure but only behind a closed door without any writing tools with them with which they can make notes?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Well that's pretty shit. Democracy indeed.

[Simon_Jester]

The bare fact that anyone in Brussels ever thought it a good idea to set up the TTIP negotiations this way is possibly the single most troubling thing I ever learned about the European Union and its probable future.

[Sea Skimmer]

Na they knew exactly what they were doing. The negotiations would have gotten nowhere if the Euro populations were calling protests at every live tweet of the terms and random jokes told of a highly technical treaty. The real problem is simply that the goal of the treaty is contrary to the populations wishes as an average, at least in Europe, and its pretty damn unpopular in the US too.

So why still do it? Because the EU in principle gains most of its legitimacy by furthering economic growth past that possible by the individual states. Apparently they think this will help that, and since 2008 they've been desperate for anything to do so. Personally I think the Euros certainly have reason to fear Walmart.

Still everything else the EU has done has not worked so well since 2008, while crippling the Greeks forever, part of the reason for that being the rather long running capping of the regular EU budget to about 1% of GDP, led by the UK and Germany. That lack of budget growth is one of a list of tough decisions the EU has never addressed, and kept kicking down the road. The EU regulates spending by governments far more then it spends, that's just not really something anyone likes out of government. Now that the British are going to be gone Germany is going to face a harder time holding to this budget number in the future but I wouldn't expect a shift quickly. Germany I'm sure would prefer a new treaty to accompany something like that.

[mr friendly guy]

As someone who has only heard of TTIP in passing on this board, what exactly is so awful about it?

From what I remember, these types of trade agreements (we are subjected to TTP in Australia, you guys have TTIP) have these awesome provisos which allow private companies to sue governments if a change in legislation affected their profits. For example some tobacco companies considered suing the Australian government after we changed the law to restrict tobacco advertising on public health grounds. Now even if you object on free market grounds to limiting tobacco advertising, surely this impinges on our sovereignty. We cannot even make our own laws because we would be sued.

Edit - if we were that stupid to sign such a deal, we kind of deserved it, although we did make some clauses to exempt our tobacco advertising law from TTP.

So this clearly is beneficial for big multinational companies.

[Sea Skimmer]

You realize that treaties more or less by definition impinge on sovereignty right? Its kind of the idea.

[K. A. Pital]

It basically allows companies to sue governments in courts packed by paid corporate shills.

This is ludicrous and against the rule of law. You have national courts - fuckers should go there if they have a problem.

That is just one in a myriad of problems with this so-called agreement (next is the watering-down of hazardous chemicals legislation and changing the precautionary principle to "safe until proven harmful" principle that is present in the US).

[Simon_Jester]

You realize that treaties more or less by definition impinge on sovereignty right? Its kind of the idea.

There are treaties which involve a relatively minor sacrifice of sovereignty, or which amount to saying "we reserve our right, but choose not to exercise it in this case," or some such.

This, by contrast, is a major and permanent sacrifice of sovereignty, because you are giving away the right to regulate the conduct of international corporations in your territory- or promising to compensate them for lost profits.

That's a very broad, very basic sovereign right- the right to regulate the internal affairs of one's own nation, without being liable to private citizens who are inconvenienced when you declare their actions illegal.

[Thanas]

[Zaune]

Oh for crying out loud...

Cries of ‘shame’ rang out in the House of Lords yesterday after the Ukip bench called for EU nationals living in Britain to be employed potentially as bargaining chips in negotiations with Brussels.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the former leader of the eurosceptic party, asked the Lords if it was not true that it was we – Britain – who ‘hold the stronger hand’ because there are 3million EU nationals living in the United Kingdom and 1.2million British living in the EU.

‘When present tensions have calmed down, why would either Brussels or London want to do anything to upset this mutually beneficial situation?’ Lord Pearson said.

‘Do the Government agree however, that if the EU were to get difficult with our nationals living there, it is we who would hold the stronger hand if we retaliate, because so many more of them are living here?’

The comments were met with cries of ‘shame’ from the House.

The Lib Dem Lords Twitter account said the remarks amounted to using EU nationals as ‘hostages’.

Social media users were roundly critical of Lord Pearson.

One wrote: ‘My Bulgarian wife is not a hostage.’

What he means by "get difficult" I am frankly scared to ask.

[Borgholio]

Oh for crying out loud...

Wow. Just...wow. Even from this side of the pond, I feel my brain starting to hurt.

[K. A. Pital]

Get difficult = deport their sorry ass if they fail to meet the obligations for non-EU citizens who want to work in any EU nation.

These include a many-month check of the job offer for possible EU candidates, which all have to be rejected with good grounds to hire a foreigner in their place.

Welcome to reality, Camp Leave.

And I think threatening to kick out EU citizens like that will just provoke them into leaving their jobs without waiting for the consequences of Brexit to strike them two years down the line. I would certainly do so.

[Dartzap]

Anyone know why Obama keeps saying Brexit isn't happening? What's the US stake in this?

[Zaune]

What's the US stake in this?

Well, we are about the only useful client-state they have left.

[Ace Pace]

What's the US stake in this?

Well, we are about the only useful client-state they have left.

Hey, hey, we do their bidding..most of the time.

More seriously, the UK is one of the U.S.'s biggest national security partners, they used to be quite aligned in foreign policy and close cultural ties. In a more dollar oriented view, the U.S. is the UKs biggest single export market (after the EU) and any economic impact to the UK will reverberate on the U.S.

[Sea Skimmer]

That is just one in a myriad of problems with this so-called agreement (next is the watering-down of hazardous chemicals legislation and changing the precautionary principle to "safe until proven harmful" principle that is present in the US).

The US completely replaced its existing chemical safety law and made it 'must be proven safe' safe on June 22nd 2016. So no that will not be happening unless you believe Australia ect... will be doing it themselves.

There are treaties which involve a relatively minor sacrifice of sovereignty, or which amount to saying "we reserve our right, but choose not to exercise it in this case," or some such.

This, by contrast, is a major and permanent sacrifice of sovereignty, because you are giving away the right to regulate the conduct of international corporations in your territory- or promising to compensate them for lost profits.

That's a very broad, very basic sovereign right- the right to regulate the internal affairs of one's own nation, without being liable to private citizens who are inconvenienced when you declare their actions illegal.

The alternative is to keep ceding the issue to the WTO, which certainly undercuts sovereignty in massive ways too, but operates absurdly slowly to the point of nearly not functioning. Yeah sure, better treaties could be written but people seriously underestimate how much power is already vesting into these organizations. Its all being used like shit, and that isn't good. Something big should change, and nearly zero chance exists in the near future of a reform or indeed any change what so ever out of the WTO.

[Tribble]

I thought this fb post paints a hilariously accurate picture of how things are atm:

Benjamin Timothy Blaine

June 28 at 7:57pm ·

..

So, let me get this straight... the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they'd all done nothing to help them.

Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn't lose, did - but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who'd always thought he'd lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash - and he was, but it did, but he's not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can't become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party's view of this view is the opposite of the opposition's. And the opposition aren't yet opposing anything because the leader isn't listening to his party, who aren't listening to the country, who aren't listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there's not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if any one ever does do it, it will be awful.
Clear?

[mr friendly guy]

You realize that treaties more or less by definition impinge on sovereignty right? Its kind of the idea.

The problem isn't so much that we give up some thing in exchange for something else, its what we give up. Saying we won't use our right to put in place protectionist measures in exchange for x is one thing, saying we lose our right to legislate particular laws is something else altogether. I would argue the latter is a much bigger sacrifice than the former.

Edit - looking back I see Simon already answered in a similar vein as well, which kind of makes my response redundant.

[K. A. Pital]

The US completely replaced its existing chemical safety law and made it 'must be proven safe' safe on June 22nd 2016. So no that will not be happening unless you believe Australia ect... will be doing it themselves.

So you did something last week and expect me to just agree to the TTIP now? No. And once again, that's only one issue among many.

Meanwhile:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... xit-uk-wto

talks on a new trade arrangement with the European Union until other aspects of its exit from the EU have been settled, the trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström has said.

“There are actually two negotiations. First you exit, and then you negotiate the new relationship, whatever that is,” she said.

Between Brexit and the signing of any new trade deal, business between the UK and EU would be conducted under World Trade Organisation rules, she told BBC’s Newsnight. She acknowledged that could damage businesses and economies within the UK and remaining members of the EU, but said: “Yes, but the vote was very clear.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... referendum

Negotiations about the shape of the UK’s post-Brexit trade arrangements would have to start from scratch after a leave vote in the EU referendum, the head of the World Trade Organisation said as he admitted there had been no preliminary discussions with the UK government.

Roberto Azevêdo, the WTO director-general, said he expected any talks to be long and difficult, adding: “We haven’t had any discussions about the process. We don’t know what the process would be. We do know it would be a very unusual situation.”

Trade has featured heavily during the referendum campaign, with much debate about whether a post-Brexit UK would seek to retain its membership of the European single market or aim for a looser arrangement in which exporters had the same access as other WTO members.

Azevêdo said the position was complicated by the fact that all Britain’s trade commitments had been negotiated by the EU and that these would cease to apply in the event of a decision to leave.

Warning that it would be impossible for the UK to “cut and paste” its old EU trade deals into new agreements, Azevêdo said the UK would be starting from scratch without the institutional machinery necessary to negotiate trade deals.

[His Divine Shadow]

A good video on the euro/eu/greece/brexit, a lot of topics covered but they're related:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvZil0qWPg

[Thanas]

Oh yes, lets turn it all into austerity. Austerity, the big bogeyman. Austerity, the root of all evil. If only it would stop everything would be better. But not really. If Germany had had less austerity and had a similar problem then the Eurozone crisis would be much worse.

The reason why people voted for Brexit: Austerity, of course.

Yeah, Schäuble is going to dismantle the Scottish welfare state....lol.