|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
United States40785 Posts
On June 20 2017 19:36 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 19:22 KwarK wrote: For what it's worth the British constitution has no mechanism for recognizing the legitimacy of any foreign authority within British law, save that which is incorporated into British law. All legal authority within the United Kingdom stems from the person of the monarch. EU law, for example, exists only in as much as it is incorporated into British law through the treaties signed by the appointed representatives of the monarch, it is a subset of the powers of the monarchy and is subordinate to it.
With respect to foreign policy the British government has always had the power to make and unmake any treaty it sees fit without offering recourse or recognizing any obligation. There is no constitutional mechanism within British law by which the obligations of Britain could be enforced should the British government disavow it.
In the spirit of being neighbourly the British government is likely to seek an amicable break. However the EU has only a carrot and the threat of no carrots at the bargaining table, there is no stick. The EU can give the UK a good deal, or it can let the UK default to non member WTO rules. But it can't punish the UK without first obtaining the consent of the UK to be punished. Every agreement between nations exists only by the grace of those nations. No one has authority over another if one chooses to simply break agreements, outside of the threat of isolation or war. The UK is not some unique position on this. So yes, the UK has the option to ignore any financial commitment they leave behind. And it will be a real quick trip to diplomatic/economic isolation when they do. Nations live and die by their trustworthiness from the international community. Any financial commitment the UK enters into with a foreign nation is by definition voluntary. The UK is somewhat unique in the sense that the government has no power to enter into agreements that commit itself to any future action. Neither Westminster, nor the Queen's representatives in the Cabinet, can ever enter any kind of binding commitment because the monarch is constitutionally incapable of being bound.
|
I am having a hard time trying to understand why you appear to think that the UK is unique in that regard; or why it bears repeating. Ultimately all nations are independent with the power to unilaterally decide their foreign treaties. The response to the decision is also in the power of other nations.
|
United States40785 Posts
On June 20 2017 19:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote: I am having a hard time trying to understand why you appear to think that the UK is unique in that regard; or why it bears repeating. Ultimately all nations are independent with the power to unilaterally decide their foreign treaties. The response to the decision is also in the power of other nations. I think the UK is unusual in that regard because the UK has an uncodified constitution.
Obviously the response of the EU will be in the hands of EU nations, I'd not dispute that.
The way I see it the UK should continue to pay the agreed upon EU dues (and continue to receive the benefits of membership including development grants, CAP payments etc) on a pro rated basis until the UK leaves. EU projects that continue without the UK can be funded by the EU. If you and four friends were at a restaurant and agreed to split the bill evenly but you found yourself required to leave after the starters then you'd pay 20% of the bill for the starters and let the remaining people evenly split the cost of the entrees and desserts between them. The offer to split the costs was made on the implicit assumption that you'd be sharing the meal, you split the costs up to the point where you left but you don't leave them your credit card to charge their dinners to.
In a pragmatic sense, the EU will soon realize that the Tory government isn't secure enough to offer them very much. The Conservative Party is now bound to the UKIP voters to whom a hard Brexit (return to WTO rules, few to no agreements) is infinitely preferable to a weak Brexit (exit payments and the like). May's political weakness means that she lacks the political support to give the EU the kind of Brexit the EU may want. The EU can demand what they wish from a position of power but they may find themselves disappointed by the inability of the British government to meet their demands.
|
Yes but if you book tickets to a show for next month with your 5 friends and then decide not to show up, you still have to pay for your ticket, why do your friends have to pay for you not showing up.
That's what this is about. Commitments made by the UK, like guarantees for loans and pensions that don't just end when you don't show up.
|
Oversimplification is not really a helpful approach here in my opinion. e:
On June 20 2017 20:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 20:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Yes but if you book tickets to a show for next month with your 5 friends and then decide not to show up, you still have to pay for your ticket, why do your friends have to pay for you not showing up. In that instance your friends wouldn't derive any benefit from the unused ticket. In the context of the EU the benefits of EU projects that were previously going to the UK are redistributed between the continuing members. Tickets to a show aren't really divisible or transferable so your metaphor fails, if your five friends all got 20% more show after you bailed then it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to split the cost of your ticket between them. see? Beause your (fueledup) post did not encompass everything others (kwark) think about it becomes a ridiculous game of enhancing the scope of the analogy in an abstract way that makes talking about the points you guys try to get across increasingly difficult and tedious
|
United States40785 Posts
On June 20 2017 20:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Yes but if you book tickets to a show for next month with your 5 friends and then decide not to show up, you still have to pay for your ticket, why do your friends have to pay for you not showing up. In that instance your friends wouldn't derive any benefit from the unused ticket. In the context of the EU the benefits of EU projects that were previously going to the UK are redistributed between the continuing members. Tickets to a show aren't really divisible or transferable so your metaphor fails, if your five friends all got 20% more show after you bailed then it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to split the cost of your ticket between them.
|
On June 20 2017 20:11 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 20:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Yes but if you book tickets to a show for next month with your 5 friends and then decide not to show up, you still have to pay for your ticket, why do your friends have to pay for you not showing up. In that instance your friends wouldn't derive any benefit from the unused ticket. In the context of the EU the benefits of EU projects that were previously going to the UK are redistributed between the continuing members. Tickets to a show aren't really divisible or transferable so your metaphor fails, if your five friends all got 20% more show after you bailed then it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to split the cost of your ticket between them. Except they aren't. Not automagically anyway.
That would be one of the things to be negotiated. Of course, I expect individual scientists at Oxford, construction workers building a theatre in Orkney and people trying to patrol fisheries in the north sea will still want to get paid. And those are simply ongoing commitments that the EU entered into. The UK could buy them out by either paying the EU all the funds necessary to keep those projects ongoing, could take over the commitment of paying for those things themselves, or tell everybody involved to fuck off.
And those are the easy things. That's not even entering into EU offices that were located in the UK in the expectation that the UK would be part of the EU and now need to relocate. Should the EU pay for that relocation (they're part of the EU after all), or the UK (without Brexit a relocation would not be necessary, thus the incurred costs are entirely due to the UK), or should they stay, and some treaty is arranged so both parties can benefit from the work of these EU institutions?
And what about EU commitments to things like ITER, CERN and ESA. The UK as part of the EU was committed to participate through the EU in these gigantic projects. If they leave the EU, how is their participation organized? Do they leave ITER? Who pays for the UK's part in ITER. And what about the UK laboratories' commitment to ITER, and the fusion laboratory at Culham (and all other Euratom work in the UK)?
You seem to have put some bizar version of the world forward where because the queen cannot be bound to anything you cannot commit to anything. But you have committed to things. You signed treaties. You can unilaterally void those treaties (as any country can), but that doesn't mean you can just stick your fingers in your ears and yell lalalalala when your international partners say that any ongoing benefits from those treaties need to be paid for, one way or the other, and any outstanding dues should also be paid in full (and if it's not one way through the divorce bill, it'll be through massive trade tariffs that'll cripple all trade between the EU and UK, to the greater detriment and misery of all involved).
|
On June 20 2017 16:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 15:46 xM(Z wrote:On June 19 2017 21:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 19 2017 15:00 xM(Z wrote: a point can still be made here about the internalization of the problem at a muslim community level. I genuinely curious as to what this statement means. To me it sounds like gobbledygook. you have this whole hipster propaganda/narrative going on about how it's we, us, together, united, resisting, against <the terrorists>, but that happening clearly put a dent on it. if more of the same happens, <muslims> would (maybe)get it that it's their job/in their interest to do more about it(=extremist islamic terrorism). that would be the gist of it. Even if I were to accept that Muslims aren't doing enough to report terrorists in their ranks (and that would be ignoring all the most recent attacks which were all committed by individuals reported by members of their community) I fail to see how a campaign by white British people to terrorize the Muslim community is meant to be the trigger to creating unity and solidarity between the white British and British Muslim communities. Consider the inverse. How many terrorist attacks in your community would it take for you to decide that it's in your interests to work with the terrorists? I'm thinking that each attack would make it less likely. Yet your plan relies upon exactly that, attacking the Muslim community until they're eager to work closely with us and oppose any who hate us. to call it solidarity is a stretch(i wouldn't mind it if the british muslims would give white brits the finger after they solve the problem within their ranks(we, at least in principle, assumed there is one here) and honestly i didn't get that far with my thought process(relevancy issues). i was limiting the argument to the muslim community, to the effects of the attack on them(would they try harder to fix their problem or not+ Show Spoiler +i read the examples of proactive mulsims people gave here but taking into account that in that Manchester example, their efforts were rendered useless(the attack still happened) by foul politics and/or policies and not knowing if that's the exception rather than the rule, wanting/wishing more of that can't be bad ).
as for your second argument, i guess it depends on the degree of guilt(perceived or actual) placed upon the targeted community(history has examples: it took japanese 2 nukes until they started working with the terrorists). to limit the reply to your context, if my community would be guilty, i would suck it up and pay the piper even if indirectly responsible. i admit, i'd rather you wouldn't terrorize me but if that is what it takes, if that reaction is a must, then it's understandable.
also, i don't see how you, equating all white brits(after an attack) as terrorists helps you here; all you need is a couple of terrorists and the rest of them(from the same community) to do nothing.
|
On June 20 2017 22:06 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 16:15 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 15:46 xM(Z wrote:On June 19 2017 21:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 19 2017 15:00 xM(Z wrote: a point can still be made here about the internalization of the problem at a muslim community level. I genuinely curious as to what this statement means. To me it sounds like gobbledygook. you have this whole hipster propaganda/narrative going on about how it's we, us, together, united, resisting, against <the terrorists>, but that happening clearly put a dent on it. if more of the same happens, <muslims> would (maybe)get it that it's their job/in their interest to do more about it(=extremist islamic terrorism). that would be the gist of it. Even if I were to accept that Muslims aren't doing enough to report terrorists in their ranks (and that would be ignoring all the most recent attacks which were all committed by individuals reported by members of their community) I fail to see how a campaign by white British people to terrorize the Muslim community is meant to be the trigger to creating unity and solidarity between the white British and British Muslim communities. Consider the inverse. How many terrorist attacks in your community would it take for you to decide that it's in your interests to work with the terrorists? I'm thinking that each attack would make it less likely. Yet your plan relies upon exactly that, attacking the Muslim community until they're eager to work closely with us and oppose any who hate us. to call it solidarity is a stretch(i wouldn't mind it if the british muslims would give white brits the finger after they solve the problem within their ranks(we, at least in principle, assumed there is one here) and honestly i didn't get that far with my thought process(relevancy issues). This argument starts with a false pretext, namely you seem to think that driving a car into innocent muslims will cause radical terrorists to repent and see the errors of their ways. How the hell do you figure that bit?
Anyway, just for the hell of it, I switched "western" and "muslim" in the rest of your text, I hope you still agree with what you wrote?
i was limiting the argument to the western community, to the effects of the attack on them(would they try harder to fix their problem or not + Show Spoiler +i read the examples of proactive western people gave here but taking into account that in that London example, their efforts were rendered useless(the attack still happened) by foul politics and/or policies and not knowing if that's the exception rather than the rule, wanting/wishing more of that can't be bad ). as for your second argument, i guess it depends on the degree of guilt(perceived or actual) placed upon the targeted community(history has examples: it took japanese 2 nukes until they started working with the terrorists). to limit the reply to your context, if my community would be guilty, i would suck it up and pay the piper even if indirectly responsible. i admit, i'd rather you wouldn't terrorize me but if that is what it takes, if that reaction is a must, then it's understandable. also, i don't see how you, equating all muslims (after an attack) as terrorists helps you here; all you need is a couple of terrorists and the rest of them(from the same community) to do nothing.
By doing so, my aim was to illustrate how entirely empty of any substance your post was. I think it communicates that quite clearly.
|
United States40785 Posts
On June 20 2017 21:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 20:11 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 20:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Yes but if you book tickets to a show for next month with your 5 friends and then decide not to show up, you still have to pay for your ticket, why do your friends have to pay for you not showing up. In that instance your friends wouldn't derive any benefit from the unused ticket. In the context of the EU the benefits of EU projects that were previously going to the UK are redistributed between the continuing members. Tickets to a show aren't really divisible or transferable so your metaphor fails, if your five friends all got 20% more show after you bailed then it wouldn't be unreasonable for them to split the cost of your ticket between them. Except they aren't. Not automagically anyway. That would be one of the things to be negotiated. Of course, I expect individual scientists at Oxford, construction workers building a theatre in Orkney and people trying to patrol fisheries in the north sea will still want to get paid. And those are simply ongoing commitments that the EU entered into. The UK could buy them out by either paying the EU all the funds necessary to keep those projects ongoing, could take over the commitment of paying for those things themselves, or tell everybody involved to fuck off. And those are the easy things. That's not even entering into EU offices that were located in the UK in the expectation that the UK would be part of the EU and now need to relocate. Should the EU pay for that relocation (they're part of the EU after all), or the UK (without Brexit a relocation would not be necessary, thus the incurred costs are entirely due to the UK), or should they stay, and some treaty is arranged so both parties can benefit from the work of these EU institutions? And what about EU commitments to things like ITER, CERN and ESA. The UK as part of the EU was committed to participate through the EU in these gigantic projects. If they leave the EU, how is their participation organized? Do they leave ITER? Who pays for the UK's part in ITER. And what about the UK laboratories' commitment to ITER, and the fusion laboratory at Culham (and all other Euratom work in the UK)? You seem to have put some bizar version of the world forward where because the queen cannot be bound to anything you cannot commit to anything. But you have committed to things. You signed treaties. You can unilaterally void those treaties (as any country can), but that doesn't mean you can just stick your fingers in your ears and yell lalalalala when your international partners say that any ongoing benefits from those treaties need to be paid for, one way or the other, and any outstanding dues should also be paid in full (and if it's not one way through the divorce bill, it'll be through massive trade tariffs that'll cripple all trade between the EU and UK, to the greater detriment and misery of all involved). wow
Okay so basically there are no grounds for suing a government for political uncertainty. It's something you budget into your plan. So no, the EU won't be suing the UK for relocation costs for their offices. That's not how it works. That's not how any of it works. Stop and think about it for a second. Do you think legal recreational drug manufacturers sue the government for fair market value of their inventory if the law changes to make their product illegal? What about import/export businesses? Do you think they can sue for loss of stock price if their business is expected to decline? No? Then why would this be any different?
Governments are not accountable for the indirect impact of their political decisions to third parties. No contract or obligation exists there. If the EU decided to build an office in a Euroskeptic nation and it turns out they didn't need it then you would hope they thought of that possibility when planning for it. It's no different from any other variable that is planned for. Farmers plan and budget for unusual weather, importers plan and budget for changing political climates.
Where individual contractual obligations exist then they'll either be fulfilled or whatever penalties are built in for this eventuality will be swallowed. But the idea that the EU as a whole can come up with a broad invoice for the inconvenience that the loss of the UK will cause them and demand payment is absurd. It just doesn't work like that. At all.
|
I love how You quote whole long post but Your entire reply is only directed at very small part of it. What about his other points?
|
On June 20 2017 22:06 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2017 16:15 KwarK wrote:On June 20 2017 15:46 xM(Z wrote:On June 19 2017 21:35 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On June 19 2017 15:00 xM(Z wrote: a point can still be made here about the internalization of the problem at a muslim community level. I genuinely curious as to what this statement means. To me it sounds like gobbledygook. you have this whole hipster propaganda/narrative going on about how it's we, us, together, united, resisting, against <the terrorists>, but that happening clearly put a dent on it. if more of the same happens, <muslims> would (maybe)get it that it's their job/in their interest to do more about it(=extremist islamic terrorism). that would be the gist of it. Even if I were to accept that Muslims aren't doing enough to report terrorists in their ranks (and that would be ignoring all the most recent attacks which were all committed by individuals reported by members of their community) I fail to see how a campaign by white British people to terrorize the Muslim community is meant to be the trigger to creating unity and solidarity between the white British and British Muslim communities. Consider the inverse. How many terrorist attacks in your community would it take for you to decide that it's in your interests to work with the terrorists? I'm thinking that each attack would make it less likely. Yet your plan relies upon exactly that, attacking the Muslim community until they're eager to work closely with us and oppose any who hate us. to call it solidarity is a stretch(i wouldn't mind it if the british muslims would give white brits the finger after they solve the problem within their ranks(we, at least in principle, assumed there is one here) and honestly i didn't get that far with my thought process(relevancy issues). i was limiting the argument to the muslim community, to the effects of the attack on them(would they try harder to fix their problem or not + Show Spoiler +i read the examples of proactive mulsims people gave here but taking into account that in that Manchester example, their efforts were rendered useless(the attack still happened) by foul politics and/or policies and not knowing if that's the exception rather than the rule, wanting/wishing more of that can't be bad ). as for your second argument, i guess it depends on the degree of guilt(perceived or actual) placed upon the targeted community(history has examples: it took japanese 2 nukes until they started working with the terrorists). to limit the reply to your context, if my community would be guilty, i would suck it up and pay the piper even if indirectly responsible. i admit, i'd rather you wouldn't terrorize me but if that is what it takes, if that reaction is a must, then it's understandable. also, i don't see how you, equating all white brits(after an attack) as terrorists helps you here; all you need is a couple of terrorists and the rest of them(from the same community) to do nothing. I read that three times and I still don't get what you are trying to say. It sounds like you beleive that British muslims are some sort of military force that once they solve some sort of problem that you aren't sure exists, will then insult white British people and that the Manchester attack occured due to some sort of conspiracy theory that the British government allowed the attack to occur as they wish for more attacks to occur in Britian.
Then something about nuking the Japanese. Come on xmz, I know English isn't your first language, but at least you made some sort of sense up till now.
|
But the idea that the EU as a whole can come up with a broad invoice for the inconvenience that the loss of the UK will cause them and demand payment is absurd. It just doesn't work like that. At all.
It does, and it's also exactly what's happening in the negotiations atm.
Here's another article about it: http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/818818/Brexit-news-Britons-left-in-dark-over-European-Union-Brexit-exit-bill-German-journalist
“The question is how much has to be paid and the former commissioner Michel Barnier, who will negotiate for the European Commission, has already sent a long list over for today, 11 pages of documents that list which budget items the British are bound by. It’s truly a long list. “He didn’t say whether it will be 60 billion or 40 or 20. But the British, who are coming here today, they know that they will be facing a bill and the British politicians have so far not really explained that to their citizens.”
|
United States40785 Posts
On June 20 2017 22:30 Silvanel wrote: I love how You quote whole long post but Your entire reply is only directed at very small part of it. What about his other points? If the EU is employing people and doesn't want to employ them anymore they can fire them. The obligation to pay salaries doesn't magically transfer. If the British government want to hire them to do the same job previously funded by the EU that's up to them. As for things like research grants, that'll come down to the individual contracts. It's not a EU level problem. You can't just go "we find this inconvenient, here is a bill".
|
|
United States40785 Posts
On June 20 2017 22:39 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +But the idea that the EU as a whole can come up with a broad invoice for the inconvenience that the loss of the UK will cause them and demand payment is absurd. It just doesn't work like that. At all. It does, and it's also exactly what's happening in the negotiations atm. Well I guess we'll wait and see. You guys can have fun trying to squeeze money out of a bankrupt and unpopular Tory government whose only remaining block of supporters would be outraged if you got a penny. The British population have been trying to get money out of them for the past 7 years without much success but maybe they've just been saving it all up so they can give it to the EU.
|
United States40785 Posts
Trump gave Merkel a bill for NATO too. I guess I should have been more clear. You can't just go "we find this inconvenient, here is a bill" and expect it to be taken seriously.
|
So? Play ball or don't.
The same happened to Switzerland after our (also succesfull) anti Immigration refrendum. EU treatened to stop various programs (Erasmus, science funding......) if the new law would hurt the free movement. The UK is a way bigger economy and therefore has more leverage, but its not like the UK is in any way in a position of strenght.
In the end you either pay the bill or well, fuck off? At least that seems to be the official EU Position at the Moment and i haven't heard anything even remotely close to a plan/alternative from the UK.
|
On June 20 2017 23:06 KwarK wrote:Trump gave Merkel a bill for NATO too. I guess I should have been more clear. You can't just go "we find this inconvenient, here is a bill" and expect it to be taken seriously. Can there be anything as baseless as Trumps bill though?
|
One could also argue that "we find this inconvenient, we're just gonna leave the EU" ought engender a similar response.
|
|
|
|