United Kingdom

Is there no logical justification for reconsideration. 

X % of citizens sign petition?

X% of citizens march in rallies?

X% of citizens attest to switching their choice?

X # of election irregularities (Aaron Banks, Cambridge Analytical and all that)

Is there a value for X for any of these questions?

Ed Snowden Vents Dismay at EU Copyright 'Reform'

https://twitter.com/MayaWintersSMS/status/1110554706726793216

"I hope that our Westminster MPs are taking notice of Article 13. The UK needs to leave the EU immediately. This is the beginning of the end for freedom of expression in the EU."

Indicative votes: 16 Brexit options tabled by MPs

The House of Commons will take control of parliamentary business and hold ‘indicative votes’ today to try to establish which Brexit plan has the most support. Ahead of the debate, MPs have tabled 16 Brexit options.

This afternoon, at around 3.30pm, the Speaker will announce which of these options have been selected. MPs will start voting on them, choosing ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ for each option, at 7pm.

Here’s a very quick guide to the 16 options put forward…

(A) Constitutional and accountable government

Sir William Cash, Sir Bernard Jenkin, etc

Says the Commons “respects the will of the people”. Scraps the plan to resume the indicative votes process on Monday.

(B) No deal

John Baron, Sir David Amess

Would see the UK leave without a deal on 12th April.

(C) Unilateral right of exit from backstop

John Baron, Andrew Percy,

Agrees to leave with May’s deal on 22nd May – amended to allow the UK to unilateral exit from the backstop......

"I cannot accept that a decision made by 17 1/2 million people, the largest number of people to vote for anything or anyone in our entire history can be set aside...I cannot accept MPs deciding that whatever the people thought, the people were wrong and therefore the MPs will decide what we get..."

https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/1110828236039208960

..more from the above piece.

quote:

There is a perfectly good argument for a left-wing exit from Europe: to regain sovereign space for the actions of radical left government against a superstate with neoliberalism written into its constitution.

The problem is, first, the Withdrawal Agreement is not that: it is a shabby compromise whereby Britain actually cedes sovereignty to the EU in return for a temporary customs union. As John McDonnell’s former economic advisor James Meadway recently wrote in the NS, the detail of the Withdrawal Agreement allows the EU to pull Britain’s access to European financial markets at will, and would be a powerful tool of statecraft for the EU’s neoliberal centre against an incoming Corbyn government.

Secondly, and more importantly, this Brexit – the actually existing crisis we are living through – is a project entirely designed and implemented by a racist, xenophobic wing of British neoliberalism, linked to a global alliance whose project is to smash the multilateral system.

James Meadway recently wrote:

Theresa May's Brexit deal would be disastrous for a future left government

quote:

But a rare point of harmony between EU and UK governments has been on the continuation of EU State Aid and competition law provisions – even in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit. These significantly restrict the ability of democratic governments to intervene in their economies – potentially even including parts of Labour’s 2017 manifesto. But the restriction is not absolute, and the real question is the degree of interventionist freedom that a domestic government can win. The aim for a future Labour government, in particular, should be to win as much freedom as it can, while recognising that as long as a close, collaborative arrangement with Europe is desired, this will never be absolute.

However, Brussels officials have cited the “threat” of a Jeremy Corbyn government as driving their determination to keep existing restrictions firmly in place. The EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement observes the existing rules, as does the customs union “backstop”, but of more concern is the insistence in the (less-discussed, but ultimately more important) Outline Political Declaration that the UK will build on the “level playing field” of the Withdrawal Agreement. Even worse, the final arbiter on interpretation of those rules will still be the European Court of Justice – only now the UK would have no say over the making of those laws.

More insidiously, the loss of passporting rights for UK financial services, granting them the right to trade in European financial markets, creates another bulwark against a future government of the left. The replacement of passporting with the (less-comprehensive) “equivalence” regime grants financial market access to non-member states only at the EU’s discretion, and this discretion can be removed with just 30 days’ notice. Discussions on “enhanced equivalence” are highly unlikely to alter the fundamentals. For countries with large, internationally-focused financial service sectors, the threat of losing access to their main market abroad creates a gaping economic wound waiting to be poked.

The EU will not hesitate to use the leverage this creates, as Switzerland has recently discovered. Jean-Claude Juncker asked for a “stick” to use against the Swiss government, and control over financial market access has proved perfect in negotiations.....

Continued here.