Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time
![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
quote:From this I understand that May is intending to trigger Article 50 without going to Parliament, but that it needs to be followed up by a Repeal Bill, which presumably needs a majority vote in the UK Parliament to become law. Am I right, and if I am, isn't this likely to be fraught with difficulties?
The repeal of the 1972 Act will not take effect until the UK leaves the EU under the process for quitting the bloc known as Article 50.
quote:I bl***y well hope so, but I had a sickening dread, comparable to my dread about Trump winning the presidential election, that she'll get it through. There seems to be nobody who has both the moral courage and sufficient access to the levers of power in this sorry country to stop this lunacy.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... Am I right, and if I am, isn't this likely to be fraught with difficulties?
quote:But, it's the "clear will of the people". How can Parliament or the courts overrule the mandate of the masses? May has no choice, the Tory Party is still torn apart by the European question, but now the result from June is in it's clear that those favouring Europe do not have the majority support of Tory voters and members, so her only option to maintain some semblance of party unity is to go with Brexit. I can't see how the outcomes of the various legal challenges currently before the courts would change that. And, she knows putting the question back to Parliament will just rip open the poorly stitched wounds in her party.
Originally posted by Enoch:
There seems to be nobody who has both the moral courage and sufficient access to the levers of power in this sorry country to stop this lunacy.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Meanwhile, here's what's really happening
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:Unfortunately that's a joke too near the truth not to leave a nasty taste in the mouth.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Meanwhile, here's what's really happening
quote:Unfortunately that's a joke too near the truth not to leave a nasty taste in the mouth.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Meanwhile, here's what's really happening
quote:Probably the case, as many people were arguing before the vote.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I've also been reading some economists argue that hard Brexit could be very expensive, because of tariffs, and could even outstrip the cost of being in the EU. Now that would be ironic.
quote:And would the administrator remove them both to the Hell thread where they properly belong? I appreciate that emotions run high on this topic, but it seems to me that everything you have posted on it is more appropriate for Hell rather than purgatory.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry about this but a draft of this post seems to have appeared as well by a mistake. Would there be any possibility of an administrator removing the earlier one please?
quote:[note I'm not suggesting that fc was being serious in the above]
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You could always reopen the coal mines.
quote:Well, I suppose that's technically true, but in practice it is impossible. And local people probably wouldn't support it, given the complaints about open cast mines, incinerators and composting sites.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Nothing's impossible. It is possible to recreate the infrastructure to reopen coal mines in South Wales, it will just be hideously expensive and take a long time. It is possible to negotiate trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world that are more favourable than WTO (or, more accurately re-negotiate trade deals, since we're already operating under such deals with much of the world - it's just they were negotiated by the EU), it will just be hideously expensive and take a long time.
quote:Also, the coal in them has been dug out. It isn't there any more.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Nothing's impossible. It is possible to recreate the infrastructure to reopen coal mines in South Wales, ...
quote:Not sure that's entirely true, it just wasn't economic to dig any more out at the time they closed.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Also, the coal in them has been dug out. It isn't there any more.
quote:The same could be true of trade. We're in the process of burning bridges. Dismantling trade deals, which often took decades to negotiate, is very much like removing infrastructure. Putting them back into place will require an appetite to do so from both sides. There's a rose-tinted spectacle feel to the Brexit optimism that everyone will want to rapidly sign trade deals with the UK. The US government have already stated that their priorities will be the major trade deals they've already committed a lot of time and effort on, with the EU and with Asia. Australia and NZ are working very hard on developing trade deals with the new economic powers in Asia. We've kicked the EU in the goolies ... and do we expect them to just pretend it never happened to sign a deal with a small island?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is no appetite to put it all back.
quote:Without being overly negative, the problem is that the UK doesn't actually produce much any more, most money is in the service sector. And in a globalised world, what's the great advantage in having the financial centre in London anyway - if the UK has lost access to the EU market?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The same could be true of trade. We're in the process of burning bridges. Dismantling trade deals, which often took decades to negotiate, is very much like removing infrastructure. Putting them back into place will require an appetite to do so from both sides. There's a rose-tinted spectacle feel to the Brexit optimism that everyone will want to rapidly sign trade deals with the UK. The US government have already stated that their priorities will be the major trade deals they've already committed a lot of time and effort on, with the EU and with Asia. Australia and NZ are working very hard on developing trade deals with the new economic powers in Asia. We've kicked the EU in the goolies ... and do we expect them to just pretend it never happened to sign a deal with a small island?
quote:A small island that also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world. I don't understand why so many Remainers persist in referring to the UK as if it's Tuvalu or Kiribati.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... and do we expect them to just pretend it never happened to sign a deal with a small island?
quote:Some silly percentage of that economy is in parts that can easily move elsewhere. Indeed if the UK wasn't in the EU, it'd be rather odd if a large proportion of City banking didn't move inside the eurozone.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A small island that also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world. I don't understand why so many Remainers persist in referring to the UK as if it's Tuvalu or Kiribati.
quote:That's pretty much what people were saying when we decided not to join the Euro. It didn't happen then, so why is it so inevitable now?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Indeed if the UK wasn't in the EU, it'd be rather odd if a large proportion of City banking didn't move inside the eurozone.
quote:What percentage of that is financial services, and how much of that would suffer in the event of no "financial passport" being agreed?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A small island that also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world.
quote:Despite not adopting the Euro we were still inside the EU and to reinforce what mr cheesy said, a lot of profit can be made through currency trades and if that can be done in the same trading bloc, so much the better for traders in the City, Frankfurt, Paris etc. It's questionable whether that will continue when are are outside the tent.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's pretty much what people were saying when we decided not to join the Euro. It didn't happen then, so why is it so inevitable now?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Indeed if the UK wasn't in the EU, it'd be rather odd if a large proportion of City banking didn't move inside the eurozone.
quote:... not to the extent that we've kicked ourselves in the goolies.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
<snip>
We've kicked the EU in the goolies ... and do we expect them to just pretend it never happened to sign a deal with a small island?
quote:No one is comparing us to Tuvalu or Kiribati.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:A small island that also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world. I don't understand why so many Remainers persist in referring to the UK as if it's Tuvalu or Kiribati.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... and do we expect them to just pretend it never happened to sign a deal with a small island?
quote:There was a serious point underneath. The coal m inning era was really the last vestige of an old Britain that was 'great'. It was just at that moment when all of the manufacturing of steel, cars, machinery and clothing etc was all disappearing to other parts of the world and there was much agonising over the loss of what made Britain 'great'. The Brexit vote appealed to that very old fashioned notion in lots of ways; the time when Britain was white and blue collar, people worked hard and lived well....of course it's all part of the myth of the English country idyll left over from WW2, but the myth had a powerful appeal nonetheless. It is exactly the same thing that is sending the USA off beam; an appeal to the myth of 'the way things were'. What will be interesting is when the country wakes up to the fact that this narrative is in fact a myth. The USA seems to be waking up to it, but I'd never be so foolish as to underestimate the power of such a myth to rally the troops. Ultimately, Britain could come out of it all alright; a bit poorer, but managing. It would seem to be unlikely that it will ever be a central hub again, but much like Brexit, the effects of this won't be felt for another decade (hopefully) and its the generations to come that will wonder why a country voted not to work in co-operation in an increasingly global economy. While the Brexit voters hoped to create a nostalgic Britain again what they will eventually end up with in all likelihood is a Britain that is no longer 'great' and a United Kingdom that is no longer united. This in turn would lead to a major crisis of identity, which could of course be overcome, but the variables make it an almost impossible task.
[note I'm not suggesting that fc was being serious in the above]
quote:The rest of the world will also 'clean up' by charging tariffs on things we export to them. And a lot of the stuff we import is food and raw materials for what's left of our industry; we can't slap huge tariffs on those without shooting ourselves in the foot. The weakness of the pound is going to cause enough hardship on its own, for people struggling to afford food.
I know someone who sincerely believes that we'll "clean up" by charging tariffs on all the stuff coming in from Europe. Instinctively I feel that this is economically illiterate, but I can't really back it up with detailed argument.
quote:ETA: Passporting allows a company to set up in one EU country, operate in all the others but only have to report to one regulator. It's the free movement of services.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:What percentage of that is financial services, and how much of that would suffer in the event of no "financial passport" being agreed?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A small island that also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world.
(ETA: the issue is not the Euro, the issue is whether there is free movement of currency).
quote:To echo the point Sioni made earlier, we've put ourselves under the bus. The question is probably having waited so long for a bus, how many come along at once?
Originally posted by Jane R:
The EU negotiators have a responsibility to get the best deal possible for the countries in the European Union. If the best deal for them involves throwing the UK under the bus, then they're doing their job by trying to get it.
quote:While I generally agree with what you say, in one respect you are actually repeating a different form of mythology where the car industry is concerned. The highest year for production was 1972, with 1.92m cars produced; after a big decline numbers have increased year-on-year with half-year production to July 2016 nearly reaching 900,000, if which nearly 80% were exported. The Society of Motor Manufacturers predicted that, if present trends were to continue, the figures for 2017 would be the highest ever.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It was just at that moment when all of the manufacturing of steel, cars, machinery and clothing etc was all disappearing to other parts of the world .
quote:Another part of the myth is actually that car manufacture, indeed a large part of manufacturing in general, has significantly changed - and it's not just automation. To a large extent, it would be better to say that the UK "assembles" cars rather than "makes" them. First, car manufacturers don't make most of the components of their cars, they are bought in from elsewhere (often elsewhere in Europe) and then put together. The combination of currency exchange rates and potential tarrifs will significantly increase costs for cars assembled in the UK. That is also true of much of modern manufacturing.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Of course much of the British motor industry is foreign owned (but, then, Ford and Vauxhall etc. always were). And, of course, automation means that the total workforce is much smaller. But it shows that Britain does still "make things"
quote:All this assumes that the EU’s future is all fluffy bunnies and rainbows. Whilst UKIP’s gleeful predictions it’s all going to topple over are wrong, the ex-Greek finance Minister at the IoD might be closer to the mark. He thought the EU would eventually reach a kind of gridlock. The Northern economies doing well, the Southern economies doing badly. With everyone sweating the small stuff because they can’t agree on the bigger things.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:To echo the point Sioni made earlier, we've put ourselves under the bus. The question is probably having waited so long for a bus, how many come along at once?
Originally posted by Jane R:
The EU negotiators have a responsibility to get the best deal possible for the countries in the European Union. If the best deal for them involves throwing the UK under the bus, then they're doing their job by trying to get it.
quote:And it's not just about tariffs (or at least tariffs are a much smaller part of the problem) the real issues are around regulations and assessment of conformity, and that really starts to bite when you have international supply chains - a lot of the time the UK is manufacturing precursors and relying on precursors elsewhere.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Another part of the myth is actually that car manufacture, indeed a large part of manufacturing in general, has significantly changed - and it's not just automation. To a large extent, it would be better to say that the UK "assembles" cars rather than "makes" them. First, car manufacturers don't make most of the components of their cars, they are bought in from elsewhere (often elsewhere in Europe) and then put together. The combination of currency exchange rates and potential tarrifs will significantly increase costs for cars assembled in the UK. That is also true of much of modern manufacturing.
quote:Approximately 4%, according to Wikipedia
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:What percentage of that is financial services,
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A small island that also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world.
quote:Probably not much. London is a worldwide (if not the worldwide) financial centre, so lots of the business it does isn't reliant on such passports anyway.
and how much of that would suffer in the event of no "financial passport" being agreed?
quote:Currencies other than the Euro and Pound exist. Besides which, if they can trade Euros in New York I don't see that London would have any major problem once we're out of the EU.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Despite not adopting the Euro we were still inside the EU and to reinforce what mr cheesy said, a lot of profit can be made through currency trades and if that can be done in the same trading bloc, so much the better for traders in the City, Frankfurt, Paris etc. It's questionable whether that will continue when are are outside the tent.
quote:Forecasting of economic trends (as opposed to specific economic occurrences) is generally on more solid ground.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, this is probably all guesswork. I suppose most of economics and politics is guesswork in any case
quote:No, Barack Obama has stated that. Barack Obama won't be president after January 20. Trump supports Brexit. Who knows what Clinton thinks? However, Clinton has already repudiated the TPP which Obama and Kerry negotiated. Hard to believe she follows through on punishing the UK for leaving the EU. I say this for two reasons. One, the US doesn't have much of a trade deficit with the UK. Why would disrupting trade with the UK be in our economic interest? Two, the UK is our closest ally. The optics would be horrible. Here, let me spin the narrative for you. The UK stands alone against a united Europe controlled by a Germany seeking to destroy the sovereignty of individual nations. Sound familiar? First poll comes out in support of a deal with the UK, Clinton and May agree to business as usual over afternoon tea and crumpets. Will the EU then try to punish the US? Good luck with that.
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The US government have already stated that their priorities will be the major trade deals they've already committed a lot of time and effort on, with the EU and with Asia.
quote:Two problems with this from a British point of view.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:No, Barack Obama has stated that. Barack Obama won't be president after January 20. Trump supports Brexit. Who knows what Clinton thinks? However, Clinton has already repudiated the TPP which Obama and Kerry negotiated. Hard to believe she follows through on punishing the UK for leaving the EU. I say this for two reasons. One, the US doesn't have much of a trade deficit with the UK. Why would disrupting trade with the UK be in our economic interest? Two, the UK is our closest ally. The optics would be horrible. Here, let me spin the narrative for you. The UK stands alone against a united Europe controlled by a Germany seeking to destroy the sovereignty of individual nations. Sound familiar? First poll comes out in support of a deal with the UK, Clinton and May agree to business as usual over afternoon tea and crumpets. Will the EU then try to punish the US? Good luck with that.
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The US government have already stated that their priorities will be the major trade deals they've already committed a lot of time and effort on, with the EU and with Asia.
quote:I think this constant use of punitive language to be very misleading (add 'punishing' to the notion of the EU taking 'revenge' on the UK by not allowing them to have the benefits of EU membership if they leave the EU). These things are generally a simple and rather obvious consequences of a set of actions - to ask for anything else is the exceptional case.
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hard to believe she follows through on punishing the UK for leaving the EU.
quote:I thought the whole point of the two-year delay was to enable us to negotiate the trade deals that would come into effect once we leave.
Originally posted by Callan:
Furthermore before doing a deal with the UK, the UK has to leave the EU which takes place two years after Article 50 has been activated. So probably around March 2019. So the idea that we can compensate for leaving the EU and the Single Market by signing a Trade Deal with the US really means losing our membership of the Single Market and then, beginning the lengthy negotiations to set up a trade deal with the US after that.
quote:The whole point of the two year delay is to negotiate our terms of exit from the EU. Until that happens we can't unilaterally negotiate trade deals with other countries because our treaty commitments to the EU Countries forbid us to do so. The whole point of Article 50 is that it disadvantages the departing country by putting in a time scale, which means that its negotiators are operating against the clock, with the penalty of having to trade with the EU under WTO rules, if a deal isn't reached in sufficient time. Which is another reason, btw, to remain in the Single Market - it would be a lot quicker to negotiate membership of the EEA than it would be to set up the kind of bespoke deal that Theresa May and company think that they can pull off.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I thought the whole point of the two-year delay was to enable us to negotiate the trade deals that would come into effect once we leave.
Originally posted by Callan:
Furthermore before doing a deal with the UK, the UK has to leave the EU which takes place two years after Article 50 has been activated. So probably around March 2019. So the idea that we can compensate for leaving the EU and the Single Market by signing a Trade Deal with the US really means losing our membership of the Single Market and then, beginning the lengthy negotiations to set up a trade deal with the US after that.
quote:No, the optics will look horrible period. Clinton is weak on trade. Bill Clinton got the label of moderate in part by coming out in favor of free trade deals. Those deals were never popular on the Left. Now, they aren't popular with a large segment on the right either. Clinton is perceived as being weak on trade and knows it. Every single, country that she tries to prioritize above the UK will have something that makes it less sympathetic than the UK. Send Boris Johnson over the pond to make the case. Americans will love him.
originally posted by chris stiles:
The optics may look horrible if thousands of Brits were starving, but that's not really what we are talking about. The UK could decline significantly in economic terms without particularly impinging on the minds of the US public.
quote:The Second World War was over 70 years ago, for God's sake. Whatever control Germany may have over the EU stems from it being the largest economy in the group, not from having the biggest army and most ruthless dictator.
Here, let me spin the narrative for you. The UK stands alone against a united Europe controlled by a Germany seeking to destroy the sovereignty of individual nations. Sound familiar?
quote:Speak for yourself. I don't know of any research that holds that those stereotypes are common in the UK. There certainly is a lot of noise about Brussels, I don't hear anyone particularly moaning about Berlin. If anything, workers I've heard talking about work are envious of the way things are in Germany (or at least how they were before the recent issues with immigration).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
We still don't entirely trust the Germans. For that matter, we still don't take the French all that seriously.
quote:So will I.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, "a united Europe controlled by a Germany" is a nonsense. If there are further moves towards a political union in Europe the control will be with whatever political structures are built for that purpose - a strengthed European Parliament, for example. Which won't be Germany (or France, Belgium or anyone else). I would love for that to happen, and for the UK to be at the heart of it (except there will need to be a coordinated political movement in the UK to reverse the stupidity of the 23rd June first - and, if such a movement is born I'll sign up).
quote:Hard Brexit is only making the running because there's an impasse which no one has an answer to. The British government, because of the referendum result, can't concede the point that free movement, in its present form, has been rejected by the British electorate. All voices from the EU seem to be saying that there's no membership of the Single Market without free movement. Hence hard Brexit is inevitable. The EEA model, like Norway's position, can't answer the problem either.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose that hard Brexit is making the running
quote:I think the real problem is not the unelected federalist bureaucrats but the all too elected-and-vulnerable-to-not-being-re-elected governments of the member states. For a deal to pass it needs the approval of all 27 member states and, spookily enough, the Visegrad Governments (Poland, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia) don't think that the whole "give GB the same access to the Single Market but with no freedom of movement" thing, beloved of our having-their-cake-and-eating-it politicians is going to play terribly well on the mean streets of Warsaw South or Bratislava West. Particularly not in the context of a referendum where the winning side stoked up hostility towards EU citizens living and working in the UK and where EU citizens have been subsequently attacked and, in one instance, killed. Imaging that Spain voted for Spexit after running a campaign against British retirees and, after which,, UK nationals had been attacked or killed. Would Theresa May be prepared to countenance a special deal in those circumstances? Some of the 27, or the rump EU as the Daily Fail recently described it, will also have to put the resultant deal to their electorates in referenda. The whole business is painfully reminiscent of the Greek referendum on austerity. The Greek government turned up brandishing their popular mandate for the benefits of the other member states only for one of the German politicians to remark: "some of us were elected too".
The federalist bureaucrats of the EU can't accept that an electorate can reject their very one sided vision.
quote:As far as I know, by a very small majority, the British electorate voted to reject the status quo. Since no one specified what the question was, we have no way of knowing what that small majority voted for.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The British government, because of the referendum result, can't concede the point that free movement, in its present form, has been rejected by the British electorate.
quote:I rather think that that's the point Beeswax Altar is making. The irrationality of much of the Brexit campaign stems from a failure to understand that WWII has finished, and finished with a German loss. The Brexiters would prefer to be the underdogs of late 1940.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Beeswax Altar:quote:The Second World War was over 70 years ago, for God's sake. Whatever control Germany may have over the EU stems from it being the largest economy in the group, not from having the biggest army and most ruthless dictator.
Here, let me spin the narrative for you. The UK stands alone against a united Europe controlled by a Germany seeking to destroy the sovereignty of individual nations. Sound familiar?
quote:You must have missed it because it was so cringe inducing and so uncomfortable to watch it would have burned into your memory, but Boris already went to the USA and shared the stage with John Kerry. It didn't go well.
I think you underestimate just how popular Boris Johnson will be once the American people discover he exists.
quote:I speak as someone who has never had a problem with inward migration from the EU, but what precisely the majority voted for is irrelevant. It could be put in the category of making the UK parliament sovereign over issues, including immigration, rather than being told, from a body over which we have no democratic control, that there's absolutely nothing we can do however many people turn up at the doorstep. Not liking the referendum result is one thing. Ignoring it or attempting to overturn it is another. It's contempt for democracy. Keep on asking the question until you get the answer you're happy with.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As far as I know, by a very small majority, the British electorate voted to reject the status quo. Since no one specified what the question was, we have no way of knowing what that small majority voted for.
quote:How can it be anything other that relevant? Apart from the fact that the referendum was called before a manifesto for Brexit was written (thus, IMO, making the whole process deeply flawed) so we can't know what people voted for. Thus, we only know they (by a marginal number) rejected the status quo.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
but what precisely the majority voted for is irrelevant.
quote:No, preventing people from expressing their opinions on political issues is an abuse of democracy. While we still claim to be a democracy I've as much right as anyone else to make my views known. At least Remainers didn't state that if they lost they'd be out on the streets committing acts of violence - but, then the Brexit side did that even when they had won.
Not liking the referendum result is one thing. Ignoring it or attempting to overturn it is another. It's contempt for democracy.
quote:Yes, that would be lovely for the UK. But why on earth would the EU want to do that? What's in it for the EU?
Originally posted by Uriel:
A perfectly democratic way ahead would be to negotiate with the EU and find out what is and is not possible, and then put three or four options to the electorate under single transferable vote.
quote:A better ongoing relationship than if the public feel conned into one of three choices by their own government. It's harder to deflect blame when you make the final choice yourself.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Yes, that would be lovely for the UK. But why on earth would the EU want to do that? What's in it for the EU?
Originally posted by Uriel:
A perfectly democratic way ahead would be to negotiate with the EU and find out what is and is not possible, and then put three or four options to the electorate under single transferable vote.
quote:The electorate are refusing to see that tariffs and trade wars benefit nobody. Why do they get to blame the bureaucrats? (Who are appointed by democratically elected governments, including ours.)
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The federalist bureaucrats of the EU can't accept that an electorate can reject their very one sided vision. They refuse to see that tariffs and trade wars benefit nobody.
quote:I'm sorry, but this is bollocks, and betrays a very simplistic understanding of what is required in the modern world for trade to be agreed. We are currently on schedule to rip up all the agreements that make trading with the EU possible - in that context we are the authors of our own misfortune, not them.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Also any "trouble" in our trading relationship with the EU is coming from them, not from us.
quote:The whole point of offering to work for lower salaries than people somewhere else is so that you get the job rather than them. If the company is just going to bus in all their workers from elsewhere then everybody loses - the existing workers have to take a pay cut and move to a new area, and the people who were already in the area still don't have jobs.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Freedom of trade means that moveable jobs can be taken by the employers to where labour is cheapest, but workers can't move after the jobs to balance it out.
quote:I think the referendum was deeply flawed and would like a rerun. But what you are suggesting is impossible, because the EU have said you can't negotiate till Article 50 is activated.
Originally posted by Uriel:
A perfectly democratic way ahead would be to negotiate with the EU and find out what is and is not possible, and then put three or four options to the electorate under single transferable vote. The problem with the referendum is that it was a very blunt instrument and the Leave vote was a composite of many conflicting desires. What many Leave voters thought they were voting for (more money for the NHS, sending the Eastern Europeans back, arguments over sovereignty, sticking two fingers up to Westminster, etc. etc.) cannot be delivered, certainly not all of it. So negotiate with the EU and then say to the British public "Do you want (1) access to the single market with free movement of people, (2) no access to the single market with restrictions on movement, (3) to remain in the EU". There might be one or two other options.
And if you won't allow that vote, you aren't being democratic. As it stands, however, we are saddled with a wafer thin internally inconsistent vote, any interpretation of which will not be accepted by the majority of the UK public.
quote:I'm not sure if this is actually true.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think the referendum was deeply flawed and would like a rerun. But what you are suggesting is impossible, because the EU have said you can't negotiate till Article 50 is activated.
You can't get the deal which we would supposedly vote on until we have said we are leaving. So your suggestion, which is much like Tim Farron's and Owen Smith's, is impossible.
Which, frankly, someone should have thought of before we started down this foolish and destructive road in the first place.
quote:Article 50 was often referred to as being poorly defined, because nobody was ever expected to do the deed and invoke it, so it was something of an afterthought.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I'm not sure if this is actually true.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think the referendum was deeply flawed and would like a rerun. But what you are suggesting is impossible, because the EU have said you can't negotiate till Article 50 is activated.
You can't get the deal which we would supposedly vote on until we have said we are leaving. So your suggestion, which is much like Tim Farron's and Owen Smith's, is impossible.
Which, frankly, someone should have thought of before we started down this foolish and destructive road in the first place.
As I understand it, when Article 50 is given, that's a notification that one of the parties to the European Union intends to leave, with a 2 year notice period. I don't think there is any compulsion to actually leave once Article 50 has been invoked, and I don't think there is any reason why the period isn't actually longer than 2 years if the negotiations are not complete.
Therefore it seems plausible that it would be possible to invoke Article 50 to begin negotiations, find out what the positions are from the EU for the UK post-Brexit and then put those options to the electorate before actually leaving.
Maybe Real Politic means that this couldn't happen in practice, but as I understand it, the Article 50 notification shows intention not a formal it-is-definitely-going-to-happen unstoppable chain of events.
quote:Why would the company pay money to bus in the existing workers? What's the advantage of cutting pay if it has to spend the savings to bus them in?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The whole point of offering to work for lower salaries than people somewhere else is so that you get the job rather than them. If the company is just going to bus in all their workers from elsewhere then everybody loses - the existing workers have to take a pay cut and move to a new area, and the people who were already in the area still don't have jobs.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Freedom of trade means that moveable jobs can be taken by the employers to where labour is cheapest, but workers can't move after the jobs to balance it out.
quote:I am well aware of the importance of the USA's contribution to the Allied victory, thanks. My point (which probably is irrelevant, if Beeswax Altar was saying what you thought he was) is that their entry into the war did not happen until there was a direct threat to them, and the assistance they gave before that came with a price tag.
I did not quote your second para, but you may remember the very late (but equally as essential to the Allied victory) entry by the US into WWI. I'm not sure of the relevance of either to the present thread, to be honest.
quote:This is like me cancelling my Amazon Prime Account and then berating them because I don't get free next day delivery anymore. Of course, I don't get free next day delivery anymore. I've just stopped paying for it. In the same way, if we decide we no longer want to abide by the rules of the Single Market we have to trade with the EU on less preferential terms. It's not all about the UK - there are 27 other countries in this discussion and they also have principles, national interests and electorates. What part of this do people find so hard to understand?
Also any "trouble" in our trading relationship with the EU is coming from them, not from us.
quote:Indeed. A lot of unpopular but extremely beneficial laws (agency worker regulations, smoking ban, myriad environmental legislation etc.) is EU law that the UK government has to enact. Without the clout of the EU we'll be subject to the lobbyists who will persuade the UK government of their case and the laws will be unwound, or never enacted in the first place. As things stand, the UK is sheltered from this kind of pressure because our EU membership doesn't give us the right to yield to corporate or electoral whims at the expense of what's in the best interests of our most vulnerable citizens.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Chris, much as I agree with you I think PaulTH also makes a valid point (albeit factually incorrect) in that Britain will find it difficult to move forward without having the EU to blame every misfortune and difficult decision on. Moving forward they will have to find someone or something else to blame and I suspect they will tear themselves apart in parliament looking for the new scapegoat. I think you're in for a season of very turbulent politics.
quote:You were the one who said workers following the jobs was a good thing. The company wouldn't be literally bussing them in, they'd just be able to rehire them in the knowledge that the workers would "move after the jobs to balance it out".
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Why would the company pay money to bus in the existing workers? What's the advantage of cutting pay if it has to spend the savings to bus them in?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The whole point of offering to work for lower salaries than people somewhere else is so that you get the job rather than them. If the company is just going to bus in all their workers from elsewhere then everybody loses - the existing workers have to take a pay cut and move to a new area, and the people who were already in the area still don't have jobs.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Freedom of trade means that moveable jobs can be taken by the employers to where labour is cheapest, but workers can't move after the jobs to balance it out.
quote:That's a good situation to be in for the workforce. It means the local workers can demand higher salaries in the knowledge that the companies can't just hire in some cheaper folk from some other country. If they have to hire me in order to achieve their goals, then I have the opportunity to use that situation to my advantage.
There's no advantage to capital to raising wages, since they're not going to attract any more people than they're already getting.
quote:Well there is this old Mystery Worshipper report which might offer a few clues.
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
quote:Thanks so much for that. The image really gave me the giggles!
originally posted by TurquoiseTastic
Well there is this old Mystery Worshipper report which might offer a few clues.
quote:Rev 18:4?
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
quote:Probably this
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
quote:That only applies if the business can't move the job to the other country where the cheaper folk are. If the business can move the more expensive people have no protection.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's a good situation to be in for the workforce. It means the local workers can demand higher salaries in the knowledge that the companies can't just hire in some cheaper folk from some other country. If they have to hire me in order to achieve their goals, then I have the opportunity to use that situation to my advantage.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's no advantage to capital to raising wages, since they're not going to attract any more people than they're already getting.
quote:I think they're still arguing the toss over whether Article 50 can be stopped once it's revoked. Some legal experts - and the guy who drafted it - think it can. Which could be interesting ...
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Article 50 was often referred to as being poorly defined, because nobody was ever expected to do the deed and invoke it, so it was something of an afterthought.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I'm not sure if this is actually true.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think the referendum was deeply flawed and would like a rerun. But what you are suggesting is impossible, because the EU have said you can't negotiate till Article 50 is activated.
You can't get the deal which we would supposedly vote on until we have said we are leaving. So your suggestion, which is much like Tim Farron's and Owen Smith's, is impossible.
Which, frankly, someone should have thought of before we started down this foolish and destructive road in the first place.
As I understand it, when Article 50 is given, that's a notification that one of the parties to the European Union intends to leave, with a 2 year notice period. I don't think there is any compulsion to actually leave once Article 50 has been invoked, and I don't think there is any reason why the period isn't actually longer than 2 years if the negotiations are not complete.
Therefore it seems plausible that it would be possible to invoke Article 50 to begin negotiations, find out what the positions are from the EU for the UK post-Brexit and then put those options to the electorate before actually leaving.
Maybe Real Politic means that this couldn't happen in practice, but as I understand it, the Article 50 notification shows intention not a formal it-is-definitely-going-to-happen unstoppable chain of events.
The definition can be read here
Article 50
The salient point seems to be number 3
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
So I think once we give notice, then after two years, we are out, unless everyone agrees we should still be negotiating.
quote:Is it just me or does that church look like Albert Speer was on the design committee?
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:Well there is this old Mystery Worshipper report which might offer a few clues.
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
quote:I just looked at the 'bible hub' Study Bible quote.
Originally posted by Humble Servant
Rev 18:4
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Here is another example of that sort of thinking. Under what legitimate theology events in countries unimaginably different in place and time and completely unknown to him can be linked to obscure passages in the book of Daniel, I can't imagine.
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
quote:And who benefits from this? Not the UK. Not the remaining 27 member countries who trade with the UK. In every situation, countries which adopt free trade prosper. Look at Singapore and Hong Kong. Protectionism was the big causes of the Great Depression. As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
Originally posted by Callan:
In the same way, if we decide we no longer want to abide by the rules of the Single Market we have to trade with the EU on less preferential terms. It's not all about the UK - there are 27 other countries in this discussion and they also have principles, national interests and electorates. What part of this do people find so hard to understand?
quote:And who benefits from this? Not the UK. Not the remaining 27 member countries who trade with the UK. In every situation, countries which adopt free trade prosper. Look at Singapore and Hong Kong. Protectionism was the big causes of the Great Depression. As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
Originally posted by Callan:
In the same way, if we decide we no longer want to abide by the rules of the Single Market we have to trade with the EU on less preferential terms. It's not all about the UK - there are 27 other countries in this discussion and they also have principles, national interests and electorates. What part of this do people find so hard to understand?
quote:The common market is far more than free trade. The reasons for the rules are largely to get rid of the non-tariff barriers to free trade. The rules are there to make free trade possible.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
quote:Hang on a moment, we've basically had a referendum which was won by the side that said we don't like European Immigrants and we don't want to pay anything to the EU budget. Your view appears to be that the other 27 EU states ought just to say: "fair enough" on the grounds that free trade is a good thing. Unfortunately this means that somebody is going to have to pony up the £180m per week to make up the shortfall caused by our leaving and some other people are going to take the view that selling this to their nationals, after said nationals became the targets of the Leavers' Two Minutes Hate, might be beyond the skills of Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela in their respective pomps. Now I agree with you that free trade is a good thing, but if one thinks that free trade is a good thing then voting to leave the bloody great free trade bloc on your Southern coast on one Island and with which you possess a land border on the other is, frankly, a bloody stupid idea. There is a Spanish proverb: "Take what you want. Take what you want, says God. Take what you want and pay for it". Well, we are going to pay for it, and our children and our children's children after them. It's not much use tanking our economy in a fit of nativist spite and then demanding that the rest of the EU behave like high minded Manchester liberals.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:And who benefits from this? Not the UK. Not the remaining 27 member countries who trade with the UK. In every situation, countries which adopt free trade prosper. Look at Singapore and Hong Kong. Protectionism was the big causes of the Great Depression. As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
Originally posted by Callan:
In the same way, if we decide we no longer want to abide by the rules of the Single Market we have to trade with the EU on less preferential terms. It's not all about the UK - there are 27 other countries in this discussion and they also have principles, national interests and electorates. What part of this do people find so hard to understand?
quote:There is also a potential faultline in that ISTM the former Eastern Bloc countries joined up for reasons that were at least partially nationalist rather than internationalist - namely, because they wanted to get away from the Russians.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
He didn’t mention Eastern Europe in the accounts of the speech I saw. But Hungary was in breach of EU rules last time I looked and a few others are sailing close to the wind. In the interests of maintaining a united front, everyone seems to be ignoring that. Whether that can continue is anyone’s guess!
Tubbs
quote:In order for Ricardinia and Paulsland to have a free trade agreement for the tariff-free exchange of knockwurst, several rules must be in place. Neither one of us can subsidise our knockwurst-factories to a greater degree than the other (otherwise Ricardinia can just flood the Paulslandic market with cheap state-subsidised knockwurst). We must define what we mean by knockwurst so that we know what we are suspending tariffs on. We must agree at least some minimal production standards so that Paulsland can't flood the Ricardinian market with cheap knockwurst bulked out with sand and cement to save production costs.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
quote:A good chance that the UK, when faced with the reality of what is possible, instead of the ludicrous rhetoric of the referendum campaign, decides to stay in the EU.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Yes, that would be lovely for the UK. But why on earth would the EU want to do that? What's in it for the EU?
Originally posted by Uriel:
A perfectly democratic way ahead would be to negotiate with the EU and find out what is and is not possible, and then put three or four options to the electorate under single transferable vote.
quote:Unlikely, because the middle-aged pub bore contingent that props up the Leave vote would never admit they are wrong, and take grim satisfaction in every economic misfortune as long as someone else is feeling the pain more than they are.
Originally posted by Uriel:
A good chance that the UK, when faced with the reality of what is possible, instead of the ludicrous rhetoric of the referendum campaign, decides to stay in the EU.
quote:Judging from the rhetoric at the Conservative Party Conference this week any blame will be directed in the general direction of European governments, immigrants and 'the Liberal elite'. When the economy goes T.U. and the racists realise that the country is still 'full' of immigrants things are going to get very unpleasant indeed.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Unlikely, because the middle-aged pub bore contingent that props up the Leave vote would never admit they are wrong, and take grim satisfaction in every economic misfortune as long as someone else is feeling the pain more than they are.
Originally posted by Uriel:
A good chance that the UK, when faced with the reality of what is possible, instead of the ludicrous rhetoric of the referendum campaign, decides to stay in the EU.
quote:I think this is a red herring. To sell into any market, a trading nation must comply with the standards required by that market in terms of quality control and fair competition. The UK, as a present member of the EU, complies with those standards. Whether or not we are members of the Single Market, we will need to continue to comply in order to sell there. Other countries, which aren't members of the Single Market, still have access to it. So compliance isn't what this is about.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The EU had a comprehensive package of rules to make free trade possible. The UK has just voted to reject them. How then is free trade possible without reinstating those rules?
quote:Help me get my head around this red herring then.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think this is a red herring. To sell into any market, a trading nation must comply with the standards required by that market in terms of quality control and fair competition. The UK, as a present member of the EU, complies with those standards. Whether or not we are members of the Single Market, we will need to continue to comply in order to sell there. Other countries, which aren't members of the Single Market, still have access to it. So compliance isn't what this is about.
quote:This isn't so easy. While I'm no fan of Theresa May, she is really between a rock and a hard pace due to David Cameron's disastrous mismanagement of this situation. Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and the EU Commission have all made it clear that they won't enter into any discussions about future relationships until the EU invokes Article 50. Once this happens Brexit is probably irreversible. At the least, it would require the consent of all 27 member states. Some of these countries may resent the special status the UK already has within the EU. We receive a substantial budget rebate. We are eternally exempt from taking the Euro. We don't belong to the Schengen area, and most recently, Cameron negotiated an opt out from "ever closer political union."
Originally posted by Uriel:
A good chance that the UK, when faced with the reality of what is possible, instead of the ludicrous rhetoric of the referendum campaign, decides to stay in the EU
quote:This is why EEA access to the Single Market is the worst of all worlds. The Single Market is also a customs union. One of the only potential benefits of Brexit is freedom from that union. I am self-confessed advocate of free trade, and the EU customs union is a barrier to, for example, Third World agricultural products. It's a balance of advantages.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Specifically for the EU, being a member of the EU also means having a say in writing those regulations. Being in the EEA, though having many of the benefits of the Single Market, would mean having no say in what regulations need to be met to trade in the Single Market.
quote:Of course the Welshcakes muct still be EU compliant. And if we were still in a free trade situation, we would never be excluding Polish mushrooms. A passionate believer in free trade, such as I, would never want to do that anyway.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
and the EU can decide that my van of Welshcakes cannot be driven to Warsaw - perhaps because the UK has rejected exports of Mushrooms from Poland because of the damage to the UK Mushroom industry.
quote:OOookay but I don't think that option is on the table. If we want access to the EU's welshcake market, we must produce them to the standards set by the EU. If we want to benefit from the free trading market, we must accept the free movement of labour.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of course the Welshcakes muct still be EU compliant. And if we were still in a free trade situation, we would never be excluding Polish mushrooms. A passionate believer in free trade, such as I, would never want to do that anyway.
quote:The sensible political line would be to take the robust position that we will not serve any Article 50 notice until the terms have been worked out.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
This isn't so easy. While I'm no fan of Theresa May, she is really between a rock and a hard pace due to David Cameron's disastrous mismanagement of this situation. Chancellor Merkel, President Hollande and the EU Commission have all made it clear that they won't enter into any discussions about future relationships until the EU invokes Article 50. Once this happens Brexit is probably irreversible. At the least, it would require the consent of all 27 member states. Some of these countries may resent the special status the UK already has within the EU. We receive a substantial budget rebate. We are eternally exempt from taking the Euro. We don't belong to the Schengen area, and most recently, Cameron negotiated an opt out from "ever closer political union."
quote:I, along with many others, would contend that the referendum result precludes the government from accepting free movement in its present form. It is this, more than anything, which makes a hard Brexit likely. Mrs. May is no hard Brexiteer. She keeps on slapping down Johnson, Fox and Davies for their over exuberance. But is she comes up against the brick wall of no access without free movement, she has no authority to go against the expressed will of the British people.
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
If we want to benefit from the free trading market, we must accept the free movement of labour.
quote:I think some in the government, especially Mrs May, would have loved to have the luxury of doing things that way. Informally work out the terms and negotiating position before invoking Article 50. But the EU leaders closed the door on that option. They've made it abundantly clear that they won't discuss anything until the article has been triggered. President Hollande made it clear before the end of July that he was impatient for the UK to "get on with it."
Originally posted by Enoch:
The sensible political line would be to take the robust position that we will not serve any Article 50 notice until the terms have been worked out.
quote:This is a democratic deficit, because it overlooks the 52% who voted Leave. Neither they, nor the EU leaders will tolerate the government doing nothing. And nor should they. It smacks of a political elite thinking it knows better than the ignorant masses. Cameron's blunder and the EU's piqued response to it have boxed the UK government into a corner. It must invoke Article 50. It must insist on the red line of immigration control. These things together make hard Brexit unavoidable.
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the Commission don't like the uncertainty, then they have to do something about it. If our politicians don't like it, 48% of us would.
quote:When have the British people been asked about free movement of labour within the EU? Beyond a few polls of a couple of thousand, that is.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the expressed will of the British people.
quote:OK well we can't hold a referendum on all individual aspects of our relationship with the EU. Opinion canvassed in Boston, Lincolnshire, the town with the largest Brexit vote, suggested that immigration played a big part in that town. But even people at my church, who aren't xenophobes, have expressed the view that immigration policy is a matter for the British Parliament, not something to be imposed by regulation from overseas. For the government to propose a EEA type solution to Brexit would, IMO, be a betrayal of the result.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When have the British people been asked about free movement of labour within the EU? Beyond a few polls of a couple of thousand, that is.
quote:Your largest trading partner is Canada. Your closest ally is Canada. In terms of shared services and operations, both historically and presently (WW2 to now).
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hard to believe she follows through on punishing the UK for leaving the EU. I say this for two reasons. One, the US doesn't have much of a trade deficit with the UK. Why would disrupting trade with the UK be in our economic interest? Two, the UK is our closest ally.
quote:Immigration policy concerns the movement of people, generally between countries. When the movement of goods or capital is to be discussed, these are handled at least bilaterally but mostly, in the modern world, on an international level and the validity of this is rarely questioned. Quite why the movement of people should be treated any different, in a world in which safe and cheap travel is simple can only rationally be explained by economic selfishness or fear of those who are different.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:OK well we can't hold a referendum on all individual aspects of our relationship with the EU. Opinion canvassed in Boston, Lincolnshire, the town with the largest Brexit vote, suggested that immigration played a big part in that town. But even people at my church, who aren't xenophobes, have expressed the view that immigration policy is a matter for the British Parliament, not something to be imposed by regulation from overseas. For the government to propose a EEA type solution to Brexit would, IMO, be a betrayal of the result.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When have the British people been asked about free movement of labour within the EU? Beyond a few polls of a couple of thousand, that is.
quote:No, we can't. We could have easily had a referendum between the status quo and a well defined manifesto for Brexit - a description of what the Leave side would attempt to obtain in negotiations for exit. That is, afterall, the accepted way for any other election or referendum to be run. But, Hameron didn't insist on the Leave campaign producing a manifesto so we have nothing to judge whether or not the position the government eventually decides to negotiate for is anything like what people voted for. About the closest we have to such a manifesto is a slogan on the side of a bus - and, that's something that can't possibly be on the table.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:OK well we can't hold a referendum on all individual aspects of our relationship with the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When have the British people been asked about free movement of labour within the EU? Beyond a few polls of a couple of thousand, that is.
quote:Which is a) an argument for sovereignty of the UK Parliament rather than related to immigration - unless the only regulation people are concerned with is immigration, in which case it's carefully disguised xenophobia
But even people at my church, who aren't xenophobes, have expressed the view that immigration policy is a matter for the British Parliament, not something to be imposed by regulation from overseas.
quote:I think the idea is that blanket adoption was the only realistic option given the sheer amount of EU legislation. I suppose then that once it's all been adopted, selectively repealing it can just go on indefinitely. Of course there'll be some bits that people will be itching to get rid of, but in the longer term, it will surely have to be done by people proposing what to get rid of and why because they have a particular interest in it or whatever.
Originally posted by Odds Bodkin:
"The proposal seems to be a blanket adoption of all existing EU legislation into UK law, followed by selectively repealing bits we don't want."
How long would that selective repealing take, given just how much EU legislation there is?
quote:That sounds like a pension plan for lawyers.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:I think the idea is that blanket adoption was the only realistic option given the sheer amount of EU legislation. I suppose then that once it's all been adopted, selectively repealing it can just go on indefinitely. Of course there'll be some bits that people will be itching to get rid of, but in the longer term, it will surely have to be done by people proposing what to get rid of and why because they have a particular interest in it or whatever.
Originally posted by Odds Bodkin:
"The proposal seems to be a blanket adoption of all existing EU legislation into UK law, followed by selectively repealing bits we don't want."
How long would that selective repealing take, given just how much EU legislation there is?
You couldn't just have a house of commons vote on each bit because it would take forever.
quote:In moral terms, those results give the government as much of a mandate to carry out Brexit, and even to go hardcore on it, as they see fit. They are in no way obligated to consider the opinions of the people who didn't bother to vote.
Originally posted by Graham J:
I often see statements to the effect that 48% of people in Britain voted to remain in the EU or 52% voted to leave. It is my understanding that the figures above actually refer to the number of people who actually voted, ignoring both those people who were eligible to vote but who did not vote (through choice or circumastances) and those who were not eligible vote (e.g. too young).
In which case we know that around 36% of the population voted to leave. We cannot change the vote - but I don't think we should pretend that the mandate to leave was bigger than it is in reality.
quote:Which is somewhat ironic, as one of the themes Leave were running with was the secrecy of TTIP.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Between Brexit and TTIP (remember that?) everything of any importance is being kept under wraps. It's like the Star Chamber of old.
quote:Poorer, but purer.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rawnsley in the Observer reports that some Tories were telling him that giving up some prosperity would be worth it, in order to control immigration.
Eh? What? Is that going to be the new slogan, poorer, but whiter!
quote:Given that most of on this thread voted Remain, we find the result dismal. But we cannot change the vote other than by subverting democracy. So I'd be interested to know what people really want the government to do. The voices in parliament calling for scrutiny of the government's proposals don't surprise me when we consider that 70% of MP's are Remainers. Yet some of the most vociferous of them, like Ed Milliband represent constituencies which voted Leave. So Ed simply thinks he knows better than his own voters. Andrew Neil on Sunday Politics produced a clip of David Cameron during the referendum campaign making it clear that leaving the EU means leaving the Single Market. He was, of course, against leaving.
Originally posted by Graham J:
We cannot change the vote
quote:But, it was not a simple question. The "Stay" option was fairly simple, because it was more or less the status quo everyone knew (with the exception of very minor tinkering in the 'deal' Cameron cooked up). The "Leave" option was, and is, incredibly complicated with a vast range of options for the prefered relationships between the UK and EU, and between the UK and the rest of the world. The only way the vote could have been simple was for that range of options to be narrowed down to particular negotiating position that the Leavers would adopt if they won the vote. By not requiring the Leave campaign to produce such a policy document Cameron created an almighty mess that it's still very unclear how the UK gets out of. Not to mention making the referendum practically unique in UK politics (and, for that matter politics in virtually the whole of the western world) - a vote in which there was no manifesto on which to base the decision of who to vote for and to hold the winner of the vote accountable to.
Originally posted by Gee D:
And no, Alan Creswell, you can't say that the voters did not support that. They did. The electorate was asked a simple question, Stay or Leave, and votes by a substantial majority (of those voting) for Leave.
quote:Alan I don't think you're going to get much disagreement over this comment, but I'm still interested in opinions of what the government should do about it. As I said, I think it calls for an election, where the parties campaign for what their vision of the way forward should be.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cameron created an almighty mess that it's still very unclear how the UK gets out of.
quote:I agree that a democratic decision is needed, but I don't agree with your options 1 or 3. I disagree with 1 because I don't trust the present parliament, with its 70% bias in favour of Remain, to carry out the democratic will of the British people. As you said, no party included this in their election manifestos.
Originally posted by Alan Cesswell:
There needs to be a democratic decision made - there are three options IMO
1. A debate and vote in Parliament, allowing our elected representatives to act on our behalf. The major draw back being our MPs (with the possible exception of Douglas Carswell) were not elected on the basis of their position on Brexit since Brexit (or not) was not part of their manifestos at the last election.
2. Call a General Election so that we have a Parliament of members who have been elected on a particular Brexit position. The major draw back being that the resulting government will also have to make policy on a lot of domestic issues, and it's plain daft to elect anyone on a single issue.
3. Take the question of what sort of Brexit back to the people in a follow-up referendum
quote:This seems to be based on the very dubious assumption that the UK gets to dictate the terms on which it leaves the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "Stay" option was fairly simple, because it was more or less the status quo everyone knew (with the exception of very minor tinkering in the 'deal' Cameron cooked up). The "Leave" option was, and is, incredibly complicated with a vast range of options for the preferred relationships between the UK and EU, and between the UK and the rest of the world.
quote:No, it only assumes that the UK gets to decide what terms it would try to obtain. No one imagines that the UK would get exactly what it asks for. At least, no one with a brain.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems to be based on the very dubious assumption that the UK gets to dictate the terms on which it leaves the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The "Stay" option was fairly simple, because it was more or less the status quo everyone knew (with the exception of very minor tinkering in the 'deal' Cameron cooked up). The "Leave" option was, and is, incredibly complicated with a vast range of options for the preferred relationships between the UK and EU, and between the UK and the rest of the world.
quote:No, the practicalities of the Leave vote are complex, with so much legislation to be examined and requiring amendment/repeal. But the question itself was simple.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:But, it was not a simple question. The "Stay" option was fairly simple, because it was more or less the status quo everyone knew (with the exception of very minor tinkering in the 'deal' Cameron cooked up). The "Leave" option was, and is, incredibly complicated with a vast range of options for the prefered relationships between the UK and EU, and between the UK and the rest of the world. The only way the vote could have been simple was for that range of options to be narrowed down to particular negotiating position that the Leavers would adopt if they won the vote. By not requiring the Leave campaign to produce such a policy document Cameron created an almighty mess that it's still very unclear how the UK gets out of.
Originally posted by Gee D:
And no, Alan Creswell, you can't say that the voters did not support that. They did. The electorate was asked a simple question, Stay or Leave, and votes by a substantial majority (of those voting) for Leave.
quote:That is kinda what people mean when they comment that a question is not simple.
Originally posted by Gee D:
No, the practicalities of the Leave vote are complex, with so much legislation to be examined and requiring amendment/repeal. But the question itself was simple.
quote:I'm not sure that's going to happen. Of course, logic suggests that if British pensioners want to continue living in the EU then EU workers should be allowed to continue in the UK - but in practice it is hard to see how most of the EU workers would be welcome post-Brexit.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think that the best that can be hoped for from exit negotiations is protection of the rights of Britons living in the EU (residence, healthcare etc.), in return for reciprocal protection of EU citizens already in Britain. There might also be scope for continuation of academic collaborations and similar programmes. It is becoming increasingly clear that wanting any sort of ongoing membership of the single market is unrealistic.
quote:I'm not sure it matters, we're screwed either way. The chances of negotiations being concluded within 2 years to give the UK what it wants and nothing it doesn't want (ie on freedom of movement) are negligible to none.
Therefore, with a heavy heart, I think that the govmt should trigger A50, conclude negotiations ASAP (leaving EU laws & regs in place to be dealt with later when they have a mandate for changing them) and thereby end the uncertainty which is a very large part of the problem. We've made our bed, we should get into it.
quote:Spot on. I think Donald Tusk has a very clear grasp of the real choice the UK government now faces.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
.. we're screwed either way. The chances of negotiations being concluded within 2 years to give the UK what it wants and nothing it doesn't want (ie on freedom of movement) are negligible to none.
quote:I see hardly any difference here between this and what we had in the referendum. Warm words with no details. We will get as good a deal as we can (emphasis on the last three words).
Geography and history determine that Britain is part of Europe, and Labour wants to see Europe safe and prosperous. But the European Economic Community, which does not even include the whole of Western Europe, was never devised to suit us, and our experience as a member of it has made it more difficult for us to deal with our economic and industrial problems. It has sometimes weakened our ability to achieve the objectives of Labour's international policy.
The next Labour government, committed to radical, socialist policies for reviving the British economy, is bound to find continued membership a most serious obstacle to the fulfilment of those policies. In particular the rules of the Treaty of Rome are bound to conflict with our strategy for economic growth and full employment, our proposals on industrial policy and for increasing trade, and our need to restore exchange controls and to regulate direct overseas investment. Moreover, by preventing us from buying food from the best sources of world supply, they would run counter to our plans to control prices and inflation.
For all these reasons, British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain - to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament. That is our commitment. But we are also committed to bring about withdrawal in an amicable and orderly way, so that we do not prejudice employment or the prospect of increased political and economic co-operation with the whole of Europe.
We emphasise that our decision to bring about withdrawal in no sense represents any weakening of our commitment to internationalism and international co operation. We are not 'withdrawing from Europe'. We are seeking to extricate ourselves from the Treaty of Rome and other Community treaties which place political burdens on Britain. Indeed, we believe our withdrawal will allow us to pursue a more dynamic and positive international policy - one which recognises the true political and geographical spread of international problems and interests. We will also seek agreement with other European governments - both in the EEC and outside - on a common strategy for economic expansion.
quote:You're forgetting the 40 years or so of anti-EU propaganda from the tabloids and the hostility of most of the national newspapers to the Remain campaign. The 'few months of discussion' did not take place on a level playing field.
A few months of discussion, with a lot of people only really engaging in the last couple of weeks, doesn't cut it (OK, you probably can't escape people ignoring the discussion until the last minute).
quote:I am advocating an early election, but it isn't quite as simple as it once was. Under the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011, stitched together by Cameron and Clegg, the next general election is fixed for 7th May 2020. I agreed with it at the time, because I was tired of Prime Ministers calling early elections when the opinion polls gave them a big advantage. So I agree, in principle with the fixed term parliament. But these are extenuating circumstances. We're in a political and economic crisis that nobody knows how to, or agrees how to resolve. It would need a parliamentary vote to call an early election, but I don't see that as insurmountable.
Originally posted by anteater:
I was, and remain, slightly surprised that May refused an early election, but perhaps the reason could be that there would be an expectation in any manifesto of a degree of detail which she is just not able to give.
quote:If that 40 years of propaganda had resulted in more than a few rolling eyes at the latest headline I'd agree with you. But, it didn't. Where was the discussion of the EU over coffee in the office, over a few beers on Friday night? Where were the questions on EU membership raised regularly on Question Time, or the debates in the chmabers of Parliament? Where were the political parties standing with a clear position on Europe in election after election (and, for those positions to be a significant factor in their electability)? Even in the early days of the referendum campaign the question of EU membership was second to whether to call a new ship "Boaty McBoatface".
Originally posted by Jane R:
Alan:quote:You're forgetting the 40 years or so of anti-EU propaganda from the tabloids and the hostility of most of the national newspapers to the Remain campaign. The 'few months of discussion' did not take place on a level playing field.
A few months of discussion, with a lot of people only really engaging in the last couple of weeks, doesn't cut it (OK, you probably can't escape people ignoring the discussion until the last minute).
quote:I'd be very surprised if more than a handful on either side thought of the complexities of the divorce. For most, the vote was what it asked: do you want to remain in the EU or not. It is still not clear to me how it could have covered all the matters Alan Cresswell discusses. It could not have because there is no way of building into that the detailed positions of the other EU members.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:That is kinda what people mean when they comment that a question is not simple.
Originally posted by Gee D:
No, the practicalities of the Leave vote are complex, with so much legislation to be examined and requiring amendment/repeal. But the question itself was simple.
quote:It would be easy. Well, relatively. A few simple steps:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It is still not clear to me how it could have covered all the matters Alan Cresswell discusses. It could not have because there is no way of building into that the detailed positions of the other EU members.
quote:You’re thinking about this with your rational brain. Most people don’t do that. As the Ref showed, logical arguments and economic realities are nothing compared to a natty marketing slogan.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:It would be easy. Well, relatively. A few simple steps:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It is still not clear to me how it could have covered all the matters Alan Cresswell discusses. It could not have because there is no way of building into that the detailed positions of the other EU members.
A. Form a campaign group to leave the EU. Within which there would be a wide range of positions of what they would consider to be would they would like to achieve through Brexit.
B. That campaign group to actively engage in discussion, both within their group and the wider political community, and in society at large. The result being a winnowing out of the various positions that either have very little support, or are clearly so unrealistic as to be impossible to achieve.
C. That campaign group to gain sufficient influence within the political system for their position to be credible - that means several MPs elected, positions in government etc (this step could easily be concurrent with B).
D. That campaign group to produce a manifesto for Brexit, that will be the plaform on which they a) campaign for a referendum and then b) campaign in the referendum.
E. If they win the referendum they then form a government that will use that manifesto as a starting point for negotiations with the rest of the EU, and the wider world, with the intention of achieving deals that are as close to that manifesto as possible. If step B was done properly then they shouldn't be starting such negotiations with an impossible hand.
That is a relatively straight forward process. It's what we've seen in Scotland in relation to Independence. It is nothing like the process adopted in the EU referendum, where A-D was squashed into a few short months (and, as a result D never happened and a lot of the campaign was conducted over points that with more time and effort would have been shown to be either unpopular or impractical). With the result that E is a shambles.
quote:Yes, and one could argue that the cleverer strategy would be to force them into a situation where they had the produce an actual manifesto of what Leave would consist of; knowing full well that this would leave to civil war within the Leave movement.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Eurosceptic wing of the Tories and UKIP did some of what you’re suggesting, but there was never a coherent picture of what Leave would look like. Probably because no one can actually agree.
quote:Whilst it may be true that racists would vote for Brexit, not all Brexit voters are racists. And I don’t think that it’s exclusively an English thing either. * Cough * Wales and the Unionists in Northern Ireland * Cough *. And 2 in 5 Scottish voters.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's a very good point, (by Callan). It explains quite a lot of things, for example, the lack of detail in the Brexit proposals, and the strange emotive responses by Brexit people. I guess they are not all English nationalists, but quite a few are. And also white nationalists.
quote:Yes, but even in this case forcing a plan would force those involved to make the narrative clearer - distancing oneself wouldn't work as a strategy.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
But, essentially Callan is right. The narrative is that all our problems would be solved if we got rid of those pesky X who are holding us back. It’s just the identity of the pesky X that is different.
quote:The big problem with this is that, as anyone with a brain realizes, is the UK doesn't have the power to decide "what Leave would consist of". The only thing within the power of the UK to determine unilaterally was the Leave/Stay option. Having a referendum stating "Brexit, but only on conditions of X, Y, and Z" is deceptive in that it's implicitly making the claim that the UK has the power to demand X, Y, and Z of the EU, or that a Brexit could be revoked if X, Y, and Z are not forthcoming. Neither of those is an accurate reflection of reality.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Yes, and one could argue that the cleverer strategy would be to force them into a situation where they had the produce an actual manifesto of what Leave would consist of; knowing full well that this would leave to civil war within the Leave movement.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
The Eurosceptic wing of the Tories and UKIP did some of what you’re suggesting, but there was never a coherent picture of what Leave would look like. Probably because no one can actually agree.
quote:I completely agree with you - however, in the absence of any movement to push the Leavers for a clear plan, Leave became a kind of Rorschach object onto which each Leaver could project their fantasies. Something which now persists after the vote.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The big problem with this is that, as anyone with a brain realizes, is the UK doesn't have the power to decide "what Leave would consist of".
quote:Absolutely, but having had the vote, the first of those scenarios is indeed the fantasyland currently inhabited by the government (with the nonsense of 'secret' negotiations accompanying it).
The only thing within the power of the UK to determine unilaterally was the Leave/Stay option. Having a referendum stating "Brexit, but only on conditions of X, Y, and Z" is deceptive in that it's implicitly making the claim that the UK has the power to demand X, Y, and Z of the EU, or that a Brexit could be revoked if X, Y, and Z are not forthcoming. Neither of those is an accurate reflection of reality.
quote:How do you do that, though? Short of giving a speech which says "we are a representative democracy, those who wish to leave the EU should join UKIP and campaign for them to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons".
I completely agree with you - however, in the absence of any movement to push the Leavers for a clear plan, Leave became a kind of Rorschach object onto which each Leaver could project their fantasies. Something which now persists after the vote.
quote:A variation on this was popular with American pundits who supported the Iraq War. After it became obvious that the Iraq War was becoming a giant cluster of fuck, a lot of folks who had been advocates of the war before it happened said essentially "This isn't the war I wanted. I wanted the war without civilian casualties, where we were greeted as liberators and destroyed a whole bunch of WMDs and democracy bloomed in our wake!" A lot of ostensibly smart people were amazed that for some reason reality did not live up to their expectations, despite the fact that this was fairly obviously going to be the case ex ante.
Originally posted by Callan:
Once you have a referendum you have a coalition of people who want to leave the EU for a variety of reasons and, when Leave wins, they will have to fight among themselves as to how to implement this. This was apparent at the time. Whatever happens Giles Fraser and the Lexit halfwits and (probably) the 'liberal leavers' but (possibly) the angry nativists are all going to be saying "but this is not the Brexit I campaigned for. Woe and thrice woe unto Illium!" and blaming the Remainers. This was apparent when we saw the cast list for Leave.
quote:Alan Cresswell this really is the case against your argument. The question was not "Do you want to leave and if so how" but simply to ask Remain or Leave, and then let's work out how it's to be done. As to the last, those voting would never really have had a say in the how, given that the EU was always going to be in a much stronger position than a departing UK.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:How do you do that, though? Short of giving a speech which says "we are a representative democracy, those who wish to leave the EU should join UKIP and campaign for them to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons".
I completely agree with you - however, in the absence of any movement to push the Leavers for a clear plan, Leave became a kind of Rorschach object onto which each Leaver could project their fantasies. Something which now persists after the vote.
Once you have a referendum you have a coalition of people who want to leave the EU for a variety of reasons and, when Leave wins, they will have to fight among themselves as to how to implement this. This was apparent at the time. Whatever happens Giles Fraser and the Lexit halfwits and (probably) the 'liberal leavers' but (possibly) the angry nativists are all going to be saying "but this is not the Brexit I campaigned for. Woe and thrice woe unto Illium!" and blaming the Remainers. This was apparent when we saw the cast list for Leave.
quote:Yes, that was the question. Which is a) a bloody stupid way to go about things, and b) (as I've said repeatedly) an extremely complicated question precisely because the how wasn't defined.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell this really is the case against your argument. The question was not "Do you want to leave and if so how" but simply to ask Remain or Leave, and then let's work out how it's to be done.
quote:I am not sure I really know, but then it doesn't appear that anyone really tried.
Originally posted by Callan:
How do you do that, though? Short of giving a speech which says "we are a representative democracy, those who wish to leave the EU should join UKIP and campaign for them to win a majority of seats in the House of Commons".
quote:You're right - there is no joint position, and the entire Brexit strategy is a consequence of this. There is no single post-Brexit vision of the UK that would have come close to getting a majority of the vote. The Brexit people knew this, and so were purposely vague: they didn't want to scare of any Brexit voters by saying that their preferred kind of Brexit was a non-starter.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell The next is that it assumes that a joint position and plan could be worked out. I suspect that there is no such position. The electors were united in their wish to leave the EU, but for many reasons.
quote:I'm English and therefore properly agnostic about Scottish independence, however surely the brave Scexiteers recognise they sound exactly like the brave Brexiteers when they say things that boil down to:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just because, in the context of campaigning for the Better Together side in the referendum, one Chancellor said that an independent Scotland couldn't continue using the British pound didn't mean that once the result was in and people were at the negotiating table that there wouldn't be more options available.
Same with the EU, once the reality of an independent Scotland came to be and the Scottish government put on the table a position of wanting to remain in the EU as one of two successor states from the UK, there would be more options than might have been evident before.
quote:In that case, why do parties bother producing manifestoes prior to every election? (or, rather, every other election except the EU referendum). It's the normal, indeed the right and proper, way to approach the electorate - th clearly lay out the position you are campaigning on.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell I think there are a few problems with your approach. The first is that it is far too cerebral for many, if not most, electors.
quote:I think that’s my problem with the whole thing as well. Essentially, UKIP and the SNP are nationalist parties telling people that all their problems will miraculously be solved if that nasty big thing stops telling them what to do and they can make their own decisions and control their own destiny.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:I'm English and therefore properly agnostic about Scottish independence, however surely the brave Scexiteers recognise they sound exactly like the brave Brexiteers when they say things that boil down to:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Just because, in the context of campaigning for the Better Together side in the referendum, one Chancellor said that an independent Scotland couldn't continue using the British pound didn't mean that once the result was in and people were at the negotiating table that there wouldn't be more options available.
Same with the EU, once the reality of an independent Scotland came to be and the Scottish government put on the table a position of wanting to remain in the EU as one of two successor states from the UK, there would be more options than might have been evident before.
"Enough of your objections, when the vote goes our way things we're being told aren't on the table will be on the table"?
quote:Because the process relates to the mechanism of organising a fair and democratic vote. It's the same process as is followed in any other election. What reason could there be for not following such a process?
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan, given the multitude of explanations (many of them not reasons) given for voting Leave, how could the process you urge have been followed?
quote:I think he's being shown that there are other points of view .
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Be careful,shipmates! According to The Times, a petition is circulating asking Parliament to legislate to make post-Brexit advocacy of rejoining the EU an offence of High Treason. Volunteers for being hanged,drawn and quartered please take one pace forward.
quote:I can remember well proposals that anyone who advocate leaving the EU after the 1974 referendum was guilty of treason. It's another sign that Brexit is unravelling and the Brexiteers becoming desperate.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Be careful,shipmates! According to The Times, a petition is circulating asking Parliament to legislate to make post-Brexit advocacy of rejoining the EU an offence of High Treason. Volunteers for being hanged,drawn and quartered please take one pace forward.
quote:It really isn't though is it? Even as someone that didn't vote for it I can recognise that petition as the work of one (now suspended) loony councillor.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's another sign that Brexit is unravelling and the Brexiteers becoming desperate.
quote:Well it depends what you mean by hard Brexit. Two days ago on Sunday Politics Andrew Neil showed an excerpt from an interview with David Cameron during the referendum campaign. In trying to promote the Remain view, Cameron made it clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market. I don't see how anybody can now argue that they didn't vote to leave the Single Market unless, of course, they were Remainers.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some UKIP people are definitely saying that the vote was for hard Brexit, which it obviously wasn't
quote:And, I would say a referendum is a form of an election. An election for a representative in Parliament (usually) has more than two options, and a referendum usually has just two options. But, in both cases the question posed to the electorate is "which of these people/parties/options do you prefer?" An election and referendum is closer than you seem to think, IMO.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell, your last 2 posts show clearly where I consider that your error lies. In both, you talk of an election. This was not an election; it was a referendum to vote on a single question, whether to Remain or to Leave. How either course was to be followed was not a matter to put before voters in a manifesto.
quote:I saw a ton of stuff from people who were proposing various scenarios for the UK post Leave on FB. There were very few fully fledged hard Brexiters.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Well it depends what you mean by hard Brexit. Two days ago on Sunday Politics Andrew Neil showed an excerpt from an interview with David Cameron during the referendum campaign. In trying to promote the Remain view, Cameron made it clear that leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market. I don't see how anybody can now argue that they didn't vote to leave the Single Market unless, of course, they were Remainers.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some UKIP people are definitely saying that the vote was for hard Brexit, which it obviously wasn't
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:You are, of course, correct that they are different but related questions. My opinion is that the "how" question should have been answered first, with a referendum on the question of whether to leave on that basis (or, as close to that as would be achieved in negotitations). Of course, it wasn't. So, as second best (recognising the reality of the outcome of a referendum that was a long way short of ideal) the how question now needs to be answered, and that process needs to follow democratic principles - so, for a start our representatives in the Commons being fully involved in the discussions and debates on formulating that answer. And, potentially a further referendum to see if this is agreeable to the country as a whole. It certainly shouldn't be done behind closed doors without public scrutiny and accountability, it's not as though it's somethign as trivial as selecting a new leader of the Tory party.
Originally posted by Gee D:
The question of whether to remain or leave is not the same as how any decision to leave will be achieved.
quote:It was clearly stated prior to the referendum that Article 50 would need to be invoked prior to any negotiations. It was generally assumed (but without any information to actually base decisions on) that A50 would be invoked practically as soon as the result was known (a little time for the Tories to huddle and select a new PM being the only expected delay).
I can't recall if that were known beforehand, or if the general outline were, whether the approach that Article 50 be invoked before any negotiations commenced had been made public, if indeed it had been made at all.
quote:Though, of course, WTO rules only apply to members of the WTO. It would be a bit rich for a country which is not a member of the WTO to think WTO rules would be applicable. Although I suppose it would be possible for the UK to join the WTO before we finally exit the EU.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Next they were talking about the implications of the UK having to fall back on WTO rules.
quote:As the EU has repeatedly said that it's not offering a deal with free market but not free movement, there are three broad options:
Originally posted by Gee D:
No Alan, I'm sorry but I'm not with you. The question of whether to remain or leave is not the same as how any decision to leave will be achieved.
quote:Wait, the UK isn't a member of the WTO? According to the WTO the UK has been a member since 1995.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, of course, WTO rules only apply to members of the WTO. It would be a bit rich for a country which is not a member of the WTO to think WTO rules would be applicable. Although I suppose it would be possible for the UK to join the WTO before we finally exit the EU.
quote:Not quite. The UK is a member of the WTO in its own right as it was one of the founders. Its tariffs and services obligations are incorporated in the schedules for the EU and these will need to be renegotiated after Brexit. The EU will also have to do renegotiate their schedules as their market size has changed. As the WTO operates by consensus, this may take a while.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In various discussions I've read I'm sure that the EU is the WTO member, and individual nations within the EU being members by stint of being part of the EU. In trade terms, that makes sense as the EU (almost by definition of the Common Market) is a single trading entity. The question is, would the UK WTO membership as part of the EU automatically carry over as continuing membership after we exit the EU. I assume there's someone in government who has looked into that, and either obtained the necessary assurances from the WTO that membership will be automatic or has started the negotiations to join the WTO in our own right.
quote:Trade agreements are handled by the EU who negotiates on everyone’s behalf. An EU member can’t negotiate separate agreements.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I would imagine it is a similar situation to other international bodies. For example during several UN negotiations I've followed (yes, I'm that sad), the EU countries sent their own representatives and the EU had a place as a trading block.
One of the countries then spoke on behalf of all of the EU countries - and when any of the individual countries spoke they were careful not to disagree with the EU position.
I'm not familiar with how the WTO works, but I imagine that the EU countries present a united front so that non-EU WTO members get the same deal whoever they trade with inside the EU.
So in practice, I'm thinking the UK probably doesn't have its own individual trading position worked out at the WTO outwith of the EU.
Fundamentally, though, it'd be a bit ridiculous to say that the UK would fall back to the WTO rules if the UK wasn't even a member of the WTO in its own right, AFAIU they're just going to be starting from a clean piece of paper as if we'd just joined.
quote:Indeed. It's the need for all 27 countries to agree a deal which makes this a possibility. If there is not an agreement on an FTA then the UK defaults to WTO status and the Irish are then obliged both by its membership of the EU and the WTO to reinstate tariffs and, therefore, a border to enforce them. Ireland's treaty obligations to the EU and the WTO would oblige them, in the absence of an FTA, that would allow the UK access to the Single Market.
Next they were talking about the implications of the UK having to fall back on WTO rules. Mr Bruton then said that Ireland would be forced, by its obligations to the EU, to set up customs posts along the border. In that event, it would be Ireland closing its own border, which everyone in the country seems to dread. So why do it? If the EU suggests to Ireland that it must do that, the Irish government should tell them in no uncertain terms that it will not and cannot agree to such a request. I believe that all 27 countries have to agree on any terms of a settlement, so why would Ireland even consider inflicting such misery with all its possible consequences.
quote:This is a rather disingenuous argument whether or not you realise it. There is no 'threat'. The UK has unilaterally decided to tear up its existing agreements with the rest of the EU.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Following on from the discussion, I would be interested to see, with regards to the whole EU, how many of these threats it will actually enforce against a country which is threatening nothing
quote:OK so the UK goes into Brexit negotiations saying that it has no wish to impose any tariffs on the EU.It points out that everyone benefits from free trade, including German car workers and French wine growers. The EU invokes its rule book and slaps tariffs on British goods. Britain retaliates and does the same. As the UK has a large trade deficit with the EU, it makes more out of reciprocal tariffs than the EU. But let's face it. Trade will be lost. Jobs will be lost. Can someone tell me who will benefit from this, because I don't see anyone being better off than they would be if we reciprocally agree not to impose tariffs.
Originally posted by chris styles:
Under those circumstances, the EU is forced to treat the UK just like it would any other country with which it has no other agreement.
quote:I don't think either side can decide "not to impose tariffs", if the EU decided to allow a state who wasn't following the rest of the EU rules to be part of the tariff free zone then there is precious little point in having an EU.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
OK so the UK goes into Brexit negotiations saying that it has no wish to impose any tariffs on the EU.It points out that everyone benefits from free trade, including German car workers and French wine growers. The EU invokes its rule book and slaps tariffs on British goods. Britain retaliates and does the same. As the UK has a large trade deficit with the EU, it makes more out of reciprocal tariffs than the EU. But let's face it. Trade will be lost. Jobs will be lost. Can someone tell me who will benefit from this, because I don't see anyone being better off than they would be if we reciprocally agree not to impose tariffs.
quote:This outlines the basic problem with the "figure out 'how' before voting for Brexit"; that by the very nature of the EU agreement, "how" could only be determined after the decision to Leave was made. This was, most likely, a very deliberate strategy on the part of the architects of the EU to prevent constant haggling over concessions, backed up by threats of withdrawal.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You are, of course, correct that they are different but related questions. My opinion is that the "how" question should have been answered first, with a referendum on the question of whether to leave on that basis (or, as close to that as would be achieved in negotitations).
<snip>
quote:It was clearly stated prior to the referendum that Article 50 would need to be invoked prior to any negotiations.
I can't recall if that were known beforehand, or if the general outline were, whether the approach that Article 50 be invoked before any negotiations commenced had been made public, if indeed it had been made at all.
quote:What you're missing here is a basic understanding of how free trade areas work. The basics are free movement of goods (and, in the case of the EU, people) within the free trade area, which means that there have to be uniform trade and customs regulations between every part of the free trade area and countries outside the free trade area. If Ireland, for example, allowed tariff-free movement of goods between the UK and itself, then it is also effectively allowing the tariff-free movement of goods between the UK and every other EU country, provided the goods are willing to make the trip via Ireland. This is why EU nations give up their ability to negotiate separate trade agreements, because such agreements would completely undermine the free trade area.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'm obviously missing something here. I've just watched former Taoiseach John Bruton on a BBC News Channel Special about Brexit claiming what a disaster border controls along the Irish border would be. Everyone agreed with him, and Lord Lamont suggested that we should be looking to the type of border between Norway and Sweden, which uses a lot of technology to make the border as soft as possible, which doesn't impede the movement of people. John Bruton agreed that this should be looked at.
Next they were talking about the implications of the UK having to fall back on WTO rules. Mr Bruton then said that Ireland would be forced, by its obligations to the EU, to set up customs posts along the border. In that event, it would be Ireland closing its own border, which everyone in the country seems to dread. So why do it?
quote:As others have noted, the EU is threatening nothing other than to keep on being the EU, with free movement of goods and people within its geographic boundaries and some kind of border and customs control with countries outside its geographic boundaries. The only thing that's changed is the UK has decided that they'd rather be on the outside than the inside.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Following on from the discussion, I would be interested to see, with regards to the whole EU, how many of these threats it will actually enforce against a country which is threatening nothing, especially not the erection of any barriers to the trade which contributes to all of their prosperity.
quote:You are viewing things too simplistically. I'll quote Ricardus' excellent example again:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:OK so the UK goes into Brexit negotiations saying that it has no wish to impose any tariffs on the EU.It points out that everyone benefits from free trade, including German car workers and French wine growers.
Originally posted by chris styles:
Under those circumstances, the EU is forced to treat the UK just like it would any other country with which it has no other agreement.
quote:.. and this is where the issues start. Take the most simplistic treatment of the car example, let's assume that a reciprocal arrangement is called for. Cars sold within the EU have to qualify to standards set out by EURO NCAP (incidentally it was originally set up under the Department of Transport) - there are benefits accruing to all sorts of parties here, including consumers. Car manufacturers within the EU will be subject to laws regulating state aid - as will all manufacturers generally. Furthermore where they use parts from countries outside the EU, these will be subject to the same safety standards as parts originating within the EU. The parts may well be tested by some kind of national body which is regulated by an European wide agreement that sets minimum safety standards and in return recognizes each national body.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
"In order for Ricardinia and Paulsland to have a free trade agreement for the tariff-free exchange of knockwurst, several rules must be in place. Neither one of us can subsidise our knockwurst-factories to a greater degree than the other (otherwise Ricardinia can just flood the Paulslandic market with cheap state-subsidised knockwurst). We must define what we mean by knockwurst so that we know what we are suspending tariffs on. We must agree at least some minimal production standards so that Paulsland can't flood the Ricardinian market with cheap knockwurst bulked out with sand and cement to save production costs."
quote:I don't think anyone would benefit, which is one of the reasons I voted Remain. However, it is what we are now being told the Leave campaign voted for.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Trade will be lost. Jobs will be lost. Can someone tell me who will benefit from this, because I don't see anyone being better off than they would be if we reciprocally agree not to impose tariffs.
quote:What about the approach of Richard North, who is an ardent brexiteer (co-author of "The Great Delusion") and, incidentally, an equally ardent proposal of the EEA solution, so a rabid soft-brexiteer.
.. and then the UK is actually in the situation the Leavers think it started in. In a position where the regulations it is subject to is set by a set of bodies over which it has little if any influence.
quote:Do you see merit in this, or only bullshit?
Thus the UK will be ideally positioned to help make the laws which will
govern the EU. They are processed by Brussels for implementation by national
bodies, but they do not originate in the EU. If we work with EFTA/EEA, we will
still receive laws from Brussels, but we will have shaped them long before they
become EU law.
quote:Well I do see some merit in it, but then I was a reluctant remainer rather than a principled one so I'm open to solutions which involve neither remaining nor full Brexit.* Richard North has been doing a lot of the thinking Alan's been talking about Leavers' lacking for the last 20 years or so. Unfortunately, he's just one man, so his thoughts don't have statutory power, and neither do they have the whole groundswell of the Leave movement behind it.
Originally posted by anteater:
chris styles:
quote:What about the approach of Richard North, who is an ardent brexiteer (co-author of "The Great Delusion") and, incidentally, an equally ardent proposal of the EEA solution, so a rabid soft-brexiteer.
.. and then the UK is actually in the situation the Leavers think it started in. In a position where the regulations it is subject to is set by a set of bodies over which it has little if any influence.
His argument is that the regulations, to which of course we have to be subject, are increasingly made by global standards organisations working with ISO/WTO and are ratified, as opposed to originated in Brussels. If we stay in the EU we can only influence standards by influencing the EU. If we leave we can influence the global standards bodies directly, and therefore have more, not less influence. To quote:
quote:Do you see merit in this, or only bullshit?
Thus the UK will be ideally positioned to help make the laws which will
govern the EU. They are processed by Brussels for implementation by national
bodies, but they do not originate in the EU. If we work with EFTA/EEA, we will
still receive laws from Brussels, but we will have shaped them long before they
become EU law.
quote:There may be some merit in this in that some regulations do come from the WTO and associated bodies, though there is an argument here that as part of a bigger trade bloc (the EU) the UK has a greater chance of influencing them than on its own.
Originally posted by anteater:
chris styles:
quote:What about the approach of Richard North, who is an ardent brexiteer (co-author of "The Great Delusion") and, incidentally, an equally ardent proposal of the EEA solution, so a rabid soft-brexiteer.
.. and then the UK is actually in the situation the Leavers think it started in. In a position where the regulations it is subject to is set by a set of bodies over which it has little if any influence.
His argument is that the regulations, to which of course we have to be subject, are increasingly made by global standards organisations working with ISO/WTO and are ratified, as opposed to originated in Brussels. If we stay in the EU we can only influence standards by influencing the EU. If we leave we can influence the global standards bodies directly, and therefore have more, not less influence. To quote:
quote:I've read that. Fintan hits the nail on the head, there. British and Irish cooperation is enlightened self interest at its very best. Besides, I live in Co Donegal and study/shop in Co Londonderry every day so I have more than a passing interest in this.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I really liked this in today's Guardian - which looks to Ireland to try to solve the "England problem" by talking May's government back from the cliff of Hard Brexit and with the Republic trying to find an impossible third way for the UK to remain in a close tied relationship with Eire without completely pissing off the EU.
It is a wonderfully optimistic idea in the midst of the prevailing misery, I thought - but whether it has any legs whatsoever is probably moot. But what a great world it would be if Eire was somehow able to step up to the plate and pull something out of the flame which was a lifeline for those of us in the UK who see Hard Brexit as a total disaster.
quote:Well, I guess if the rest of the post was in irish it would read fine.
I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Eh?
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time
quote:Use of "Eire" is a can of worms. FWIW my Irish relatives were always clear with me growing up in the 1980s that the only people using Eire with any regularity post the 1940s were the British press (aside from stamps and coins).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Eh?
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time
quote:It is, if you happen to be writing or speaking in irish. It wold be like insisting that Spain should only ever be referred to as Espania even though you are referring to it in English. It's not in any way insulting (unless you're one of those types that looks to be insulted about anything), it just looks a bit strange. here are some that suggest its a hangover insult from days gone by, but I don't buy that. I think most people use it in blissful ignorance.
Or perhaps, like many of us, they thought it was the name of the country.
quote:This could have many inplications. Brexiteers will say that this reinforces the Lawson argument that though a soft-brexit deal might be preferable, it is very likely that it will fail. These deals require unanimity, and if a deal with a friendly nation can fail because of one region in Belgium, when there is not a scintilla of animus against Canada, it is not paranoid to believe that if we tried we could very well fail and might only find out at the last moment.
Canadian Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland said Friday her efforts to reach a deal with the EU on a landmark trade deal with Canada had failed and that she would be returning home empty handed.
“During the last few months we have worked very hard with the European Commission and member states. But it seems evident that the EU is now not capable of having an international deal, even with a country which has values as European as Canada, even with a country as kind, as patient,” she said upon leaving the regional Walloon parliament in Namur this afternoon.
“Canada is disappointed, I am personally very disappointed, I have worked very, very hard. We have decided to go back home. I am very, very sad, really. Tomorrow morning, I will be at home with my three children,” she added, fighting back tears.
quote:No bother, its only a minor quibble
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please accept my apols, I was totally and blissfully unaware that this was a thing.
quote:It is quite dysfunctional. But it's dysfunctional because all the nations of the EU get a say in these matters not because authoritarian power mad bureaucrats in the EU Commission can't find their arse with both hands, which is how these things are invariably spun.
Brexiteers will also point to the dys-functionality of the EU in getting trade deals, and I expect a lot of schadenfreude in the Daily Mail.
quote:Crossing into the other thread, I am grateful to an random American church group person's sympathetic recognition when I observed this. And pointing out that misery had potential company (which I really hope it doesn't).
Originally posted by Callan:
"We're So Screwed".
quote:Never mind the Daily Mail, but the failure to agree CETA, seven years in the making, is a serious sign of dysfunctionality in the EU. Earlier in the week, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said "If, in a week or two, we see that Europe is unable to sign a progressive trade agreement with a country like Canada, well then with whom will Europe do business in the years to come?" It's a good question. Belgium, a country riven with ethnic and economic divisions requires, by its constitution, that all five regional parliaments must agree before the federal government can do so. So CETA is dead unless someone can revive it.
Originally posted by anteater:
[B]Brexiteers will also point to the dys-functionality of the EU in getting trade deals, and I expect a lot of schadenfreude in the Daily Mail{/B]
quote:I wouldn't want that. French on the Coat of Arms and indeed on the passport has a long tradition. Why change it?
Originally posted by Callan:
It was recently suggested that when we change the colour of our passports to blue we do away with the French wording on the Royal Coat of Arms and replace it with something English.
quote:Actually I can see the logic of this. According to the EU, the UK is subject to all the T&Cs until we leave and a budget contributor ... May has pointed out that this cuts both ways. Until we leave, we have a seat at the table and a say.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Ronald:
quote:Well, I guess if the rest of the post was in irish it would read fine.
I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time
I can't help but notice that the UK's irony meter seems to have broken recently. May arrives in Europe. She's been talking about a hard Brexit. She announces that Britain will continue to be a dependable and faithful partner to Europe after the divorce proceedings are finalised. All the other European leaders are sitting there with this 'WTF are you on about' look on their faces. It all smacks of a 'we have absolutely no idea what we are doing' kind of a policy. It's total la-la land; amusing to watch from the outside but also faintly terrifying.
quote:As I understand it, CETA is rather TTIP by the back door. As such, it includes provisions for private corporations to sue governments for any loss of profit resulting from changes to the law. This is undesirable. For that reason, I'm pleased to see it on the scrap heap.
Originally posted by anteater:
I wonder what effect the failure of the CETA deal will have if any.
quote:So you are obviously happy that the regional parliament of Wallonia can hold two continents to ransom. I can't agree with you there!
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For that reason, I'm pleased to see it on the scrap heap.
quote:Rather disproves the claim that the EU indiscriminately imposes its views on its members though.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:So you are obviously happy that the regional parliament of Wallonia can hold two continents to ransom. I can't agree with you there!
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For that reason, I'm pleased to see it on the scrap heap.
quote:Well I agree with you on your substantive point, but I have never heard it suggested that the problem of getting trade deals through is due to the Commission, but have always understood it to be due to the fact that they remain outside of QMV.
(The EU) is quite dysfunctional. But it's dysfunctional because all the nations of the EU get a say in these matters not because authoritarian power mad bureaucrats in the EU Commission can't find their arse with both hands, which is how these things are invariably spun.
quote:I agree with this. The problems the Euro have been experiencing are essentially a re-run of Europe's travails when the Exchange Rate Mechanism was in force without the ability of the currency markets to reassert economic sanity. The Euro should have been confined to Germany, Benelux and France (which are fairly economically integrated anyway) with other countries getting to join when they passed a set of objective tests for economic convergence. Or, they could have gone with the seriously underrated Common Currency proposed by Lawson and Major (Thatcher not going off her head, at that point in history, and trying to make the Hard ECU a thing is, IMO, one of the tantalising might have beens of history, although it probably has to be tied in with our not joining the ERM, which I think is pushing it). But the spectacle of the EU inflicting unnecessary economic pain on itself didn't really help sell continuing membership of same to the British people. Ironically, the spectacle of the British people inflicting unnecessary economic pain on themselves is likely to result in a doubling down, rather than a rethink, by the EU.
The mistake was in creating the euro as a forerunner of political union, when it should have been the other way round.
quote:It'd be interesting to know how many. We have a sad lack of clear terminology in this debate. The one I would propose (and someone will probably tell me it's old hat) is:
Although there were many Remainers in the recent referendum, there's only a handful of Britons who genuinely share that integrated federalist view of Europe.
quote:Well, maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see any logic here. I'd concede that nobody wants to punish Britain within the EU for what is about to take place, because it serves nobody's interest to do so. I'd agree also that Britain will in all likelihood fulfil its obligations to the EU until it leaves; but May went to the EU earlier this week with the message that Britain is leaving. There is no partnership in that, that I can see. There was a partnership there on the table, but Britain has chosen to walk away. That isn't to say that some new kind of partnership might not be brokered in the next decade, but in reality it isn't going to be approaching anything that they already had before and decided to throw away. I can't see the loyalty and faithfulness aspect that she spoke of either. Britain's membership of the EU in the last two decades has been tempestuous at best. They've always been dragging their feet, grumbling and knocking about accusation and lies about what the big, bad EU made us do. It has always sought a special, honoured position as if it were still some great empire, that in reality has long gone. The world changed, but Britain didn't and this whole farce is Britain's, 'Let's make Britain great again' routine. Sadly, the people didn't see through it for what it was. So what we have now is May trotting along to the EU and telling them once again, we want this, this and this after we have left and the answer invariably will be 'no', but I guess it will give Britain cause once again to turn around and say, 'Look what the big, bad EU did to us.' There is no logic in that; no logic at all.
Actually I can see the logic of this.
quote:Well I think that amongst the key decision makers in the EU there's quite a few, but I don't see that strict federalism is the main issue. The question is more: Can the Eurozone continue to work without a common fiscal structure, along with transnational transfers such as we see in USA between states. Many, who are by no means Brexiteers do not believe that it can. So the future would be a much more integrated Eurozone, with an outer ring of countries, of which the only two with a permanent opt-out from the Euro are UK and Denmark. I agree that nobody is going to hassle Sweden et al to get on board until the structures are in place to underpin the Euro, and I imagine that even the most ardently pro Euro person would admit that a lot has to be done, and that the Eurozone does indeed need closer integration.
To be fair, I don't think there are many people who share a federalist vision for Europe within the rest of the EU either
quote:I think the bogey man was and remains transnational governance in key areas like fiscal policy. It is true that the UK can stand outside this forever, but to some that is not preferable to a divorce, as the Eurozone morphs into Real(TM) EU with a couple of hangers on. And all the animus against the City (which is understandable) would return.
The "federalist EU" was a boggie man produced by the Brexit campaign to scare people with a vision of a loss of UK sovereignty.
quote:Within the Commission, there are some ardent federalists. Their solution to any problem is more Europe and more integration. If you look at the original treaties, this is implied as an aim. But the original treaties were signed after WW2 and the world is a very different place. Now, people seem to want less Europe and more national control.
Originally posted by anteater:
AlanCresswell:
quote:Well I think that amongst the key decision makers in the EU there's quite a few, but I don't see that strict federalism is the main issue. The question is more: Can the Eurozone continue to work without a common fiscal structure, along with transnational transfers such as we see in USA between states. Many, who are by no means Brexiteers do not believe that it can. So the future would be a much more integrated Eurozone, with an outer ring of countries, of which the only two with a permanent opt-out from the Euro are UK and Denmark. I agree that nobody is going to hassle Sweden et al to get on board until the structures are in place to underpin the Euro, and I imagine that even the most ardently pro Euro person would admit that a lot has to be done, and that the Eurozone does indeed need closer integration.
To be fair, I don't think there are many people who share a federalist vision for Europe within the rest of the EU either
quote:I think the bogey man was and remains transnational governance in key areas like fiscal policy. It is true that the UK can stand outside this forever, but to some that is not preferable to a divorce, as the Eurozone morphs into Real(TM) EU with a couple of hangers on. And all the animus against the City (which is understandable) would return.
The "federalist EU" was a boggie man produced by the Brexit campaign to scare people with a vision of a loss of UK sovereignty.
Indeed, I think a better case for Remain would be to accept the Euro still as a future goal, on condition that once the supra-national structures are in place to make it a success that we would join, and accept those structures. That would put UK at the heart of Europe and we could enthusiastically engage in developing those structures, and commit to joining the Eurozone once they were in place.
I would imagine you would be ok with this, so long, of course, that these structures really are fit for purpose. and frankly I think it is a more attractive offer than the current "do what you're told or you'll be mugged by big bad brussels bullies" approach.
But then I'm a bit all-in or all-out.
quote:So if they have got some sort of tangible export guarantee then Vauxhall, Jaguar Land Rover etc are apparently going to be able to have it as well.
But a senior Nissan Europe executive, Colin Lawther, said the company had received "no special deal".
"It's just a commitment from the government to work with the whole of the automotive industry to make sure the whole automotive industry in the UK remains competitive," he told the BBC.
"We would expect nothing for us that the rest of the industry wouldn't be able to have access to. We see this as a whole industry thing, not a Nissan thing."
quote:I agree entirely that federalism is more an aspiration of the Euro-elite than a desire of many European people, but don't buy your argument. It has slippery slope written all over it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To be fair, I don't think there are many people who share a federalist vision for Europe within the rest of the EU either. The "federalist EU" was a boggie man produced by the Brexit campaign to scare people with a vision of a loss of UK sovereignty. It's an aspiration for many European politicians, but not widely shared by their electorates. It may happen, but I doubt I would live to see it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) oppose a federal Europe, why on earth would you feel comfortable supporting people who want a federal Europe on the grounds that "it won't happen yet"? That's how opinion shifts - in consistent small steps. It's like turkeys comforting themselves that they're just supporting Hallowe'en, which is an enjoyable festival that all sensible turkeys can come together and enjoy.
quote:Voting to remain is also a decision that will affect the currently unborn. All our decisions do. The decision to join the EEC in 1973 laid the groundwork for the current Brexit argument.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
By voting to Leave now on the basis of avoiding a future Federal EU including the UK Brexiteers were making a decision that will affect people not even born yet. What right do I have to make a decision for the people of the UK in 50 years when it is not a decision I will ever have to face. Let those who will face the decisions relating to increased political union in the EU actually make that decision.
quote:It is possible. I make no judgement here on the desirability of a future federal Europe. I am judging the argument that says that we can let a future generation worry about whether they want that, and that the choices we make now won't have an effect on that.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why, in the indefinite and distant future, would a federal Europe be such a terrible thing? If the alternative is the collection of warring willy-wavers of 1900-80, it could well be the least-worse option.
quote:Brexiteers don't have to believe it is terrible. One can respect ideas without personally sharing them.
Why, in the indefinite and distant future, would a federal Europe be such a terrible thing?
quote:A re-imagined UKIP would lead to a better level of public debate?????
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
I might feel inclined to forgive Tony Blair for his past record if he could follow through on this.
It occurred to be the other day that if the exit from the EU goes through then the Tory party will heal it's rifts and be an extremely power force in British politics. Their Euro-philes are not going to start a campaign to get us back in. The issue with will be finished and the split will be history. We can then expect a Conservative government for ever.
On the other hand, if we really can get this referendum result dismissed somehow, it will split that party and leave us with a more representative European conservative party, and all the fringe elements will end up in some re-imagined UKIP. We'd then have a better level of public debate.
quote:This is one I'd drink to. Tony Blair's ideas don't surprise me coming from a man like him. He's one of those elitist politicians who believes that he knows better than the voters what they need. Of course, he says, he's not trying to undermine the result of the referendum, but can't the question be asked again when they've had more time to think? Sounds like a typical Irish EU referendum. When you get the wrong answer, by a combination of carrot and stick, you keep asking until the dimbos get it right! No thanks. That is not democracy.
Originally posted by Turquoise Tastic:
Accept that Brexit is going to happen and try to get a proper centrist party going
quote:Just to clarify. The EU treaty referendum that went through twice in Ireland was due to the government of the time attempting in the initial referendum to tack a side issue onto it that turned out to be a matter of great national significance involving citizens right to privacy and in consequence drew in concerns about 'big government'. It was passed the second time when when the tacked on issue was rejected and dropped. So the 'dimbos' as you put it, were fully exercising their democratic right. I don't know what concepts you have of democracy, but that particular referendum was to my mind a fine example of democracy in action where a government that attempted to treat its citizens like 'dimbos' was given a bloody nose. It was an added bonus that the 'session through recession' government of the time was given the bloody nose to a full European audience. The only 'dimbos' on show were the British reporting rags who decided their readership was too dumb to understand the nuances of democracy in action and who didn't want truth to be getting in the way of great British political spin.
Sounds like a typical Irish EU referendum. When you get the wrong answer, by a combination of carrot and stick, you keep asking until the dimbos get it right! No thanks. That is not democracy.
quote:tangent/
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The EU treaty referendum that went through twice in Ireland was due to the government of the time attempting in the initial referendum to tack a side issue onto it that turned out to be a matter of great national significance involving citizens right to privacy and in consequence drew in concerns about 'big government'.
quote:. Well I don't expect one, but I've never been convinced by the anti-democratic argument, which to me would only hold if the result was not carried into effect on the (correct) ground that it is not legally binding.
When you get the wrong answer, by a combination of carrot and stick, you keep asking until the dimbos get it right! No thanks. That is not democracy
quote:So the thing that PaulTH is complaining about is the idea that one can keep re-running a referendum until one gets an answer that one likes.
Originally posted by anteater:
So why would it be undemocratic to ask for a re-confirmation?
Yes, your giving a second chance to the dumbos who got it wrong, but I am only including in this category those who failed, as opposed to consciously chose, not to vote.
I am quite content to work with brexit but can't see why anyone thinks the efforts to reverse it are either unpatriotic or to be deplored.
quote:It's not unreasonable for referenda to be biased towards the status quo, and as you say, requiring a supermajority guarantees that a majority of the people are actually in favour of the change (the noise on the polling result is less than the 10 point excess required with a 60/40 split).
Originally posted by anteater:
One frequently used method is to require more than a simple majority. Say 60/40 for major constitutional change, like brexit or Scottish independence.
If you don't like that then how about the need for a reconfirmation, say in three month's.
quote:I don't see that this is a "softening" at all - haven't all Brexiteers, of whatever consistency, claimed that tariff-free access would be easy to achieve?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So many stories and rumours about the Nissan deal have been going on, but it looks as if the govt are now saying that Nissan were told they would be given 'tariff free access' to EU markets. [...]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37815864
quote:I'm not sure that any Brexiteers have been of any consistency.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't see that this is a "softening" at all - haven't all Brexiteers, of whatever consistency, claimed that tariff-free access would be easy to achieve?
quote:EU leaders consistently have said that the UK cannot have tariff free access without also having free movement. So either the PM has lied to them or somehow has offered an inducement payable should tariff free Brexit be unattainable.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So a hard Brexit includes tariff-free access? I guess that depends on the EU as well, since they may not be keen to give the UK a good deal, and make it too attractive.
quote:The select committee hearing where the two former taoisigh turn up to tell the MPs - very charmingly - that they are frankly mad if they don't realize they are opening a massive can of worms is interesting to watch.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think most English people think about N. Ireland from one year to another, except with annoyance, maybe.
quote:Both soft and hard, I meant. (Bad choice of words on my part; consistency really means something more like viscosity than hardness. Would have worked better if we were talking about "thick" vs. "runny" Brexiteers.)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'm not sure that any Brexiteers have been of any consistency.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I don't see that this is a "softening" at all - haven't all Brexiteers, of whatever consistency, claimed that tariff-free access would be easy to achieve?
quote:Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Would have worked better if we were talking about "thick" vs. "runny" Brexiteers.
quote:Well I voted Remain because Project Fear got to me, not out of any love for the EU and its rotten institutions. It doesn't make a person thick to dislike what Juncker and co stand for. Anyway, there have been items in the news this last week which make me feel more upbeat. First the WTO leader Roberto Azevedo has changed his tune somewhat. He now says ""I will be working hard - I will work very intensely to ensure that this transition is fast and is smooth." He also said, "Trade will not stop, it will continue and members negotiate the legal basis under which that trade is going to happen. But it doesn't mean that we'll have a vacuum or a disruption."
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.
quote:Just to be clear, I'm using "Brexiteer" for someone who campaigned for Brexit, rather than those who voted to Leave. Brexiteers are those who travelled around the country in a bus with a lie emblazoned down the side, who ran their own "Project Fear" by falsely claiming that a) immigration is a problem and b) leaving the EU would solve this non-problem, etc.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Well I voted Remain because Project Fear got to me, not out of any love for the EU and its rotten institutions. It doesn't make a person thick to dislike what Juncker and co stand for.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.
quote:None of that assures me that my everyday life living five miles from the Northern Ireland border will be unaffected.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Well I voted Remain because Project Fear got to me, not out of any love for the EU and its rotten institutions. It doesn't make a person thick to dislike what Juncker and co stand for. Anyway, there have been items in the news this last week which make me feel more upbeat. First the WTO leader Roberto Azevedo has changed his tune somewhat. He now says ""I will be working hard - I will work very intensely to ensure that this transition is fast and is smooth." He also said, "Trade will not stop, it will continue and members negotiate the legal basis under which that trade is going to happen. But it doesn't mean that we'll have a vacuum or a disruption."
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.
The reality is that he too was part of Project Fear, but he now sees that world trade isn't in the best of places, and doesn't want to make anything worse. Also a
report last week by Civitas shows that, under WTO tariffs, the UK would pay some £5.2 billion, wheras it would receive £12.9 billion. So in the event that the EU leaders don't come to their senses over this, they stand to lose more. This maths can't be wasted on leaders such as Mrs Merkel. Swedish businessman Johan Eliasch spoke to her last week, mentioning three proposals.
Regulatory equivalence for financial services, free movement of highly skilled individuals and the maintenance of tariff free trade. Although she was non-committal, she said, "If we're all sensible, we'll come to a sensible solution." In spite of the sabre rattling and posturing on both sides, there will be give and take, to the benefit of all the EU, not just the UK. When the EU leaders examine the size of the economic hit they'll take if post Brexit tariffs are applied, they will be willing to negotiate.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
quote:Something will be bodged between the EU, the UK and the Republic of Ireland, no doubt. The hopelessly entwined nature of Britain and Ireland demands that, but I don't have fond memories of officious customs on the Irish side, and the administrative contortions pre-1992 my old employers had to go through to sell goods from the Republic to Northern Ireland.
Originally posted by anteater:
Ronald B:
I would take your view and due the situation in the provinces and semi federal structure (and despite it being an idea of Nicola who I heartily dislike) I do think all the constituent nations should have needed a majority pace Belgium in the recent CETA negotiations.
We are where we are - and isn't that profound!
But one semi-reasonable point is that if Sweden-Norway can manage a much bigger border, why can't we?
OK so Swedes and Norwegians have a slightly more harmonious past relationship.
quote:Sweden and Norway are both in Schengen, which simplifies some things. In terms of goods, the Sweden/Norway Sweden/Finland borders are handling by allowing customs police from either side of the border to inspect sites on the other side - given the history of Ireland and the UK, this may not be particularly acceptable to some communities.
Originally posted by anteater:
But one semi-reasonable point is that if Sweden-Norway can manage a much bigger border, why can't we?
quote:It isn't communitarian to believe any impeding of a hitherto open border is nothing but a damn nuisance, at best.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Sweden and Norway are both in Schengen, which simplifies some things. In terms of goods, the Sweden/Norway Sweden/Finland borders are handling by allowing customs police from either side of the border to inspect sites on the other side - given the history of Ireland and the UK, this may not be particularly acceptable to some communities.
Originally posted by anteater:
But one semi-reasonable point is that if Sweden-Norway can manage a much bigger border, why can't we?
quote:I wasn't casting judgement necessarily; just indicating that solutions adopted elsewhere may not be acceptable in a specifically Irish context.
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
It isn't communitarian to believe any impeding of a hitherto open border is nothing but a damn nuisance, at best.
quote:and we come back to the question of "what is an irreversible change" - you can make a reasonable case that although the Brexit question looked on the surface like a status quo / irreversible change decision, it was really a choice of two pretty irreversible paths.
Originally posted by agingjb:
There is a lot to said for requiring more than a simple majority of those voting to precipitate an irreversible change, but I wonder if that is in itself a majority opinion.
quote:Maybe this was posted already, but Carlos Goshn is a shrewd chap who is sure to have the measure of May. He wouldn't have made the decision unless the guarantees he got were actually worth something.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But this is all guesswork, since no-one knows if Nissan will be repeated with other firms, or even how exactly Nissan will be protected. Does the government even know this?
quote:I agree. It's inaccurate of me to ask if the govt knows, as they must have some scheme to protect Nissan, either financial, or maintaining the customs union, or the like. I suppose May is treading on eggshells, so as not to upset the Big Hairy Brexiteers, who want a white tight and right little country.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Maybe this was posted already, but Carlos Goshn is a shrewd chap who is sure to have the measure of May. He wouldn't have made the decision unless the guarantees he got were actually worth something.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But this is all guesswork, since no-one knows if Nissan will be repeated with other firms, or even how exactly Nissan will be protected. Does the government even know this?
quote:As DaveW points out above, this is not in the power of the UK to give. Furthermore any such deal would have to be ratified by the EU27. Nissan will know this.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Everyone's focussing on the financial guarantees that may or may not have been given, but AIUI Nissan's red lines for making further investment in GB were continuation of zero-tariff trade and freedom of movement. Therefore ISTM that the government must have promised those.
Something is being cooked up on the Single Market. I would not be surprised if the government asked for UK regions to be allowed to opt in or out of the single market, in exchange for ongoing contributions to the EU, and freedom of movement to those regions.
quote:This seems massively incorrect. How do you allow "freedom of movement" to just part of the UK? At the moment there is no existing "infrastructure" to prevent someone in Scotland from traveling to England. The only way to accomplish what you're suggesting is some kind of internal check of transit papers. So the argument seems to be that border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be onerous and unpopular, but everyone is going to support border controls between Wales and England? (Or wherever you posit the dividing line between "free movement UK" and the rest of the UK to be.)
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Something is being cooked up on the Single Market. I would not be surprised if the government asked for UK regions to be allowed to opt in or out of the single market, in exchange for ongoing contributions to the EU, and freedom of movement to those regions. Possibly industrial sectors (Automotive, finance) could make similar arrangements.
The UK already has some of the infrastructure to enable this. Scotland, Wales & NI, London and Bristol are partially self-governing. Other regions are about to be. There could be a series of local referenda on remaining in the single market, and people would have proper information this time around: You will no longer have to hear people speaking Polish in the high street (Oh, the hardship!) but that factory that employs 3,000 directly and 30,000 indirectly will likely close.
quote:Sure, it's wrong on a couple of levels. But on the other hand it means the rest of the country might be able to stop those damn cockneys moving in and driving up their house prices, so there may yet be support for it!
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So the argument seems to be that border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be onerous and unpopular, but everyone is going to support border controls between Wales and England? (Or wherever you posit the dividing line between "free movement UK" and the rest of the UK to be.)
That seems wrong on a couple of levels.
quote:Yes, I don't know who said what to whom, but I'd be willing to lay pretty good odds that it wasn't what Rocinante has suggested.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:This seems massively incorrect. How do you allow "freedom of movement" to just part of the UK? At the moment there is no existing "infrastructure" to prevent someone in Scotland from traveling to England. The only way to accomplish what you're suggesting is some kind of internal check of transit papers. So the argument seems to be that border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will be onerous and unpopular, but everyone is going to support border controls between Wales and England? (Or wherever you posit the dividing line between "free movement UK" and the rest of the UK to be.)
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Something is being cooked up on the Single Market. I would not be surprised if the government asked for UK regions to be allowed to opt in or out of the single market, in exchange for ongoing contributions to the EU, and freedom of movement to those regions. Possibly industrial sectors (Automotive, finance) could make similar arrangements.
The UK already has some of the infrastructure to enable this. Scotland, Wales & NI, London and Bristol are partially self-governing. Other regions are about to be. There could be a series of local referenda on remaining in the single market, and people would have proper information this time around: You will no longer have to hear people speaking Polish in the high street (Oh, the hardship!) but that factory that employs 3,000 directly and 30,000 indirectly will likely close.
That seems wrong on a couple of levels.
quote:Clegg seems to think that the Tories have promised some kind of financial inducement with Nissan, which would somehow allow the UK to continue with EU contributions for particular products.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Yes, I don't know who said what to whom, but I'd be willing to lay pretty good odds that it wasn't what Rocinante has suggested.
It's more plausible that they've threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs and offered to offset out of the difference in the event the EU won't play ball on tariff free access. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that's a great plan, but it's what I think the plan might be.
quote:To the best of my knowledge the EU is not a body that grants "citizenship", so no.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, the odd thing about N. Ireland is that people there can become Irish citizens. I wonder if that means that they are therefore EU citizens, yet also, not EU citizens.
quote:AIUI, to be a citizen of one of the EU's member states is also to be an EU citizen. So, a Northern Irish person who takes out Irish Citizenship will remain an EU citizen after Brexit but I will cease to be one. A number of people are currently seeking dual nationality for themselves or their children to retain the freedom to live or work across the EU including, somewhat ironically, Nigel Farage who had the foresight to marry a German before screwing the rest of us.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:To the best of my knowledge the EU is not a body that grants "citizenship", so no.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, the odd thing about N. Ireland is that people there can become Irish citizens. I wonder if that means that they are therefore EU citizens, yet also, not EU citizens.
quote:Well, offsetting payments of this kind would fall foul of WTO rules. The UK could stay out of the WTO but that would invoke a whole other world of pain.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's more plausible that they've threatened to impose reciprocal tariffs and offered to offset out of the difference in the event the EU won't play ball on tariff free access. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that's a great plan, but it's what I think the plan might be.
quote:If you're a citizen of an EU country, you automatically have the same rights as a local within the EU. Which explains why some people in the UK are frantically checking their family history to see if there is a connection with an EU country that allows them apply for a passport.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:To the best of my knowledge the EU is not a body that grants "citizenship", so no.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, the odd thing about N. Ireland is that people there can become Irish citizens. I wonder if that means that they are therefore EU citizens, yet also, not EU citizens.
quote:If they lose the Supreme Court case, they could appeal to Europe.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
The government have lost a case in the High Court on whether or not they could use "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50. The judgement means that it now must have parliamentary approval.
Not surprisingly, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court has been granted, and the government will do so.
Farage is foaming at the mouth on all available media outlets, with other sides also wetting themselves....
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:I can imagine those who passionately support Britain's membership of the EU being jubilant about this. The pound has already gone up by a cent against the dollar since the announcement. But it remains to be seen if it's a victory for democracy. Both in the 2015 Tory Party election manifesto, and in the leaflet which Cameron dropped through all our doors during the referendum campaign, it was made clear that the government would implement the decision of the referendum whatever the outcome. Quite right IMO. But parliament has an 80% pro Remain bias. It will now do what it can to delay and eventually eliminate Brexit in any meaningful way.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A victory for democracy, putting decisions about implementing Brexit into the hands of all our elected representatives. Which is where it should be, rather than in the hands of a few making decisions behind closed doors.
quote:Not unduly paranoid at all, IMO.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Am I being unduly paranoid in detecting unpleasantly totalitarian overtones in the constant invocation of 'will of the British people' by the present Government?
quote:If there was another election called, I'm not sure that the rather uncertain "will of the people" over Brexit would be a strong factor. The total collapse of Labour probably would be, and that would favour the right by default. On the other hand, there is a large body of people who voted Remain, also a large number of people who voted Leave who are appalled at the racism and xenophobia demonstrated by the right, and a large number of young people who were unable to vote in June ... all of which might give a politically centralish candidate strong support - and, even return a large number of MPs who stand on an anti-Brexit platform. Such an election would be interesting, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that it would return a government even further to the right than the current bunch of wannabe-fascists.
On the other hand, if by any chance the Parliamentary vote was to go against the Government and an election was to be called, wouldn't it be likely to result in the formation of the most right-wing Government since 1832? Let's not throw our hats in the air too soon!
quote:Well - it would either be the most right wing, or if Corbyn's Labour won, the most left wing for donkey's years.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Am I being unduly paranoid in detecting unpleasantly totalitarian overtones in the constant invocation of 'will of the British people' by the present Government?
On the other hand, if by any chance the Parliamentary vote was to go against the Government and an election was to be called, wouldn't it be likely to result in the formation of the most right-wing Government since 1832? Let's not throw our hats in the air too soon!
quote:The problem is, if you have a general election that's just based on the EU position, what do you do if you end up with another hung parliament? How would all those parties ever enter into a coalition?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I can imagine those who passionately support Britain's membership of the EU being jubilant about this. The pound has already gone up by a cent against the dollar since the announcement. But it remains to be seen if it's a victory for democracy. Both in the 2015 Tory Party election manifesto, and in the leaflet which Cameron dropped through all our doors during the referendum campaign, it was made clear that the government would implement the decision of the referendum whatever the outcome. Quite right IMO. But parliament has an 80% pro Remain bias. It will now do what it can to delay and eventually eliminate Brexit in any meaningful way.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A victory for democracy, putting decisions about implementing Brexit into the hands of all our elected representatives. Which is where it should be, rather than in the hands of a few making decisions behind closed doors.
What the government should do in the new year, as it's too late this side of Christmas is to repeal the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011 and call a general election. I have advocated this all along. We know that the Lib Dems would enter such an election promising to keep us in the EU. UKIP will opt for a total divorce. The Tories and Labour will be forced to set out their stalls as to what they want to happen next. I don't trust the present parliament to honour the democratic will of the people. Let members face their own voters and find out what they want first. Then there's some hope that this will be a victory for democracy.
quote:As a passionate supporter of Britain's membership of the EU, I wouldn't say I'm jubilant. Because, it's a very small step that will ultimately not change anything - it might slow things down a wee bit, though if the government decides not to go to the Supreme Court they could put a motion into the House, have a debate and vote and still invoke Article 50 at the end of March. I don't expect more than a handful of Tories to vote against the government, and there will be a sizeable number of Labour MPs who will also accept that "Brexit means Brexit". If the government decides to go to the Supreme Court, then they'll presumably have to wait for that decision before invoking Article 50. And if the ruling is still that it needs to go through the House then March may slip into May or June.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I can imagine those who passionately support Britain's membership of the EU being jubilant about this.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A victory for democracy, putting decisions about implementing Brexit into the hands of all our elected representatives. Which is where it should be, rather than in the hands of a few making decisions behind closed doors.
quote:As a point of information, I never received this mythical leaflet from Cameron. But, that's not really relevant. The point is, that the manifesto commitment is what's going to result in most Tories voting to invoke Article 50 when it goes through the House. The Tory party can't be seen to back down on such a public commitment and to vote against the government - otherwise they're likely to end up in their own version of the mess Labour are in. And, heaven help us, that would mean a load of UKIP MPs next election (even leaving the EU is a better prospect than that).
Both in the 2015 Tory Party election manifesto, and in the leaflet which Cameron dropped through all our doors during the referendum campaign, it was made clear that the government would implement the decision of the referendum whatever the outcome.
quote:Er... yes, we normally do?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.
Tubbs
quote:Nope, wars are voted on. The UK is not officially in Syria is because Cameron couldn't get military action passed.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:Er... yes, we normally do?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.
Tubbs
quote:well, the last couple of adventures, eg Syria, have been contingent on a vote, but yes you're right that this is a spectacularly new piece of precedent in the great scheme of things. Was it one of Gordon Brown's ideas? Telling any PM from Blair backwards that they couldn't go to war without a vote if they wanted to would have come as something of a surprise to them.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:Er... yes, we normally do?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.
Tubbs
quote:See my cross post, wars are voted on *now* as a matter of course, but this is a very new development (as in last couple of years), not an age-old precedent.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:Nope, wars are voted on. The UK is not officially in Syria is because Cameron couldn't get military action passed.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:Er... yes, we normally do?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.
Tubbs
quote:Thank you. Given all the fuss about who voted for Iraq recently, I assumed that it had always been so.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:See my cross post, wars are voted on *now* as a matter of course, but this is a very new development (as in last couple of years), not an age-old precedent.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:Nope, wars are voted on. The UK is not officially in Syria is because Cameron couldn't get military action passed.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:Er... yes, we normally do?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.
Tubbs
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
That's not saying I want a redo, just that I want the form of brexit to go through proper due process.quote:Frankly, court cases aren't about good precedents. They're about legal requirements. I know you were talking about going to war just now, but how we got here was by comparing that to Brexit.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Frankly, it's a good precedent.
quote:I'm not a legal expert, added to which I've not had time to read the court documents you linked to earlier (I'll have a look over them when I'm back home from work).
Originally posted by orfeo:
Having just read a bit more of the actual decision, I remain quite dubious about its correctness.
It seems to equate alterations to the law of the UK with the results of the application of the laws of (1)the EU or (2) other member states of the EU. And to my mind those are very different things. Changing the text of the law is not the same thing as triggering the application of the law of another country.
quote:Legislation is one aspect of Parliament's duty but holding the government to account is another. The courts do that too, but they approach it from the legislative point of view which isn't, IMNSHO, the only valid view.
Originally posted by orfeo:
<snip>
And to my mind it's completely wrong in principle to say that Parliament ought automatically to be involved in "big decisions". Parliament is involved with changes to the law. Not decisions in general if they have significant consequences.
quote:Holding to account for actions that have been taken is not at all the same as having to give prior approval for actions. The difference between these two things is utterly fundamental to the relationship between parliament and government.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Legislation is one aspect of Parliament's duty but holding the government to account is another. The courts do that too, but they approach it from the legislative point of view which isn't, IMNSHO, the only valid view.
Originally posted by orfeo:
<snip>
And to my mind it's completely wrong in principle to say that Parliament ought automatically to be involved in "big decisions". Parliament is involved with changes to the law. Not decisions in general if they have significant consequences.
quote:Well that's my first problem. I'm not persuaded that the UK joined by an Act of Parliament. Again, it's the EU rules that expected an Act of Parliament, as a condition of accepting the UK. It wasn't an idea that the UK came up with on its own.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I'm not a legal expert, added to which I've not had time to read the court documents you linked to earlier (I'll have a look over them when I'm back home from work).
Originally posted by orfeo:
Having just read a bit more of the actual decision, I remain quite dubious about its correctness.
It seems to equate alterations to the law of the UK with the results of the application of the laws of (1)the EU or (2) other member states of the EU. And to my mind those are very different things. Changing the text of the law is not the same thing as triggering the application of the law of another country.
But, I thought the basic argument was that the UK joined (what became) the EU by an Act of Parliament. Therefore, leaving the EU will be to rescind that Act of Parliament. Scrubbing an Act from the books seems, to my lay eyes, the ultimate in "changing the text". The same would go for any other parts of UK law that derive from and rely on EU membership (if any such laws exist).
quote:That's not the language of the treaty. Read it first.
Originally posted by orfeo:
<snip>
Given that the EU requirement for leaving doesn't say that the UK must pass an Act, whereas the EU requirement for entering did say that an Act was required, what basis is there for saying you need an Act to leave? A false idea that the UK unilaterally set up the entry.
quote:Article 50 point 1 says
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:That's not the language of the treaty. Read it first.
Originally posted by orfeo:
<snip>
Given that the EU requirement for leaving doesn't say that the UK must pass an Act, whereas the EU requirement for entering did say that an Act was required, what basis is there for saying you need an Act to leave? A false idea that the UK unilaterally set up the entry.
K.
quote:' in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.' —that was one of the central points of the High Court ruling. In our case, that means Parliament—unless the Gov't wins on appeal!
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Article 50 point 1 says
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:That's not the language of the treaty. Read it first.
Originally posted by orfeo:
<snip>
Given that the EU requirement for leaving doesn't say that the UK must pass an Act, whereas the EU requirement for entering did say that an Act was required, what basis is there for saying you need an Act to leave? A false idea that the UK unilaterally set up the entry.
K.
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
So I think Orfeo is right - the EU don't specify what our constitutional arrangements should be...
quote:Which is why it went the High Court, to specify what our constitutional arrangements are.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So I think Orfeo is right - the EU don't specify what our constitutional arrangements should be...
quote:Yes, but my concern is that the court was weirdly selective in deciding how those constitutional requirements related to EU law.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Which is why it went the High Court, to specify what our constitutional arrangements are.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So I think Orfeo is right - the EU don't specify what our constitutional arrangements should be...
quote:This potentially descends into circular reasoning where you use an EU document that doesn't say anything about the content of the UK constitution to determine the content of the UK constitution in order to comply with the document.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:' in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.' —that was one of the central points of the High Court ruling. In our case, that means Parliament—unless the Gov't wins on appeal!
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Article 50 point 1 says
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:That's not the language of the treaty. Read it first.
Originally posted by orfeo:
<snip>
Given that the EU requirement for leaving doesn't say that the UK must pass an Act, whereas the EU requirement for entering did say that an Act was required, what basis is there for saying you need an Act to leave? A false idea that the UK unilaterally set up the entry.
K.
Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
So I think Orfeo is right - the EU don't specify what our constitutional arrangements should be...
K.
quote:So which is it? Did the 1972 Act give British citizens rights, or did it implement EU laws that gave rights?
After all, at its heart the ruling does no more than underscore the point that by triggering Article 50 the Government would ultimately be depriving British citizens of rights they enjoy as a consequence of the European Communities Act 1972, the primary legislation by which EU statutes were given effect in UK law.
quote:I will now read those links, but at first glance haven't you got something wrong there? I thought the courts were ruling on what UK law has to say about constitutional arrangements in the UK, the UK courts would presumably not be able to rule in relation to EU laws.
Originally posted by orfeo:
my concern is that the court was weirdly selective in deciding how those constitutional requirements related to EU law.
quote:Who's annulling an Act? Confusing the effect of jumping with the consequences of jumping.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes, but. An Act can't be annulled by the Executive under the Royal Prerogative. It can only be annulled by another vote in Parliament. It doesn't matter what Act it is or what it does.
quote:But it's UK law that says whether we're members of the EU. An Act took us in. An Act is needed to take us out.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's EU law that says what EU members get. Neither the UK Parliament nor the UK government says it.
quote:This is like saying that because an enrolment form was needed to get into a school, another form will be needed to leave it. It simply doesn't follow.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:But it's UK law that says whether we're members of the EU. An Act took us in. An Act is needed to take us out.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's EU law that says what EU members get. Neither the UK Parliament nor the UK government says it.
In your poorly-thought out analogy, yes, we get to choose whether gravity applies to us or not.
quote:No, it's not. It is perfectly legal for the UK to leave the EU. The question at stake is whether the entity empowered to invoke article 50 is the Queen-in-Parliament or the Queen-in-Council. The EU doesn't have an opinion on that - it's a UK constitutional question.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Is it now the case the we took part in a referendum of which the delivery of one of the possible outcomes now turns out to be illegal?
quote:Look, I know nothing, but this doesn't feel right to me. The EU as a thing was set up by a club of nations mutually deciding to delegate some of their powers to central institutions, so in a very real sense it was the British Parliament which had to assent to those powers being delegated.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Arguably the biggest problem with the "annulment" argument is that incorrectly identifies who will actually do any annulling. It isn't the UK government, it's the EU. It's the EU that will say when you are not a member of the EU, you can't vote in EU elections or have any of the rights that depend on EU membership.
Again, this is the falsity in complaining the UK Parliament is sovereign. It's pretending that, for example, the UK Parliament created the one in Strasbourg.
quote:The logic of the governments position was that the Prime Minister of the day could decide to secede from the EU, effectively on a whim. And on Orfeo's logic it was only the EU that required Parliament to pass Acts implementing and amending the UK's relationship with the EU. Presumably Heath could have used the Royal Prerogative to take us in, Mrs Thatcher could have done the same to create the Single Market, Major could have signed up to Maastricht by that route (thus saving the Whips office the mother of all headaches) and Blair could have used the prerogative to sign up to Lisbon and the only objection would have been that it was against EU rules? Effectively it's a claim that the relationship between Parliament and the electorate can be amended without the consent of Parliament.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Orfeo, normally I'd defer to you in matters legal and constitutional, but since the noble lords on the bench disagree with you, and agree with me, then all I can say is that your argument is faulty at a fundamental level - the expressed opinion of the court is that the instrument required to disengage from the EU (Art. 50) cannot be invoked by Royal Prerogative.
quote:Watching Nick Clegg on TV this morning, it's obvious what he has in mind. Parliament, the Commons and the Lords, which has a disproportionate number of Lib Dems, can delay and frustrate Brexit at every turn, hoping that eventually the vote of the 23rd June can be overturned. I can't speak for Alan, but with what he wrote above, I think he'd like that idea. The SNP will obstruct in any way possible. Amendments will be put down by both Commons and Lords, kicking the Bill back and forth until a tanking economy takes over, or enough people die or come of age that the demographic goes in favour of Remain. This is nothing less than what we can expect from our smug political elite.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I recently saw a study on demagraphics that showed that even if no-one changes their votes (including the choice not to vote) then within 5 years the result would swing to Remain simply by the number of young people turning 18 and the death of the elderly.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Watching Nick Clegg on TV this morning, it's obvious what he has in mind. Parliament, the Commons and the Lords, which has a disproportionate number of Lib Dems, can delay and frustrate Brexit at every turn, hoping that eventually the vote of the 23rd June can be overturned.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I recently saw a study on demagraphics that showed that even if no-one changes their votes (including the choice not to vote) then within 5 years the result would swing to Remain simply by the number of young people turning 18 and the death of the elderly.
quote:I can't deny I would love it if we could go back and do the referendum properly, have several years of discussion to allow the Leave campaign to form a clear position, so that we could have an informed debate and vote in the referendum itself. But, "I wouldn't start from here" is only a good line in a joke (though 'joke' is a pretty good summation of the way Cameron handled calling the referendum, and all the mess thereafter). The current government has no choice but to go for Brexit. I don't think that same requirement would hold to future governments - which does hold open the door for sanity to be restored if May calls for an election before concluding the Article 50 negotiations. It's not going to endear the UK to the rest of the EU if either the invoking of A50 is delayed to 2018 or there's an election before 2020 and the incoming government is elected on a pro-EU platform and says "sorry chaps, but we don't want to leave the EU afterall", but if that's the government we elect at that time ....
I can't speak for Alan, but with what he wrote above, I think he'd like that idea.
quote:Though, I would say we were all denied our democratic say when no one bothered to even define the question we were answering in June. Since the referendum didn't define Brexit, then we still need to be able to have our democratic say on what Brexit means - through our representatives in Parliament, through public discussion and debate, if necessary through a follow-up referendum. But, I've banged on about that enough already.
For once I agree with Nigel Farage that this will provoke outrageous anger from the Leave voters who've been denied their democratic say.
quote:Something about this sentence lends me to believe that you weren't paying attention during the run-up to the referendum.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'd be interested to hear Jeremy Corbyn's take on it, because he's never been forthright on his view of the EU, although he does support honouring the referendum vote.
quote:Very droll.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:Something about this sentence lends me to believe that you weren't paying attention during the run-up to the referendum.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'd be interested to hear Jeremy Corbyn's take on it, because he's never been forthright on his view of the EU, although he does support honouring the referendum vote.
quote:She might, but as immigration is her thing, I wouldn't bet on that.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That is the crux for me - Brexit was not defined, and is now being claimed by various parties, as meaning X, Y and Z. However, I don't recall voting on X, Y and Z.
Mrs May is behaving like a medieval monarch, in trying to determine these things outside Parliament. But I can see her problem, she might want a soft Brexit, but the nutters are at her back.
quote:I still have it tucked in the bottom of an upstairs drawer. The government controversially spent £9.3 million leafleting every house with its advice to vote Remain. It then says, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." This is what Theresa May is trying to do, remembering that she was herself a Remainer. I see this as the clearest of mandates to pursue Article 50 by Royal Perogative. It doesn't require a parliamentary vote to declare war on another country, though it may be wise to seek approval.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I never received this mythical leaflet from Cameron.
quote:That would mean going to the country with a definite proposal for Brexit with red lines and aims and objectives and so forth. I think May's plan is to go to Brussels with a plan to end free movement and to see what she can get in terms of trade deals. When this happens the Tabloids will declare victory and she will win the next election by a country mile. We will then all wake up as to exactly how screwed we all are.
If I were her, I would get a vote on her intention to trigger Article 50, as a vote of confidence in her administration. If sufficient members try to thwart the process she will be required to call an election.
quote:This is another example of sloppiness in setting-up the referendum. The Cameron government should have checked what the legal position was before making this promise. But as they expected to win they were too lazy and arrogant to do this.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It then says, "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide." This is what Theresa May is trying to do, remembering that she was herself a Remainer. I see this as the clearest of mandates to pursue Article 50 by Royal Perogative.
quote:However, now MPs have been given the opportunity to restore normal service, it seems like they plan to miss their chance. Even in the pro-EU independent I read an article showing the gap between the referendum result and the MP's view. There seems to be a view, at least on BBC radio, that to represent the people, the MPs must confirm the referendum result from June's 72% turnout vote (even though the £350 million per week for the NHS has been withdrawn since the vote).
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
It wasn't meant to override normal representative democratic practice.
quote:We are not declaring war on another country. We are changing the law of the United Kingdom and stripping all its citizens of their EU citizenship. This is a very big deal, not something you can do on a whim and then shout "will of the people" when you get only a wafer-thin majority of a fairly low turnout single question referendum.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It doesn't require a parliamentary vote to declare war on another country, ...
quote:This, to me, is enough to make the referendum result null and void. How many people voted leave because of this nonsense? The brexiteers have now admitted it was a bare-faced lie.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
(even though the £350 million per week for the NHS has been withdrawn since the vote).
quote:If it was a regular election and a candidate was found to have deliberately lied about an opponent, and that was considered likely to affect the result, then there are processes to investigate and potentially call a by-election. If we're going to use referenda to by-pass Parliamentary democracy then we certainly need to define what is and is not acceptable campaigning, and the consequences of unacceptable campaigning. I would certainly want to see deliberate lies and threats of violence included in the list of what is unacceptable. If one side of a discussion can't get the result they want without using outright lies and threatening violence if they don't get their way then they don't deserve to win.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Unfortunately we have no legal process for nullifying the result, as referenda have no clearly defined status in the UK.
quote:Establishing her red lines with Brussels was certainly her preferred option, but all parties having to lay out their ideas, which would happen in an election is no bad thing. It would boil down to red lines. Do we put "taking back control" as they love to put it, ahead of membership of the Single Market? Do we put our ability to seek trade deals around the world ahead of membership of the Customs Union? Each party can tell us what they would prioritise and we vote accordingly. It would end this cat and mouse game between the government's Brexit team and the rest of parliament which is clamouring for detail. In reality, nobody can give that much detail, because they don't know what they'll be up against, but at least we can vote on the general direction in which they intend to take us.
Originally posted by Callan:
That would mean going to the country with a definite proposal for Brexit with red lines and aims and objectives and so forth. I think May's plan is to go to Brussels with a plan to end free movement and to see what she can get in terms of trade deals.
quote:Like the Remain side threatening everything from World War III to an emergency budget to needing a visa for a day trip to France. In my case it worked. Project Fear induced me to vote Remain.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If one side of a discussion can't get the result they want without using outright lies
quote:Well, I was never a fan of Project Fear. But, it's not unreasonable to point out the difficulties and potential problems with the proposals of the other side - though in this case that was impossible since the other side was making a bunch of mutually contradictory proposals.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Like the Remain side threatening everything from World War III to an emergency budget to needing a visa for a day trip to France. In my case it worked. Project Fear induced me to vote Remain.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If one side of a discussion can't get the result they want without using outright lies
quote:You already have that in abundance in Scotland with the SNP. In the UK we have the Lib Dems who've already made it clear that's their ticket. But I don't think it's that difficult. We already know that May wants to make control of our borders a red line, and hope for a good deal on trade. We know that her stand will take us out of the Single Market. Jeremy Corbyn has said that the referendum result must be respected, but that he wants to know the details of Mrs May's proposals, but unless I've missed something, he hasn't yet told us how he would go about it. We know the position of the SNP and the Lib Dems.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(I would hope) the "this whole thing is a lot of nonsense and stay in the EU" party
quote:I would be utterly flabbergasted if anyone in Europe or the UK would sink that low. We could travel in Europe prior to our EU membership without a visa, though we always had our passports stamped on the frontier. As a frequent channel hopper who lives within sight of France, that would break my heart!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
although if the UK-EU doesn't produce a visa waiver scheme I would be incredibly surprised.
quote:I hope your capacity for disappointment is unlimited, as populist demagoguery appears to be trumping common sense at every turn.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I would be utterly flabbergasted if anyone in Europe or the UK would sink that low.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
although if the UK-EU doesn't produce a visa waiver scheme I would be incredibly surprised.
quote:It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Orfeo, normally I'd defer to you in matters legal and constitutional, but since the noble lords on the bench disagree with you, and agree with me, then all I can say is that your argument is faulty at a fundamental level - the expressed opinion of the court is that the instrument required to disengage from the EU (Art. 50) cannot be invoked by Royal Prerogative.
[old lawyer joke]
How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
How many can you afford?
[/old lawyer joke]
quote:It's like you never realised I've been married to a lawyer for 25 years.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.
quote:I've only got as far as paragraph 90-something of the judgment* and, though I'm quite rusty with this sort of thing these days, there does seem to be a lot of material for Jonathan Sumption and his friends to get their teeth into. It'll be a fascinating judgment.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Orfeo, normally I'd defer to you in matters legal and constitutional, but since the noble lords on the bench disagree with you, and agree with me, then all I can say is that your argument is faulty at a fundamental level - the expressed opinion of the court is that the instrument required to disengage from the EU (Art. 50) cannot be invoked by Royal Prerogative.
[old lawyer joke]
How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
How many can you afford?
[/old lawyer joke]
Your level of deference to a particular group of judges is admirable, but I don't share it. I don't share it because I read about judges saying other judges are wrong All. The. Time.
quote:*shrug*. I'm not commenting on your reality. I'm commenting on the fact that you're behaving as if judges are infallible by saying that my view must be "faulty at a fundamental level" just because it's not the same view as that of a judge.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:It's like you never realised I've been married to a lawyer for 25 years.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.
quote:I would say VERY different issues. You're describing a fight that was court vs government. And saying that the courts have the final say on interpretation of law is thoroughly orthodox.
Originally posted by tomsk:
FWIW, my bet is the Supreme Court upholds this. Reason. In a rather obscure recent decision about whether the govt or courts had the final decision on the release of the Prince of Wales letters under freedom of information legislation (put simply, an Act of Parliament said it was the government, but the court artificially interpreted it to mean that it was the court). The decision was an assertion of judicial supremacy on interpreting the law and on the finality of its decisions. Slightly different issues here, but the Court wades right in to politics.
quote:But right now we're not talking about changing UK legislation. We're talking about activating a treaty provision.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
As experts on the law pointed out at the time, to disentangle UK law is not a simple process. In effect it will mean making lots of new law. The point is that the government doesn't have the power to do so. Only parliament does.
quote:You mistake me. I'm well aware that lawyers and judges disagree with each other.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:*shrug*. I'm not commenting on your reality. I'm commenting on the fact that you're behaving as if judges are infallible by saying that my view must be "faulty at a fundamental level" just because it's not the same view as that of a judge.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:It's like you never realised I've been married to a lawyer for 25 years.
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.
As far as arguments go, that's an incredibly piss-poor one. It's also liable to make the universe implode the moment you get 2 judges who don't agree with each other.
quote:Indeed. But the point is that this is literally thousands of decisions about whether we want to follow EU law or do something different. In each case parliament can make that decision not the executive.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:But right now we're not talking about changing UK legislation. We're talking about activating a treaty provision.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
As experts on the law pointed out at the time, to disentangle UK law is not a simple process. In effect it will mean making lots of new law. The point is that the government doesn't have the power to do so. Only parliament does.
There is in fact not nearly as much UK law that has to change as some people suppose. There is absolutely nothing to prevent a "fully independent" UK from adopting EU laws if it so chooses.
I know this, because quite a bit of Australian law is based on copying EU rules. I've written some of it. You don't have to be a member of the EU to have EU laws, you just need a Parliament (or delegated legislator) that says "oh, that looks good, we'll have that as well".
Leaving the EU gives you the right to have different laws from the EU. Not the obligation.
quote:Yes, we are talking about activating a treaty provision (Art 50, Treaty on European Union). I agree with you that the better view of existing law would have been for the court to decide that the government could use prerogative powers to trigger Article 50. (I think that the law should require Parliament's involvement - I just didn't think that the law did require that.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:But right now we're not talking about changing UK legislation. We're talking about activating a treaty provision.[...]
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
As experts on the law pointed out at the time, to disentangle UK law is not a simple process. In effect it will mean making lots of new law. The point is that the government doesn't have the power to do so. Only parliament does.
quote:The bit I've put in italics isn't the case, though. Article 237 of the Treaty Of Rome simply says that if a country wishes to join, an agreement is drawn up between the EU (or EEC as was in the UK's case) which then "shall be submitted to all the contracting States for ratification in accordance with their respective constitutional rules". The 1972 Treaty Of Accession, signed between the then-EEC and the UK (and Ireland and Denmark, who joined at the same time) simply says that the treaty will be ratified by the candidate countries "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well that's my first problem. I'm not persuaded that the UK joined by an Act of Parliament. Again, it's the EU rules that expected an Act of Parliament, as a condition of accepting the UK. It wasn't an idea that the UK came up with on its own.
Given that the EU requirement for leaving doesn't say that the UK must pass an Act, whereas the EU requirement for entering did say that an Act was required, what basis is there for saying you need an Act to leave? A false idea that the UK unilaterally set up the entry.
quote:We had a politics teacher at school who argued that the European Union was the final resolution of the Treaty of Verdun (AD 843).
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yeah. The way things are going we could end repealing the treaty of Versailles.
quote:Okay, well that is distinctly not the impression I got from what I previously read, which was to the effect that a joining state was obliged to put certain things into its domestic law, and that this is what the 1972 Act was doing.**
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:The bit I've put in italics isn't the case, though. Article 237 of the Treaty Of Rome simply says that if a country wishes to join, an agreement is drawn up between the EU (or EEC as was in the UK's case) which then "shall be submitted to all the contracting States for ratification in accordance with their respective constitutional rules". The 1972 Treaty Of Accession, signed between the then-EEC and the UK (and Ireland and Denmark, who joined at the same time) simply says that the treaty will be ratified by the candidate countries "in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well that's my first problem. I'm not persuaded that the UK joined by an Act of Parliament. Again, it's the EU rules that expected an Act of Parliament, as a condition of accepting the UK. It wasn't an idea that the UK came up with on its own.
Given that the EU requirement for leaving doesn't say that the UK must pass an Act, whereas the EU requirement for entering did say that an Act was required, what basis is there for saying you need an Act to leave? A false idea that the UK unilaterally set up the entry.
In neither treaty did the EEC specify to the UK that an Act of Parliament is required; both of them, like Article 50, merely said that the UK are required do so in accordance with their constitutional requirements. There seems to me to be no difference between the two. Given this, and the fact that EEC/EU treaties have always been accepted into UK law by Parliament, why is Parliament now not required to invoke Article 50?
I don't the the relative sovereignty of the UK Parliament vs the EU is the question here either; the question is whether the "constitutional requirements" in the UK's case is Parliament or the government alone via Royal Perogative; whether or not Parliament is sovereign against the EU seems irrelevant.
quote:You can go with them. That's quite different, though, to what you said, which is that my argument must be fundamentally flawed just because I'm not going with them.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But you're opining that the appeal court judges didn't actually understand the law they were being asked to adjudicate on. I would argue that they do. They just understand it differently from you and, given that they have more experience at UK constitutional law, I'm going with them.
quote:Thank your for this.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:Yes, we are talking about activating a treaty provision (Art 50, Treaty on European Union). I agree with you that the better view of existing law would have been for the court to decide that the government could use prerogative powers to trigger Article 50. (I think that the law should require Parliament's involvement - I just didn't think that the law did require that.)
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:But right now we're not talking about changing UK legislation. We're talking about activating a treaty provision.[...]
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
As experts on the law pointed out at the time, to disentangle UK law is not a simple process. In effect it will mean making lots of new law. The point is that the government doesn't have the power to do so. Only parliament does.
The view of the court seems to have been that they were talking about activating a treaty provision and changes to the effect of UK legislation. I can see where they are 'coming from'. If I interpret them correctly, they said that triggering Article 50 will lead to the loss of statutory rights. After the negotiation process, either the EU and UK will agree a deal, in which case UK citizens will lose at least some of their rights under EU law (if not all) or no deal will be done, in which case all rights will be lost 2 years after Art 50 is triggered. Either way, rights which UK citizens currently enjoy under the European Communities Act 1972 (and other legislation) will be lost. The court's view seems to be that the activation of a treaty provision will lead to a loss of statutory rights. Normally, these two things would be separate, but in this case they are linked.
You might be thinking 'but triggering Article 50 won't immediately cause the loss of those rights. If Parliament needs to pass an Act, this is needed at the end of the Art 50 negotiation process, not the beginning'. If so, I agree - that is why I don't think that the law required an Act of Parliament to trigger Article 50.
quote:I agree, Stejjie, that the issue is not relative sovereignty. My answer to your first point (given that Acts were needed to accept EU treaties into UK law, why isn't an Act needed now) is this: an Act will be needed. It will be needed at the end of the Art 50 negotiation process, not the beginning - just as an Act of Parliament was not needed for the UK to start negotiating to join the EEC. The European Communities Act 1972 was needed after those negotiations ended.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
[...] Given this, and the fact that EEC/EU treaties have always been accepted into UK law by Parliament, why is Parliament now not required to invoke Article 50?
I don't the the relative sovereignty of the UK Parliament vs the EU is the question here either; the question is whether the "constitutional requirements" in the UK's case is Parliament or the government alone via Royal Perogative; whether or not Parliament is sovereign against the EU seems irrelevant.
quote:Indeed. I guess it turns on the fact that activating article 50 will result in revocation of Acts of parliament but not immediately and exactly how is unclear.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
orfeo, that is how I think about this, too. As you probably know, UK lawyers are taught that Parliament can make any law, including arbitrary or unjust laws - and, of course, futile laws. Your example of Parliament keeping the law which requires elections for Members of the European Parliament, even if Britain was no longer entitled to any MEPs, is a good example. Your example reminds me of the classic lecture-hall example of the British Parliament passing a law making it illegal for French people to smoke on the streets of Paris (with apologies to any French people reading this - the point of the example is that this would be an absurd, futile law.) If the UK Supreme Court reverses the decision of the High Court, then my guess is that you have identified the reasoning which they will use.
quote:I agree, Stejjie, that the issue is not relative sovereignty. My answer to your first point (given that Acts were needed to accept EU treaties into UK law, why isn't an Act needed now) is this: an Act will be needed. It will be needed at the end of the Art 50 negotiation process, not the beginning - just as an Act of Parliament was not needed for the UK to start negotiating to join the EEC. The European Communities Act 1972 was needed after those negotiations ended.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
[...] Given this, and the fact that EEC/EU treaties have always been accepted into UK law by Parliament, why is Parliament now not required to invoke Article 50?
I don't the the relative sovereignty of the UK Parliament vs the EU is the question here either; the question is whether the "constitutional requirements" in the UK's case is Parliament or the government alone via Royal Perogative; whether or not Parliament is sovereign against the EU seems irrelevant.
quote:How so?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
For me it seems quite clear that the government does not have the power to repeal legislation. Only parliament does. All of this could have been avoided if the referendum act had included a clause empowering the executive to act
quote:When the EU Referendum Bill was drafted, and when it was being discussed by Parliament, any alert minister or backbencher could have said, 'suppose a majority vote Leave? Do we need to add a clause to the Bill, to authorise the government to trigger Article 50 if that happens?' They could have consulted a lawyer, who could have advised them that (as this case shows) this was a grey area. Having discovered that, they could have inserted such a clause into the Bill. Since the government and Parliament left an unresolved grey area, the judges had to resolve it.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:How so?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
For me it seems quite clear that the government does not have the power to repeal legislation. Only parliament does. All of this could have been avoided if the referendum act had included a clause empowering the executive to act
quote:The evidence is that, in this case, "totally inept" would be a generous description of the ability of Parliament to do it's job (the vast majority of which should have been done in writing the Referendum act, leaving the government the relatively simple task of doing what Parliament and the people had decided - the was no reason why after the result was clear following the referendum that Cameron didn't stand up in the Commons on the Monday morning and invoke Article 50 based on an opening position in negotiations already determined by Parliament, if the referendum had been organised with even a small thought about anything other than internal squabbles within the Conservative Party).
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
The idea that the government can do whatever it wants here is not how our parliamentary democracy works. It is parliament that decides such things. How good parliament is at that job is an entirely different question.
quote:I realise I am talking to people who know far more about it than I do, but if it is genuinely a grey area (in the sense of unspecified), wouldn't that suggest that triggering Article 50 isn't a prerogative power since AIUI while Parliament can do anything, the Queen unaided can only do what she is expressly allowed to do?
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Since the government and Parliament left an unresolved grey area, the judges had to resolve it.
quote:It's a grey area because it can be (and has been) argued both ways and because both sides have decent arguments. The Queen (and the government, who use these powers in practice) can only use existing prerogative powers (so, in that sense, they can only do what they are expressly allowed to do). But the Queen's prerogative powers include the power to conduct international relations, which includes the UK becoming a party to, or ceasing to be a party to, international treaties.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I realise I am talking to people who know far more about it than I do, but if it is genuinely a grey area (in the sense of unspecified), wouldn't that suggest that triggering Article 50 isn't a prerogative power since AIUI while Parliament can do anything, the Queen unaided can only do what she is expressly allowed to do?
quote:Our electoral system is as good as guaranteed to give no PM a legitimate claim to have an electoral mandate for anything.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
... I don't believe there can ever be any democratic accountability in our future negotiations with the EU, unless the Prime Minister, whoever it would be, can claim a mandate for their own particular approach to Brexit. ...
quote:I agree, but it's all we've got in the present moment. And it may be needed to break a constitutional impasse.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Our electoral system is as good as guaranteed to give no PM a legitimate claim to have an electoral mandate for anything
quote:I did here. You started talking about gravity.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Engage with the actual argument.
quote:.
May should have called an election as soon as she became Prime Minister, but that having said she won’t, she now shouldn’t unless she has to: the core of her appeal, after all, is that she’s a woman of her word. But if Parliament now either makes Brexit itself or an orderly negotiation impossible, she may have no alternative but to go the country
quote:Which is the reason why a general election to solve the Brexit problem is a totally bonkers idea. You either insist people vote solely on the single issue of Brexit, ignoring all the other policies of each party. Or, you vote on the complete package and so vote for a party where you agree on their policies on health, welfare, defence, education etc, but where their position on Brexit is not what you want.
Originally posted by anteater:
First, would those who prefer this (which I do) vote Labour to get it? Very few, I think, and not me.
quote:On a point of information (that may or may not be relevant, we'll see) my understanding is that R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is a High Court judgment (i.e. a first instance decision) and so not a judgment by an appeal court. The case is going to appeal, leapfrogging the Court of Appeal and going straight to the Supreme Court, which might of course uphold the first instance decision in its entirety. Or reject it completely. Or do something in between. We'll see.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Apparently, the government's legal advisers are telling May that the Appeal Court's reasoning is not just sound, but pretty much boilerplated. Again, I'm sure they've considered the counter-arguments, including yours, but they appear to have rejected all other interpretations. You might find their ruling perverse, and maintain that your opinion is correct, but theirs is the one that's going to end up as setting precedent.
You might want to look again at how you constructed your argument and arrived at a very different conclusion to the one that's most likely to stand.
quote:The problem is that the moment she calls for a General Election she has to lay her hand upon the table. As she currently holds the two of Diamonds, a couple of Pokemons, a 1977 Football Top Trumps of Kenny Dalglish and The Fool she is understandably reluctant to do this. Basically, this is a government without a clue, without a plan and without an opposition which has been granted an electoral mandate to shoot the British economy in the foot. If she calls an election she will have to find a clue and a plan and, might possibly find herself with an opposition whilst still being obliged to point a shotgun and blow off one of her kitten heels. So it's not difficult to see why she's stalling.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I agree, but it's all we've got in the present moment. And it may be needed to break a constitutional impasse.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Our electoral system is as good as guaranteed to give no PM a legitimate claim to have an electoral mandate for anything
quote:I concur. But in my half-awake state this morning, R4 reliably informed me that the government's own legal advisers were telling May the game was up, and the SC was (I think the phrase was) 'unlikely' to reverse the Appeal Court's decision.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If this ends up going to the Supreme Court then in many ways we're discussing something that is not yet final.
quote:No thanks. Back in law school they taught me it was okay to write essays arguing that the very highest court in the land sometimes got it wrong. So I'm good.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You might want to look again at how you constructed your argument and arrived at a very different conclusion to the one that's most likely to stand.
quote:Er, no. I think that students should study the work of senior practitioners and learn from it. That is basic pedagogy and, I would have thought, reasonably uncontroversial.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Completely agreed.
The problem I have is that Doc Tor seems to think that students really ought to shut up and just parrot what they were told to say.
quote:Indeed, that is so, but AFAICR, you have to supply references for the elements of your argument. These courts might get it wrong but you have to take account of the framework they are working within; unless you want to start from a blank sheet of paper that is.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:No thanks. Back in law school they taught me it was okay to write essays arguing that the very highest court in the land sometimes got it wrong. So I'm good.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
You might want to look again at how you constructed your argument and arrived at a very different conclusion to the one that's most likely to stand.
quote:For May to call an election having previously said she wouldn't, she would have to be able to say, hand on heart, that her ability to get the brexit process through is being frustrated by the low majority she inherited and so she needs to go to the country. That's not bonkers in my view, but I do basically support the May government which possibly you do not.
Which is the reason why a general election to solve the Brexit problem is a totally bonkers idea.
quote:Nobody's insisting on anything, but of course whenever an election is held in the context of one issue that dominates, this will be the case. The issue at the next election is likely to be Socialism vs Capitalism, which I think is just as important.
You either insist people vote solely on the single issue of Brexit, ignoring all the other policies of each party. Or, you vote on the complete package . .
quote:First, if you vote for an option that is put by the Opposition and not accepted by the Government, you have effectively made it into an election, (bit like the upcoming Italian referendum) and I'm totally sure that May would immediately trigger an election - indeed I think she should - if the referendum mandate was one that she felt she couldn't deliver. But second, how would you phrase the option so as to make it comprehensible? Assuming you accept the practical difficulty of both options being several hundred words, please could you provide the questions verbatim as you would propose them in a referendum? And as a further condition, you must be able to say, no barleys, that the people to whom the question is directed will really understand it.
The only surefire way of knowing the views of the electorate to gain a mandate for a particular form of exit is to have an election between different options rather than different candidates - ie: a second referendum.
quote:That's interesting. R4 (and the government's lawyers) might be right. On the other hand, the government's lawyers might be being intentionally pessimistic, like Scotty in Star Trek III, multiplying his repair estimates by a factor of four so that he can keep his reputation as a miracle worker.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[...] in my half-awake state this morning, R4 reliably informed me that the government's own legal advisers were telling May the game was up, and the SC was (I think the phrase was) 'unlikely' to reverse the Appeal Court's decision.
quote:That's the point. There is, and never was, a simple question. The referendum in June had two choices. One was relatively simple, remain in the EU and maintain the current status (which, barring some minor tinkering by Cameron's "deal", is a current known with some uncertainty about the distant future - and, when the EU proposes a major change such as enhanced powers to Parliament, admission of Turkey or whatever, then the UK would have a say on that and maybe then would be a sensible time for a referendum). The other option, to leave the EU, was and still is incredibly complex with a wide range of potential options across multiple policy areas. The only way to distill that option down to a simple question is to produce several hundred words, probably tens of thousands of words - probably with a short list of bullet points for the campaign leaflets: "The Leave campaign seeks to:
Originally posted by anteater:
how would you phrase the option so as to make it comprehensible? Assuming you accept the practical difficulty of both options being several hundred words
quote:Only because an election would be to appoint a Parliament and government for five years. And, to elect those members on the basis of calling article 50 and taking us out of the EU, which will take only a fraction of Parliamentary time over that period, would be to deliver us a government for the wrong reasons. And, it still wouldn't really answer the question of what the UK population wants out of Brexit.
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan Creswell: From your reply I do not understand why you would consider an election the most-bonkers alternative.
quote:
I suppose it leads me to ask if you were equally against the Referendum for Scottish Independence.
quote:My guess is that it'll depend exactly on what happens in the Supreme Court and the extent to which May is frustrated by long debates and amendments in the Commons. If the SC case generates a lot of other cases and if (somehow) the SNP and others are able to cause significant delays to May's Article 50 timetable, my guess is that she'll throw up her hands and say "soddit, let's just have a GE and get these idiots out of my hair".
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, Theresa May has been making a lot of noise about still being on target to start the process by the end of March. Calling a general election would totally and utterly screw up that time table - how will it go down with the Leave voters if she does something else to slow down calling Article 50 until after an election in May? It's going to be very risky, even more so the longer it goes on before calling Article 50.
quote:surely it's the nuclear option she's planning for though? Ie, let the March deadline get screwed over while making noises about how it's all moaning Remainers' fault for thwarting the will of the people. Move a writ for dissolution end of March, election first week of May, thumping majority, goodnight Brussels.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, Theresa May has been making a lot of noise about still being on target to start the process by the end of March. Calling a general election would totally and utterly screw up that time table - how will it go down with the Leave voters if she does something else to slow down calling Article 50 until after an election in May? It's going to be very risky, even more so the longer it goes on before calling Article 50.
quote:An article in the Indie (sorry can't find link) was definite that there's no need to repeal the Act. She has the power to put a resolution that states, more or less, "notwithstanding the FTG Act, due to the circumstances, the next General Election will be on . .whenever".
If May goes to the polls, that'd be a very clever not stupid thing to do. And what would the electorate think if Labour MPs voted against repealing fixed-term governments in a situation like that?
quote:Well, yes. That is a good point.
First, the Scottish independence referendum was called by a government which wanted independence
quote:I know people who think (some more genuinely than others) that Jeremy might be...
Originally posted by anteater:
I'm surprised nobody has launched the conspiracy theory that Len McCluskey is being paid by the Tories!
quote:Not quite true. Even if Labour had won every Scottish seat the Tories would still have had the same majority.
Originally posted by anteater:
By self-destructing in Scotland, they made it into a separatist quasi-Quebec territory, allowed Cameron to win in 2015,
quote:To a point. Though the reason the Tories have a majority is because the Lib Dems went from 57 to 8 seats.
Originally posted by anteater:
By self-destructing in Scotland, they made it into a separatist quasi-Quebec territory, allowed Cameron to win in 2015, and are now totaly at 6's and 7's with most of them too scared to continue to back Remain out of fear of losing their seats.
quote:I assume the "separatist quasi-Quebec territory" statement refers to the general election result where Scotland turned almost entirely yellow, largely as a result of the total collapse of the Labour vote (though, several previously strong LibDem seats went as well, so it wasn't all down to the collapse of Labour). Though, not quite reflected in the Scottish Parliament where the SNP didn't quite scrape a majority of seats - but where the Labour collapse let the Tories in as the opposition.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Not quite true. Even if Labour had won every Scottish seat the Tories would still have had the same majority.
Originally posted by anteater:
By self-destructing in Scotland, they made it into a separatist quasi-Quebec territory, allowed Cameron to win in 2015,
quote:Québec had a separatist ministry-- but not since 2014 (although some would argue that the minority Marois ministry of 2012-4 was not separatist, given that it was in a minority).
Originally posted by anteater:
What i mainly meant by the reference to Quebec is that Scotland, like Quebec, has a separatist administration. Ok the Tories share the guilt, having a decent Scottish representation pre Thatcher.
*snip*
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Presumably there are quite a few voters who voted Remain because of Project Fear and have now realised that we haven't entered recession, there was no punishment budget, house prices haven't collapsed by 18% and World War 3 hasn't broken out.
Originally posted by anteater:
[T]he biggest buyers remorse should be on remainers who couldnt be arsed to vote.
quote:Or refuse such approval. 17.4 million out of a population of 63.5 million is hardly an overwhelming mandate. It's time someone had the guts to say that.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Given that, the most which can be done in a parliamentary vote is to approve giving notice.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, we've yet to light the blue touch paper.
quote:They could have applied for a postal vote?
In addition to those who didn't bother to vote there is quite a large number who couldn't vote. It's been reported a lot of students had difficulties, since they had registered to vote where they study but the vote was after the end of term.
quote:Perhaps because "Project Fear" was not as evident north of the border I must have missed the Chancellor state that he was preparing an emergency budget in the event of a Leave vote. Though the Bank of England was very quick in cutting interest rates, as though my savings weren't paying a pittance already.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, we've yet to light the blue touch paper.
That's the argument now. At the time it was suggested that merely voting for Brexit would cause catastrophe, hence the punishment budget apparently scheduled for the week following a Leave vote.
quote:Yes, they could have. Though I guess that since they were also sitting and preparing for exams they might have had other things to worry about than filing the paperwork for a postal ballot - which, of course, wouldn't guarantee them a vote anyway (of three elections while I was in Japan there was only one where the ballot papers arrived in time for me to vote and I assume they got back in time - I know others who are overseas for whom even a 1 in 3 voting rate would be considered high).
quote:They could have applied for a postal vote?
In addition to those who didn't bother to vote there is quite a large number who couldn't vote. It's been reported a lot of students had difficulties, since they had registered to vote where they study but the vote was after the end of term.
quote:I don't understand this whole "disenfranchised students" argument, since students studying away from home are entitled to be on the electoral register at both their term time address and their permanent home address.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Perhaps because "Project Fear" was not as evident north of the border I must have missed the Chancellor state that he was preparing an emergency budget in the event of a Leave vote. Though the Bank of England was very quick in cutting interest rates, as though my savings weren't paying a pittance already.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, we've yet to light the blue touch paper.
That's the argument now. At the time it was suggested that merely voting for Brexit would cause catastrophe, hence the punishment budget apparently scheduled for the week following a Leave vote.
There was a lot of nonsense said in the papers, on both sides of the debate. But, I tended to ignore the more stupid comments.
quote:Yes, they could have. Though I guess that since they were also sitting and preparing for exams they might have had other things to worry about than filing the paperwork for a postal ballot - which, of course, wouldn't guarantee them a vote anyway (of three elections while I was in Japan there was only one where the ballot papers arrived in time for me to vote and I assume they got back in time - I know others who are overseas for whom even a 1 in 3 voting rate would be considered high).
quote:They could have applied for a postal vote?
In addition to those who didn't bother to vote there is quite a large number who couldn't vote. It's been reported a lot of students had difficulties, since they had registered to vote where they study but the vote was after the end of term.
quote:Sorry, I failed to notice a new post on this thread.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't understand this whole "disenfranchised students" argument, since students studying away from home are entitled to be on the electoral register at both their term time address and their permanent home address.
quote:Well yes in at least one case: Farage. And I'm sure that it was another thing that added to the wave of grievances and "anti-establishment" feelings.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Did the success of Leave provide support and encouragement for the anti-establishment movement in the US that helped boost support for Trump?
quote:Are those who voted in another ballot in another country responsible for a presidential result they were not involved in another country? No, that's ridiculous.
Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
quote:Great quote from Taylor. I guess that the liberal left still held with British exceptionalism, and this has been slow to erode. Brexit seems imbued with the same idiocy, although more from a right wing point of view. People are bound to want to do trade deals with us, because we are British, and we drive on the left, or something.
Originally posted by Callan:
I think Trump helps Le Pen. I'm not sure, though, that Brexit did very much to help Trump.
AJP Taylor wrote in his autobiography that he, and the other original members of CND, thought that if the UK unilaterally disarmed other countries would be sufficiently moved by our moral example to follow suit. He later realised that this was unlikely, ruefully, observing "we were the last imperialists". The point being, that the time when the UK was a great moral exemplar for anyone was long gone. I think the same logic applies to Brexit.
quote:The rest of the world pays attention to US politics. I don't find it terribly credible that Americans would pay a great deal of attention to international politics.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I came back to this thread for ...
Trump spoke a lot about a "new Brexit" in his campaign. So, my question.
Did the success of Leave provide support and encouragement for the anti-establishment movement in the US that helped boost support for Trump? Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
quote:Not much. I think by far the strongest effect is that Brexit and Trump both got a chunk of support from ordinary working people who felt screwed over by internationalization, and wanted to vote for a big dollop of protectionism.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Did the success of Leave provide support and encouragement for the anti-establishment movement in the US that helped boost support for Trump? Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
quote:I resemble that remark. I'm 0 for 4 on getting ballot papers on time. The earliest I've received a ballot has been the day of the election; the latest has been two days after the fact.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know others who are overseas for whom even a 1 in 3 voting rate would be considered high).
quote:I had to read that twice.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I see that there is a growing coalition of MPs seeking to put the final version of Brexit back to the electorate (currently 84 MPs). Perhaps more interesting (given that 84 MPs are not going to get their way), in reporting this The Telegraph includes a readers poll which currently has 56% in support of a second referendum. Yes, that's Telegraph readers wanting a second referendum.
quote:Except it's not though, is it? Newspaper polling like that is even less worthy of the time of day than the official polling industry - at least they *try* and weight participant samples. These days, every pro-EU social media warrior just needs to share that link around their personal echo chamber and get voting.* Any link between a poll on the Telegraph website and the views of Telegraph readers is likely to be accidental at best.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, that's Telegraph readers wanting a second referendum.
quote:Some of us do. I'm working in the financial industry at the mo and believe me, there was and is a lot of attention paid. And of course, lots of us have family there.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:The rest of the world pays attention to US politics. I don't find it terribly credible that Americans would pay a great deal of attention to international politics.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I came back to this thread for ...
Trump spoke a lot about a "new Brexit" in his campaign. So, my question.
Did the success of Leave provide support and encouragement for the anti-establishment movement in the US that helped boost support for Trump? Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
quote:Yes, I know. It's not exclusively Telegraph readers voting, it's not scientific, etc. It's just a bit of fun.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Except it's not though, is it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, that's Telegraph readers wanting a second referendum.
quote:with a backward glance to their constituencies (many of which voted to leave) to think about how much they'd like to still be in Parliament after the next general election. Frankly I can't decide if that's better or worse... A hard Brexit enacted by Remainers would be the ultimate irony.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
whereas now it will be defined by the government and Parliament (the majority of whom campaigned for Remain, and excludes many prominent Leavers).
quote:and that's what really scares me about all of this. Populism is on the march across Europe. If you wanted to light the blue touch paper under proper separatist movements across the EU I can't think of a better way of doing it than making it clear that leaving is not an option that will be tolerated by the centre/the peoples' betters.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
They just seem to have accepted that the UK must pay the price of Brexit otherwise the whole notion of an EU is dead.
quote:You say this without the slightest bit of irony. As if the Uk hasn't taken the first step in that march. But that aside, you're also claiming that Europe will punish the UK for leaving the EU and make it profoundly difficult for them by ensuring they don't get a good deal. The fact is the EU doesn't owe Britain any deal seeing it voted to leave all on its own. The notion that Britain should be afforded some kind of respect simply because it thinks of itself as important simply doesn't wash anymore. The notion that Britain should be afforded respect and be granted privileges just on the basis of who it is, is frankly deluded. You cannot vote to leave the club house, but take it and its contents with you when you leave; it really is that simple.
If you wanted to light the blue touch paper under proper separatist movements across the EU I can't think of a better way of doing it than making it clear that leaving is not an option that will be tolerated by the centre/the peoples' betters.
quote:There's not much point hoping for very much from Parliament. The Tories have decided that the price of staying in the Single Market and Customs Union is civil war and decided to avoid it, Corbyn and McDonnell were never Remainers to start with and are, in any event, the most ineffectual Opposition Leader and Shadow Chancellor of my lifetime, the mainstream Labour Party anticipate an electoral apocalypse at the next election and are trying to limit the fall out by signalling to the constituencies that voted Leave that they are on their side. That leaves the SNP, the Lib Dems and a handful of mavericks like Blessed Ken Clarke (PBUH) to hold the government to account. We are headed for Hard Brexit and no-one and nothing can do anything to stop it.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:with a backward glance to their constituencies (many of which voted to leave) to think about how much they'd like to still be in Parliament after the next general election. Frankly I can't decide if that's better or worse... A hard Brexit enacted by Remainers would be the ultimate irony.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
whereas now it will be defined by the government and Parliament (the majority of whom campaigned for Remain, and excludes many prominent Leavers).
quote:Who is you in this post? Me?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:You say this without the slightest bit of irony. As if the Uk hasn't taken the first step in that march. But that aside, you're also claiming that Europe will punish the UK for leaving the EU and make it profoundly difficult for them by ensuring they don't get a good deal. The fact is the EU doesn't owe Britain any deal seeing it voted to leave all on its own. The notion that Britain should be afforded some kind of respect simply because it thinks of itself as important simply doesn't wash anymore. The notion that Britain should be afforded respect and be granted privileges just on the basis of who it is, is frankly deluded. You cannot vote to leave the club house, but take it and its contents with you when you leave; it really is that simple.
If you wanted to light the blue touch paper under proper separatist movements across the EU I can't think of a better way of doing it than making it clear that leaving is not an option that will be tolerated by the centre/the peoples' betters.
quote:Which sums up our mess. The Tories internal squabbles dragging the whole nation to God alone knows where. Cameron calling the referendum in the first place, and now May trying to develop a policy, being tossed around by a hundred thousand Tory party members. Were these people elected to Parliament and formed a government to represent their constituents and do the best for the nation, or only to hold the Tory party together?
Originally posted by Callan:
The Tories have decided that the price of staying in the Single Market and Customs Union is civil war and decided to avoid it
quote:Well, I would say reluctant remainers. Probably close to the majority of the population. There are very few people 100% in favour of EU membership (and, for that matter 100% against). The vast majority see a range of benefits, a range of problems, and balance those out to be either on the Remain or Leave side of the line. At "7 out of 10", Corbyn was probably more in favour of EU membership than many people who voted Remain, and not that different from most who campaigned for Remain - he was just honest enough to admit he recognised some of the problems with EU membership. (For the record, I'd put myself somewhere around 9 out of 10).
Corbyn and McDonnell were never Remainers to start with
quote:And, the fact that the majority of those who voted in June didn't vote for a hard Brexit (if only 10% of those who voted Leave voted for a soft Brexit then the majority voted for staying in the common market and customs union - with the maintenance of freedom of movement as part of that) is irrelevant as the nation is held to ransom by the minority who are members of the Tory party.
That leaves the SNP, the Lib Dems and a handful of mavericks like Blessed Ken Clarke (PBUH) to hold the government to account. We are headed for Hard Brexit and no-one and nothing can do anything to stop it.
quote:The EU owes itself and its peoples the best deal with the UK which protects the interests of the EU citizens to the maximum extent without undermining basic principles. And any country should be accorded respect on the basis of who it is.
The fact is the EU doesn't owe Britain any deal seeing it voted to leave all on its own accord. The notion that Britain should be afforded respect and be granted privileges just on the basis of who it is, is frankly deluded.
quote:Yes, but the real question is what exactly that means. Allowing the UK access to the bag of sweeties without the requirement for prior handwashing would obviously reduce the experience for everyone else.
Originally posted by anteater:
The EU owes itself and its peoples the best deal with the UK which protects the interests of the EU citizens to the maximum extent without undermining basic principles. And any country should be accorded respect on the basis of who it is.
quote:For the nth time, Norway is not Brexit. Norway is everything that the Brexiters don't want plus none of the things they do want.
I have some trust that good sense will prevail, although I agree with Callan that some variant of hard brexit is looking inevitable. I don't think "Brexit means brexit" is entirely devoid of meaning, and it genuinely would surprise me if the UK Government decides that remaining in the SM and CU is brexit. Norway doesn't even do that.
quote:It seems to me that the EU countries are standing fairly firm: the EU means certain things. Being out of the EU means a loss of those things.
And much as I would prefer the North Flexcit approach, staying in the SM and swallowing what we have to, whilst exiting the CU, I tend to agree that this option will not be on offer.
quote:It's difficult to know what Brexiteers want, since they have failed to give us a description of what they want - and, some of what they have said ("£350m per week for the NHS", as an example) was complete bollocks, leaving us in the dark about what of the other things they said they wanted they actually want, and what they don't.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
For the nth time, Norway is not Brexit. Norway is everything that the Brexiters don't want plus none of the things they do want.
quote:Sure, but what do these principles actually map to in reality?
Originally posted by anteater:
The EU owes itself and its peoples the best deal with the UK which protects the interests of the EU citizens to the maximum extent without undermining basic principles. And any country should be accorded respect on the basis of who it is.
quote:ok, i think thats bs but you may be able to enlighten me.
Norway s not brexit
quote:Not a problem, a relative is a Brit who has lived in Norway for more than 20 years, so I'll do my best.
Originally posted by anteater:
ok, i think thats bs but you may be able to enlighten me.
quote:Nope. It isn't in the EU but is forced to pay as if it was and must have free movement of EU workers. This is how my relative works there.
Is it your view that Norway is a member of the EU?
quote:OK yes, they voted to cease being a member, but they also voted to leave the shackles of Brussels, to stop being under the authority of the courts at Strasbourg, to prevent EU immigration and to stop paying high EU fees. That's not Norway.
Those who voted to "leave the EU" voted to cease to be a member i.e. to become a non member. I do not deny that the majority of leavers did not want Norway, although that is not proven.
quote:Norways meets exactly none of the criteria the majority thought they were voting for. The exact opposite.
I just do not see how the Norway option would not fulfill the pledge to respect the referendom.
It might be a guarantee of Tory civil war, but thats not the point.
quote:I would agree that Norways meets exactly none of the criteria the majority of those who voted Leave thought they were voting for. I would also agree that those of us who voted Remain were fairly certain that Norway wasn't the preference of the Leave campaign. However, if a few percent of those voting Leave actually wanted a Norway-like solution, coupled to those of us who voted Remain (since our preference of staying in the EU is currently off the table, Norway-like is IMO the least worse option - whether everyone who voted Remain would agree with me is, of course, unclear), could make that a majority position in the UK electorate.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Norways meets exactly none of the criteria the majority thought they were voting for. The exact opposite.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62 in the post truth thread:
In the end, reality bites. More appropriate to the Brexit thread but I rather like this.
Wake up Boris! You really are talking bullshit. Time for sackcloth and ashes. Not just from you but the other Brexit ministers. Listen to Philip Hammond. You know it makes sense. Even if it is humiliating. But after all, humiliation is not so bad.
quote:I'd be surprised if those who voted Remain would be happy with a Norway option.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would agree that Norways meets exactly none of the criteria the majority of those who voted Leave thought they were voting for. I would also agree that those of us who voted Remain were fairly certain that Norway wasn't the preference of the Leave campaign. However, if a few percent of those voting Leave actually wanted a Norway-like solution, coupled to those of us who voted Remain (since our preference of staying in the EU is currently off the table, Norway-like is IMO the least worse option - whether everyone who voted Remain would agree with me is, of course, unclear), could make that a majority position in the UK electorate.
quote:OK and I can see your point, although I would prefer it (having voted to remain anyhow).
I just can't see a solution which doesn't address the EU courts, the payment of monies to the EU, the borders etc as being an acceptable solution to a large number of Brexiteers, and I fear what would happen in that scenario
Not seeing a problem. I saw a few articles in the run up and aftermath from people who were voting Leave to get EETA. While the government does have a mandate for Brexit, it doesn’t have a mandate for a specific kind of Brexit. The only person who appeared to do any kind of thinking about what leave would like was North. quote:If people get the idea during the negotiation that their governments are more interested in protecting the EU project rather jobs and economies in country, it will feed into Le Pen and other’s narrative that the EU is no longer fit for purpose very nicely.
Populism is on the march across Europe. If you wanted to light the blue touch paper under proper separatist movements across the EU I can't think of a better way of doing it than making it clear that leaving is not an option that will be tolerated by the centre/the peoples' betters.
quote:I wasn't saying that really. I just think that people like Le Pen, Farage, and Trump are not themselves fascists, but could presage it. Fascism often leads to war.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would you assume that the only alternative to the EU is war?
quote:That's true anyway, right now. There are basically three countries (Germany, France, UK) who are taking the strain of propping up most of southern Europe. One of those countries has now said they've had enough of doing so. What a surprise.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just consider France. If the UK leaves and isn't painfully punished, France will be left as one of the few large contributors to the EU project. As Italy and Greece sink with the financial cost of trying to house desperate refugees and with reduced tourists from the north (due to reducing sterling and possibility of visas for Brits), France will have to take more of the strain.
quote:It’s certainly an admission that the EU in its current form isn’t working. Given that it was set up in the 1950’s with six countries and has grown like Topsy and the world is now completely different, that isn’t a great surprise. But l don’t think anyone currently around the table has the imagination to come up with something better.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's true anyway, right now. There are basically three countries (Germany, France, UK) who are taking the strain of propping up most of southern Europe. One of those countries has now said they've had enough of doing so. What a surprise.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Just consider France. If the UK leaves and isn't painfully punished, France will be left as one of the few large contributors to the EU project. As Italy and Greece sink with the financial cost of trying to house desperate refugees and with reduced tourists from the north (due to reducing sterling and possibility of visas for Brits), France will have to take more of the strain.
I've got to say, though, that I love all the arguments that say Britain has to be severely punished for Brexit because otherwise other countries might want to emulate it. I love them because such arguments are a tacit confession that EU membership isn't in the best interests of those countries, and they would be better off standing alone.
quote:History Marvin. If the EU breaks up there will be jostling for position as the member countries try to work out what the new rules of geopolitics are. There will also be lots of mistrust and bitterness about - this seems to be happening already. There seems also to be a lot of nationalist sentiment about - this has historically been a major driver of war in Europe. There is stirring of the pot from Russia and a willingness to infringe national boundaries - see Ukraine, and watch the Baltics. None of this helps the cause of peace IMO.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would you assume that the only alternative to the EU is war?
quote:No it isn't, it is simply saying that Brexit gives more of a stick for those who want to make a case for break-up to use.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've got to say, though, that I love all the arguments that say Britain has to be severely punished for Brexit because otherwise other countries might want to emulate it. I love them because such arguments are a tacit confession that EU membership isn't in the best interests of those countries, and they would be better off standing alone.
quote:The 'punishment' line is bollocks - it can only be arrived at by assuming that anything less than exactly what the UK wants is punishment.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've got to say, though, that I love all the arguments that say Britain has to be severely punished for Brexit because otherwise other countries might want to emulate it.
quote:It is pretty much the cause of World War One: tensions between European nations expressed as the end of Empire-building followed by an arms race ("We want eight and we won't wait!" etc) whereas this looks like economic selfishness and a backlash against anyone who doesn't conform to a racial/national/cultural stenotype.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also meant that the shift to the right, now seen in Europe and the US, might herald war. Right wing nationalism tends to jostle against other nationalisms, and this can lead to war. True, it's not inevitable.
quote:I think this is the longest period there has ever been without war waged in Western Europe. I think the previous record is the forty five years between the Franco-Prussian War and the First World War, which we've beaten by twenty five years.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:History Marvin. If the EU breaks up there will be jostling for position as the member countries try to work out what the new rules of geopolitics are.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would you assume that the only alternative to the EU is war?
quote:Absolutely, I would whole-heartedly agree but neither can the EU be requested to pick up the mess of a country that of its own accord chooses to leave the group after decades of building distrust, dis-satisfaction and a heap of untruth to the extent that its own citizens no longer really know why they are a part of it. I've said it many times; it isn't in the interests of the EU to punish Britain, but at the end of the day Britain has (at least...it is...might...soon) made this decision of its own accord and the decision was to walk away, to leave, to exit. When Britain joined, it joined a scheme that provided certain benefits and privileges and now it seems to be moaning that it can't leave and take some of those special privileges with it. It is this aspect that is so utterly bewildering to so many in Europe. They understand that deals and negotiations will need to be worked out, but Britain seems to want all the best of what Europe provided for it with none of the responsibilities of being in Europe. It's like asking those in the EU to stump up the cash to grant Britain privileges after it leaves - it doesn't make any sense.
The EU owes itself and its peoples the best deal with the UK which protects the interests of the EU citizens to the maximum extent without undermining basic principles.
quote:The main cause of WW1 was the ludicrously complicated network of treaties compelling various countries to go to war if their treaty partners had war declared on them. Without those treaties the whole Archduke Ferdinand thing would have been a minor skirmish between Austria-Hungary and Bosnia.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It is pretty much the cause of World War One
quote:Without the empire building and the arms race that came with it, the treaties wouldn't have come into being and the War wouldn't have happened. The treaties and alliances were only the immediate cause.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The main cause of WW1 was the ludicrously complicated network of treaties compelling various countries to go to war if their treaty partners had war declared on them. Without those treaties the whole Archduke Ferdinand thing would have been a minor skirmish between Austria-Hungary and Bosnia.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It is pretty much the cause of World War One
quote:I recently cancelled my Amazon Prime subscription. This allowed me to spend £174 on the NHS. I figured that they would continue to allow me to access the service on the grounds that they sell more to me than I send to them. Amazingly they are insisting on punishing me by sending my stuff by the Royal Mail, limiting my access to Amazon Music and not letting me watch 'Lucifer' unless I pay for it. How unreasonable can you get!
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:The 'punishment' line is bollocks - it can only be arrived at by assuming that anything less than exactly what the UK wants is punishment.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've got to say, though, that I love all the arguments that say Britain has to be severely punished for Brexit because otherwise other countries might want to emulate it.
quote:Hope. Yeah, because an unstable narcissist was not just elected leader of the most powerful country in the world on the premise that it was in pretty shit shape.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The thing that worries me is that we are heading to a repeat of the 30s. At the moment, the various economies are fairly robust, whereas in the 30s, some economies were anything but.
But we have a similar line-up, white nationalism, targeting of minorities (Jews/Muslims), economic nationalism.
I'm hopeful that people are too sensible, and the economy too strong, so here's hoping.
quote:100 year cycles? Those who had learned the lessons of past conflicts have died in the meantime.
Originally posted by rolyn:
1815 battle of Waterloo finally stops Europe warring
1915 all major European Powers again locked in warfare.
2016 ..... mutterings.
What is it about Europe and 100 yr cycles? Or is it that Global tension comes to home in on Europe?
The US pulling out of NATO could see the apple cart tilted a few more precarious degrees. If not triggering Brexit guarantees Continental peace then most would raise their hand to that.
History has though seen such slides into self inflicted catastrophe before, also the powerlessness of Britain's gestures in preventing them. One does of course hope that nothing like that could ever again befall our European friends and neighbours.
< Dark bout of pessimism alert >
quote:In fairness we were talking about Europe, but your substantive point is nevertheless correct.
Originally posted by Gee D:
And the war of German unification (1866-71), the Zulu wars, Vietnam, the series of conflicts in Malaya/Malayasia/Indonesia, the horrors of the Japanese invasion of China.
quote:It's worth pointing out, though, that the rhetoric of punishment isn't confined to Brexiteers:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:The 'punishment' line is bollocks - it can only be arrived at by assuming that anything less than exactly what the UK wants is punishment.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I've got to say, though, that I love all the arguments that say Britain has to be severely punished for Brexit because otherwise other countries might want to emulate it.
quote:'Threat', to my mind, goes a bit beyond merely not providing services when the customer has ceased to subscribe to those services.
From today's Grauniad
At a dinner in Paris attended by Jean-Claude Juncker, EU commission president, and the EU’s top Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, in October, Hollande said: “There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price. Otherwise we will be in a negotiation that cannot end well.”
quote:That's not a punishment for Brexit; that's a punishment not having a plan for what the UK wants, empty posturing, raising economic uncertainty as no one knows where the UK will land, lending succor to extremists within Europe and allowing Farage and Boris to act like twats and go around insulting people.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's worth pointing out, though, that the rhetoric of punishment isn't confined to Brexiteers:
quote:'Threat', to my mind, goes a bit beyond merely not providing services when the customer has ceased to subscribe to those services.
From today's Grauniad
At a dinner in Paris attended by Jean-Claude Juncker, EU commission president, and the EU’s top Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, in October, Hollande said: “There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price. Otherwise we will be in a negotiation that cannot end well.”
quote:I read that in the same way as Ricardus - that one of the aims is to punish the UK for voting to leave to discourage other countries from getting the same idea or for voting for one of the parties who has something similar in their manifesto in forthcoming elections. Italy, France, Germany and the Netherlands.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:That's not a punishment for Brexit; that's a punishment not having a plan for what the UK wants, empty posturing, raising economic uncertainty as no one knows where the UK will land, lending succor to extremists within Europe and allowing Farage and Boris to act like twats and go around insulting people.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's worth pointing out, though, that the rhetoric of punishment isn't confined to Brexiteers:
quote:'Threat', to my mind, goes a bit beyond merely not providing services when the customer has ceased to subscribe to those services.
From today's Grauniad
At a dinner in Paris attended by Jean-Claude Juncker, EU commission president, and the EU’s top Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, in October, Hollande said: “There must be a threat, there must be a risk, there must be a price. Otherwise we will be in a negotiation that cannot end well.”
quote:So, exactly *how* are they planning to punish the UK? By not cutting special deals that undermine the single market (the nature of the four freedoms is directly tied into the nature of the goods and services traded within the market) and by refusing to let the UK continuously delay initiating Brexit ?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I read that in the same way as Ricardus - that one of the aims is to punish the UK for voting to leave
quote:Who knows. Whatever both sides cobble together in the negotiations isn't going to be as good as the current arrangement. A "special deal" for the UK is as big a fantasy as all that extra money for the NHS.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:So, exactly *how* are they planning to punish the UK? By not cutting special deals that undermine the single market (the nature of the four freedoms is directly tied into the nature of the goods and services traded within the market) and by refusing to let the UK continuously delay initiating Brexit ?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I read that in the same way as Ricardus - that one of the aims is to punish the UK for voting to leave
That's sounds like business as normal. That's only punishment if you thought the UK was going to get special treatment, because $REASONS.
quote:Ask Mr Hollande. Although most of what anyone is saying at this stage is posturing.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So, exactly *how* are they planning to punish the UK?
quote:I think the idea that Britain is somehow uniquely obstructive to the European ideal is the mirror-image of the Daily Mail's myth of barmy Brussels bureaucrats being responsible for every bit of daft legislation.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think they'll consider the loss of our budget contributions as a reasonable exchange for no longer having to put up with our constant wingeing and demands for special treatment.
quote:We haven't left yet. There's still time for sanity to prevail (though with the current shower occupying the government front bench sanity is in short supply).
Originally posted by Rocinante:
We are the first and so far only state to leave
quote:The EFTA does not, and all the rest cover a lot less than either the EFTA or the Single Market, specifically there is a reason for tying together free movement of services with free movement of people.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Hence the insistence that divvying up the four fundamental freedoms would be a catastrophic attack on the integrity of the EU.
Which I think is also posturing. In reality, TTIP, CETA, EFTA, the various OCTA agreements, the Ankara Agreement, and all sorts of other agreements participate (or would participate if implemented) to a limited extent in some but not all of the freedoms.
quote:I do not think that a heavily qualified clause is equivalent to a heavily bespoke deal (let alone one that was better than that the existing UK membership - EFTA states are, after all, still subject to EU regulation, and pay a financial contribution to the EU - both presumably anathema to the hard core Brexiter).
Originally posted by Ricardus:
They also have the right to impose 'emergency brakes' on migration, although so far this has never been invoked. So, partial but not total participation.
Don't get me wrong, I think we are better off in the EU, but I think some of the 'all or nothing' claims are a bit overstated.
quote:At the very least it's yet another example of the farcical nature of a referendum in which the complexities of what Brexit would entail had not been thought through and the relevant provision placed into the Referendum Bill.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is an intriguing possibility: arguing, AFAICS, that voting to leave the EU does not automatically entail leaving the EEA.
quote:Perhaps, but as I never tire of pointing out on these threads, even if Brexit were somehow to be overturned tomorrow, I don't think the UK is going to be returning to its pre-referendum bargaining position at the EU table.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
we could be hurtling towards another British General Election, which could be an opportunity for a pro-EU party to stand on a "stop this Brexit nonsense" platform. And by that point the British public might be heartily sick of a plunging pound and the uncertainty stretching into the future.
quote:That is possibly true with regard to the British rebate at least - I'm not sure how exactly that was agreed or when it is due to end. But presumably things like access to the EU trading zone etc can't be taken off the table. Presumably the other EU countries could impose harsh exit clauses but couldn't make remaining worse than the current deal...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Perhaps, but as I never tire of pointing out on these threads, even if Brexit were somehow to be overturned tomorrow, I don't think the UK is going to be returning to its pre-referendum bargaining position at the EU table.
quote:That's my whole point. There is no current deal. There is limbo.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Presumably the other EU countries could impose harsh exit clauses but couldn't make remaining worse than the current deal...
quote:completely agree - we're leaving, and the above is what I think will happen.
Originally posted by anteater:
I'm beginning to see a glimmer of light that May may get lucky, and if she plays her cards right, we could exit the EU in a reasonably sensible way.
Of course I would have preferred to remain, but I think too much water has passed under that bridge, so now I would not campaign for remaining.
If, legally, Triggering Article 50 does not take us out of the EEA, then she could fairly go with the soft EEA route on the basis "sorry chaps, I've done what I can" but we are out of the EU and importantly, we do now have the legal right to negotiate trade deals, which we will continue to do.
Then, the Tories will have up to 2020 to work on this and other aspects of Brexit, and the election could then be fought, with each party making clear what they would do. The Tories would probably campaign to get out of the EEA, and would by then be in a better position to do so, although even then not for several years. I don't know what Labour would do.
I'm fairly sure that this is where she would like to be, but there are the neo-Bastards who will get stroppy. But I think she could manage it.
Why anyone reacts with shock at the idea it could take up to 10 years to exit the EU fully is beyond me.
quote:Too much water has passed to remain in the EU with the same relationship with other EU nations we had a year ago. I still hope that common sense will prevail, that May will come to Parliament and say "we took the advise of the electorate that they would prefer some form of Brexit, however there is no form of Brexit that would satisfy even a large majority of those who voted for Leave, let alone be universally acceptable to Leave voters, therefore since by far the largest vote of the public was to Remain that is what we will do". And, then try and rescue as much goodwill and favoured treatment she can from the rest of the EU nations.
Originally posted by anteater:
Of course I would have preferred to remain, but I think too much water has passed under that bridge, so now I would not campaign for remaining.
quote:I sort of see what you mean, but there is absolutely no way you can prove that the Remain vote was any more monolithic than the Leave vote. And again, "Remain" as the options were when the referendum was held is no longer on the table.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"...therefore since by far the largest vote of the public was to Remain that is what we will do".
quote:Not sure she can, so far the pattern is a gradual movement in one direction and then a quick scuttling back when the usual right wing back-benchers go on the radio/tv and party unity seems like it might be marginally threatened.
Originally posted by anteater:
I'm fairly sure that this is where she would like to be, but there are the neo-Bastards who will get stroppy. But I think she could manage it.
quote:Agreed - "Remain" was no more monolithic than "Leave"; split as it was between at least of the top of my head:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree with both mdijon and betjemaniac.
quote:I sort of see what you mean, but there is absolutely no way you can prove that the Remain vote was any more monolithic than the Leave vote. And again, "Remain" as the options were when the referendum was held is no longer on the table.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"...therefore since by far the largest vote of the public was to Remain that is what we will do".
quote:Yes, but highlighting your opinion in bold doesn't actually make it true. I'm inclined to believe you, but I've yet to hear from you in exactly what way the EU has changed so that a decision now to stay would mean that the deal was materially different to the one that existed before the Brexit referendum. If the UK decided to stay, what actually has changed so that the deal is worse?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I sort of see what you mean, but there is absolutely no way you can prove that the Remain vote was any more monolithic than the Leave vote. And again, "Remain" as the options were when the referendum was held is no longer on the table.
quote:Well, I suppose the range of options for "Remain" being very much smaller than "Leave" would suggest a greater degree of agreement between Remain voters. The options for Remain being the status quo, and probably a small minority who would favour greater European integration as and when that becomes possible (eg: UK participation in the Euro and Schengen).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree with both mdijon and betjemaniac.
quote:I sort of see what you mean, but there is absolutely no way you can prove that the Remain vote was any more monolithic than the Leave vote.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"...therefore since by far the largest vote of the public was to Remain that is what we will do".
quote:Agreed. Cameron in his infintile stupidity has doomed the country. Though legally all the agreements in place a year ago would continue, the political goodwill (such as there was) and willingness to cut the UK some special treatment will have totally evaporated - and, in international politics that's a big issue.
And again, "Remain" as the options were when the referendum was held is no longer on the table.
quote:And *at least* the other 5 options I suggested above. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The options for Remain being the status quo, and probably a small minority who would favour greater European integration as and when that becomes possible (eg: UK participation in the Euro and Schengen).
quote:OK, but if the vote had gone the other way with 52% Remain and 48% Leave, do you honestly think that there would be highly vocal, and somewhat nasty, campaigns that the UK should therefore be taking a lead in reforming European institutions? Or, that we should "just get on with it" and join the Euro or Schengen?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:And *at least* the other 5 options I suggested above. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The options for Remain being the status quo, and probably a small minority who would favour greater European integration as and when that becomes possible (eg: UK participation in the Euro and Schengen).
quote:Nasty? Probably not. Highly vocal? Yes actually, on the reforming front certainly. I do think that the out and out federalists would have been emboldened too.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:OK, but if the vote had gone the other way with 52% Remain and 48% Leave, do you honestly think that there would be highly vocal, and somewhat nasty, campaigns that the UK should therefore be taking a lead in reforming European institutions? Or, that we should "just get on with it" and join the Euro or Schengen?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:And *at least* the other 5 options I suggested above. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The options for Remain being the status quo, and probably a small minority who would favour greater European integration as and when that becomes possible (eg: UK participation in the Euro and Schengen).
quote:I have already said several times that aside from anything else, the deal is worse because of the psychological position Brexit puts the UK in.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've yet to hear from you in exactly what way the EU has changed so that a decision now to stay would mean that the deal was materially different to the one that existed before the Brexit referendum. If the UK decided to stay, what actually has changed so that the deal is worse
quote:Riiight. That's not really anything tangible at all then. At present the UK is a full member of the EU and as it stands could continue as a full member. Nothing has changed.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have already said several times that aside from anything else, the deal is worse because of the psychological position Brexit puts the UK in.
quote:Not really, because the EU is set up by treaty and the part the UK plays within the EU is agreed and set by legislation. As far as I know there is nothing comparable between the UK and the USA.
From this side of the Channel I am utterly bemused by the way many in the UK appear to imagine that the EU-27 simply went into suspended animation on June 23 and will only return to life once the UK has sorted itself out.
This to me appears to be a delusion similar to the one that somehow imagines Britain to have some sort of leverage in the much-fabled "Special Relationship" with the US.
quote:Not really changing the status of the UK, though, are they. The first is the equivalent of asking an interested party to leave the room to avoid a conflict of interest, the latter is just sensible given Brexit seems now all-but inevitable. MEPs are not the British government, so the lack of British MEPs in "key committee positions" doesn't really change anything about the UK's status in the EU. And the European Parliament is but one leg of the EU project.
This disconnect typefies the UK's short-sightedness on Europe ("Fog in Channel: Continent cut off") and is now simply making a bad situation worse.
But since you ask for specifics, consider the EU-27 summit on Brexit in September to which the UK was not invited, and the moves afoot to ensure UK MEPs do not occupy key committee positions for various forthcoming pieces of legislation, quite rightly I would suggest.
quote:The European Parliament is not a direct EU institution, though. These are shite examples.
The actual written terms of treaties and other major agreements have not changed, but the way ongoing deals are done most surely has, if only because the UK's influence is being sidelined.
These are just two examples gleaned in a few minutes Googling; I am sure they are illustrative of how things are playing out throughout EU institutions.
quote:I'm not imagining anything can simply be erased, but I am clearly stating that the EU states cannot somehow say that the deal has changed with regard to the UK without treaty change. Like it or not, the UK is still a party to the EU treaties until such time as it isn't.
The EU-27 got a stinging rejection from the UK on June 23. Don't imagine that can simply be erased.
quote:Though the majority of those options don't lead to any other action than acceptance of the status quo - in practical terms they are indistinguishable from each other.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
And *at least* the other 5 options I suggested above. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of...
quote:Of course it is. But do you seriously think politics or business is done simply by woodenly and mechanically applying treaty or other rules?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Like it or not, the UK is still a party to the EU treaties until such time as it isn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It is ludicrous, nay, perilous to imagine that nothing substantive has changed. And from the perspective of the UK's 27 barganing partners, it is arrogant.
quote:The EU project has three formal legs - the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. So, Eutychus has given an example of the Parliament sidelining UK members, and the Council excluding May from discussions. Would the Commission be filling vacancies with people nominated by the UK government (even should our government actually nominate people at the moment)? I doubt it - so that makes all three legs of the EU project sidelining UK interests. All without anyone actually altering a letter of any treaties.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Not really changing the status of the UK, though, are they. The first is the equivalent of asking an interested party to leave the room to avoid a conflict of interest, the latter is just sensible given Brexit seems now all-but inevitable. MEPs are not the British government, so the lack of British MEPs in "key committee positions" doesn't really change anything about the UK's status in the EU. And the European Parliament is but one leg of the EU project.
But since you ask for specifics, consider the EU-27 summit on Brexit in September to which the UK was not invited, and the moves afoot to ensure UK MEPs do not occupy key committee positions for various forthcoming pieces of legislation, quite rightly I would suggest.
quote:Yes it is.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I see. So it is arrogant for the UK to think that it could carry on as before
quote:You might need some of these. We're talking about the UK's behaviour here, not any other nation's. Certainly there has been arrogance and posturing in other EU nations - indeed, that rather underlines my point that things are not as they were pre-Brexit.
yet it isn't arrogant for the other EU countries to point to the treaties and state that the UK has no alternative than a hard Brexit.
quote:Well I did say glimmer. But I think these legal challenges are all working for the good, enabling a delay to Article 50 ("not my fault 'guv") and the possibility that an Act is further needed to trigger exit from the EEA, which cannot be forced.
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
"I'm fairly sure that this is where she would like to be, but there are the neo-Bastards who will get stroppy. But I think she could manage it".
Not sure she can
quote:No change there. In the past the young were sacrificed in war. This time it is, if anything, something even less honourable.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just looking again at Ashcroft's poll of Leave voters matched with age. God, it's depressing, the young are sacrificed on the prejudices of a load of old gits. Maybe we can either deport old people somewhere sunny, or euthanize them.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
quote:Good point. My nephew has a Lithuanian girl-friend, who lives here, and he was hoping to live there for a bit. God knows if that will be possible now.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:No change there. In the past the young were sacrificed in war. This time it is, if anything, something even less honourable.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Just looking again at Ashcroft's poll of Leave voters matched with age. God, it's depressing, the young are sacrificed on the prejudices of a load of old gits. Maybe we can either deport old people somewhere sunny, or euthanize them.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
quote:But hang on, I am hearing on the grapevine that old gits are able to avoid deportation and/or euthanasia if they are willing to write a 5000 word essay, saying why they should be exempted. You need to state hobbies, any useful contributions you have made in the last 60 years, Post Office Savings a/c amounts, contributions to Bob a Job, that sort of thing.
Originally posted by anteater:
Quetzalcoatl:
As a voter to remain I am sad that this may lead to me being bracketed with purveyors of hate.
Am I allowed to say this in Purg.
Anteater (aged 70)
quote:I wasn't attempting to establish a legitimacy to vote - you're right, that is a given (although there were various groups excluded from voting in the referendum who one might expect to have been given a chance - but, that's a different discussion perhaps).
Originally posted by anteater:
I don't buy the idea that any group needs to establish it's legitimacy to vote. It is a given.
quote:I hope I haven't been guilty of such stereotyping. Of course it isn't true that all older people voted Leave and all younger people voted Remain. There were plenty of older people (including many here) who voted Remain, and younger people who voted Leave. Which is certainly something I have acknowledged before in discussion of the demographics of the vote.
I admit I was reacting in considerable annoyance to the anti-old-people post, and I am surprised when this type of stereotyping and disrespect to a whole group of people is found on these boards.
quote:I consider such people be much the same as people who force arranged marriages on their children. The similarities are striking, actually...
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
where do you stand on old people who voted leave because they gave it a lot of thought and decided it was in "the youths"/nation's best interests to have the UK removed from the EU regardless of what younger people think now?
quote:Actually, I respect the decisions people make if they have given it a lot of thought. Even if I think their thinking was mistaken. Far too many people (on both sides) didn't give things a lot of thought. And, from what I've seen reported (I personally don't know anyone who voted Leave) there was an awful lot of very superficial thinking (at best) among people who voted Leave "to make a protest", "because there are too many foreigners", "because the EU dictates everything we do", "£350m per week for the NHS" etc.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
where do you stand on old people who voted leave because they gave it a lot of thought and decided it was in "the youths"/nation's best interests to have the UK removed from the EU regardless of what younger people think now?
quote:Conversely, on a pro-EU ticket the LibDem candidate standing against Zac Goldsmith in Richmond has closed a very large 20% lead in 2015 to within the uncertainty of the polls. And, a similar pro-EU candidate came in strong in Witney. If that swing was seen across the country a General Election could very easily result in a block of MPs elected on a "stay in the EU" ticket, quite possibly more than enough to result in a hung Parliament. Which would be the absolute nightmare for Theresa May with (probably) the largest number of MPs being forced to govern with a minority or form a coalition with the LibDems/Greens/SNP who will insist on remaining in the EU as a condition of such a coalition (with the support of those who elected them). The option of forming a strong coalition or not will solidify how strongly she wants to hold onto the fiction that Brexit in any form has the support of the UK electorate.
Incidentally, have you seen the ICM poll in the Torygraph today?
If I were Mrs May, engineering that early election somehow would be *very* tempting....
quote:I must confess I'd forgotten it was Twickenham this week - a quick trip over to Lib Dem supporting Mike Smithson over at Politicalbetting.com finds him not exactly
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Conversely, on a pro-EU ticket the LibDem candidate standing against Zac Goldsmith in Richmond has closed a very large 20% lead in 2015 to within the uncertainty of the polls.
quote:I think we'll see a Lib. Dem. revival of sorts over the next couple of years - potentially, if there was an election tomorrow, according to one poll with the Lib Dems running on a platform of a second referendum they could score 22% (with Labour on 20%). I don't think that's outwith the bounds of possibility but it wouldn't make Tim Farron the Leader of the Opposition even if it did happen, which strikes me as unlikely. More generally, I expect the Lib Dems to increase their share of the vote in Twickenham, just as they did in Witney but even if they win it you can't really generalise from a couple of by-elections in leafy Remain areas to the whole of the UK.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:I must confess I'd forgotten it was Twickenham this week - a quick trip over to Lib Dem supporting Mike Smithson over at Politicalbetting.com finds him not exactly
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Conversely, on a pro-EU ticket the LibDem candidate standing against Zac Goldsmith in Richmond has closed a very large 20% lead in 2015 to within the uncertainty of the polls.
falling over himself to endorse those numbers in the Observer at the weekend.
We'll know soon enough.
quote:Yes, don't disagree with any of that.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:I think we'll see a Lib. Dem. revival of sorts over the next couple of years - potentially, if there was an election tomorrow, according to one poll with the Lib Dems running on a platform of a second referendum they could score 22% (with Labour on 20%). I don't think that's outwith the bounds of possibility but it wouldn't make Tim Farron the Leader of the Opposition even if it did happen, which strikes me as unlikely. More generally, I expect the Lib Dems to increase their share of the vote in Twickenham, just as they did in Witney but even if they win it you can't really generalise from a couple of by-elections in leafy Remain areas to the whole of the UK.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:I must confess I'd forgotten it was Twickenham this week - a quick trip over to Lib Dem supporting Mike Smithson over at Politicalbetting.com finds him not exactly
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Conversely, on a pro-EU ticket the LibDem candidate standing against Zac Goldsmith in Richmond has closed a very large 20% lead in 2015 to within the uncertainty of the polls.
falling over himself to endorse those numbers in the Observer at the weekend.
We'll know soon enough.
The most likely outcome of an immediate General Election, as things stand, is a Tory landslide somewhat mitigated by Remain voters in Remain areas turning to the Lib Dems. UKIP might possibly win a couple of extra seats but they would mostly be there to cheer on a Brexit Tory Government.
quote:Research funding from EU Government sources was approximately 13% of the total research income for Russell Group universities in the 2014/15 academic year, with other overseas funding (from industry, non-EU governments, etc.) making up at most another 10%. The rest comes from UK-based industry, charity or government sources. [Data sourced from the Higher Education Statistics Agency]
Originally posted by anteater:
1. To what extent is research funding dependent on EU membership? I have heard that a lot of the collaboration is mediated throughout structures outside the EU (a bit like defence being co-ordinated by NATO). Is this true to a significant extent.
quote:I did rather think that the situation could be bettered in the negotiations.
So, the government needs to get paying money into an EU budget past the Barmy Brexit Brigade. I won't hold my breath over that.
quote:I think it's far more likely to be the latest in the hodge-podge 'strategy' that has been adopted so far. Probably what happened is was something like; a call to keep the UK in the single market, brief consideration of the EFTA, dismissal of the EFTA for various reasons, suggestion from the minister of "Can't we just pay for access ?"
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It's quite courageous (in the Yes Minister sense of the word) for Davis to even admit that such a thing is being contemplated.
quote:I still don't see why people can't see what I can. So no change there, then . . .
. . . , why wouldn't the other EU countries charge a high price for access? Why would they allow the UK to join at anything other than the price we've been paying?
And if we have access to the market, why wouldn't we have to conform to the European courts etc?
And if we've paid a high price for entry to the single market and have to conform to the courts and other rules.. then what exactly is the advantage of Brexit?
quote:Brexiters seem to assume that these countries have no interests of their own, that they will prioritise a trade agreement with the UK above everything else they could possibly do, and that they have infinite amounts of legislative and other resources to do so.
Originally posted by anteater:
It's also interesting how many Europhiles, who presumably don't believe that our partners are both muppets and vindictive bastards, seem to assume that this is how they will behave. Whereas most Brexiteers assume they'll behave like reasonable people.
quote:Mmm. Which is coded language for saying that we don't have to allow those jonny foreigners in, I suppose.
Originally posted by anteater:
I still don't see why people can't see what I can. So no change there, then . . .
As must be obvious, I am impressed by the Flexcit option proposed by the arch-Brexiteer Richard North, and the official plan backed by Leave.UK.
The point is that the EEA arrangement is not the destination, but an essential step on the way, due to the risk of doing hard-brexit, and the fact that there is no reason to rush at this.
The HUGE difference between this and being in the EU is that we are out of the Customs Union and so free to negotiate trade deals with whoever we choose. Gives us added (fair) bureaucratic costs as a downside.
quote:Is it? Are you suggesting that the costs of supporting agriculture in the UK would be less than we're currently paying towards the EU agriculture budget?
Also the fact that both CAP and Fisheries are not included is significant.
quote:Oh I don't know - might it be because we'd be paying the same amount and getting less out of the EU - even in the rosy-coloured future where the other EU countries allow this kind of arrangement?
Why does anyone see it as equivalent to membership?
quote:Wait.. so the Brexiteer idea is that we should be paying even more to receive less from the EU. How does that work?
There has to be acceptance that initial contribution for access will and SHOULD be more or less what we are paying now (North believes we may have to pay a bit more as a face-saver)
quote:Yah, whatever. We can't have it both ways - either we want to trade freely with Europe, in which case we've effectively got to carry on producing everything to the EU specifications, or we're on our own. If we're on our own, I'll grant you that we no longer have to produce to the EU specifications. But if we don't want the spec, we can't then trade freely in the EU.
and yes we cannot remove ourselves from the court which is the means to adjudicate trade disputes. But even there, it's not all or nothing. As we gain strength, we could, if we chose to, renege on some aspects of ECJ ruling which would lose us access to that part of the single market. E.g. if there was a sector with a huge domestic market and timy EU market and we wanted to ditch some regs. I suspect it's not worth bothering.
quote:It seems to me that the Brexiteers have absolutely no idea what they want - except that they don't want to be worse off by leaving the EU than they were in it. I can't see that there are many "save the NHS" votes in paying even more for an EU we're not even in.
The Brexiteers get what they want. In time.
quote:Sorry, what exactly is unreasonable about setting a higher barrier for those who want access to a private club without the restrictions that are impicit in being a member? It isn't about "being vindictive bastards" it is just common sense that there must be some benefit in EU membership, otherwise there isn't much point in having an EU rather than a loose common market without any of the other stuff.
It's also interesting how many Europhiles, who presumably don't believe that our partners are both muppets and vindictive bastards, seem to assume that this is how they will behave. Whereas most Brexiteers assume they'll behave like reasonable people.
quote:It's reasonable to give a two-finger salute to everything someone stands for and expect to be welcomed to the table as a favourite child? To undermine the very existence of the EU and smiled upon?
Originally posted by anteater:
It's also interesting how many Europhiles, who presumably don't believe that our partners are both muppets and vindictive bastards, seem to assume that this is how they will behave. Whereas most Brexiteers assume they'll behave like reasonable people.
quote:Assuming, of course, that they want to negotiate a trade deal with us. There's little benefit being able to negotiate a trade deal with, say, Australia if Australia are putting all their effort into trade deals with China, S.Korea and Japan and aren't interested in a trade deal with the UK.
Originally posted by anteater:
The HUGE difference between this and being in the EU is that we are out of the Customs Union and so free to negotiate trade deals with whoever we choose.
quote:Did you see the report leaked the other week which suggested that the number of additional civil servants needed to take up the work currently done by the European Commission would be almost the same as the number of people in the Commission. An interesting perspective on the supposed inefficiencies of the European structures when the Commission can work on behalf of 740 million people (with a large number of different languages, cultures, legal systems ...) but the UK needs the same number of civil servants for 60 million people (and, only a few languages, cultures and two legal systems).
Gives us added (fair) bureaucratic costs as a downside.
quote:I think everyone is assuming that our European partners will behave like reasonable people. The difference is what we think is reasonable. Brexiteers seem to think that they will act in the best interests of the UK, personally I think they will act in the best interests of their own nations, then in the best interests of the EU and only take consideration of the interests of the UK at the bottom of that list.
It's also interesting how many Europhiles, who presumably don't believe that our partners are both muppets and vindictive bastards, seem to assume that this is how they will behave. Whereas most Brexiteers assume they'll behave like reasonable people.
quote:And quite frankly, that it what Australia will continue to do. Admittedly out PM made sounds of interest when visiting the UK recently, but they will not get much further. The prime purpose was to be kind to a Tory PM.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Assuming, of course, that they want to negotiate a trade deal with us. There's little benefit being able to negotiate a trade deal with, say, Australia if Australia are putting all their effort into trade deals with China, S.Korea and Japan and aren't interested in a trade deal with the UK.
Originally posted by anteater:
The HUGE difference between this and being in the EU is that we are out of the Customs Union and so free to negotiate trade deals with whoever we choose.
quote:Fortunately, we have Johnson, Davis, and Fox on the case using all their combined charm and diplomacy to win the EU round to our way of thinking.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think everyone is assuming that our European partners will behave like reasonable people. The difference is what we think is reasonable. Brexiteers seem to think that they will act in the best interests of the UK, personally I think they will act in the best interests of their own nations, then in the best interests of the EU and only take consideration of the interests of the UK at the bottom of that list.
quote:Sounds good to me.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
otherwise there isn't much point in having an EU rather than a loose common market without any of the other stuff.
quote:But not to any of the people you are trying to make an agreement with.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Sounds good to me.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
otherwise there isn't much point in having an EU rather than a loose common market without any of the other stuff.
quote:Irrelevant comparison as the LibDems also oppose Heathrow expansion. AFAIK, the candidates didn't provide much in the way of options for a pro-expansion vote.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Looks like the people of Richmond Park dislike Brexit even more than they dislike Heathrow expansion.
quote:It does mark a step towards a resurgence of the LibDems. I don't think it says much about Labour, who've never had a hope in Richmond Park.
Not sure this means much for national politics, but maybe people will decide the Lib Dems have been punished enough for the Coalition.
quote:I think that's just silly.
Brexiteers seem to think that [the EU institutions] will act in the best interests of the UK, personally I think they will act in the best interests of their own nations, then in the best interests of the EU and only take consideration of the interests of the UK at the bottom of that list.
quote:Maybe you could decode it then. FWIW the Flexcit option (which is available publicly) states in words of one syllable that there would be no significant reduction in EU immigration. Maybe a small bit at the edges. Without free movement you can't get full and uncomplicated free market access. As I rather thought you knew. I agree that this will be difficult politically since the more I read about the campaign (now reading "All out war") the more I see that it was the immigration issue that swung it. This is the major risk, that although literally you have fulfilled the pledge by exiting Norway-style, you "really know" that immigration was what done it. Which is why I hope rather than am confident that good sense will prevail.
Mmm. Which is coded language for saying that we don't have to allow those jonny foreigners in, I suppose.
quote:Here we get to the nub of my point. Clearly, if the UK has no real success in making these bilateral trade deals, then Brexit will be seen to have been a failure economically (which doesn't invalidate it for the Bennite/Foxy "no vote no tax" fundamentalists).
Yes, OK, I suppose we'd have the freedom to negotiate trade deals without the rest of the EU.
quote:If the EU takes offence at Britain's actions, and allows that offence to colour their negotiations, then that might be an understandable reaction, but it's not a rational one.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It's reasonable to give a two-finger salute to everything someone stands for and expect to be welcomed to the table as a favourite child? To undermine the very existence of the EU and smiled upon?
Originally posted by anteater:
It's also interesting how many Europhiles, who presumably don't believe that our partners are both muppets and vindictive bastards, seem to assume that this is how they will behave. Whereas most Brexiteers assume they'll behave like reasonable people.
From what imaginary planet do you gather the wisdom you share here?
Vindictivel
quote:First, just to clarify, I wasn't talking about EU institutions (at least, not primarily) but the governments of 27 sovereign nations. And, I would say it's a bit silly to think that they will all agree on what is in the best interests of their own nations, much less on the best interests of the EU as a whole.
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C:quote:I think that's just silly.
Brexiteers seem to think that [the EU institutions] will act in the best interests of the UK, personally I think they will act in the best interests of their own nations, then in the best interests of the EU and only take consideration of the interests of the UK at the bottom of that list.
All Brexiteers I know believe they will behave exactly as you state. I seem to be the closer to Brexit than most on this Ship, and I would expect politicians in the member states to do exactly what you said.
The Brexiteers are saying, rather, that in a lot of areas, the interests of the UK and EU are in line. And what they are against is the idea that even where this is the case, the EU institutions will go for a deal that is worse on all sides, just to stick one up the UK.
quote:I think at this moment a solemn tribute to Mr Goldsmith is in order.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Looks like the people of Richmond Park dislike Brexit even more than they dislike Heathrow expansion. Not sure this means much for national politics, but maybe people will decide the Lib Dems have been punished enough for the Coalition.
It's also Karma for Zac Goldsmith's disgraceful mayoral campaign.
quote:Moreover, David Davis (Brexit minister) appears to be treading on Liam Fox(International Trade minister)'s turf regarding membership of the single market.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Fortunately, we have Johnson, Davis, and Fox on the case using all their combined charm and diplomacy to win the EU round to our way of thinking.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think everyone is assuming that our European partners will behave like reasonable people. The difference is what we think is reasonable. Brexiteers seem to think that they will act in the best interests of the UK, personally I think they will act in the best interests of their own nations, then in the best interests of the EU and only take consideration of the interests of the UK at the bottom of that list.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wait.. so there are seriously people arguing for a Brexit which includes free trade and free movement? Whaaaat?
quote:The UK voted on the premise it could have the benefits without any of the responsibility. It isn't vindictive to not allow this. And it is arrogant, ignorant and irrational to think this is a fair and proper thing to achieve in the first place.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the EU takes offence at Britain's actions, and allows that offence to colour their negotiations, then that might be an understandable reaction, but it's not a rational one.
quote:This is more or less the basis for my feeling that the future is not as straightforward as assumed. I grant you that my grounds appear shaky, but I don't think the idea is without merit.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".
quote:I think discussing Brexit exclusively in terms of what its most stupid proponents believe is probably not terribly helpful.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The UK voted on the premise it could have the benefits without any of the responsibility. It isn't vindictive to not allow this. And it is arrogant, ignorant and irrational to think this is a fair and proper thing to achieve in the first place.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If the EU takes offence at Britain's actions, and allows that offence to colour their negotiations, then that might be an understandable reaction, but it's not a rational one.
As evidenced as the pols who pushed Brexit didn't really want it.
quote:Ah, but what if UKIP really bollocks up the Tories. If half the 60% think the government is making a mess of things an delaying Brexit and vote UKIP, the rest stick with the Tories. Then LibDems run on a pro-EU ticket and pick up the 40% ... now, that would well and truly put the cat among the pigeons.
Originally posted by Callan:
It'll take time, though. The next by-election is in Sleaford, home of the Sleaford Mods, where they voted for Brexit by 63%. Tim Farron isn't going to pull off a by-election victory there. The Tories are running on Brexit means Brexit and more money for the Boomers.
quote:The problem at this moment is that the most stupid proponents are the loudest and most vocal, and have managed to give the impression (real or imagined) that they have the power to tear the conservative party apart.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think discussing Brexit exclusively in terms of what its most stupid proponents believe is probably not terribly helpful.
quote:As I recall, Cameron's reasoning for holding a referendum in the first place was to attempt to prevent the Conservative party being torn apart... it doesn't seem to have worked.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem at this moment is that the most stupid proponents are the loudest and most vocal, and have managed to give the impression (real or imagined) that they have the power to tear the conservative party apart.
quote:No it's not. A few things to watch for though.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Ah, but what if UKIP really bollocks up the Tories. If half the 60% think the government is making a mess of things an delaying Brexit and vote UKIP, the rest stick with the Tories. Then LibDems run on a pro-EU ticket and pick up the 40% ... now, that would well and truly put the cat among the pigeons.
Originally posted by Callan:
It'll take time, though. The next by-election is in Sleaford, home of the Sleaford Mods, where they voted for Brexit by 63%. Tim Farron isn't going to pull off a by-election victory there. The Tories are running on Brexit means Brexit and more money for the Boomers.
It's not going to happen though.
quote:Tim Farron would love to be that politician, I'm sure. When you're stuck at 6% in the polls, the temptation to roll the dice is very strong. He might be tempted to make a more nuanced version of that pronouncement on the back of another strong by-election performance, which in Sleaford could mean coming in a strong second.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sooner, or later, there will be a reckoning. Basically, some farsighted and courageous politician will stand up and say to the British Electorate. "You goofed. You shot yourselves and the country in the foot. You believed a whole load of fairy tales. And now we're all screwed. And what's more, most of you now realise that. Time for a change of mind."
quote:It's a fine line. There need to be someone to articulate Remainers discontents and to assure them that the cause is not entirely lost without giving the impression that you merely want to disregard the views of the majority. I'm not sure that Tim Farron is up to it, but God knows, he's giving it his best shot.
Tim Farron would love to be that politician, I'm sure. When you're stuck at 6% in the polls, the temptation to roll the dice is very strong. He might be tempted to make a more nuanced version of that pronouncement on the back of another strong by-election performance, which in Sleaford could mean coming in a strong second.
quote:I think what disturbs me about this line of argument is that it contains an implicit hope that the Brexit negotiations will founder so that such a farsighted and courageous politician becomes necessary.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sooner, or later, there will be a reckoning. Basically, some farsighted and courageous politician will stand up and say to the British Electorate. "You goofed. You shot yourselves and the country in the foot. You believed a whole load of fairy tales. And now we're all screwed. And what's more, most of you now realise that. Time for a change of mind."
quote:I think we can be certain that Iceland will not be out on the next train, or boat.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The EU has to be able to demonstrate that countries can't leave unscathed. Otherwise, Denmark, Italy, Belgium (?) and Iceland will be out on the next train,
quote:Granted. I was sure Iceland was a member, but my memory was clearly defective.
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:I think we can be certain that Iceland will not be out on the next train, or boat.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The EU has to be able to demonstrate that countries can't leave unscathed. Otherwise, Denmark, Italy, Belgium (?) and Iceland will be out on the next train,
quote:The fact that this post is composed almost entirely in emotional terms kind of makes my point.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Just how vindictive are they?
Hang on a second, that's anglo-saxon mind all over.
Turn on to this. They have a project they have to see work. They have pushed it a very long way, and the ECB and the Commission between them are at full stretch and therefore primed for a fight. We are attempting to hole their project below the waterline to save our self-obsessed, over-confident, sorry, shrivelled arses.
You just try and see.
quote:The model of European unity to which a flame is kept in the European Commission building in Brussels.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What ideal?
quote:That's a pretty idiotic statement - the vote was one in a long line of not particularly pragmatic things that was done.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The British are pretty much alone in valuing their pragmatism; to the rest of the world, it is pretty contemptible hypocrisy.
quote:I would suggest that the social problems attendant on economic contraction are more likely to dampen that flame than to fan it.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:The model of European unity to which a flame is kept in the European Commission building in Brussels.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What ideal?
quote:But if you listen to a lot of Brexiteers, they're endless banging on about how "they" will need to trade with the UK. That may or may not be true (I think it's a pile of self-regarding bollocks which ignores the size of the EU and its capacity for internal trade), but it also completely overestimates the extent to which pragmatic considerations will determine the outcome.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
]That's a pretty idiotic statement - the vote was one in a long line of not particularly pragmatic things that was done.
quote:No, that's not a pragmatic argument by Brexiters at all, at best it's a pragmatic argument that is based on a completely misunderstood version of the actual facts.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But if you listen to a lot of Brexiteers, they're endless banging on about how "they" will need to trade with the UK. That may or may not be true (I think it's a pile of self-regarding bollocks which ignores the size of the EU and its capacity for internal trade), but it also completely overestimates the extent to which pragmatic considerations will determine the outcome.
quote:On your first point - the list of EU trade agreements I posted earlier suggests there are many different permutations that the EU can use to ensure a relationship with a trading partner.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
To Ricardus' point - it is not in their interest to see a trading party crash and burn, but firstly they may have very few mechanisms to avoid it, and secondly that still doesn't mean that individual sectors will not (purely pragmatically) wish to capture certain markets.
quote:Except that subsets of Brexiters can be found who object to each of these.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
On your first point - the list of EU trade agreements I posted earlier suggests there are many different permutations that the EU can use to ensure a relationship with a trading partner.
quote:Even if they were, and assuming they were operating by your much vaunted principles of pragmatism the same constraints would still apply just at the level of the Commission (and in actual fact in this case they aren't setting the direction of travel anyway)
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But you're doing it again. No individual member state is driving the negotiations. The European Commission itself is doing so, supported by the ECB.
quote:Except that whatever deal they cook up will have to be agreed by the other nations in the EU. The Commission can't force an agreement on the sovereign nations that make up the EU. So, common sense suggests that the negotiations will be conducted in consultation with those national governments so as to avoid anything that will get the deal killed, or significantly delayed, after all that talk.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But you're doing it again. No individual member state is driving the negotiations. The European Commission itself is doing so, supported by the ECB. The European Council comes a distant third in the race to escort the UK to the exit, and over the precipice.
quote:All the considerations you mention are real, but there are a few others:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So you are the Italian PM, you are in power for another 3 years. You have 30 months of work you can get out of your trade secretary, most of which is already allocated to working on EU level trade deals with China, Nigeria, India and so on, he has a staff who are similarly allocated. One of your other trading partners decides to withdraw from their existing trading agreements and is in a complete dither as to what should take its place. Do you; re-double your efforts on other trade deals, or allocate precious time to this partner gambling that somehow your trade secretary working in partnership with his EU counterparts will be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat?
quote:True, but I was addressing the willingness of the EU, rather than the Daily Express, to make a deal. Anyway I think (naively perhaps) that the ability of any individual subset of Brexiteers to scupper a deal is limited at this point.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Except that subsets of Brexiters can be found who object to each of these.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
On your first point - the list of EU trade agreements I posted earlier suggests there are many different permutations that the EU can use to ensure a relationship with a trading partner.
quote:There is a perfectly valid position that says that the referendum was not phrased and conducted in a manner that would allow anyone to know what the view of the majority actually is. Which leaves two options:
Originally posted by Callan:
There need to be someone to articulate Remainers discontents and to assure them that the cause is not entirely lost without giving the impression that you merely want to disregard the views of the majority. I'm not sure that Tim Farron is up to it, but God knows, he's giving it his best shot.
quote:We live in a world where no member of the government will tell the Express where to go - and where plenty of their colleagues will play up to the columnists in the hope of gaining temporary advantage. The pattern of the last few months has been of indecision and timid indications in one direction followed by rapid back pedaling when faced by criticism.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Anyway I think (naively perhaps) that the ability of any individual subset of Brexiteers to scupper a deal is limited at this point.
quote:What you say is true - to a point. The problem is that each country is already faced with negative consequences regardless of which agreement is reached (i.e due to falls in contributions to the common budget, cuts that may result, reduction in free movement and so on). In the position where they have to optimize effort to ameliorate a set of consequences, they are likely aim at a bare minimum and be resistant to much else [and remember to factor in the lack of experience on the british side].
Originally posted by Ricardus:
All the considerations you mention are real, but there are a few others:
1. If a trade deal with India collapses, then all that happens is that the status quo is maintained; no-one is actually any worse off. But failing to reach a deal with the UK will harm Europe.
quote:I think I should switch to Brexit, then.
The EU has to be able to demonstrate that countries can't leave unscathed. Otherwise, Denmark, Italy, Belgium (?) and Iceland will be out on the next train, and the whole thing will fall to pieces irretrievably.
quote:At the level of face-saving politicians I think they can be pretty unpleasant. If you doubt that read Paul Krugmans account of how they treated Greece in his book on the Euro. The hope of Brexiteers is more that the business communities of the member states will lean on the Eurocrats to get them to think actually about the people of Europe which at present is not seemingly high on their agenda, in your view. I much much prefer pragmatism to ideals. How many pragmatic stalinists, or maoists do you find. Plenty of ideologues.
Just how vindictive are they?
quote:So, as I have previously challenged you, please supply a proposed wording? Which I think you admitted was impractical.
There is a perfectly valid position that says that the referendum was not phrased and conducted in a manner that would allow anyone to know what the view of the majority actually is.
quote:I'll take the amateur psychology of such prognosticators more seriously when they make a hue and cry about this kind of thing being national sabotage:
Originally posted by anteater:
I think I detect in many POR (pissed of remainer) posts a projection of their own anger and desire to punish the brexiteers, and in a way this leads them to want the EU to punish them, since the PORs don't have the power. Politically, though, it plays badly, since it comes across as unpatriotic, and generally denigrating to the UK, as well as projecting a view of the EU which is extremely unappetising.
quote:This is a rerun of an exchange about the Scottish referendum. You're most valid point there was that the Leave side was being championed by the major political party in Scotland, and this is indeed significant.
1. A clearly defined Leave position, a manifesto for what Leave wished to achieve in detail addressing the prefered position on free trade, movement, access to EU research funding, fisheries, agriculture, environment etc.
quote:Well obviously it's amateur, although I suggest displaced rage is not that controversial an idea.
I'll take the amateur psychology of such prognosticators more seriously when they make a hue and cry about this kind of thing being national sabotage
quote:My comparison to the Scottish referendum was two fold, and both aspects were vital.
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan Cresswell:quote:This is a rerun of an exchange about the Scottish referendum. You're most valid point there was that the Leave side was being championed by the major political party in Scotland, and this is indeed significant.
1. A clearly defined Leave position, a manifesto for what Leave wished to achieve in detail addressing the prefered position on free trade, movement, access to EU research funding, fisheries, agriculture, environment etc.
quote:Yes, there was risk in voting Yes or Leave. And, I agree that both campaigns had too strong an emphasis on "Project Fear" - repeatedly stating that there were risks. The difference is that we still don't know what the risks for Brexit are. We knew that there was a risk that Scotland couldn't retain the pound, or remain in the EU. Do we know whether or not there's a risk that the UK won't remain in a free trade zone? We don't even know if that's what Leave want - if they want to leave the free trade zone then there is no risk that the UK would be forced to stay in. Just as one example.
I suppose my point is that in both cases, a vote to Leave was a vote to accept risk. And, frankly, I don't think this needed stating.
quote:More significantly, if Leave had to develop a detailed proposal they would have never made it to the starting blocks. The Campaign would have splintered over all the options - some wanting free trade, others not, etc. And, to be honest, a campaign that can't even agree on what they want deserves to loose. I think that Leave could have produced such a proposal, but they would have needed to have engaged in serious discussion of it, with the various options tested by the public through several rounds of Leave candidates standing in general elections with all the associated questions in hustings and on the door steps, as well as Question Time and the like. That is the work of decades, not months. Had Leave campaigners been doing that for the last 20-30 years then a) they would have already worked out their position and b) that position would have had significant popular support (because they would have produced their position knowing what the electorate think).
We all know that if Leave had put up such a detailed proposal they believe they would have lost, and I think they are right.
quote:In contrast the Leave campaign was never unified. There was no substantial discussion of the issues to develop a consensus position, indeed much of it seemed to be invented on the fly. There still isn't a unified vision for Brexit that the Leave campaign agree on.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I'm not sure what "how to Remain" needs much clarification. The "how to Leave" certainly does. And, IMO, Parliament made a complete balls-up of things by trying to pretend that "remain or leave?" is a simple question that can be answered without knowing what leave means.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Which gets back to what we have discussed before. The referendum question was whether to Remain or Leave, not how to do either.
quote:There are, of course, two ancillary questions to leave - why and how? That the majority didn't ask those questions, if indeed they cast their vote without asking those questions, is a sad indictment on the quality of political discourse in this country. And, therefore a great reason to stick with representative democracy where we should expect something more intelligent from our representatives - though their failure to vote through a sensible Referendum Act and instead follow Cameron down the worst possible road doesn't hold up much hope for that either.
The majority of those voting (and the failure to adopt a system of compulsory voting for elections and the referendum is another question) chose Leave probably for a multitude of reasons. They were not concerned with the how, but with the go.
quote:But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?
Parliament made a complete balls-up of things by trying to pretend that "remain or leave?" is a simple question that can be answered without knowing what leave means.
quote:That is a simple question. But, tied in with that is the question of "and, then go where?". Do we leave the party early to go home for an early night, go to the pub, go to a club, go to another party?
Originally posted by anteater:
But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?
quote:If one has voted for Brexit believing that it would save the UK a whole lot of money which could then be spent on the NHS - but then it turns out (a) that money is not available for the NHS and (b) that the UK might in fact have to continue paying the same (or more!) to access the free market, it is fair to ask whether the thing that they were voting for is not the thing that is being discussed, never mind delivered.
Originally posted by anteater:
But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?
quote:It's going to be one hungry dog.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Brexit means dog's breakfast, I think.
quote:Correction. That should be simplistic question.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That is a simple question.
Originally posted by anteater:
But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?
quote:But at that rate, you never go out of your front door.
To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.
quote:And, again, I agree that by a small majority there was a vote to leave, and we don't really know the why or how of those voting leave - because the vote wasn't devised in a manner to determine that.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell, I don't want to go through it all again, but it is obvious to me that a majority of those voting wanted to leave the EU, and that they did not express either a particular reason or how they saw it occurring. That is because the simple question was whether or not they wanted to remain or leave. Any other would have been too difficult for any process which relies upon a a simple vote, even a parliamentary vote which comes after lengthy debate. Any other runs the very real possibility of no answer at all.
quote:Eh? Can you explain that a bit more?
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:But at that rate, you never go out of your front door.
To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.
quote:This is far too optimistic. I think we are still very likely to have to cope with an ultra-right party. In fact I reckon ultra-right poeple and parties in the UK have received a good shot in the arm from the result of the referendum.
Originally posted by anteater:
Yes, I would have preferred it a lot more if the remain side had won. But I do get a bit fed up of people criticising the GBP when there is zero probability of us having to cope with an ultra-right party, which is what we might have had if we'd never had a referendum.
quote:Given that UKIP appear to be cheering on the Fash in Austria and France, Trump in the US and Mr Putin generally, I'd say we have a far-right party and the government is committed to it's major policy commitment.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:This is far too optimistic. I think we are still very likely to have to cope with an ultra-right party. In fact I reckon ultra-right poeple and parties in the UK have received a good shot in the arm from the result of the referendum.
Originally posted by anteater:
Yes, I would have preferred it a lot more if the remain side had won. But I do get a bit fed up of people criticising the GBP when there is zero probability of us having to cope with an ultra-right party, which is what we might have had if we'd never had a referendum.
quote:Farage was always trying to prevent UKIP's right-wing populism spilling over into something much nastier, and spent quite a bit of effort keeping the worst of it in check. Some of his supporters, including councillors and MEPs were way beyond him and now that Farage isn't in charge we'll see just how nasty UKIP really is.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:Given that UKIP appear to be cheering on the Fash in Austria and France, Trump in the US and Mr Putin generally, I'd say we have a far-right party and the government is committed to it's major policy commitment.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:This is far too optimistic. I think we are still very likely to have to cope with an ultra-right party. In fact I reckon ultra-right poeple and parties in the UK have received a good shot in the arm from the result of the referendum.
Originally posted by anteater:
Yes, I would have preferred it a lot more if the remain side had won. But I do get a bit fed up of people criticising the GBP when there is zero probability of us having to cope with an ultra-right party, which is what we might have had if we'd never had a referendum.
quote:This seems to have been largely a tactic about plausibile deniability and maintaining a certain level of electability.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Farage was always trying to prevent UKIP's right-wing populism spilling over into something much nastier, and spent quite a bit of effort keeping the worst of it in check.
quote:Sure. If you really really believe that the GBP were "without any clue about where we go afterwards" then I think you under-estimate them considerably.
Eh? Can you explain that a bit more?
quote:I would say that probably for the majority who voted Leave (excluding the protest voters) people did have a clue about where they wanted to go - but, there was no consensus about where to go. Some voted to leave the single market, others for greater sovereignty within the single market, some for increased controls on immigration, others for keeping Spanish fishermen out of British waters, some to have more control over the miniscule amounts the UK sends to Europe ... all sorts of different ideas about what they wanted. Though I do think there was a large vote for "just get out, and we'll sort it out afterwards".
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C:quote:Sure. If you really really believe that the GBP were "without any clue about where we go afterwards" then I think you under-estimate them considerably.
Eh? Can you explain that a bit more?
If, when pressed, you would admit that they did have a clue, but lacked a lot of the details then I think you are too risk-averse.
quote:Exactly, they have a plan for what they want to do. They've presumably done some preparation - learnt French, scoped out what sort of activities there is a market for, identified approximately how much it will cost to buy/rent a centre and equip it, how many staff they need - and, made sure they have a budget to cover that and some contingencies. Good luck to them. Hopefully they won't find themselves shipped back to the UK or needing to obtain work and residence visas in a couple of years.
My niece-in-law and family are emigrating to France to start a sort of activity centre. So if you asked if they have a clue where they're going, then yes: France to run a sort of activity centre. Do they have details beyond that: No. Could it fail: Actually I think it's quite probable. But I don't think they're being plain daft - they're taking a risk.
quote:Actually, I'm English. Born and raised near London. But, I've lived here more than 20 years. I have a lot of time for the SNP, they've grown in political stature over the last 20 years. There is much that they have done in government that I like. I arrived here as a LibDem supporter, but any chance of voting LibDem vanished with the coalition (if I move back to England then the LibDems come back onto my radar). I also vote Green when there is a candidate - especially the top up seats for Holyrood. I keep thinking about joining the SNP, or the Greens, but never quite get around to it. It is obvious to me that much of the policy from Westminster is not fit for purpose in Scotland (actually, a lot of it makes no sense for the rest of the UK too, IMO. But then I'd never vote Tory and recently Labour have been adopting Tory policies too). I believe Scotland would be far better off independent of Westminster, within the European Union. Of course, the UK as a whole would be a lot better off staying within the EU.
BTW and forgive me for being intrusive - but are you, by any chance, Scottish? If so you're opinion on the SNP would be interesting. My Scottish rellies are v. anti - solid Labour - and mention SNP in the same breath as UKIP.
quote:I don't disagree with that , save for what follows - and this is going to be my last post on this, I promise.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That is a simple question. But, tied in with that is the question of "and, then go where?". Do we leave the party early to go home for an early night, go to the pub, go to a club, go to another party?
Originally posted by anteater:
But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?
To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.
quote:This makes it sound like the EU could force the UK to leave after 2 years. I'm pretty sure that's not the case. 2 years is the minimum time allowed for exit negotiations who then have to be agreed by everyone.
Originally posted by Gee D:
[QB]
So that's the first reason that your campaign for your approach was never going to get anywhere. The second is that any programme for negotiations put to the voters would have had little force afterwards. Let's assume that the Leave campaign had been able to work out a detailed programme to argue. What effect would that have had on the UK negotiators? Would they have been bound to follow that and go no further?
Then here's the EU line, vey simple and for the UK negotiators very worrying - no negotiations until and unless there's the Article 50 notice. Time then runs, and the EU has the upper hand. 2 years later, and the UK is out.
quote:Again, while that may be true of negotiations, the Treaty is not something that can be altered on the run as it were. The notice is given and membership then ends on the second anniversary regardless of any negotiations. There's a difference between negotiations and status, as it were. Indeed, the parties could agree to continue negotiations after the 2 years has passed, should they choose.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think there was a precedent set with Greenland. In any case, 'stopping the clock' has been used before in EU negotiations.
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
So those who campaign for Real Ale (similarly romantic and irrational)
quote:CAMRA is romantic because we should all drink the cold fizzy product of the leader of the Western World? All Hail Budweiser, King of horse toilets?
Originally posted by Gee D:
Real Ale is as bad as any English beer, flat and warm. Best not drunk, may help clear blocked drains (and now add any other insults you like). The point is that CAMRA really is romantic [..]
quote:We (maybe just I) are going around in circles a bit, and maybe I should take a vow of silence on this thread for a bit. But . .
I believe Scotland would be far better off independent of Westminster, within the European Union. Of course, the UK as a whole would be a lot better off staying within the EU.
quote:Which is why the independence White Paper was for independence from Westminster with the aspiration to retain membership of the EU (or, plan B to seek re-admission if the existing membership could not be continued). I don't think anyone pretended that there was any certainty. Generally "Project Fear" overplayed the risks to the point of saying it wouldn't happen, and the Yes campaign probably painted it as an easier process than it would be.
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C:quote:We (maybe just I) are going around in circles a bit, and maybe I should take a vow of silence on this thread for a bit. But . .
I believe Scotland would be far better off independent of Westminster, within the European Union. Of course, the UK as a whole would be a lot better off staying within the EU.
I think the quote above gets near the problem of pursuing a vision in the face of risk.
I can't see how you could hope that the Scottish people would ever be in a position to have a referendum to leave the UK where the subsequent accession to the EU was known to be at the very least highly likely, and preferably certain, no matter how committed the SNP would be to it. You must know that everyone would downplay this possibility, especially those countries which have similar situations, like Catalonia in Spain (not even to mention Belgium(s)).
quote:Yes, that would seem to be a good idea.
I believe that it is better that the EU stay in the EU
quote:Absolutely. A "yes or no" question that relates to a particular Act of Parliament, that has already been extensively discussed and passed by Parliament, seeking approval of the electorate. That's how to organise a referendum.
BTW. Here's a real referendum question.
"Do you approve the text of the Constitutional Law on 'Provisions for exceeding the equal bicameralism, reducing the number of MPs, the containment of operating costs of the institutions, the suppression of the CNEL and the revision of Title V of Part II of the Constitution' approved by Parliament and published in the Official Gazette n° 88 of 15 April 2016?" (c) Matteo Renzi 2016
quote:That appears likely. The EU's chief negotiator has set a date of October 2018 for the conclusion of negotiations, and also warned against "Cherry picking" on issues like the single market.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
A formal limit over the negotiations period might be enforced or threatened if the negotiations got bogged down. Realpolitik suggests that a rigid enforcement is unlikely. But it feels that it will be a messy divorce.
quote:And it seems they aren't interested in a transitional deal anyway (and believe they know the needs of business better than the business community) :
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The EU's chief negotiator[/URL] has set a date of October 2018 for the conclusion of negotiations, and also warned against "Cherry picking" on issues like the single market.
Supreme Court or not, the government is going to have an uphill struggle getting any kind of deal.
quote:A really disappointing result. The people of England have given up. Brexit will go through after all. The banks will leave the City and we'll have no income. Low productivity will keep foreign investors away and we'll have to sell our labour cheap and slash corporation tax to have any income whatsoever. If the millionaires won't accept higher taxes, the rest of us will be on starvation wages within a few years. Forget a lost decade - we're heading for far worse than that.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No cat among the pigeons delivered by the people of Sleaford. Even doubling their share of the vote wasn't enough for the LibDems to make an impact - though, a turn out almost half that of the general election was also very disappointing.
quote:I'm looking on the brightside. Now that Farage has gone UKIP look utterly broken, not to mention pointless. They were always going to get votes in Lincolnshire: it's that kind of place. The LibDems and Labour now have two years to show that they have something better to offer.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:A really disappointing result. The people of England have given up. Brexit will go through after all. The banks will leave the City and we'll have no income. Low productivity will keep foreign investors away and we'll have to sell our labour cheap and slash corporation tax to have any income whatsoever. If the millionaires won't accept higher taxes, the rest of us will be on starvation wages within a few years. Forget a lost decade - we're heading for far worse than that.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No cat among the pigeons delivered by the people of Sleaford. Even doubling their share of the vote wasn't enough for the LibDems to make an impact - though, a turn out almost half that of the general election was also very disappointing.
But I mustn't say these things because I'm just talking the country down.
quote:The two main parties are in similar positions but in one case it's obvious and in the other it's only apparent. Both are divided over Brexit, both have weak leadership, neither really has a coherent plan and both are torn between sections of their base which want radically different outcomes (embittered but comparatively wealthy boomers vs. the City in the Tories case, metropolitan lefties vs. working class northerners in Labour's). The difference is that Mrs May has hit upon the expedient of governing through enigmatic slogans that would do credit to Ambassador Kosh - Brexit means Brexit, We want a red, white and blue Brexit, We will meet in Red 3 at the hour of scampering.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The Tories have a kind of Schrödinger's Brexit at the moment, as nobody knows what it is, including them. This has an advantage, as they can keep spinning it out, appearing to hold the keys to the kingdom, yet it is also full of hazard in the long term, as when it actually becomes real, some people will be disappointed.
Labour are in a bad position. They seem caught between leaning towards UKIP, immigration is bad for our white people, and leaning towards LibDems, we need soft Brexit. I think Starmer looks articulate and competent, but that ain't enough.
quote:I don't think we can read too much into that, the usual by-election caveats apply. Labour members may have lent their votes in order to register a protest against Brexit in this well-heeled pro remain area. If they defect permanently here and elsewhere then Labour clearly has a problem, but we need more evidence before we can say that is happening.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also I noticed that the Richmond Labour Party has more members than actually voted for their candidate ...
quote:Add to which that the local MP ran a horrible campaign against Sadiq Khan in the Mayoral Election. It's understandable if people put giving Zac Goldsmith a kicking ahead of voting against Sarah Olney.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:I don't think we can read too much into that, the usual by-election caveats apply. Labour members may have lent their votes in order to register a protest against Brexit in this well-heeled pro remain area. If they defect permanently here and elsewhere then Labour clearly has a problem, but we need more evidence before we can say that is happening.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also I noticed that the Richmond Labour Party has more members than actually voted for their candidate ...
quote:And, the SNP who already have a larger parliamentary presence than the LibDems and Greens combined.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
the main anti-Brexit party beating the main pro-Brexit party. Indeed, if you include the Greens as an anti-Brexit party, we are already there.
quote:The almighty mess you think they've made of governing the country. Obviously a lot of people disagree with you on that point. Don't mistake your opinions for facts.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tories have been on 40+ for nearly 2 months now, which is stunning given the almighty mess they've made of governing the country
quote:David Cameron was by common consent one of the worst Prime Ministers of modern times, if not ever. I certainly don't know anyone who has a good word to say about him, or Osborne or their misguided austerity policies. And yes, I know quite a few leave voters.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The almighty mess you think they've made of governing the country. Obviously a lot of people disagree with you on that point. Don't mistake your opinions for facts.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tories have been on 40+ for nearly 2 months now, which is stunning given the almighty mess they've made of governing the country
quote:The cornerstone of the Cameron's Prime Ministership was George Osborn's "Austerity" policies which were designed to reduce the deficit. The basis was to get people back to work, but all that did was create a lot of part-time, zero-hours and casual jobs, which was exactly the work that EU migrants snapped up! Moreover, it didn't cut the deficit at all, because the tax revenue on those jobs was minimal, and the persistent revisions to Osborn's projections (it'll all be sorted in five years time, repeat annually at every Autumn Statement) were rumbled such that Philip Hammond consignedit to the Round File (you know, the tin one in the corner of the office) before he even sat down.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The almighty mess you think they've made of governing the country. Obviously a lot of people disagree with you on that point. Don't mistake your opinions for facts.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The Tories have been on 40+ for nearly 2 months now, which is stunning given the almighty mess they've made of governing the country
quote:How many Labour-held leave constituencies care more about Brexit than an appearance of economic competence and having some solution to their problems?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Pretty dire for Labour, and no doubt there'll be the usual "Labour unelectable under Corbyn, yada yada", but if Owen Who had won the leadership, Labour would have come out strongly against Brexit, which would not be a good move given that 70% of Labour-held constituencies voted to leave.
quote:Common consent of whom? I could equally say I don't know a single person who would agree with you, including a number of socialists who would at least put him below Thatcher.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
David Cameron was by common consent one of the worst Prime Ministers of modern times, if not ever. I certainly don't know anyone who has a good word to say about him, or Osborne or their misguided austerity policies. And yes, I know quite a few leave voters.
quote:The one I'm in for sure. Can't have a conversation about politics round here without brexit being mentioned as a good thing. And I'd wager most of the Labour seats in the old industrial areas of the Midlands, Lancashire and Yorkshire would be the same.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How many Labour-held leave constituencies care more about Brexit than an appearance of economic competence and having some solution to their problems?
quote:I have pointed out above that the reason Labour can't come out against Brexit is that a lot of their own voters and members supported it. I referred to leave voters as they would be more likely to think well of Cameron, since he gave them the referendum that allowed them to realise their heart's desire to fuck up our international relations for a generation. But IME they all consider him an incompetent twit too.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Common consent of whom? I could equally say I don't know a single person who would agree with you, including a number of socialists who would at least put him below Thatcher.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
David Cameron was by common consent one of the worst Prime Ministers of modern times, if not ever. I certainly don't know anyone who has a good word to say about him, or Osborne or their misguided austerity policies. And yes, I know quite a few leave voters.
As for leave voters, why are you assuming they correlate to Tory supporters? There were a lot of safe Labour constituencies that voted to leave.
quote:I'm sure that's not your view, and I dare say that there are socialists daft enough to believe that, but it's frankly bonkers. At the very least she was a much more effective Prime Minister than Mr Cameron. I would say of her that she was a good Prime Minister but that the human cost of her policies was, IMO, unacceptably high. Mr Cameron was a mediocre Prime Minister who achieved very little and, I suspect, will be seen to have caused great harm to the country to the end of keeping himself in office for another twelve months.
Common consent of whom? I could equally say I don't know a single person who would agree with you, including a number of socialists who would at least put him below Thatcher.
quote:It depends on what one means by a "good Prime Minister", doesn't it? A Prime Minister who successfully builds support for his or her agenda, and enacts significant change during his or her tenure is an effective PM. You may or may not like the results, depending on how your politics aligns with the PM's.
Originally posted by Callan:
At the very least she was a much more effective Prime Minister than Mr Cameron.
quote:And, good evidence that in at least some cases there has been a massive Bregret swing. Sunderland with 61% for Leave in June now polling a complete u-turn with the majority saying that if they had the chance to vote again it would be to remain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for leave voters, why are you assuming they correlate to Tory supporters? There were a lot of safe Labour constituencies that voted to leave.
quote:do I need to flag why an internet poll in a newspaper which anyone in the world can vote on (which AIUI this was) is in no way "good evidence" again?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:And, good evidence that in at least some cases there has been a massive Bregret swing. Sunderland with 61% for Leave in June now polling a complete u-turn with the majority saying that if they had the chance to vote again it would be to remain.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for leave voters, why are you assuming they correlate to Tory supporters? There were a lot of safe Labour constituencies that voted to leave.
quote:I don't know if you use twitter, but my timeline is permanently stuffed with remain campaigners sharing links and exhorting their followers to vote on every poll they can get their hands on. That and animal rights activists flooding polls on bringing back foxhunting in eg the Cornish Herald.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, one wonders about how many people from outside Sunderland would bother reading the local newspaper website to know there was a poll to vote on. Which should make it better than a poll on a national newspaper with a high social media presence that would get a lot of people voting who have no particular connection to that paper.
quote:I'll agree that you can't have a conversation in a pub without Brexit being mentioned as a Good Thing, but that says more about Saloon Bar Man and his pals than it does about the merits of Brexit.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The one I'm in for sure. Can't have a conversation about politics round here without brexit being mentioned as a good thing. And I'd wager most of the Labour seats in the old industrial areas of the Midlands, Lancashire and Yorkshire would be the same.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
How many Labour-held leave constituencies care more about Brexit than an appearance of economic competence and having some solution to their problems?
quote:Sure, but that's not going to happen in a vacuum. There will also presumably be people going in the opposite direction.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I wonder how many want a Brexit which (a) would not immediately leave them financially better off (b) does not leave extra cash for the NHS (c) does not have a significant impact on overall migration (d) increases the cost of trips to the EU and/or (e) has a personal financial cost.
I appreciate that there are different understandings of Brexit and people may think different things about each of those points, but my guess is that few who voted Leave actually wants a deal which substantially leaves things economically the same or makes things worse. There are ideologs who want it at any cost, but I don't believe that is a majority.
I also read that as young people overwhelmingly support Remain and older people Leave, if we are not to leave until 2019/2020 by that stage there may well be a majority of Remain supporters as more young Remainers get to voting age and some older Leavers die.
Which appears to be a likely mathematical calculation if not something provable without a ref by when the time comes.
quote:4 camps I think - the 4th being the people that would quite like the idea of some sort of alliance, but think the one we've got is utterly incapable of reform and are so exasperated with the whole thing that they'd rather walk away on balance. That's probably the one I'm closest to, and have got closer to it since the referendum. I wouldn't put myself in any of the 3 camps you suggest.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I think we can account for the 17 million Leave voters by putting them into three camps (with some overlap)
One-third believing that everything wrong with the UK is due to interference from the undemocratic institutions that govern the EU.
One-third believing statements that there would be economic benefits, eg, the £350 million per day for the NHS
One-third who are, to a greater or lesser degree, xenophobic.
The first two are false (we are quite capable of fucking things up for ourselves thank you, we are no more democratic than the EU and the purported economic benefits were retracted as soon as the votes had been counted) while the third is one of those things you find pretty much everywhere: it's part of human nature to prefer people more like oneself, even if one is a tosspot, although it really doesn't benefit anyone.
quote:I think is highly unlikely that voters understand more today about what Brexit actually means than they did in June. But then see suppose many voted in a daft way in June, there is no telling what they'd do now - vote Leave just for the lols I suppose.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I voted Remain, primarily motivated by fear of the unknown rather than because of any particular pro-EU sentiment. In the past 6 months, my firm has had to work flat out to work out how we deal with the new reality and to be honest I've quite enjoyed it. It's scary but there are really interesting possibilities too. I'm actually being won over to it - so soft Remainers might end up switching sides just as much as the soft/protest Brexiters. I have to say if there was another referendum tomorrow I'd be more minded to give Leave a chance than I was in June.
quote:FWIW my thoughts are similar, although I would probably still vote remain. The things which have struck me are:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I voted Remain, primarily motivated by fear of the unknown rather than because of any particular pro-EU sentiment. In the past 6 months, my firm has had to work flat out to work out how we deal with the new reality and to be honest I've quite enjoyed it. It's scary but there are really interesting possibilities too. I'm actually being won over to it - so soft Remainers might end up switching sides just as much as the soft/protest Brexiters. I have to say if there was another referendum tomorrow I'd be more minded to give Leave a chance than I was in June.
quote:Rejoining will only be possible if the UK is able to satisfy the rest of Europe that there has been a proper change of heart and mind, that the UK accepts that as a part of the EU it will not be entitled always to special deals or treatment, but rather is prepared to work with the other members.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Rejoining will only be possible once we have a new generation of politicians who aren't worried about what the right-wing press says, and a new generation of voters who are prepare to back them if that seems to be in our best interests. We may also need a new generation of EU politicians who are prepared to let bygones be bygones. If that happens at all it will be in 20 years' time or so, and God knows what state the world will be in by then.
quote:Whereas, for me the non-economic are more important - though the importance of the EU to reducing poverty among other nations in Europe is important as well.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU, and in this I think I reflect a lot even of the Remain camp.
quote:I think for me the reasons for feeling sceptical about the EU's ability to make a deal are the same reasons that the fears of Federalism are overblown and silly.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
1. Many of the economic reasons why we should stay are also reasons for thinking the EU will make a deal. Many of the reasons for thinking the EU won't make a deal are also reasons for feeling sceptical about it.
quote:Most of the current travails of the EU are a manifestation of the general secular (in the economic sense) crisis that is hitting developed economies across the globe.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
My current theory is that Brexit is going to force the EU to reform in such a way that the UK is going to be desperate to be a part of it again
quote:You think international cooperation is a bad thing?
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU...
quote:According to an article in the Indie (do we trust it?) May does not have to touch the Act. All that is required is for Parliament to pass an Bill saying, sort of, "notwithstanding the Single P Act . . blah blah . . the next election will be on xx/xx/2017 due to <various reasons>", on the basis that the other parties would not oppose it, which I think is correct.
The fixed term parliament act was put in place to stop either of the Coalition partners pulling the rug from under the other one. It was very much of its time and is no longer required. Parliament enacted it and parliament can repeal it.
quote:I think you may well be right, but if so, I'd be interested in your take on how to make the Euro work. I rather agree with St. Angela, that if the Euro crumbles, the EU goes with it, and so the determination to save the Euro is identical to the determination to save the EU.
the fears of Federalism are overblown and silly.
quote:I think he was ultimately unremarkable. Certainly not one of the best, but by no means one of the worst either.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM?
quote:Ay, there's the rub!
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It depends on what one means by a "good Prime Minister", doesn't it?
quote:That beautifully sums up the attitude of Britain to the EU yet also reveals just how far down the rabbit hole of insularity that Britain has fallen. More and more it is possible to see the whole affair as the UK's 'Make Britain great again' moment. It's that people don't see it that makes it so utterly remarkable.
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU
quote:The context was one where people seemed to be saying "The EU is a mess, they can't get themselves organised, if they can't get a deal organised that will prove how dysfunctional they are". So one can't take that line and at the same warn of an irresistible move towards federalism.
Originally posted by anteater:
Chris Styles:quote:I think you may well be right, but if so
the fears of Federalism are overblown and silly.
quote:I think Stiglitz is correct, but Merkel is wrong. Anything can happen, but the Euro could survive amongst a super core of central European countries+France that remain tightly integrated economically (and in time maybe fiscally).
[qb]
I'd be interested in your take on how to make the Euro work. I rather agree with St. Angela, that if the Euro crumbles, the EU goes with it, and so the determination to save the Euro is identical to the determination to save the EU.
quote:Advocating Brexit to avoid this is a rather extreme over-reaction (I'll avoid falling over by shooting off my leg!)
I agree that the UK will not be forced to join, but I strongly suspect that there will be a lot of pressure so do to, and given that Blair would have joined (to get the EU presidency?)
quote:It has always been the position of the UK that the EU only matters from what can be gotten from it, not from what we're putting in "for the greater good", hence even the Remain arguments were (and often still are) framed in terms of what the UK wins/loses.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
That beautifully sums up the attitude of Britain to the EU yet also reveals just how far down the rabbit hole of insularity that Britain has fallen. More and more it is possible to see the whole affair as the UK's 'Make Britain great again' moment. It's that people don't see it that makes it so utterly remarkable.
quote:It's about privilege. The UK ruled the waves (allegedly) at one point, won two World Wars etc. Latterly we're part of the G8, on the UN security council in NATO and so on.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Yes, and that is incredibly sad. I'm just not sure where that sense of desperation has come from to drive it to such an extent. It can't all be from a sense of a decaying empire; surely Britain has gotten over that by this stage?
quote:I think that's actually an excellent question, to which the answer is no. Without taking this off down a tangent I think that there are two things lurking at the back of the British national consciousness above all others - the First World War and the end of Empire. The two things are linked but separate.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It can't all be from a sense of a decaying empire; surely Britain has gotten over that by this stage?
quote:I'd agree with much of this; and would add it was helped along by a number of conceits about the UKs position in the world (the UK 'playing the Greeks to the US Rome' and so on).
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I think the whole period since 1945 has been spent like Wyle E Coyote running on past the top of the cliff, just no one's ever looked down.
The "British" are not over it, because they've never yet got to the point as a nation of thinking there's anything to be over.
quote:I'm referring to the idea that the EU is a vehicle for European brotherhood and peace. (If we are just saying that the EU allows us to arrest criminals or collaborate on science projects more efficiently, those are I think still economic arguments.)
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus:quote:You think international cooperation is a bad thing?
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU...
Oh, and what Alan said.
quote:Well, yes. That seems almost tautological to me.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unfortunately I think that's pretty much the British attitude to the world these days; trading and other international relationships only exist to make us, our lives, our economy, better and stuff everyone else.
)?quote:But wasn't the EU membership referendum Cameron's own cunning plan? Seems pretty remarkable to me.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I think he was ultimately unremarkable.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM?
quote:It depends a bit on terms of reference. Most countries will have some form of trade restrictions based on criteria other than simple economics. Laws that make it illegal to import goods produced by child or slave labour - increasing costs to the consumer. Laws that prevent sale of some technology to certain states, arms or technology that might have nuclear applications for example, reducing potential profits for relevant businesses.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Unless you can think of a country* that freely, knowingly and deliberately chooses to enter into trading relationships that will make it worse off
quote:Trade is not a zero-sum game. You trade with people who have something you need in exchange for you having something they need. If you abuse the relationship, your trading partner becomes impoverished and unable to deliver the goods you needs. Trade needs to be a win-win.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Well, yes. That seems almost tautological to me.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Unfortunately I think that's pretty much the British attitude to the world these days; trading and other international relationships only exist to make us, our lives, our economy, better and stuff everyone else.
Of course, every other country in the world has the same attitude as well. Unless you can think of a country* that freely, knowingly and deliberately chooses to enter into trading relationships that will make it worse off (and if so, can we make that country the first one we do business with after Brexit please
.
*= and don't say an EU country. Every one of them is in the EU because they think membership will be better for their lives and economy.
quote:When the pound started to slide I did think - for a very, very brief moment - 'did I do the right thing by voting Leave?'. And then it occurred to me: no senior EU official has, so far I can tell, resigned or offered to resign* as a result of the loss of confidence in the institution by one of its leading members. All of the five (?) Presidents are still in place and instead of thinking that the loss of the world's fifth-largest economy and the EU's leading military power from the organisation is a great tragedy, they instead appear to be bunkering down claiming that states that leave won't be able to survive.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
My current theory is that Brexit is going to force the EU to reform in such a way that the UK is going to be desperate to be a part of it again, and yet will have squandered the political capital to be able to do so.
quote:I haven't heard about resignations of Britain's UKIP MEPs either. They didn't do much when they were there and now that the vote has gone their way, what is left for them? Apart from the EU gravy train which they have consumed and complained about in equal measure.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:When the pound started to slide I did think - for a very, very brief moment - 'did I do the right thing by voting Leave?'. And then it occurred to me: no senior EU official has, so far I can tell, resigned or offered to resign* as a result of the loss of confidence in the institution by one of its leading members. All of the five (?) Presidents are still in place and instead of thinking that the loss of the world's fifth-largest economy and the EU's leading military power from the organisation is a great tragedy, they instead appear to be bunkering down claiming that states that leave won't be able to survive.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
My current theory is that Brexit is going to force the EU to reform in such a way that the UK is going to be desperate to be a part of it again, and yet will have squandered the political capital to be able to do so.
Because of this, I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that the EU will reform. Which does sadly reinforce my belief that we were right to leave.
*Aside from Britain's EU Commissioner
quote:They're there to represent their constituents in the European Parliament and will remain there, as with all other British MEPs, until such time as Britain is no longer an EU member. Whether they do a good job while there is of course a different matter, but I don't see how that relates to my original point.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I haven't heard about resignations of Britain's UKIP MEPs either. They didn't do much when they were there and now that the vote has gone their way, what is left for them? Apart from the EU gravy train which they have consumed and complained about in equal measure.
quote:I think your original point owes more to the dynamics described by mr cheesy, fletcher christian and betjemaniac above than anything represented by the EU. (and also fundamentally misunderstands how the commitment of the UK to the EU was seen by the rEU).
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Whether they do a good job while there is of course a different matter, but I don't see how that relates to my original point.
quote:Which pre-supposes that the EU needs to reform. The old maxim is "if it's not broken, don't fix it".
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that the EU will reform.
quote:If Cameron reads that he'll be like "Yeah! Unremarkable! Take that! Get in!!" <<Fist Pump>>
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I think he was ultimately unremarkable. Certainly not one of the best, but by no means one of the worst either.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM?
quote:Or want. It's not all about needs, not by a long chalk.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Trade is not a zero-sum game. You trade with people who have something you need in exchange for you having something they need.
quote:Just one more reason for the EU to give us a good deal, then
Trade needs to be a win-win.
.quote:Except for the fact that one of the reasons the UK wants to leave the EU is all the regulations that are preventing us from getting what we want, of course. It doesn't just (some would say "even") make trade easier, it also defines what can be traded and who it can be traded with.
The reason to be part of a trading bloc like the EU is to make that trade easier, so that all parties can get what they need at a lower cost. This combative mentality does not help us to understand the nature of trade.
quote:That beautifully sums up the attitude of Britain to the EU yet also reveals just how far down the rabbit hole of insularity that Britain has fallen. More and more it is possible to see the whole affair as the UK's 'Make Britain great again' moment. It's that people don't see it that makes it so utterly remarkable.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
quote:But it also isn't always about everyone going into a negotiation with the objective of "winning". For example, China is prepared to go into asymetic trade deals (whereby they provide extremely cheap products to markets) because they are looking for almost-at-any-cost development. The reason we don't in return offer to provide Chinese customers with products that require our workers to live in the kind of poverty theirs do is because we're not as desperate for the work as they are.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Or want. It's not all about needs, not by a long chalk.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
[qb]Trade is not a zero-sum game. You trade with people who have something you need in exchange for you having something they need.
quote:Again, that rather depends on what it is that everyone wants from the deal. If the UK continues to see the EU purely in terms of short-term economic advantage - which largely comes down to us being able to buy cheap stuff from our neighbours due to the difference between Sterling and the Euro - then we're in for a rude awakening. The real question is then the extent to which the EU "needs" to give the UK a quote unquote "good deal" rather than a knuckle sandwich.
quote:Just one more reason for the EU to give us a good deal, then
Trade needs to be a win-win.
quote:Well, I guess we're going to see how much easier it was to work within the regulations of the EU rather than looking in from the outside and seeing that we cannot trade without meeting even higher standards.
quote:Except for the fact that one of the reasons the UK wants to leave the EU is all the regulations that are preventing us from getting what we want, of course. It doesn't just (some would say "even") make trade easier, it also defines what can be traded and who it can be traded with.
The reason to be part of a trading bloc like the EU is to make that trade easier, so that all parties can get what they need at a lower cost. This combative mentality does not help us to understand the nature of trade.
quote:They're playing a longer game, yes, but they're still trying to win. And as you go on to say, once they have achieved the development they are after they are unlikely to continue offering us such good deals. Once that happens we'll have to either accept the end of cheap goods or find somewhere else that's prepared to make them for us.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But it also isn't always about everyone going into a negotiation with the objective of "winning". For example, China is prepared to go into asymetic trade deals (whereby they provide extremely cheap products to markets) because they are looking for almost-at-any-cost development.
quote:The comment I replied to asserted that trade needs to be win-win. As in both sides need to win. And if that's at all true then the EU needs to make sure both sides of a UK-EU trade deal win.
quote:Again, that rather depends on what it is that everyone wants from the deal.
quote:Just one more reason for the EU to give us a good deal, then
[qb]Trade needs to be a win-win.
quote:You say that as if the EU is the only place we can do business. There's a whole world out there for us to trade with! The world's fastest-growing economies are all in Asia and Africa - let's do business with them instead.
Well, I guess we're going to see how much easier it was to work within the regulations of the EU rather than looking in from the outside and seeing that we cannot trade without meeting even higher standards.
quote:You say that as if the EU is the only place where its members can do business. There are already free trade deals between the EU and large parts of Africa and some parts of Asia, with negotiations ongoing with almost all countries in these regions. We don't need to be leaving the EU to benefit from trade with the wider world. Source
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You say that as if the EU is the only place we can do business. There's a whole world out there for us to trade with! The world's fastest-growing economies are all in Asia and Africa - let's do business with them instead.
quote:You say that as if (a) our nearest neighbours with whom we currently trade more than anyone else will want to trade with us at something above the WTO rules and (b) these other countries will want to trade with us.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You say that as if the EU is the only place we can do business. There's a whole world out there for us to trade with! The world's fastest-growing economies are all in Asia and Africa - let's do business with them instead.
quote:To be fair, the UK has invested in trade negotiators. We've been paying money to the EU, and the EU has been employing trade negotiators on our behalf. Which has been a very cost effective and efficient approach to trade negotiations - as noted the EU has trade deals with countries around the world, with more in the pipe line.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given how little we've invested in trade negotiators
quote:Not the point I was making. Mr cheesy said that we'd find it harder to do trade post-Brexit due to looking in from the outside rather than being part of the EU club. To which I replied that the EU club isn't the only place we can do trade. Whether the EU also does trade with outside countries is irrelevant to that point.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
We don't need to be leaving the EU to benefit from trade with the wider world.
quote:Eh? So you're saying that other trading partners will give the same - or better - deal to the UK outwith of the EU than it would have inside the EU bloc?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Not the point I was making. Mr cheesy said that we'd find it harder to do trade post-Brexit due to looking in from the outside rather than being part of the EU club. To which I replied that the EU club isn't the only place we can do trade. Whether the EU also does trade with outside countries is irrelevant to that point.
quote:Why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting we have absolutely nothing to offer them?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You say that as if (a) our nearest neighbours with whom we currently trade more than anyone else will want to trade with us at something above the WTO rules and (b) these other countries will want to trade with us.
quote:We haven't been allowed to invest in trade negotiators with non-EU countries, because the EU reserves all trade deals for member countries to itself. Leaving the EU is a necessary first step for the UK to begin negotiating in its own right with Asian and African economies.
Given how little we've invested in trade negotiators, never mind the diplomacy (and infrastructure investments) in Africa and elsewhere compared to China, that's quite a wild dream you've got there.
quote:Why should they? What do you think we've got to offer?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting we have absolutely nothing to offer them?
quote:Ok, so whilst we train/recruit those negotiators, what are you thinking we'll be doing in the meantime?
We haven't been allowed to invest in trade negotiators with non-EU countries, because the EU reserves all trade deals for member countries to itself. Leaving the EU is a necessary first step for the UK to begin negotiating in its own right with Asian and African economies.
quote:Why not? They wouldn't lose out by keeping the same terms but with "EU" replaced with "UK", and the sooner deals are agreed the better it will be for all parties.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Eh? So you're saying that other trading partners will give the same - or better - deal to the UK outwith of the EU than it would have inside the EU bloc?
quote:The fifth largest economy in the world is "an isolated island". Sure.
Even though whilst inside this is part of a bigger trading bloc and outside is an isolated island.
quote:Because that's not how trading deals work. In fact that's not how any diplomacy works.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why not? They wouldn't lose out by keeping the same terms but with "EU" replaced with "UK", and the sooner deals are agreed the better it will be for all parties.
quote:That's right, we're special so we deserve preferential trading terms. Even though much of our economy is based on the service sector and much of that is based on the financial markets which are based in the UK due to the access to the EU.
]The fifth largest economy in the world is "an isolated island". Sure.
quote:Everything we're currently offering. We're the fifth largest economy in the world - we must be doing something right!
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Why should they? What do you think we've got to offer?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting we have absolutely nothing to offer them?
quote:I would assume that training/recruiting the negotiators is one of the things we'll be doing in the two years between triggering Article 50 and actually leaving the EU.
Ok, so whilst we train/recruit those negotiators, what are you thinking we'll be doing in the meantime?
quote:I see. So during the two year negotiation period we will be recruiting and training negotiators whilst the EU negotiators will be driving a hard bargain on their behalf.
I would assume that training/recruiting the negotiators is one of the things we'll be doing in the two years between triggering Article 50 and actually leaving the EU.
quote:3/4 of our economy is the service sector, yes. But that sector is not as dependent on financial services as you make out. Don't get me wrong, it is important, but education (including higher education), healthcare, real estate and tourism are all in there as well. In fact, the real estate industry generates more gross value per year than the financial services industry (though I'll grant that most of that is purely internal).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
That's right, we're special so we deserve preferential trading terms. Even though much of our economy is based on the service sector and much of that is based on the financial markets which are based in the UK due to the access to the EU.
quote:Maybe they are waiting for the government to show its hand, which it has been notably reluctant to do. Shortly after the referendum the plan was to invoke Article 50 in October, but that was quietly dropped and now it's scheduled for March. That will coincide with the Budget (near as dammit) and I have no doubt which will be regarded as more important by then.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Whether the financial markets are only here because of the EU remains to be seen. I haven't heard about any banks leaving yet, despite dire warnings back in June that many would have done so by now.
quote:/qb]A significant portion of which is built on access to European financial markets. Depending on the form of Brexit, the UK may have no better access than the non-EU nations we'll be seeking to trade with.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But if you need specifics then financial services
quote:Which includes a large amount of work on Airbus, a pan-European business, and the Eurofighter (the name speaks for itself)
[qb]aerospace manufacturing
quote:With universities heavily dependent on staff and students from the EU, and research which has been heavily supported by EU funds and collaboration. And, also students from outwith the EU bringing lucrative fees - with the anti-foreigner policies of the government set to cut that substantial income source.
education
quote:Supported by EU pharmaceutical institutions established in the UK, and now seeking alternative homes elsewhere in the EU. Also supported by UK universities and research labs which the government is planning to decimate by arbitrary and stupid restrictions on recruitment (see above).
and pharmaceuticals
quote:At the moment, as part of the EU with access to EU money, staff and students, access to EU markets, collaboration with other EU businesses. How long will we remain among the best in the world when the axe is swung against the roots of these, restricting the flow of talent, money, business from the EU?
are all areas in which we are amongst the best in the world.
quote:Let's see.
education (including higher education), healthcare, real estate and tourism are all in there as well. In fact, the real estate industry generates more gross value per year than the financial services industry (though I'll grant that most of that is purely internal).
quote:Real value, or asset inflation?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
In fact, the real estate industry generates more gross value per year than the financial services industry (though I'll grant that most of that is purely internal).
quote:Even that publication that is the subject of many Hell calls has acknowledged that Brexit has lead to a loss of research staff, with the most talented people not taking up vacancies and others actively seeking work elsewhere in Europe. I won't sully the thread with a link, but I'm sure you'll have no difficulty finding it if you're interested.
Originally posted by Jane R:
we have some of the best brains in the world in this country. Do you honestly think they will stick around if they're offered jobs in a country that appreciates their work?
quote:Yeah, let's see how many parma companies have scaled back large sites in the UK in recent years; there is Pfizer in Kent, Zeneca in Loughborough, Covine in Alnwick, Novatis in Horsham, Pfizer in Cambridge, etc.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But if you need specifics then financial services, aerospace manufacturing, education and pharmaceuticals are all areas in which we are amongst the best in the world.
quote:All industries are important to those who work in them. Is this supposed to add something to this conversation?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[on a personal note, universities are quite important to those of us who work in them]
quote:Presumably that publication thinks they're all experts and the British people are better off without people who know what they're talking about?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even that publication that is the subject of many Hell calls has acknowledged that Brexit has lead to a loss of research staff, with the most talented people not taking up vacancies and others actively seeking work elsewhere in Europe.
quote:I wouldn't say incapable.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I simply refuse to accept that the UK is so utterly shit that it's incapable of surviving outside of the EU. I marvel that people can have such a negative view of their own country.
quote:The UK is perfectly able to survive outside the EU. The benchmark you are trying to hit is one where the UK does a lot better outside the EU than it currently does inside, which is possible but only via some kind of long term progressive industrial and educational policy to which the PTB (and from everything you've said you too) are allergic.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I simply refuse to accept that the UK is so utterly shit that it's incapable of surviving outside of the EU. I marvel that people can have such a negative view of their own country.
quote:I think it's posts like this one, which dismisses as a 'wild dream' any suggestion that non-EU countries will want to trade with us at anything better than WTO rules.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I would question whether there is anyone at all who believes that the UK can't survive outside the EU, yet it is something that you often hear bandied about. It is the ultimate brexiteer strawman.
"Survival" stopped being our benchmark of national wellbeing sometime around the time of Alfred the Great.
quote:As you say, it's difficult to see any outcome which doesn't leave the UK economically, socially, culturally and politically worse off. Even the most optimistic of the Leavers only ever seem to suggest that the UK will be economically more prosperous if we can make favourable trade deals with the EU and a host of other nations - and the red, white and blue tinted spectacles tend to blot out the 'if' in that.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I do think this unremitting negativity from the Remain camp is unhelpful. Granted we will probably be worse off after Brexit, but not all outcomes are as bad as each other, and we should be lobbying for one of the better options.
quote:I would identify myself as part of the Remain camp on the grounds that I voted Remain. But since you find the term offensive I shall in future confine myself to strictly neutral expressions such as 'wild dreaming' and 'delusion reigns'.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am not "from the Remain camp", I think for myself thanks very much.
quote:Yeah let's talk about all those cracking deals other countries have gotten outwith of North America and the EU. Where and what are they?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The rest of your post is entirely true, but is equally true for other non-EU countries that nevertheless manage to cut deals.
quote:Absolutely, and assuming there was indications of a clearly worked out plan for doing all this then scepticism would be misplaced.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The rest of your post is entirely true, but is equally true for other non-EU countries that nevertheless manage to cut deals.
quote:I suppose what this implies is that, for you, even if the Brexiteers best case were to come about, we would still be worse off. And of course, this makes sense if you believe that the pooling of sovereignity within supranational organisations is better than continuance of the nation state.
. . it's difficult to see any outcome which doesn't leave the UK economically, socially, culturally and politically worse off
quote:I've said several times that I think we're better off in the EU. But you were claiming that no-one else wanted to trade with us on anything better than WTO rules.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is Australia's trade deals as good as being in the EU? Is that even relevant given their enormous reserves of mineral resources - which we don't have any more anyway?
quote:Go on then, if you are so knowledgeable about trade deals, educate us about the deals other countries have got. Which deals are better than WTO rules?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I've said several times that I think we're better off in the EU. But you were claiming that no-one else wanted to trade with us on anything better than WTO rules.
quote:The UK plans to carry out a trade deal of great advantage, but no one to know what it is.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So, I ask again, who exactly are we thinking we will model our trade deals on and on what basis?
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
Merry Christmas to you too mr cheesy. quote:I think at this stage (apart from staying in the EU) joining the EFTA would be by far the best option. However in order to do so the UK would need a, a completely different press to the one it has. b, a completely different Tory party to the one it has.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think we should join EFTA. You get an emergency brake on migration, you get to make deals outside the bloc, the arbitrator is apparently qualitatively different from the EU*, its existing members have spoken positively about the possibility
quote:Is that option on the table? The point of EFTA was a stepping stone on the way into the EU. Not sure it's an arrangement we'd be allowed on the way out.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think at this stage (apart from staying in the EU) joining the EFTA would be by far the best option. However in order to do so the UK would need a, a completely different press to the one it has. b, a completely different Tory party to the one it has.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think we should join EFTA. You get an emergency brake on migration, you get to make deals outside the bloc, the arbitrator is apparently qualitatively different from the EU*, its existing members have spoken positively about the possibility
quote:Hardly any point now, as EFTA is a small club, consisting as it does of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and (up to a point) Switzerland.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:Is that option on the table? The point of EFTA was a stepping stone on the way into the EU. Not sure it's an arrangement we'd be allowed on the way out.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think at this stage (apart from staying in the EU) joining the EFTA would be by far the best option. However in order to do so the UK would need a, a completely different press to the one it has. b, a completely different Tory party to the one it has.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think we should join EFTA. You get an emergency brake on migration, you get to make deals outside the bloc, the arbitrator is apparently qualitatively different from the EU*, its existing members have spoken positively about the possibility
quote:Since the 2020 election will almost certainly return more MPs on an explicit pro-EU platform than were returned in 2015 on an explicit anti-EU ticket, that will mark a big step on the road to the UK re-joining the EU. Might as well step straight into the line to join the EU and cut out some of the time before the UK rejoins.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
The point of EFTA was a stepping stone on the way into the EU. Not sure it's an arrangement we'd be allowed on the way out.
quote:The most likely outcome is that the majority of MPs in 2020 will be from either the Conservative or the Labour Parties, both of whom accept Brexit. So they will have been elected on manifesto commitments to support Brexit and get the best deal possible.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Since the 2020 election will almost certainly return more MPs on an explicit pro-EU platform than were returned in 2015 on an explicit anti-EU ticket, that will mark a big step on the road to the UK re-joining the EU. Might as well step straight into the line to join the EU and cut out some of the time before the UK rejoins.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
The point of EFTA was a stepping stone on the way into the EU. Not sure it's an arrangement we'd be allowed on the way out.
quote:Unless there's a sudden dose of nous through government, by 2020 the UK will be somewhere outside the EU - of course, we're still waiting to find out where the government wants us to be, which will be different from where the Leave campaign might have thought we'd want to be, and almost certainly different from where a large number of Leave voters wanted us to be.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:The most likely outcome is that the majority of MPs in 2020 will be from either the Conservative or the Labour Parties, both of whom accept Brexit. So they will have been elected on manifesto commitments to support Brexit and get the best deal possible.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Since the 2020 election will almost certainly return more MPs on an explicit pro-EU platform than were returned in 2015 on an explicit anti-EU ticket, that will mark a big step on the road to the UK re-joining the EU. Might as well step straight into the line to join the EU and cut out some of the time before the UK rejoins.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
The point of EFTA was a stepping stone on the way into the EU. Not sure it's an arrangement we'd be allowed on the way out.
quote:There are some people who have pushed it option post exit based on a reading of the Lord Ashcroft poll that highlights the number 1 reason why Leave voters said they voted Leave here:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
Is that option on the table? The point of EFTA was a stepping stone on the way into the EU. Not sure it's an arrangement we'd be allowed on the way out.
quote:(a) is unfortunately true. Regarding (b) it is reported that a bunch of Tory backbenchers have demanded a meeting with Ms May to avoid a hard Brexit and since she has only a tiny majority there may yet be hope.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think at this stage (apart from staying in the EU) joining the EFTA would be by far the best option. However in order to do so the UK would need a, a completely different press to the one it has. b, a completely different Tory party to the one it has.
quote:But this is all meaningless, isn't it? Assuming the Tories win big in 2020 and if Labour accept the referendum result, there will be between 400-600 MPs committed to Brexit. Which is rather more than the number of MPs openly in favour of Brexit at the 2015 election...
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Unless there's a sudden dose of nous through government, by 2020 the UK will be somewhere outside the EU - of course, we're still waiting to find out where the government wants us to be, which will be different from where the Leave campaign might have thought we'd want to be, and almost certainly different from where a large number of Leave voters wanted us to be.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:The most likely outcome is that the majority of MPs in 2020 will be from either the Conservative or the Labour Parties, both of whom accept Brexit. So they will have been elected on manifesto commitments to support Brexit and get the best deal possible.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Since the 2020 election will almost certainly return more MPs on an explicit pro-EU platform than were returned in 2015 on an explicit anti-EU ticket, that will mark a big step on the road to the UK re-joining the EU. Might as well step straight into the line to join the EU and cut out some of the time before the UK rejoins.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
The point of EFTA was a stepping stone on the way into the EU. Not sure it's an arrangement we'd be allowed on the way out.
But, assuming the LibDems put in a manifesto pledge to work towards re-entering the EU, and the SNP still support Scotland being in the EU (I don't think either of those are unreasonable asusmptions) then there will be something like 50 MPs (possibly more) elected on a specific platform of working towards re-entering the EU. As you say, Labour and Conservatives are likely to both have a "work to get the best we can from being outside the EU" pledge, and probably won't mention rejoining at all - I think both parties are liable to fracture if there's another internal discussion about whether the UK should be in the EU, so it'll be ignored. Perhaps some pro-EU MPs will make a personal pledge to rejoin, maybe they won't.
But, that's still 50+ MPs on that assessment on a rejoin the EU pledge. Compared to 1 MP on a leave the EU pledge elected in 2015. I stand by my "more MPs committed to rejoin in 2020 than to leave in 2015" statement.
quote:I think around 52% of voters might disagree with that assertion.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
48% of the country rejected a concept that is about to seriously impoverish it
quote:52% of those who voted. About 42% of those eligible to vote and less than 25% of the total population of the UK. There is no clear result, and no mandate. Why do the politicians get away with repeating that mantra over and over and no one challenges them?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I think around 52% of voters might disagree with that assertion.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
48% of the country rejected a concept that is about to seriously impoverish it
quote:No, it isn't meaningless. I think it can't be ignored that in 2015 no major party had any strong statement on Brexit in their manifesto - whether to stat or go. The exception being UKIP (who only managed a single MP with 12.6% of the vote). Just look at the other party manifestos and the message is clear ... all the major political parties are in favour of remaining in the EU.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But this is all meaningless, isn't it? Assuming the Tories win big in 2020 and if Labour accept the referendum result, there will be between 400-600 MPs committed to Brexit. Which is rather more than the number of MPs openly in favour of Brexit at the 2015 election...
quote:Depends what you mean by broken. Most pro-EUers see more need for reform that you, particularly with regards to the much discussed democratic deficit.
Which pre-supposes that the EU needs to reform. The old maxim is "if it's not broken, don't fix it".
quote:
Most of the legislation of the European Union (EU) is today adopted using an informal, non-democratic, non-accountable and non-transparent process. This mechanism is known in the EU bubble as “trilogues” or “trialogues”. Trilogues are a set of informal negotiations between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to fast-track legislation, with a view to reaching early agreements on legislation.
quote:
access to trilogue documents is often denied, as evidenced in EDRi’s freedom of information requests for the trilogue documents of the Telecoms Single Market Regulation (the regulation dealing with net neutrality in the EU), for example
quote:Those from EDRi, admittedly a campaigning organisation, but according to their later report, even the EU Ombudsman sees a need for change. I can't imagine a system more open to corruption.
trilogues are subject to undue and undisclosed external pressure. Lobbyists can get an insight of trilogue negotiations if they become friendly with the negotiators. What about the general public? Wouldn’t you like to also have access to documents that will likely affect your life?
quote:But where Politico's article is the more interesting is that it does see trilogues as meeting a need, due to the cumbersome nature of the EU partiament, and the frequent trench warfare, which slow everything down. And now the sweetheart deal between the major voting blocks is breaking down, this will only get worse. Which makes it far from easy to reform it, as the secrecy is a consequence of the difficulty of getting nation states to agree on anything.
A case in point is the Money Market Fund Regulation, which was agreed informally between Parliament and Council negotiators last month after five closed-door meetings. The proposal, which will affect a financial market in Europe worth a €1 trillion, must be rubber-stamped by a majority of the plenary in Strasbourg next month, even though only five or six MEPs were involved in the negotiations themselves.
quote:
If I wanted to know what the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists) or the EPP (European People’s Party) were cooking, I would call the lobbyists and they would often have the papers before the people in the room,” said Green MEP Sven Giegold, who is a member of the powerful Economic Affairs Committee. “If you drink with the right person, then you can get the information.
quote:"Those who voted" are the only ones who matter in this context. If people, having been given plenty of advance warning of the vote and ample opportunities to participate, choose not to do so then it can only be assumed that they genuinely don't care which side wins.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
52% of those who voted.
quote:Never let the facts get in the way of a good outbreak of pointless self-immolation. Not everything was set in stone by a single advisory vote.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I think around 52% of voters might disagree with that assertion.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
48% of the country rejected a concept that is about to seriously impoverish it
quote:Too true. The vote on June 23rd was only the start of it. There are two years of negotiations post Article 50 simply (!) to leave the EU then many years of trade negotiations. I doubt it will have settled down before I am well into my dotage.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:Never let the facts get in the way of a good outbreak of pointless self-immolation. Not everything was set in stone by a single advisory vote.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I think around 52% of voters might disagree with that assertion.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
48% of the country rejected a concept that is about to seriously impoverish it
quote:I'm somewhat bemused with your line of argument. Yes, the lobbying and the lack of transparency you describe is unquestionably not a good thing.
Originally posted by anteater:
That, to me, is broken. And to be honest, post Brexit, I cannot imagine legislation on issues as sensitive as net neutrality being decided in closed sessions, which no way to get at any of the relevant documents. Final quote:
quote:All I was arguing is that aspects of the EU need reforming, taking lack of transparency as a key example.
I'm somewhat bemused with your line of argument
quote:I don't see that happening. If we are to get it to go away then we have to stand up and resist this nonsense. Even if the government keeps on demonstrating their inability to organise a piss-up in a distillery, sooner or later the rest of the EU is going to do something. We're in a limbo where in many instances the EU is working on an assumption that when Cameron stood in Downing Street 6 months ago and said "the UK is leaving the EU (oh, and I'm buggering off to let someone else sort out the mess I've created)" (very loose paraphrase) that was the start of the leaving process and the 2y clock started, while also waiting for the government to formally trigger A50. If there's no progress soon then the temptation for the rest of the EU to just cut us loose may be irresistible - ongoing uncertainty is probably as damaging to the EU as the extra costs of a hard Brexit.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
In fact, I'm starting to wonder: if we ignore it, will it just go away?
quote:I agree with Alan.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
In fact, I'm starting to wonder: if we ignore it, will it just go away?
quote:
European negotiators who think it is essential [for the EU27] to act as one are staggered to hear some [UK] ministers cling to the delusion that Germany's need to sell cars to British motorists will ensure that Mrs May secures a good deal.
quote:Do my level best to persuade the EU to let us move to EFTA status and to make the transition as quick and painless as possible. They would, I think, be relieved that we've finally made a decision. Once agreement is reached, call a general election with EFTA membership as a manifesto pledge.
Originally posted by anteater:
Rocinante: So what would you do if you were in May's position?
quote:I think she's a reluctant Brexiteer, she's been put in the impossible position of wanting the UK to Remain in the EU but feeling that politically that's not possible.
Originally posted by anteater:
Plus most people are of the view that May is, at heart, a soft brexiteer. It's just not that easy to actually achieve the outcome.
quote:True on the first point. She kept her head down in the referendum campaign, supporting Remain but largely absent from any of the campaigning. Her views on Brexit are, therefore, unclear. So, she may not be a committed remainer, but she certainly isn't an all-out Brexiteer.
Originally posted by anteater:
I do not believe she was as committed a remainer as you. She may now even be a convert, as I nearly am. As a minimum I think she needs to see enough positive in Brexit to pursue it with integrity.
quote:True, and as I've said repeatedly I have no objection to a referendum on a new EU treaty, or a defined plan for Brexit. But, that's not what we got. I know Cameron went through the motions of a new deal for the UK, but that barely amounted to tinkering with the trivial, certainly not a reformation of the EU.
Then (repetition alert) there is a lot of difference between a referendum to remain Tout court and one which promotes staying in a reformed EU with a promise of a plebiscite to ratify it, the result of which will be respected.
quote:Of course, and calls to reform any political system are relatively uncontroversial.
Originally posted by anteater:
Chris Styles:quote:All I was arguing is that aspects of the EU need reforming, taking lack of transparency as a key example.
I'm somewhat bemused with your line of argument
quote:So even in the case of legislation debated by the EUP you don't believe the debate actually counts, while in the case of the UKP you ignore any lobbying that may go on, the fact that legislation is drawn up by senior civil servants with direction from political advisors who often may either be lobbied themselves or have conflicts of interest which the regulatory body policing is unwilling or unable to stop. and that the legislation is often sufficiently voluminous or complex that the time allocated for debate is clearly insufficient. i.e the UK system works because it has labels for all the bits that are necessary for it to work (ignoring how it actually works).
1. Was the text of the Bill not submitted for debate by the UKP? If so, the two cases are different. Even if significant legislation was really debated by the EUP, I would assume a lot of prior lobbying would still take place.
quote:The "bargaining" will have two main points. The opening position, what is initially asked for. And, there will also be a line that is as far as the government is willing to go (and, of course, the rest of the EU will have their own lines). Of course, it makes no sense in a negotiation to tell everyone what you will settle for, because you hope to reach a position that is better than that. But, you need to make an initial opening offer - what I want to see (what I've wanted to see for a year) is what the opening position for the Leave campaign would be. Because, the opening position that the government should already have on the table is what the people of the UK voted for.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also, when people call for Ms May to commit to a specific form of Brexit, what are they asking her to do?
quote:It's more like 'I'm not going to tell you how desperate I am to use the car park ...'
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
This "bargaining" analogy I find very difficult to understand. It's more like: "I want to leave this club, but maybe I'm hoping that I can still use the car park. BUT I'm not going to tell you whether I actually want to use the car park or not! That'll really fox you!"
quote:Isn't that what the EU was all along? It was nowhere near perfect but I doubt we will get anything half as good.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If instead of approaching the matter as a zero-sum negotiation with hostile opponents, we approached it as an attempt to work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement with our neighbours and trading partners, we might get a better outcome. But that seems a bit more magnanimous than anyone involved is capable of.
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
This "bargaining" analogy I find very difficult to understand. It's more like: "I want to leave this club, but maybe I'm hoping that I can still use the car park. BUT I'm not going to tell you whether I actually want to use the car park or not! That'll really fox you!"
quote:Yes. As in "I want to leave the club, but I'd like to negotiate for some ongoing benefits, including parking, the occasional swim and coffee in the lounge. Some are priorities for me, some aren't. I'm prepared to pay. I'm not actually going to tell you what my priorities are so you know what your strongest negotiating position will be before we sit down to negotiate on it."
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's more like 'I'm not going to tell you how desperate I am to use the car park ...'
quote:Yes, it seems perfectly reasonable. Have the position described, then we would have an extended national discussion upon it culminating in the referendum. That would iron out a lot of rough edges, let everyone know what we want and identify those areas which will be difficult or even impossible. Then when negotiations start there's not as much left to discuss, and the mutually acceptable position in which everyone benefits (or, at least where everyone loses the least). But, that assumes you're working together rather than considering the process to be a confrontation between opposing sides each set on trampling everyone else underfoot.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But does it make sense to set out an opening position before negotiations have actually opened?
quote:So were you actually given this information in Scotland, before the vote in 2014?
Yes, it seems perfectly reasonable. Have the position described, then we would have an extended national discussion upon it culminating in the referendum. That would iron out a lot of rough edges, let everyone know what we want and identify those areas which will be difficult or even impossible.
quote:Two problems.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
This "bargaining" analogy I find very difficult to understand. It's more like: "I want to leave this club, but maybe I'm hoping that I can still use the car park. BUT I'm not going to tell you whether I actually want to use the car park or not! That'll really fox you!"quote:Yes. As in "I want to leave the club, but I'd like to negotiate for some ongoing benefits, including parking, the occasional swim and coffee in the lounge. Some are priorities for me, some aren't. I'm prepared to pay. I'm not actually going to tell you what my priorities are so you know what your strongest negotiating position will be before we sit down to negotiate on it."
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's more like 'I'm not going to tell you how desperate I am to use the car park ...'
quote:Wise words but the boat has sailed already.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, it seems perfectly reasonable. Have the position described, then we would have an extended national discussion upon it culminating in the referendum.
quote:Another great idea, and another boat somewhere between dock and horizon.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, that assumes you're working together rather than considering the process to be a confrontation between opposing sides each set on trampling everyone else underfoot.
quote:Sure, and what the potential buyer doesn't do is explain their list of treasured features in the house so that the seller knows exactly how willing the buyer is to walk away and therefore what the strength of their position is.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, when buying and selling a house the seller usually has a price stated before negotiations start - with the knowledge that they would like more, but would be willing to accept a bit less. That opening position is advertised and well known long before a potential buyer puts in their offer and opens negotiations.
quote:Just the two? I think there's probably a few more. I didn't say it was a great position, I would rather not be here and have personally suffered substantially as a result of being here. I'm trying to imagine what actions would currently make it any better, and doing all the negotiations in public doesn't seem to be one of them.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Two problems.
quote:So in the absence of a clear destination, they painted a picture of multiple destinations to suit the market
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Granted, if the Leave campaign had more integrity they would have spelt this out instead of dwelling on different possibilities for different audiences, but I think the lack of a clear destination is inevitable.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Walk away to where? There is no "away"!
Originally posted by mdijon:
what the potential buyer doesn't do is explain their list of treasured features in the house so that the seller knows exactly how willing the buyer is to walk away
quote:No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C:quote:So were you actually given this information in Scotland, before the vote in 2014?
Yes, it seems perfectly reasonable. Have the position described, then we would have an extended national discussion upon it culminating in the referendum. That would iron out a lot of rough edges, let everyone know what we want and identify those areas which will be difficult or even impossible.
quote:with "Independence" as described in the White Paper, or as close to that as possible, with the Scottish Government running the process.
all you voted on is "Should Scotland become an Independent Nation?"
quote:Although, as pointed out by lilBuddha, the SNP are nothing like UKIP, which is where your argument falls flat. The SNP are probably closest to a mix between the LibDems and the Greens, with the added policy feature of a government for the people living in Scotland independent of Westminster. Which is quite possibly about as far from UKIP as you can get. The contrast between UKIP and SNP in actually representing those who elect them, in doing a good job at local and national government, working hard and responsibly etc hardly needs mentioning.
although you make much of the fact that the Scottish case was supported by the devolved government, that government was the Scottish UKIP, and frankly I would not have felt nearly so happy were UKIP in charge of Brexit rather than the Conservatives.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
what the potential buyer doesn't do is explain their list of treasured features in the house so that the seller knows exactly how willing the buyer is to walk away
quote:Sure, and there's no house either or estate agent. The analogy isn't perfect. But there are various features of the deal that one could take or leave (i.e. walk away from - metaphorically walk away).
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Walk away to where? There is no "away"!
quote:However, the desired outcome has to be real and therefore available to state.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?
quote:...at least, not until my colony ship is fully funded on Kickstarter...
Walk away to where? There is no "away"!
quote:I agree I over- (you would say mis-)stated my case, possibly overly influenced by my adopted scots brother who can't stand the SNP or understand why they get such an easy ride in the UK press. He is, though, a card carrying member of the Labour party, which may explain it.
Although, as pointed out by lilBuddha, the SNP are nothing like UKIP, which is where your argument falls flat.
quote:There are real and obvious evidence why Scotland has not had the best possible treatment from Westminster and has concerns that not all of England share. Whether you think the overall picture has been beneficial or not, these are not imaginary.
Originally posted by anteater:
I was trying to make the point that SNP and UKIP are both, as a party, totally committed to getting out of a union that they do not see as beneficial. So much surely is obvious.
quote:You've too much locked up in a name and less in what really is there, IMO.
But I'm going around in circles. And maybe a lot of it is because I am suspicious of the SNP whereas you seem to view them with a lot of trust.
quote:Well, there is a lot I'd prefer to a resurgent UK/English nationalism that is marked by xenophobia and racism. But, it seems like that form of English nationalism has been invigorated by the referendum, rather than being kicked into the long grass of social unacceptabilty. So, we've had a crap idea for a referendum and a resurgence of English nationalism.
Originally posted by anteater:
There is little provable here, but I would prefer a referendum as we had it to a growing and resurgent UK or even worse English National Party.
quote:I have no objection to anyone campaigning for any political position they like (assuming they do so by reasonable means, without the use of violence, intimidation etc). But, that campaign has to have achieved a significant political headway before it reaches the point of becoming potential government policy - ideally to be something that is within the manifesto commitments of a party that returns at least enough members to form the Opposition, even better that the government is advocating that position and hence there is a reason to expect them to be able to put the policy into effect.
I think you strongly object to any independence campaign being waged by any group other than a duly elected government who would then have the responsibility to implement it.
quote:There are also real and obvious ways in which the UK has not had the best possible treatment from Brussels, and has concerns that not all of Europe shares. But for some reason, those are all put down to xenophobic prejudice while the similar Scottish issues aren't put down to anti-English prejudice.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are real and obvious evidence why Scotland has not had the best possible treatment from Westminster and has concerns that not all of England share. Whether you think the overall picture has been beneficial or not, these are not imaginary.
quote:On the specific question of currency, Mr Salmond stated that there was no Plan B to a currency union with the rump UK. Which sounds like a denial of the possibility of negotiation to me.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't recall anyone saying that there wouldn't be a negotiation on those terms (quite the opposite, negotiation was assumed). So, the nature of negotiation being that you never end up exactly where you start, we all knew that if we'd voted Yes then the final position would not be identical to that white paper.
quote:Like what? What is there that we can metaphorically walk away from? What is this juicy deal that we are trying to cut? What is on offer? Nothing, as far as I can see! What are we willing to pay? Nothing, as far as I can see! So how can any sort of bargaining take place? There is no transaction taking place!
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
what the potential buyer doesn't do is explain their list of treasured features in the house so that the seller knows exactly how willing the buyer is to walk awayquote:Sure, and there's no house either or estate agent. The analogy isn't perfect. But there are various features of the deal that one could take or leave (i.e. walk away from - metaphorically walk away).
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Walk away to where? There is no "away"!
quote:Brexit was full of bullshit and hot air, no real plan.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are also real and obvious ways in which the UK has not had the best possible treatment from Brussels, and has concerns that not all of Europe shares. But for some reason, those are all put down to xenophobic prejudice while the similar Scottish issues aren't put down to anti-English prejudice.
quote:There was also a lot of anti-Europe prejudice in the UK, and while you'll probably know the figures better than I, my impression is that that was largely English as opposed to Scots, Welsh or Irish. That goes back to the early 60s, when de Gaulle slammed the door in the UK's face. In retrospect, he was correct; the UK was not prepared to consider itself a European country. That has not really changed since.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Brexit was full of bullshit and hot air, no real plan.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are also real and obvious ways in which the UK has not had the best possible treatment from Brussels, and has concerns that not all of Europe shares. But for some reason, those are all put down to xenophobic prejudice while the similar Scottish issues aren't put down to anti-English prejudice.
The white paper for Scottish independence was massive with real content.
Yes, there is anti-English prejudice. But it wasn't the only or even main driver. Brexit cannot say that, largely because they did not say anything of substance.
quote:Which is more posture-y? To say that currency union will happen and there is no plan B regardless of Westminster's opinion, and that Scotland will inherit the UK's EU membership regardless of Mr Barroso's opinion? Or to handwave all specifics on the grounds that they're all subject to negotiation?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:However, the desired outcome has to be real and therefore available to state.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?
Else it is merely political posturing. (Gasp, do you think it might have been?)
quote:Never said that everything was perfectly done. Just that there is substance in the issue. Which is something that cannot be said for Brexit.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Which is more posture-y? To say that currency union will happen and there is no plan B regardless of Westminster's opinion, and that Scotland will inherit the UK's EU membership regardless of Mr Barroso's opinion? Or to handwave all specifics on the grounds that they're all subject to negotiation?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:However, the desired outcome has to be real and therefore available to state.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?
Else it is merely political posturing. (Gasp, do you think it might have been?)
quote:I agree that de Gaulle has been proved largely correct, but I think hardly anyone in England or anywhere else in the UK was influenced by resentment of his actions in the 60s. I can't remember his name being mentioned at any time in the campaign by anybody.
Originally posted by Gee D:
That goes back to the early 60s, when de Gaulle slammed the door in the UK's face. In retrospect, he was correct; the UK was not prepared to consider itself a European country. That has not really changed since.
quote:Over the years I've heard his name mentioned a few times by older people - and it has always seemed to operate as a confirmation of an existing antipathy to the European project, rather than the original source of that antipathy.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I think hardly anyone in England or anywhere else in the UK was influenced by resentment of his actions in the 60s. I can't remember his name being mentioned at any time in the campaign by anybody.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
However, the desired outcome has to be real and therefore available to state.
Else it is merely political posturing. (Gasp, do you think it might have been?)
quote:There's some context missing here, the 'no plan b' was a counter-move to George Osborne claiming that he would refuse currency union, which a leak from one of his fellow cabinet ministers actually directly contradicted:
Which is more posture-y? To say that currency union will happen and there is no plan B regardless of Westminster's opinion, and that Scotland will inherit the UK's EU membership regardless of Mr Barroso's opinion? Or to handwave all specifics on the grounds that they're all subject to negotiation?
(Incidentally, are SNP Remainers of the opinion that the EU was posturing when it said Scotland wouldn't get automatic membership?)
quote:Probably very few nowadays know either of him or of his actions. I was not saying that he caused any antipathy but rather that he had correctly diagnosed a real lack of commitment by the UK to joining what was then the EEC. Very few felt any resentment at the time, perhaps Heath and even then it was probably more disappointment. De Gaulle was right then about the lack of commitment, that lack continuing through the agreement to enter and having its victory earlier this year.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:I agree that de Gaulle has been proved largely correct, but I think hardly anyone in England or anywhere else in the UK was influenced by resentment of his actions in the 60s. I can't remember his name being mentioned at any time in the campaign by anybody.
Originally posted by Gee D:
That goes back to the early 60s, when de Gaulle slammed the door in the UK's face. In retrospect, he was correct; the UK was not prepared to consider itself a European country. That has not really changed since.
quote:So when he said 'no plan B' he didn't actually mean it. So posturing (just as Mr Osborne was posturing).
Originally posted by Louise:
Initially as part of standing up to Osborne, who was believed to be lying as an electoral ploy, Alex Salmond took the 'no plan B line' but because that worried people who thought Osborne might go through with it after all - the matter was clarified - the Plan B was to peg to the pound
quote:Yes. The sort of contingency planning that the UK government should have done before the EU referendum and didn't. Why didn't it? Because Mr Cameron told it not to in case it gave plausibility to the Leave campaign. Which side did Mr Cameron back? Why, he backed Remain. So to characterise the lack of such research as a Leave failure seems somewhat unfair.
But none of this was happening in a vacuum of research - the Scottish government's Fiscal Commission had examined and proposed a range of viable currency options all of which were real and available to Scotland.
quote:I will get back to you on the Scotland-EU question as I may be misremembering events.
José Barroso is currently the non executive chairman at Goldman Sachs. Maybe you think he's still important or that his opinions set a precedent?
quote:For which particular Leave scenario should Cameron have been preparing plans for?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yes. The sort of contingency planning that the UK government should have done before the EU referendum and didn't. Why didn't it? Because Mr Cameron told it not to in case it gave plausibility to the Leave campaign. Which side did Mr Cameron back? Why, he backed Remain. So to characterise the lack of such research as a Leave failure seems somewhat unfair.
quote:A range of options, as it is in fact doing now. Just as the Scottish government investigated a range of options for the currency. I don't think it makes much sense to prepare for just one option because the nature of negotiation means there is no guarantee we'd get it.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
For which particular Leave scenario should Cameron have been preparing plans for?
quote:No. But if the government behaves in a way that makes X possible, and allows Cabinet ministers to behave in a way that makes X more probable, then it ought to consider the possible results should X come to pass.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It wasn't, and still isn't, up to Remainers to do the Leavers' homework for them.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My son now has his German citizenship and passport - and they have promised his dual nationality will continue after Brexit.
Would we were treating EU nationals who live here as well as this.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Even Mr Farage isn't proposing to strip UK citizenship to people who have come from EU countries and already claimed it. The question is about EU citizens in this country who haven't yet claimed UK citizenship.quote:I'm not aware that they are in fact preparing for a range of options - but leaving that aside.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
A range of options, as it is in fact doing now.
quote:Yes, I am misremembering events and giving Mr Barroso more prominence than he deserves.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:I will get back to you on the Scotland-EU question as I may be misremembering events.
José Barroso is currently the non executive chairman at Goldman Sachs. Maybe you think he's still important or that his opinions set a precedent?
quote:Mr Davis says they are:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I'm not aware that they are in fact preparing for a range of options - but leaving that aside.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
A range of options, as it is in fact doing now.
quote:
During the meeting, Mr Davis indicated that the Government is working on four possible outcomes from the Brexit talks in relation to the European Customs Union.
These range from being fully or partially inside the Union, to having a free trade agreement and customs arrangement with the remaining EU, to being "completely outside".
quote:Well actually I think that having done more of the work to flesh out exactly what would have happened and what the scenarios were might have helped. It isn't very far from what Alan C was arguing for in terms of clarifying the question. You could characterize that as the leaver's homework, but not doing it and having a vague question that didn't mean very much may not have been the best strategy in retrospect.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It wasn't, and still isn't, up to Remainers to do the Leavers' homework for them. And none of the options they can come up with is as remotely good as the one we have at the moment.
quote:Not Canada. Most of the individual colonies' currencies were pegged to the US or Spanish dollars before Confederation in 1867-- the Canadian dollar (for the then province which was divided into Ontario and Québec) from 1858.
Initially as part of standing up to Osborne, who was believed to be lying as an electoral ploy, Alex Salmond took the 'no plan B line' but because that worried people who thought Osborne might go through with it after all - the matter was clarified - the Plan B was to peg to the pound (as was done by a number of the British dominions such as Canada Australia and new Zealand in the past as they broke away from Britain to become more independent, see under Sterling Area )
quote:I really doubt that. The Leave position and the Leave vote were entirely against a thing; no positive element was necessary. Now that government policy is to leave the EU some genuine positives have to be found, but it is proving a struggled to find them.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That's all well and good, but the scenarios that Remain did suggest were immediately poo-pooed by Leave, with a cheery 'Oh, it'll be fine'. While not ever committing themselves to anything.
Far better would have been a straight-forward and relentless campaign of 'what have you got that's better than what we have?'. Actually making Leave do some work would have revealed the utter bankruptcy of their position.
quote:Yes, sorry the other one I was thinking of was South Africa, but somehow typed the wrong country.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Louise posts:
quote:Not Canada. Most of the individual colonies' currencies were pegged to the US or Spanish dollars before Confederation in 1867-- the Canadian dollar (for the then province which was divided into Ontario and Québec) from 1858.
Initially as part of standing up to Osborne, who was believed to be lying as an electoral ploy, Alex Salmond took the 'no plan B line' but because that worried people who thought Osborne might go through with it after all - the matter was clarified - the Plan B was to peg to the pound (as was done by a number of the British dominions such as Canada Australia and new Zealand in the past as they broke away from Britain to become more independent, see under Sterling Area )
quote:At the moment nine countries are EU members but don't use the Euro (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and only two do it by having derogations ( UK and Denmark). Basically the convergence criteria for joining the Euro are very strict ( eg. being part of the Exchange Rate Mechanism II for at least 2 years without tensions) and countries who don't want to join like Sweden just don't go out of their way to meet the five criteria and aren't forced - they've been doing that for decades and nobody has pressured them to change or is pressuring any of the other countries to my knowledge, so the onus is on naysayers to show evidence that Scotland would be singled-out and treated in an unusually unfavourable way.
a long-term commitment to joining the single currency would almost certainly be a requirement of EU membership. But that does not mean Scotland would have to adopt the euro — at least not straight away. Sweden is theoretically obliged to join the single currency. But more than 20 years on from joining the EU, the prospects of its giving up the krona seem vanishingly remote.
quote:We have been fed the Britain will become the -Beacon of free trade- line, although soundbites won't be of much use if, or when, the self inflicted pinch comes.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The Leave position and the Leave vote were entirely against a thing; no positive element was necessary. Now that government policy is to leave the EU some genuine positives have to be found, but it is proving a struggled to find them.
quote:The Tory party and the entire country are more divided than ever. That is a downside that will last for ever and cannot be ignored. It will overshadow other issues for decades.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:We have been fed the Britain will become the -Beacon of free trade- line, although soundbites won't be of much use if, or when, the self inflicted pinch comes.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The Leave position and the Leave vote were entirely against a thing; no positive element was necessary. Now that government policy is to leave the EU some genuine positives have to be found, but it is proving a struggled to find them.
The only real positive the government has been handed is the fact that most of it's own doom mongering over a Leave win has yet to manifest itself. A little ironic and probably not wholly unplanned.
quote:It seems to me that there are no "options" on the table. The Article 50 negotiations are going to be about what the UK will need to pay to get out of its long-term commitments to the EU. Figures in the 10s of billions have already been bandied about.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Mr Davis says they are:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I'm not aware that they are in fact preparing for a range of options - but leaving that aside.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
A range of options, as it is in fact doing now.
quote:
During the meeting, Mr Davis indicated that the Government is working on four possible outcomes from the Brexit talks in relation to the European Customs Union.
These range from being fully or partially inside the Union, to having a free trade agreement and customs arrangement with the remaining EU, to being "completely outside".
quote:But at some point the hype becomes reality. Political realities are what people think, what they decide and how they express it. If that becomes hyped up and more toxic than before, then one can't characterise that as a mirage underneath which everyone is as sober as they always were.
Originally posted by rolyn:
The reality of 2016's political upheavals, both here and in the US, could turn out be that of a mirage-- the product of an Internet fuelled hype machine getting folks all riled up.
quote:or, and this is perhaps equally problematic, the tone of public debate has been so shameful from both sides all the way through that there's a substantial constituency of "voted Brexit but won't admit to it because it's not the done thing in polite society."
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:But at some point the hype becomes reality. Political realities are what people think, what they decide and how they express it. If that becomes hyped up and more toxic than before, then one can't characterise that as a mirage underneath which everyone is as sober as they always were.
Originally posted by rolyn:
The reality of 2016's political upheavals, both here and in the US, could turn out be that of a mirage-- the product of an Internet fuelled hype machine getting folks all riled up.
The Brexit vote seemed to me to bring a new level of division, and I'm not sure it was all online. I don't know anyone who voted brexit (or who admits to it). I know plenty of people that vote for either party and we occasionally discuss it. The absence of direct discussions with people I knew who were voting for Brexit seems to be a shared experience by many I talk to. Yet clearly the country is full of quite a few people who voted brexit.
This suggests to me a more divided society along brexit lines than we had for party politics.
quote:I largely concur with this, and the observation that there are many who voted Leave but are too ashamed to admit it (which, is part of the same division). I'm not sure it's a new division, rather that the division falls along existing boundaries within our society.
Originally posted by mdijon:
The Brexit vote seemed to me to bring a new level of division, and I'm not sure it was all online. I don't know anyone who voted brexit (or who admits to it). I know plenty of people that vote for either party and we occasionally discuss it. The absence of direct discussions with people I knew who were voting for Brexit seems to be a shared experience by many I talk to. Yet clearly the country is full of quite a few people who voted brexit.
This suggests to me a more divided society along brexit lines than we had for party politics.
quote:Not really.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
The same effect might have occurred if remain had won, but it wouldn't have been so marked as we wouldn't have had to immediately choose a particular form of "remain".
quote:Perhaps the problem lies more in the fact that there wasn't a 'polite middle class' justification for the vote that they can articulate?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
If something's not the done thing in polite British middle class society, then people will cheerfully deny doing it even as they do it.
quote:IMO, it is revealing, difining and deepening those divisions. The referendum was always going to do this, but it needn't have been so bad. The timing could barely have been worse, it was a colossal cock up.
I'm not sure it's a new division, rather that the division falls along existing boundaries within our society.
quote:Shades of 1992. Prior to the election polls registered a Labour victory or hung parliament. When people got to the privacy of the ballot box, they decided that, actually, they trusted that nice Mr Major rather more than Mr Kinnock. After Sterling was forced out of the ERM polling, which asked as a control, "who did you vote for in the last General Election" consistently showed that the Labour Party had won the 1992 General Election comfortably. This demonstrates two things, I think. Firstly some political choices are popular but "not done", at least officially. Secondly, success has a million fathers but failure is an orphan. If the Leavers achieve all that they claim is possible and negotiate a trade deal with Europe, followed by a series of successful treaties with other countries then polls will probably show that only 22% of the electorate voted remain. If, OTOH, it all goes Pete Tong, polls will repeatedly show that a convincing majority of the electorate voted Remain. I think the latter is the more plausible scenario but I think that people misremembering how they voted, depending on the outcome is more likely than either "good Brexit" or "bad Brexit".
IME/IMO, there's an awful lot of this going on - people voting to Leave and being happy that the vote went that way, but in public claiming they had nothing to do with it (whether because they don't want to lose their friends, or think it's not worth the argument in the pub). Much the same thing of course happens with those people who claim to have never voted Tory in their lives, but regularly put their cross down for the Conservatives in the privacy of the Polling Booth.
quote:Same here ...
Originally posted by Louise:
Sorry for hit and run itty-bitty posting, Ricardus - festivities and visitors intervene.
quote:I don't think the TTIP deal is a fair comparison. As AFZ said earlier, trade deals are more about standards than tariffs, and generally what takes up time is arguing over standardisation. (One of the criticisms I hear of TTIP - setting aside corporate star chambers - is that European standards are higher than American standards in certain crucial industries, so either Europeans must accept lower standards or else Americans must find their industries hamstrung by greater regulatory burdens.) In the case of EU-UK trade relations, standards are already harmonised, so no-one need accept any changes to standards that make their situation worse than at present.
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
At that point we will start negotiations about how we trade with the bloc. These will no doubt be as protracted as those with the USA have been
quote:That is interesting because I know plenty, none of whom hid it, and none of them are stupid or insular or xenophobic. They include people with Czech, Polish, and Turkish spouses. Maybe this is why I have more time for the Leave arguments than many on this thread.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't know anyone who voted brexit (or who admits to it).
quote:I know a number of people who voted leave, none of whom are normally stupid, insular or xenophobic.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:That is interesting because I know plenty, none of whom hid it, and none of them are stupid or insular or xenophobic. They include people with Czech, Polish, and Turkish spouses. Maybe this is why I have more time for the Leave arguments than many on this thread.
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't know anyone who voted brexit (or who admits to it).
quote:Again, this is a farcical comparison. Whilst the Pro independence campaign wasn't perfect, it did have some real reasoning. Something that cannot be said for the Brexit campaign.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That said - I am bashing the SNP because it suits my argument, but I don't think they were obviously wrong - I think their approach wasn't necessarily better than the Brexiteers' approach, but I don't think it was obviously worse either.
quote:"I've got mine, now piss off" is not an uncommon thing. Especially as the strongest vitriol was anti-Muslim.
They include people with Czech, Polish, and Turkish spouses. Maybe this is why I have more time for the Leave arguments than many on this thread
quote:Britain's "Polite middle-class" is small. What it does have is a very large white-collar, lower middle-class that will believe everything the Daily Mail prints. Not Conservative, not even conservative, just suspicious of anything unlike itself.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Perhaps the problem lies more in the fact that there wasn't a 'polite middle class' justification for the vote that they can articulate?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
If something's not the done thing in polite British middle class society, then people will cheerfully deny doing it even as they do it.
quote:I'm quite happy to speculate on his reasons.
Sir Ivan, who was appointed to the role of permanent representative by David Cameron in 2013, had been expected to play a key role in Brexit talks expected to start within months.
The Foreign Office has not given reasons for his departure.
quote:I don't think it's only the government who'll be interested in hiring someone with his background...
Originally posted by Jane R:
or 3. He can't do his job properly because the government are not interested in listening to anything but the most optimistic speculation on what happens next.
He'll be crying all the way to the bank if the government finds they need to rehire him as a consultant, but they don't seem interested in listening to people who disagree with them (see above) so I hope he's not holding his breath.
quote:I'm quoting this more for the thread of discussion rather than this quote itself. Overall, it seems that there is a strange reluctance to say that the 'middle classes' and the 'polite' ones and the 'upper' ones might be in any way racist and I think it is very difficult to argue that the leave campaign didn't have xenophobia and racism as part of its arsenal in arguments and a core element of its reasoning. Some throughout the thread seem to almost express surprise that such a social grouping could vote on such a basis in secret. How could the wealthy, well educated masses vote for such a thing? Well, that strikes me as the height of naivitie. What little experience of such social groups has impressed upon me is that the 'polite', 'middle' and 'upper' folks can be just as racist, xenophobic and rancid as the great unwashed - in many ways it can be a lot worse because everyone around them are too polite to challenge them on it.
Britain's "Polite middle-class" is small.
quote:Probably true. Someone (can't remember who) suggested that if you bombed the West Car Park at Twickenham rugby ground at the conclusion of the Middlesex Sevens tournament you could wipeout British fascism.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Sioni:
quote:I'm quoting this more for the thread of discussion rather than this quote itself. Overall, it seems that there is a strange reluctance to say that the 'middle classes' and the 'polite' ones and the 'upper' ones might be in any way racist and I think it is very difficult to argue that the leave campaign didn't have xenophobia and racism as part of its arsenal in arguments and a core element of its reasoning. Some throughout the thread seem to almost express surprise that such a social grouping could vote on such a basis in secret. How could the wealthy, well educated masses vote for such a thing? Well, that strikes me as the height of naivitie. What little experience of such social groups has impressed upon me is that the 'polite', 'middle' and 'upper' folks can be just as racist, xenophobic and rancid as the great unwashed - in many ways it can be a lot worse because everyone around them are too polite to challenge them on it.
Britain's "Polite middle-class" is small.
quote:The European Commission might hire him. I think he will have to take a year out for that to be allowed, but little will happen in the meantime.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:I don't think it's only the government who'll be interested in hiring someone with his background...
Originally posted by Jane R:
or 3. He can't do his job properly because the government are not interested in listening to anything but the most optimistic speculation on what happens next.
He'll be crying all the way to the bank if the government finds they need to rehire him as a consultant, but they don't seem interested in listening to people who disagree with them (see above) so I hope he's not holding his breath.
quote:Absolutely, and equally a veneer of politeness can cover many things - which is one reason I used quotes above.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What little experience of such social groups has impressed upon me is that the 'polite', 'middle' and 'upper' folks can be just as racist, xenophobic and rancid as the great unwashed - in many ways it can be a lot worse because everyone around them are too polite to challenge them on it.
quote:Neither campaign had any substance if judged solely by their campaign literature.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Whilst the Pro independence campaign wasn't perfect, it did have some real reasoning. Something that cannot be said for the Brexit campaign.
quote:The Left are supposed to be going through a soul-searching exercise at the moment to understand why so many people fail to see that we are self-evidently right. I would suggest that one way NOT to do this is by attributing impure motives to people you've never met.
"I've got mine, now piss off" is not an uncommon thing. Especially as the strongest vitriol was anti-Muslim.
quote:Pretty much nailed it. But clearly it's not just a UK phenomenon.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
...the 'polite', 'middle' and 'upper' folks can be just as racist, xenophobic and rancid as the great unwashed - in many ways it can be a lot worse because everyone around them are too polite to challenge them on it.
quote:Absolutely not. It feels very much like the west wants to push the self destruct button and not just stroke it. But there is a lot of stroking and posturing going on elsewhere. Look at Le Pencil in France, the possibility of shifting politics in Germany, the appearance of racist gangs in Finland, the pathetic fraternisation of Sinn Fein in Ireland to name but a few.
But clearly it's not just a UK phenomenon.
quote:I'm not sure No 10 is listening. I fear that Theresa May believes that a rabbit may yet be pulled out of the hat, but I'll eat my hat if there is a rabbit to be found. The diplomats and negotiators - well at least those with some practical understanding - realise that the process is all about damage limitation now.
I hope you will continue to challenge ill-founded arguments and muddled thinking and that you will never be afraid to speak the truth to those in power.
I hope that you will support each other in those difficult moments where you have to deliver messages that are disagreeable to those who need to hear them.
quote:Snort. Apparently Lineker provoked a reaction with his "That's not fair, most of the people who voted for it will be dead by then" quip. Kinda true though.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Very few people stay in such positions for a decade or more.
quote:I think she is someone who is normally extremely risk averse, who has now been forced by circumstances to turn into Mr Micawber.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure No 10 is listening. I fear that Theresa May believes that a rabbit may yet be pulled out of the hat
quote:Yes. Classic conservatives are normally averse to anything which looks like a step in the dark. So risk-aversion is indeed the norm.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think she is someone who is normally extremely risk averse, who has now been forced by circumstances to turn into Mr Micawber.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure No 10 is listening. I fear that Theresa May believes that a rabbit may yet be pulled out of the hat
quote:
I have no doubt I shall, please Heaven, begin to be more beforehand with the world, and to live in a perfectly new manner, if -if, in short, anything turns up.
quote:Well, a large number of people who voted to leave the EU (ie: excluding those who voted Leave just to say "fuck you" to the politicians) won't have the government even asking for what they thought they were voting for. We're heading for some form of Brexit that the majority of the UK electorate didn't vote for in June. And, they call it democracy.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:Snort. Apparently Lineker provoked a reaction with his "That's not fair, most of the people who voted for it will be dead by then" quip. Kinda true though.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Very few people stay in such positions for a decade or more.
quote:Risk-aversion is only part of the story: if risks can be mitigated by kicking others in the teeth, few can resist the temptation.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:Yes. Classic conservatives are normally averse to anything which looks like a step in the dark. So risk-aversion is indeed the norm.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think she is someone who is normally extremely risk averse, who has now been forced by circumstances to turn into Mr Micawber.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm not sure No 10 is listening. I fear that Theresa May believes that a rabbit may yet be pulled out of the hat
quote:I don't think the current government has a mandate for any particular version of Brexit - regardless of what they might believe. They can't point to the referendum result, because the question wasn't specific enough to know what people actually voted for. They can't appeal to their 2015 manifesto, because that would require them to work to keep the UK in the EU. They can't ask the Leave campaign to define Brexit in retrospect, because that would mean the politically unacceptable position of the government being dictated to by the like of Farage.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think the current government believes it has the mandate to go for Norway Mark 2.
quote:A mandate for nothing, and a mandate for anything.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Yes - the reality is that they have a mandate for any form of Brexit that they like. So the inevitable conclusion is whatever form of settlement is most politically expedient to allow the government of the day to win the next election....
quote:Quantum Brexit, Brexit means Brexit and it'll all be well as long and be a contradictory mix of whatever we fancy as long as it isn't examined too closely.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A mandate for nothing, and a mandate for anything.
quote:But the EU27 have no desire to give us Norway Mark 2, even if we wanted it! Why would they? Didn't Donald Tusk say: "the only alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit" a few weeks ago?
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think the current government believes it has the mandate to go for Norway Mark 2. More's the pity.
But I agree with Alan that anything other than the Norway boilerplate solution has absolutely no chance of being done and dusted in 18 months.
Maybe the government could present Norway Mark 2 as the transitional solution ("not ideal but at least providing some short term stability") while protracted negotiations continue? While the EU as a whole comes to terms with resurgent nationalism (which seems destined to kill off further federal intergration for the foreseeable future), the Germans and the French may be happy to park Brexit in some sort of pro-tem political siding.
But I wonder if the UK Government has got the sense to try to play that game.
quote:I was thinking more that the Brexit Cat is in the box, and we're waiting to open it. The only thing is we don't know if that cat has died of cyanide gas or a biotoxin.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Schrödinger's Brexit. We either know where we are, but not where we're going, or we know where we're going, but not where we are. Alternatively, neither.
quote:I should have said Heisenberg's Brexit. I was thinking of the old joke about H and Schrodinger going for a drive, and they're stopped by a traffic cop, who says, 'do you know how fast you're going?', and H. says, 'no, but we know where we are'. The cop says, 'you were doing 90mph', and S. says, 'oh, now we're lost'. Anyway it goes on and on, and the cat comes into it somewhere.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I was thinking more that the Brexit Cat is in the box, and we're waiting to open it. The only thing is we don't know if that cat has died of cyanide gas or a biotoxin.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Schrödinger's Brexit. We either know where we are, but not where we're going, or we know where we're going, but not where we are. Alternatively, neither.
quote:You wouldn't. You would go into negotiations asking for a derogation. If you didn't get it, the alternative that you're asked to join the Euro at some indefinite point in the future is, as indicated, not a big problem.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
You are right about the other non-Eurozone EU states - however I don't think any of them went into accession negotiations explicitly saying that they would render unenforceable their obligation to adopt the euro. Sweden I think has the problem that the political classes are more Europhile than the general population, and the economies of the ex-Communist states were sufficiently divergent from the rest of the EU that their politicians could legitimately regard euro membership as a problem for someone else further down the line.
quote:Thanks for letting me know but looking to 'bash' people because it 'suits my argument' is not how I approach things, so I will leave it there.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That said - I am bashing the SNP because it suits my argument, but I don't think they were obviously wrong - I think their approach wasn't necessarily better than the Brexiteers' approach, but I don't think it was obviously
quote:The SNP would go into negotiations having explicitly told their electorate that they have no intention of carrying out Scotland's possible obligation to join the euro. And saying one thing in Brussels and another thing at home is the sort of thing Mr Cameron used to do.
Originally posted by Louise:
You wouldn't. You would go into negotiations asking for a derogation.
quote:I was aiming for wry self-deprecation of my own lack of objectivity. Evidently I failed so I will rephrase.
Thanks for letting me know but looking to 'bash' people because it 'suits my argument' is not how I approach things, so I will leave it there.
quote:I'm increasingly of the opinion that it isn't. I was until recently clinging to the hope that something was being cooked up - EFTA membership, for example - but I don't think that's politically possible domestically, and even if it were, the EU do not seem to be in any mood to give it to us.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But how is soft Brexit possible?
quote:This has long been my point. The EU is a group of member states with rules, set out by international treaties. In the grown up world, states that want to be treated as members have to be members and behave like members. There is not an option for not meeting the obligations of membership but being treated like a member (Norway has put itself in the curious situation of meeting the financial and other obligations of membership without actually being a member, which is an idiosyncratic choice to put it mildly but fits with my scheme). Not meeting the obligations of membership but having its benefits was never an option to anyone other than the deluded. Switzerland, for a while, got away with something not a million miles away, but that was to do with its neutrality and its very long-standing ambivalent diplomatic status. There never was any evidence on which to hang the supposition that a similar status would be available to the UK. The best we could have hoped for was Norway's curiously self-defeating compromise.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:I'm increasingly of the opinion that it isn't. I was until recently clinging to the hope that something was being cooked up - EFTA membership, for example - but I don't think that's politically possible domestically, and even if it were, the EU do not seem to be in any mood to give it to us.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But how is soft Brexit possible?
The latest predictions I've seen put the impact of hard Brexit at 4% of GDP on us, 1% on the EU (because of the relative sizes of our economies), and I think the EU may have decided they'll just take that hit.
The negotiations may well be very short, consisting of them asking us for moneys owing and wishing us all the best. Or maybe, when we refuse to pay, they'll just tell us to fuck off.
quote:Well, the opposition to Brexit is triangulating itself into oblivion! I mean that Labour (or at least its right wing) are trying to sound anti-foreigner, so as to avoid implosion in the Leave areas. How much more irrelevant can they become?
Originally posted by rolyn:
So really this whole contortion of the cerebral cortex brought on first by the Brexit debate, second by the referendum and third by the outcome is just going to on and on and on Further polarisation, further entrenchment of attitudes.
Regrexiters may scurry back to the liberals, whereas Brexit hardcore voters dissatisfied at the pace by which Britannia is being restored to it's former glory will continue to go for UKIP .
quote:Given the standard of political discourse in the UK, I wouldn't like to be Mrs May having to justify continuing to send money to the EU after we've left. Although there may be good and valid reasons for having to do so, these will be shouted down by the gutter press, egged on by Farage and the Tory headbangers.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are two points for negotiation.
1. The terms of the UK leaving the EU, which is basically a deal on how much money the UK continues to send to the EU, for how long these payments would need to continue etc.
2. The relationship between the UK and EU after Brexit. Which, though this would be good if this could be agreed during the exit negotiations it isn't essential for the EU to have this agreed. Most people are in agreement that this part of the Brexit negotiation won't be concluded in the 18 months after A50, and will probably take at least 10 years.
quote:I guess that's why she would want some form of deal on free trade or something in the negotiations. It'll be a lot easier to say "we'll be sending some money to the EU, but we have a free trade deal that is good for British business" than "we're out of the EU but we'll still have to be paying money to the EU for the next [x] years". Though, the latter is far more likely as there simply isn't time to negotiate any sort of trade deal with the EU, and the on the EU side their priority will be ensuring there is enough money from the UK to maintain the funding for ongoing projects. I guess if she really wants to get a trade deal then the only option Mrs May has is to say yes to whatever number the EU negotiators put on the table on day one of negotiations so that there can be time for a substantial part of the what happens after Brexit negotiating. But, that won't happen.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Given the standard of political discourse in the UK, I wouldn't like to be Mrs May having to justify continuing to send money to the EU after we've left. Although there may be good and valid reasons for having to do so, these will be shouted down by the gutter press, egged on by Farage and the Tory headbangers.
quote:Sounds backwards to me.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are two points for negotiation.
1. The terms of the UK leaving the EU, which is basically a deal on how much money the UK continues to send to the EU, for how long these payments would need to continue etc.
2. The relationship between the UK and EU after Brexit. Which, though this would be good if this could be agreed during the exit negotiations it isn't essential for the EU to have this agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll be a lot easier to say "we'll be sending some money to the EU, but we have a free trade deal that is good for British business" than "we're out of the EU but we'll still have to be paying money to the EU for the next [x] years".
quote:Who's standing in her way?
If she manages something that actually keeps the Tories together with enough support to get through the 2020 election with a majority I'd be surprised.
quote:EU projects tend to be long term. For example, Horizon 2020 funds work for upto 7 years. That means that there are various projects currently ongoing or due to start in the next few years with budgets allocated. Those budgets would have been set assuming contributions to the EU budget from the UK. The UK, therefore, still has financial obligations to the EU, how much and for how long is going to depend on a lot of details but the EU side in the negotiations is going to make sure there's the money from the UK needed to meet committed expenditure.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll be a lot easier to say "we'll be sending some money to the EU, but we have a free trade deal that is good for British business" than "we're out of the EU but we'll still have to be paying money to the EU for the next [x] years".
Why would we be sending money to the EU? What would we be paying for?
quote:I guess there's stuff that could be done.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
EU projects tend to be long term. For example, Horizon 2020 funds work for upto 7 years. That means that there are various projects currently ongoing or due to start in the next few years with budgets allocated. Those budgets would have been set assuming contributions to the EU budget from the UK. The UK, therefore, still has financial obligations to the EU, how much and for how long is going to depend on a lot of details but the EU side in the negotiations is going to make sure there's the money from the UK needed to meet committed expenditure. [/QB]
quote:If you are referring to Tories, no one is actively standing in her way at the moment, but that's mainly because the there is no policy.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Who's standing in her way?
If she manages something that actually keeps the Tories together with enough support to get through the 2020 election with a majority I'd be surprised.
quote:I was thinking more of electoral prospects for the party. I think it's certain that she'll lead the Tories into the 2020 general election.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:If you are referring to Tories, no one is actively standing in her way at the moment, but that's mainly because the there is no policy.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Who's standing in her way?
If she manages something that actually keeps the Tories together with enough support to get through the 2020 election with a majority I'd be surprised.
quote:I don't think this is so strange. Many on the right reject the terms 'hard' and 'soft' because (they say) 'Hard Brexit' is just a pejorative way of saying 'Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit' isn't really Brexit at all.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's fascinating to see how May uses language. After an interview, widely interpreted as favouring hard Brexit, (Sky TV), she then says, 'I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit'.
quote:Go on then, explain how you are going to get a better deal than Switzerland by going the 'Hard Brexit/Brexit' route. Dan the-oratory-man said the former was possible after all:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think this is so strange. Many on the right reject the terms 'hard' and 'soft' because (they say) 'Hard Brexit' is just a pejorative way of saying 'Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit' isn't really Brexit at all.
quote:May is working very hard to keep the parliamentary Conservative party intact. The membership is predominantly pro-leave now but there are many in favour of remaining in Westminster. The last thing the PM is going to do is make policy statements that divide the party. Look what happened to the last PM to do that.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I don't think this is so strange. Many on the right reject the terms 'hard' and 'soft' because (they say) 'Hard Brexit' is just a pejorative way of saying 'Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit' isn't really Brexit at all.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's fascinating to see how May uses language. After an interview, widely interpreted as favouring hard Brexit, (Sky TV), she then says, 'I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit'.
quote:Vote Green?
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What are internationalist voters on the left to do????
quote:Jeremy Corbyn was paying his first visit to the ITV breakfast TV show this morning, and getting slagged off for generally being invisible by the presenter before they even got going.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've been extremely disappointed by the response of the Labour party to the referendum result. They have been presented with a golden opportunity to Oppose the government (you know, what they're supposed to be doing as the Opposition), to push for rapid clarity on the plans of the government, to criticise each little tit-bit that falls out of government ... and, they've been practically silent. A major embarrasment to the government like their EU ambassador resigning with a letter highly critical of the government and I didn't see Corbyn say anything.
The LibDems have been all over the issue, taking every opportunity to get in front of a TV camera and make a statement critical of the government. The SNP have also been highly visible in their campaigning. Even the Greens seem to have had more to say than Labour. At the moment it seems that Labour are not only portraying themselves unfit for Government, they don't even seem fit for Opposition.
quote:
Jeremy Corbyn accused Good Morning Britain presenter Piers Morgan of being "jealous" of the local media after the Labour leader was accused of avoiding appearances on national television.
Fellow host Susanna Reid told Mr Corbyn: "You haven't been here to answer questions...we've had strikes, we've got the NHS experiencing a humanitarian crisis."
But Mr Corbyn insisted he had been busy doing "a vast amount of local media".
Asked why he had not spoken out more in the national media in the face of a tumultuous year in British politics, Mr Corbyn said: "Well, I'm here now."
quote:And, of course, if there was "controlled migration", we'd not have a deal like Switzerland or Norway (and the whole idea is preposterous anyway - Norway had something everyone wanted and Switzerland is in the centre of the continent).
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Go on then, explain how you are going to get a better deal than Switzerland by going the 'Hard Brexit/Brexit' route. Dan the-oratory-man said the former was possible after all:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think this is so strange. Many on the right reject the terms 'hard' and 'soft' because (they say) 'Hard Brexit' is just a pejorative way of saying 'Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit' isn't really Brexit at all.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/10/daniel-hannan-mep-norways-relationship-with-the-eu-is-better-than-being -a-member-but-we-could-do-even-better-than-that.html
quote:For exactly the same reason that Tory MP's invariably referred in the late 1980s to 'The Community Charge' and, during Cameron's first term, to 'The Abolition Of The Spare Bedroom Subsidy'. You don't want a pejorative term for your flagship policy becoming common currency.
It's fascinating to see how May uses language. After an interview, widely interpreted as favouring hard Brexit, (Sky TV), she then says, 'I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit'. 'We are going to get an ambitious, good and best possible deal for the UK'.
quote:According to last week's Spectator this is a strategy suggested by Sir Ivan Rogers (and to be scrupulously fair, the Spectator, despite being pro-Brexit, have been screaming about the point you raise for exactly the same reasons in leading articles and editorials since June - but they are from the "out and into the world" wing rather than the "out and pull up the drawbridge" one)
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The part that gets me is that all these idiots are on the one hand pussy-footing about whether-or-not EU workers can stay in the UK post-brexit whilst at the same time as saying absolutely nothing about British OAPs who have retired to the sun.
quote:But it isn't a "negotiating strategy" when you've accepted rhetoric about limiting EU migration - and have already begun to tell EU workers (who have applied for residency) that they must leave even though (a) they're working (b) they've been here a long time with family and (c) as long as the UK is a member of the EU, they've still every right to be here.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
According to last week's Spectator this is a strategy suggested by Sir Ivan Rogers (and to be scrupulously fair, the Spectator, despite being pro-Brexit, have been screaming about the point you raise for exactly the same reasons in leading articles and editorials since June - but they are from the "out and into the world" wing rather than the "out and pull up the drawbridge" one)
quote:Back in 2004 the North East voted against devolution; in 2016 they voted for Brexit.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Which gets us to the nightmare scenario where we've done enough (actively or by default) to lose many of our EU workers - who are holding up the NHS and other public services, who are paying taxes etc
quote:At the moment, they do have residency. Freedom of movement means that anyone in the EU is able to live anywhere else in the EU, there is no pre-requisite that they have a job or anything else to qualify for residency. It seems very unlikely that UK citizens will continue to automatically enjoy that right post-Brexit. Even if the UK ends up with a recipricol agreement on free movement of labour (which I would be surprised at) that wouldn't extend to those not working - whether OAPs, or family members of workers.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In contrast, the vast majority of British OAPs in the EU are not working and do not have residency.
quote:Wrong. It is a freedom to move for work based on the idea that within the free market there should be no restrictions about which nationality you should be to get a job anywhere.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At the moment, they do have residency. Freedom of movement means that anyone in the EU is able to live anywhere else in the EU, there is no pre-requisite that they have a job or anything else to qualify for residency. It seems very unlikely that UK citizens will continue to automatically enjoy that right post-Brexit. Even if the UK ends up with a recipricol agreement on free movement of labour (which I would be surprised at) that wouldn't extend to those not working - whether OAPs, or family members of workers.
quote:You are right that freedom of movement of labour is an integral part of the common market, for the reasons you stated. But, you're link is misleading as it's specific to workers and their dependents (if you can get a job somewhere but your dependents can't live with you that's a restriction on your movement, so they need to be included).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Wrong. It is a freedom to move for work based on the idea that within the free market there should be no restrictions about which nationality you should be to get a job anywhere.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At the moment, they do have residency. Freedom of movement means that anyone in the EU is able to live anywhere else in the EU, there is no pre-requisite that they have a job or anything else to qualify for residency. It seems very unlikely that UK citizens will continue to automatically enjoy that right post-Brexit. Even if the UK ends up with a recipricol agreement on free movement of labour (which I would be surprised at) that wouldn't extend to those not working - whether OAPs, or family members of workers.
quote:The difference is that freedom of movement within the EU for work is a fundamental right. Freedom to move and retire somewhere isn't.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"As an EU national, you can live in any EU country". I was wrong about there being no pre-requisites, as that page indicates there are two:But, having a job or being dependent upon someone with a job is not a requirement.
- comprehensive health insurance cover in your host country
- sufficient income to live there without needing income support.
quote:[Citation needed]
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]And given that the British migrants are largely not working, is holding a weak hand.
quote:From memory, the original treaties talked about the freedom of movement of workers. This was later changed to people, but it could be argued that although the wording changed, the intent didn't.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:You are right that freedom of movement of labour is an integral part of the common market, for the reasons you stated. But, you're link is misleading as it's specific to workers and their dependents (if you can get a job somewhere but your dependents can't live with you that's a restriction on your movement, so they need to be included).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Wrong. It is a freedom to move for work based on the idea that within the free market there should be no restrictions about which nationality you should be to get a job anywhere.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At the moment, they do have residency. Freedom of movement means that anyone in the EU is able to live anywhere else in the EU, there is no pre-requisite that they have a job or anything else to qualify for residency. It seems very unlikely that UK citizens will continue to automatically enjoy that right post-Brexit. Even if the UK ends up with a recipricol agreement on free movement of labour (which I would be surprised at) that wouldn't extend to those not working - whether OAPs, or family members of workers.
For pensioners, and more generally, "As an EU national, you can live in any EU country". I was wrong about there being no pre-requisites, as that page indicates there are two:But, having a job or being dependent upon someone with a job is not a requirement.
- comprehensive health insurance cover in your host country
- sufficient income to live there without needing income support.
quote:Yes, state pensions will drop in value (no inflationary increases, £ dropping against EUR) and the NHS funding will not be available if the UK leaves.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Come to think of it, is there any reason why Spain should see British pensioners as a problem? These people are receiving British state pensions, and probably private pensions as well, and spending the money in Spain. They are therefore an efficient way of transferring money from the British to the Spanish economy. Yes they draw on the Spanish health service, but Spain can then reclaim that money off the NHS, so there is no real loss there either.
quote:I'll assume that the same effects on local economies in the UK where a significant proportion of housing is taken up by incoming retired people, and holiday/weekend second homes, will apply in Spain (and elsewhere in the EU where Brits retire). Some influx of outside money spent in local shops etc, some new work (eg: renovation of property, maybe hiring a cleaner) and so a boost to the economy. But, also significant house price inflation to points where local people struggle to afford a place to live, and potentially development of services to suit the incomers which might not benefit the local community (eg: if the local hospital expands it's capabilities to respond to the ailments of the elderly, and in the process loses the maternity ward that's good for the local elderly, not so for young people wanting to start a family).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Yes, state pensions will drop in value (no inflationary increases, £ dropping against EUR) and the NHS funding will not be available if the UK leaves.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Come to think of it, is there any reason why Spain should see British pensioners as a problem? These people are receiving British state pensions, and probably private pensions as well, and spending the money in Spain. They are therefore an efficient way of transferring money from the British to the Spanish economy. Yes they draw on the Spanish health service, but Spain can then reclaim that money off the NHS, so there is no real loss there either.
With the UK outside of the EU, increasingly Spain looking after large number of not-very-rich British pensioners looks like a liability.
quote:That presupposes that reciprocal healthcare agreements won't be part of any Brexit deal.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE] and the NHS funding will not be available if the UK leaves.
quote:It may always fall to stealth cuts on the part of the Tories (funding a reciprocal arrangement when your currency falls gets more expensive over time), who could always blame the Europeans (which I fully expect to be the standard line afterwards).
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Which seems possible but unlikely. Ending those agreements has no obvious upside for anyone. They're not part of the fundamental freedoms so there's no 'integrity' issue.
quote:Yes, but I was responding specifically to an argument that drew significance from the fact that many of the British expats are pensioners.
Originally posted by Callan:
I think that if people were motivated purely by considerations of economic rationality we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. If reasonably large numbers of Spanish nationals are forced to leave the UK, post-Brexit, the Spanish will feel obliged to reciprocate.
quote:Yes, it is more. And, possibly in some cases not what EU citizens currently living in the UK would want. Freedom of movement is different from right of abode - it grants less rights (eg: access to state welfare without having supported the state system through employment), but also in some cases greater rights (right to abode tends to become void if you move out of the country for an extended period, freedom of movement allows you to return when you want). Some form of grandfathering of rights is the right and just thing to do, it's common decency (though I wonder whether that's one of the much vaunted British values that we're ditching). But, it will need a bespoke solution from the UK government - and some form of reciprocal bespoke arrangement by the EU.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'd be fine with permanent right of abode but as has been pointed out above, that is technically more than they currently have.
quote:Neither are strong enough words, but both could apply. Deranged works as well.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Delusional or just dishonest?
quote:OK we don't know. But we can try to read the tea-leaves, and it seems fairly clear that being part of a large trading bloc gives advantages (both in terms of an internal market and in terms of overseas negotiating power) that being an individual country we do not have.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
And TBH I am not sure whether Brexit will be good or bad for the UK economically. I don't think economics is a well-enough-understood thing to predict this. My Brexit concerns have always been about geopolitics. Aim should therefore be to cause as little additional bad feeling as possible as we depart.
quote:Which isn't going to happen (and, anyone who thinks otherwise joins the ranks of the delusional). There may be a trade deal between the US and UK, but by the time it's signed Trump will not be President - even if he gets a second term it's still not enough time.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So say we agree a trade deal with Trump's America.
quote:Pretty slim = non-existant in my estimation. I struggle to see what economic benefit London would get either.
London may indeed benefit, the chances of Wales, Scotland Northern Ireland and some parts of England seeing an economic advantage from Brexit are pretty slim in my estimation.
quote:Yes. We presumably also want the greatest possible access to the American, Australian, Chinese, Indian and Brazilian markets.
Originally posted by Jane R:
So we are 'leaving the single market' but at the same time want 'the greatest possible access to it'?
quote:Being in the EU does not preclude us from doing business with other markets - you are presenting a false choice.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Leaving the EU won't mean never doing any business with it ever again, but it will mean we're freer to do business with other markets as well.
quote:I agree. And yet the Brexit politicians were - past tense? - so sure how better off economically we'd all be once we'd exited the Union. With immigration 'properly' controlled, and British jobs going to British people and British people enjoying the British welfare and benefits system and British money being diverted to the NHS and education and not the European Union, ah, how wondrously better off we'll all be.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
And TBH I am not sure whether Brexit will be good or bad for the UK economically. I don't think economics is a well-enough-understood thing to predict this.
quote:I said "freer". As a member of the EU, that organisation controls the terms by which we can trade with anyone else. As a non-member, we will be able to agree those terms on our own.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Being in the EU does not preclude us from doing business with other markets - you are presenting a false choice.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Leaving the EU won't mean never doing any business with it ever again, but it will mean we're freer to do business with other markets as well.
quote:Well, if we end up conducting 88% of our foreign trade on worse terms than we currently do, it's difficult to see the economic benefits.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
And TBH I am not sure whether Brexit will be good or bad for the UK economically. I don't think economics is a well-enough-understood thing to predict this. My Brexit concerns have always been about geopolitics. Aim should therefore be to cause as little additional bad feeling as possible as we depart.
quote:We on this side of the Channel don't understand that expression.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
the single market, a la carte
quote:It sounds to me like a trading agreement between the UK and the EU. How is that different in principle to, say, what Canada and Australia have been negotiating with the EU?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a clever speech, as she does want to keep the same trading arrangements for some things, such as cars and financial services. That sounds like the single market, a la carte, doesn't it?
quote:We chooses the crumbs, we gets now sir, and we right appreciates it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I said "freer". As a member of the EU, that organisation controls the terms by which we can trade with anyone else. As a non-member, we will be able to agree those terms on our own.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Being in the EU does not preclude us from doing business with other markets - you are presenting a false choice.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Leaving the EU won't mean never doing any business with it ever again, but it will mean we're freer to do business with other markets as well.
quote:Which is a case of voting for an abstract benefit with real cost (presumably bourne by other people). Good luck getting 'better' terms (unless you mean lower standards for someone else somewhere).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I said "freer". As a member of the EU, that organisation controls the terms by which we can trade with anyone else. As a non-member, we will be able to agree those terms on our own.
quote:It is, of course, no different. That's exactly the point - Mrs May is proposing a complete exit from the EU followed by a negotiation of a trade deal. Which is what has been generally called a "hard Brexit".
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:It sounds to me like a trading agreement between the UK and the EU. How is that different in principle to, say, what Canada and Australia have been negotiating with the EU?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's a clever speech, as she does want to keep the same trading arrangements for some things, such as cars and financial services. That sounds like the single market, a la carte, doesn't it?
quote:Given the high stakes involved, I would've thought there would be every incentive for the EU to conclude a trade agreement with its new largest trading partner pretty quickly?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, of course, those trade negotiations will take an extended period of time. So, we won't see the benefits of these new trade arrangements for a decade, and in the meantime trade with the EU on less favourable terms. We won't have any new trade deals with anyone else any quicker either, of course.
quote:I think the stakes are higher for one country of about 60 million than a single bloc of 27 countries with a combined GDP of more than five times that of the UK.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Given the high stakes involved, I would've thought there would be every incentive for the EU to conclude a trade agreement with its new largest trading partner pretty quickly?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, of course, those trade negotiations will take an extended period of time. So, we won't see the benefits of these new trade arrangements for a decade, and in the meantime trade with the EU on less favourable terms. We won't have any new trade deals with anyone else any quicker either, of course.
And other countries are making the right noises about getting on with a negotiation.
quote:That would include the politicians saying that the speech was a "F*** you" to the EU, and otherwise making all the wrong noises about negotiating on the terms Mrs May wants? It only takes one of those 27 sovereign nations to dig in their heels and the whole thing will fall through.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And other countries are making the right noises about getting on with a negotiation.
quote:Which one do you think will scupper a trade deal with the EU's new largest trading partner? Which EU country can afford to take that risk?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That would include the politicians saying that the speech was a "F*** you" to the EU, and otherwise making all the wrong noises about negotiating on the terms Mrs May wants? It only takes one of those 27 sovereign nations to dig in their heels and the whole thing will fall through.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And other countries are making the right noises about getting on with a negotiation.
quote:Until yesterday a load of Europeans were quietly saying to themselves - of course the Brits won't do it. They'd have to be mad. I suggest that you are making a similar miscalculation.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Which one do you think will scupper a trade deal with the EU's new largest trading partner? Which EU country can afford to take that risk?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:That would include the politicians saying that the speech was a "F*** you" to the EU, and otherwise making all the wrong noises about negotiating on the terms Mrs May wants? It only takes one of those 27 sovereign nations to dig in their heels and the whole thing will fall through.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And other countries are making the right noises about getting on with a negotiation.
quote:True, but then there are some of us that are younger (I'm in my 30s), don't have dual nationality, and who therefore have to live with the consequences of what we end up with. General mood yesterday on my (Remain/Lib Dem graduate oriented) facebook feed was "at least now there's a plan, doesn't look as bad as it could be, Labour's going nowhere, Farron hasn't got a chance, UKIP's fox has been shot, that speech was quite impressive*, ok, time to make it work."
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are quite a few Brits who are not so quietly telling anyone who will listen that we hope we won't do this, because it is madness. The more idiocy spouted by Mrs May and her incompetant cabinet, the more determined we become to fight this every step of the way. We may not be able to stop Brexit, but we can try our hardest to limit the damage on the way, and try our hardest to get this idiocy reversed and recover as much as possible of what has already been lost and what Mrs May is likely to throw away before she's through.
quote:The only reason it would be unfair competition is because the EU won't let its member countries do the same. Or to put it another way, the EU is deliberately forcing its member countries to be uncompetitive. There's a reason so much of the manufacturing that was being done in Europe 40 years ago is now being done in places like China and Bangladesh.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Add to that, if the UK manages to squirm out of EU regulations (eg: working conditions, environmental protection etc) such that the costs of UK manufactured goods falls (at a cost to workers and the environment) would anyone in the EU like to see that sort of unfair competition?
quote:Or, to put it another way Europe is setting the standard for, well, standards, rather than sinking to the lowest common denominator. And, there are strong popular movements within European nations, and beyond, for manufacturers and governments elsewhere to up their game in terms of workers conditions (eg: boycots of suppliers who don't meet minimum requirements in relation to hours, health and safety, child labour etc), environmental protection, product quality and so on. When it comes down to it, things like working hours directives are popular and supported by the electorates of European nations.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:The only reason it would be unfair competition is because the EU won't let its member countries do the same. Or to put it another way, the EU is deliberately forcing its member countries to be uncompetitive. There's a reason so much of the manufacturing that was being done in Europe 40 years ago is now being done in places like China and Bangladesh.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Add to that, if the UK manages to squirm out of EU regulations (eg: working conditions, environmental protection etc) such that the costs of UK manufactured goods falls (at a cost to workers and the environment) would anyone in the EU like to see that sort of unfair competition?
quote:That's my attitude as well.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
"...ok, time to make it work."
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's a reason so much of the manufacturing that was being done in Europe 40 years ago is now being done in places like China and Bangladesh.
The types of manufacturing that were being done 40 years ago are drastically different from the types of manufacturing done now, so that's a silly comparison.quote:And the result is that it's haemorrhaging manufacturing jobs to Asia.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, to put it another way Europe is setting the standard for, well, standards, rather than sinking to the lowest common denominator.
quote:I'm not sure those movements are as strong as you make out. Sure, they're pretty loud, but the number of people who will just quietly keep buying the cheaper goods for as long as they're available is far higher.
And, there are strong popular movements within European nations, and beyond, for manufacturers and governments elsewhere to up their game in terms of workers conditions (eg: boycots of suppliers who don't meet minimum requirements in relation to hours, health and safety, child labour etc), environmental protection, product quality and so on.
quote:Of course they are - nobody wants to have no such protections. All I'm saying is, what good are worker protection laws if they mean the workers don't actually have jobs any more because all the factories have buggered off to somewhere cheaper?
When it comes down to it, things like working hours directives are popular and supported by the electorates of European nations.
quote:Absolutely, but Martin was specifically talking about ('trying to take back') the jobs in China and Bangladesh.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Nononononono. The way for a rich country to become competitive in manufacturing is not to try to undercut labour costs, but to have lots of capital investment, raising productivity. This is how the Germans do it and how the Japanese did it in the 80s. That's why things like Nissan in Sunderland are good.
quote:Ah, but the difficulty is that we disagree on what's best for Britain (or, even if that's the sole criteria for consideration).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Britain leaving the EU is going to happen, so we can either all pull together to make it work as well as possible for Britain or we can keep bitching about the fact that it's happening
quote:Can you clarify which comment you're refering to? Give me a fighting chance at answering your question.
Originally posted by Martin60:
How are you going to do that penultimate comment Alan? That charismatic claim?
quote:I completely agree with you FWIW. That's partly why I've climbed down off the fence on the basis that it's time for "all good men to come to the aid of the party."
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I worked as a professional negotiator, both in buying and selling goods and services, and in industrial relations disputes.
My opinion on making Brexit work is that the odds are stacked very high against a result which will leave the UK better off in the short and medium term. Nor is there any clear evidence that we will benefit in the longer term.
It's simply a fact that the UK starting position is weak. The best deal possible will mean the least bad deal possible. We aren't helped by the lack of skilled negotiators in the UK public servuces. For that reason alone, the odds favour a sub-optimal settlement. The optimal settlement would not be very good.
This isn't a political opinion. It's simply a view of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of the respective negotiating positions. I'm not the only one who holds that view.
quote:Your answer is ideal and none of it will happen. It's race to the bottom time with London as the ultimate tax haven.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are quite a few Brits who are not so quietly telling anyone who will listen that we hope we won't do this, because it is madness. The more idiocy spouted by Mrs May and her incompetant cabinet, the more determined we become to fight this every step of the way. We may not be able to stop Brexit, but we can try our hardest to limit the damage on the way, and try our hardest to get this idiocy reversed and recover as much as possible of what has already been lost and what Mrs May is likely to throw away before she's through.
quote:The issue isn't, of course, just wages. There are lots of people in the UK who take minimum wage jobs, perfectly willing to accept the wages offered.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
the "fruit pickers" issue. You know, the one where we have to bring in EU migrants to pick our fruit because British people aren't prepared to do it for the wages offered
quote:If Brexit goes badly... when Brexit goes badly it won't be because I was bitching about it in Ship of Fools. I'm not sure that invoking the Republicans in this context is particularly relevant. I think you will find that the angry nativists and white nationalists are on your particular side of the aisle. A better comparison would be with the Republican Party in 2003 where anyone who dared point out that the invasion of Iraq wasn't going to work was told to shut up and get behind our boys. Some people did, but it didn't stop it being a clusterfuck.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:That's my attitude as well.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
"...ok, time to make it work."
Britain leaving the EU is going to happen, so we can either all pull together to make it work as well as possible for Britain or we can keep bitching about the fact that it's happening, undermining it at every opportunity and basically hoping it fails so we can say "I told you so". For me, there's only one rational choice there, and it's not the one that essentially copies the Republican Party's response to Barack Obama being President.
quote:However passionately you obviously feel about this, it remains true that, from an economic perspective, Scottish independence remains a no brainer. Given the huge difference between Scotland's
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The sooner Scotland gets independence so I'm not living in the UK the better
quote:By that, do you mean Singapore's prosperity and the longevity of its citizens. No bad thing!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
threat to emulate Singapore
quote:Well, 'you'll be crushed' (from the Times front page), must have some economic basis to it. Hammond had already indicated that outside the single market, 'a new economic model' would be sought. As to why it would crush the EU, presumably, because a very low tax regime would suck trade away. Or is there another interpretation of being crushed?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:By that, do you mean Singapore's prosperity and the longevity of its citizens. No bad thing!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
threat to emulate Singapore
quote:I was thinking of the way they spent eight years bitching, sabotaging and blocking anything Obama did purely because they didn't like Obama. I can see parallels in those who seem to be seeking to bitch, sabotage and block anything to do with Brexit purely because they don't like Brexit.
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not sure that invoking the Republicans in this context is particularly relevant. I think you will find that the angry nativists and white nationalists are on your particular side of the aisle.
quote:Well exactly. "Pour encourager les autres"* will be a red line in these negotiations. Expert negotiating might, just might, be able to get a deal that looked like that but actually wasn't. But failing that unlikely outcome, the UK will pay a price designed to discourage others from following suit.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Today the Maltese Prime Minister Joseph Muscat said that there must be a fair deal for Britain, but that it must be inferior to membership.
quote:As a result they now control The White House, The Senate, Congress and the majority of State Governments. I wish that I thought the opposition to Brexit would be as effective.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I was thinking of the way they spent eight years bitching, sabotaging and blocking anything Obama did purely because they didn't like Obama. I can see parallels in those who seem to be seeking to bitch, sabotage and block anything to do with Brexit purely because they don't like Brexit.
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not sure that invoking the Republicans in this context is particularly relevant. I think you will find that the angry nativists and white nationalists are on your particular side of the aisle.
quote:If the EU was confident that it was the best option for its members, it wouldn't see any need to "encourage the others" to stay. The very fact that it is so worried about other countries following suit suggests that it is well aware that those countries could be better off if they weren't members. And yet it seeks to keep them in the fold.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the UK will pay a price designed to discourage others from following suit.
quote:IF. ECONOMICS. WAS. THE. ONLY. THING. THAT. MOTIVATED. PEOPLE. WE. WOULDN'T. BE. IN. THIS. MESS.
However passionately you obviously feel about this, it remains true that, from an economic perspective, Scottish independence remains a no brainer. Given the huge difference between Scotland's
trade with the rest of the UK compared to the rest of the world, the UK internal market is many times more important to Scotland than the EU market. I don't think this is lost on Scottish voters. Opinion polls, though notoriously inaccurate, suggest that support for independence has gone down since 2014.
quote:But, it's not just about economics (or even about economics at all). The data is clear, everyone is economically better off in the EU than outside.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If the EU was confident that it was the best option for its members, it wouldn't see any need to "encourage the others" to stay. The very fact that it is so worried about other countries following suit suggests that it is well aware that those countries could be better off if they weren't members. And yet it seeks to keep them in the fold.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the UK will pay a price designed to discourage others from following suit.
Which leads me to wonder: if the EU isn't about making its member countries better off than they would be alone, what is it about?
quote:At its origin it was largely about trying to achieve different relationships between neighbouring countries other than invading each other and killing their respective inhabitants.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which leads me to wonder: if the EU isn't about making its member countries better off than they would be alone, what is it about?
quote:Perhaps the EU is the long-term best option for all member states, and their people, as a body, rather than the short term best option for any individual state or person?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If the EU was confident that it was the best option for its members, it wouldn't see any need to "encourage the others" to stay. The very fact that it is so worried about other countries following suit suggests that it is well aware that those countries could be better off if they weren't members. And yet it seeks to keep them in the fold.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the UK will pay a price designed to discourage others from following suit.
Which leads me to wonder: if the EU isn't about making its member countries better off than they would be alone, what is it about?
quote:It's almost as if you've never heard of the free rider problem. The UK is essentially asking for all of the benefits of EU membership (free movement of capital and goods) with none of what it regards as the associated drawbacks (free movement of labor, product safety regulations, etc.). Most voluntary organizations similarly "encourage others to stay" through the mechanism of not allowing non-members to enjoy the benefits extended to members.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:If the EU was confident that it was the best option for its members, it wouldn't see any need to "encourage the others" to stay.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the UK will pay a price designed to discourage others from following suit.
quote:Again, classic free-riderism. Yes, a lot of people/organizations will jump at an offer to enjoy all the benefits of an arrangement while avoiding any of the costs. That's why getting the good stuff is usually linked to sharing in the disadvantages.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The very fact that it is so worried about other countries following suit suggests that it is well aware that those countries could be better off if they weren't members. And yet it seeks to keep them in the fold.
quote:So it's modelled on an abusive relationship where if a partner wants to leave they are kept in by threats?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
They will take further hits if other nations try to follow the UK. And, the ways to counter that are to argue on the grounds that others want to exit the EU on (nationalism etc), and to inflate the costs of exiting the EU. By making the costs high for the UK the signal is that the costs would be high for other nations, with the implicit question "is it worth it?".
quote:I can agree with that aim without agreeing with the method used to achieve it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At its origin it was largely about trying to achieve different relationships between neighbouring countries other than invading each other and killing their respective inhabitants.
quote:Quite so. We're different. The only problem I have with that observation is if you imply that we're somehow deficient or wrong for being different, or for having different priorities because of that difference.
The UK, whose collective memory of WW2 does not include any humiliation or the pain of occupation but boils down to Spitfires doing victory rolls over cornfields, has in my view constantly and utterly failed to grasp this aspect of collective memory that underpins continental European federalism.
quote:I think the UK has always been caught in a cleft stick between Atlanticism and European federalism and that is just a fact of history, as are the attitudes in the wake of WW2.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The only problem I have with that observation is if you imply that we're somehow deficient or wrong for being different, or for having different priorities because of that difference.
quote:The problem with comparisons like this is that in reality most things are over-determined. I suspect the collection of idiots on the Tory right who make such comparisons are simply thinking in terms of - allegedly - low employment protections.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:By that, do you mean Singapore's prosperity and the longevity of its citizens. No bad thing!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
threat to emulate Singapore
quote:No worries, Martin, once we have crushed the EU, the words 'Crecy' and 'Agincourt' will ring again in the village squares, the yeomen of England will once again dance their merry dances, the village looms will be heard a-clacking and a-fracking, we will ploth our jolly plight, or something. Make it so!
Originally posted by Martin60:
For Singapore read London ONLY. A city state. How do Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle benefit?
quote:I never said anything about the actual politics being any better.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I wish I could be as optimistic about Trump (and BoJo).
quote:You are Boris Johnson's ghost-writer and I claim my five pounds.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:No worries, Martin, once we have crushed the EU, the words 'Crecy' and 'Agincourt' will ring again in the village squares, the yeomen of England will once again dance their merry dances, the village looms will be heard a-clacking and a-fracking, we will ploth our jolly plight, or something. Make it so!
Originally posted by Martin60:
For Singapore read London ONLY. A city state. How do Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle benefit?
quote:Well a friend of mine sent me this.......( don't think it's suitable if you're reading this at work...)
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is as naff as hell, but dammit, so is everything these days, ever since we left India.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/download/file.php?id=14810
quote:It can be if it is based on a deficient or wrong view of history. Certainly the statements from the current and former front bench suggest a rather skewed reading if anything.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Quite so. We're different. The only problem I have with that observation is if you imply that we're somehow deficient or wrong for being different, or for having different priorities because of that difference.
quote:Which if that's true just proves the madness of all this separatism (although as said I'm now determined to do what I can to make this thing work). As mentioned by someone upthread, Scotland's economy is far more dependent on the rUK than the UK's is on the EU. Two thirds of Scotland's trade is cross "border" to rUK.
Originally posted by molopata:
If Brexit starts to turn the UK economy decidedly sour, then the likelihood of Scottish independence will grow significantly.
quote:I agree, except that "rationally" you're still voting to make things worse - and that the Scottish NHS is the Scottish administration's bailiwick.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The main reason to favour leaving the UK if you're in Scotland isn't so much that it will stop the economy going sour. The economy is going to go sour anyway. It's that you don't want to be run by a political establishment that thinks souring the economy is a price worth paying to pander to xenophobia and has no interest in maintaining things like the NHS (crisis? what crisis?).
quote:Which side of the argument are you putting "the No Thanks bunch"? No thanks to independence or no thanks to the union? Because, at present, the predictions of "project fear" have (by definition) not happened since there isn't independence - no test of whether an independent Scotland could retain the pound, for example. The best is that economic predictions assuming a significant income from oil revenue were not as solid as stated with the collapse in oil prices way below anything that could have been predicted at the time of the independence campaign. But, of course, to counter that we have the statements from Project Fear that an independent Scotland couldn't assume continued membership of the EU, and the only way to ensure continued EU membership for Scotland was to remain within the UK - which has been shown to be complete bollocks (and Camerons "commitment" to maintaining the Union was shown to be what it was almost immediately as he put his pledge for an EU membership referendum in the Tory manifesto).
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The difference with any Indyref2 is that this time the No Thanks bunch will have a worked example of how far project fear was actually project fact to point to, which could help.
quote:no thanks to independence. I meant Brexit as the worked example. So, yes, vote No to stay in the EU was one claim. But then there's all the others - you can't keep the pound, there's too much cross border trade, customs at Berwick, etc.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Which side of the argument are you putting "the No Thanks bunch"? No thanks to independence or no thanks to the union? Because, at present, the predictions of "project fear" have (by definition) not happened since there isn't independence - no test of whether an independent Scotland could retain the pound, for example. The best is that economic predictions assuming a significant income from oil revenue were not as solid as stated with the collapse in oil prices way below anything that could have been predicted at the time of the independence campaign. But, of course, to counter that we have the statements from Project Fear that an independent Scotland couldn't assume continued membership of the EU, and the only way to ensure continued EU membership for Scotland was to remain within the UK - which has been shown to be complete bollocks (and Camerons "commitment" to maintaining the Union was shown to be what it was almost immediately as he put his pledge for an EU membership referendum in the Tory manifesto).
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The difference with any Indyref2 is that this time the No Thanks bunch will have a worked example of how far project fear was actually project fact to point to, which could help.
quote:That's sort of my point.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
UK to EU: How dare you say you'll ruin us if we leave you!
UK to Scotland: We'll ruin you if you leave us.
quote:For the record, I agree with you in the lunacy of your characterisation, and I'm against Scottish independence for exactly the same reasons as I was against Brexit (whilst recognising the inalienable right to self determination for both the British polity and the Scottish polity within that British one).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
UK to EU: How dare you say you'll ruin us if we leave you!
UK to Scotland: We'll ruin you if you leave us.
quote:I'm still failing to follow your argument. The "predictions" of Project Fear where what would happen if Scotland voted to leave the UK - that didn't happen, so there is no basis for saying any of them were shown to be right. The predictions for the Remain campaign in the EU referendum are still in the "wait and see" camp IMO - since we haven't left the EU yet the consequences to trade etc have yet to materialise. Now, I agree that if there's another independence referendum in Scotland in 5-10 years there may be data to show the extent to which the Remain campaign was right, but that's not available now (nor would it be available if there was a referendum within the next 2 years).
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I meant Brexit as the worked example. So, yes, vote No to stay in the EU was one claim. But then there's all the others - you can't keep the pound, there's too much cross border trade, customs at Berwick, etc.
If Brexit proves that project fear/Remain were right then, apart from vote No to stay in the EU, people might think that all the non EU based parts of project fear/No were also right....
quote:But, what's wrong with romance? Much of the Brexit campaign was, as you seem to note, romantic. And, in many cases the attitude to the EU and to Scotland are inconsistent.
A vote for Scottish independence at this point would IMO have to be every bit as deluded and romantic a one as a vote for Brexit.
quote:OK:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm still failing to follow your argument.
quote:Am I the only person in the world who has noted the irony of the Remain campaign being dubbed 'Project Fear', when the Brexiteers campaigned mainly by playing on fears of immigration and nostalgia for a mythical Golden Age when Britain's destiny was entirely within our control?
*If* over the next 2 years Project Fear is proved to have been right about the EU
quote:It's ironic, but I don't think it's deliberate. It got dubbed Project Fear because that's what the Yes campaign in Scotland had coined for the No side in 2014.
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac:quote:Am I the only person in the world who has noted the irony of the Remain campaign being dubbed 'Project Fear', when the Brexiteers campaigned mainly by playing on fears of immigration and nostalgia for a mythical Golden Age when Britain's destiny was entirely within our control?
*If* over the next 2 years Project Fear is proved to have been right about the EU
quote:UK to EU: if you don't give us all the sweeties we want, we'll ruin you. (Fantasy stuff).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
UK to EU: How dare you say you'll ruin us if we leave you!
UK to Scotland: We'll ruin you if you leave us.
quote:Hardly surprising, as the Tories only represent England. Scotland is an oiltank and a base for the nuclear boats, Wales a handy source for soldiers.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The Tories only care about England, I can see them selling out the other nations to ensure England "makes a success" of Brexit.
quote:I felt embarrassed, as a Briton (or an Irish-Briton or whatever the hell I am these days) listening to Teresa May addressing the EU yesterday. I just knew that all the other member states were sitting there mentally shrugging their shoulders, thinking: '.... and?'
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:UK to EU: if you don't give us all the sweeties we want, we'll ruin you. (Fantasy stuff).
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
UK to EU: How dare you say you'll ruin us if we leave you!
UK to Scotland: We'll ruin you if you leave us.
quote:The problem with this line of argument is that it only really works if free movement really is a drawback, which seems to me to concede too much ground to the nationalists and nativists.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's almost as if you've never heard of the free rider problem. The UK is essentially asking for all of the benefits of EU membership (free movement of capital and goods) with none of what it regards as the associated drawbacks (free movement of labor, product safety regulations, etc.).
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:Both points that I have repeatedly made in recent months. At some point before the referendum I started a thread advocating the benefits of relaxing immigration because of the benefits to both the UK and migrants (I could look it up in Oblivion, but ...). Also it's been clear to me that if you have a free market for goods and services that has to include free movement, since labour is the ultimate service. You can't have a pick and mix single market - if you take everything except movement of labour you no longer have a single market.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:The problem with this line of argument is that it only really works if free movement really is a drawback,
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's almost as if you've never heard of the free rider problem. The UK is essentially asking for all of the benefits of EU membership (free movement of capital and goods) with none of what it regards as the associated drawbacks (free movement of labor, product safety regulations, etc.).
...
I think this misrepresents the European position. I don't think they see free movement as the cost of the single market, rather that the two are so intertwined that the British demand is like saying you want your steak tartare well done.
quote:That's not actually true. In 1975 two thirds of the population voted to stay in. Mrs Thatcher won a thumping election victory on, among other things, staying in the EU, in 1983 and pioneered the Single European Market, Mr Major won his election on, among other things, ratifying the Maastricht treaty and Mr Blair won two landslides whilst keeping an open mind on the Single Currency, the second of which was won against an opposition campaigning on a platform of 'Save the Pound'. There were, and are, legitimate arguments to be had as to how Europe works, how viable the Single Currency is and whether the sort of federal Europe favoured by some people was a good idea. To that extent I have always considered myself to be a Euro-sceptic, in the sense that the term was used during the Maastricht debates in the early 1990s. But back in those halcyon days of comparative sanity it was only the Bennite left and the Powellite right who thought that torching the British economy in the name of parliamentary sovereignty and the free market or a kinder and gentler form of Juche Socialism was a good idea.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Anselmina , John Bull never accepted that he was a member of the choir.
quote:I think the word you want is simplistically.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If Brexit had an overwhelming advantage it was that it could and did put its points simply.
quote:He made all those demands because he thought he was special and above it all. Never accepted that he really was a member though and kept making demands for more. The votes you refer to were more along the lines of yes, I like what the benefits are, now give me some more.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An argument could be made that John Bull thought himself as the most important member of the choir, and they should be flattered he was a member and grant him special privilages because he's such a good singer. But, many of the other members of the choir thought the same as well.
And, quite possibly that John Bull was reluctant to join the rest of the choir for some drinks after rehearsal.
quote:The left opposition was structured differently though, mainly people who didn't like neo-liberalism, or who felt that being in the EU stopped a more internationalist - in the sense of reducing solidary between workers. So their preferred trajectory after a 'Lexit' would have been diametrically opposite from the direction the country is now heading in.
Originally posted by Gee D:
BTW, I'm far from sure that the opposition was limited to the far right of UK politics. The far left , and not so far left, was also against it, and many who really were apolitical
quote:I think that it was me and not Alan who was listing the occasions in which the electorate indicated that they were broadly in favour of the EU.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:He made all those demands because he thought he was special and above it all. Never accepted that he really was a member though and kept making demands for more. The votes you refer to were more along the lines of yes, I like what the benefits are, now give me some more.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An argument could be made that John Bull thought himself as the most important member of the choir, and they should be flattered he was a member and grant him special privilages because he's such a good singer. But, many of the other members of the choir thought the same as well.
And, quite possibly that John Bull was reluctant to join the rest of the choir for some drinks after rehearsal.
BTW, I'm far from sure that the opposition was limited to the far right of UK politics. The far left , and not so far left, was also against it, and many who really were apolitical
quote:The best analogy I can think of is the German Communists who were happy to see the fall of the Weimar Republic on the grounds that a proletarian uprising would happen imminently afterwards. ISTR, that did not work out quite as they expected. If you work for an outcome and it does not go quite in the trajectory you expected you are as responsible as those those who worked for it but were happier with said trajectory. People who supported Lexit or who went AWOL during the campaign are every bit as complicit as Farage, May, Johnson, Gove and the rest of the usual suspects.
The left opposition was structured differently though, mainly people who didn't like neo-liberalism, or who felt that being in the EU stopped a more internationalist - in the sense of reducing solidary between workers. So their preferred trajectory after a 'Lexit' would have been diametrically opposite from the direction the country is now heading in.
quote:I think it was fairly clear who would be emboldened and able to set the agenda after a 'Leave' vote, and in such circumstances a 'Lexit' vote was absolutely foolish, and the idea that 'Leave' would lead to the flourishing of social democracy (and less neoliberalism) in the UK was plainly idiotic.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:People who supported Lexit or who went AWOL during the campaign are every bit as complicit as Farage, May, Johnson, Gove and the rest of the usual suspects.
So their preferred trajectory after a 'Lexit' would have been diametrically opposite from the direction the country is now heading in.
quote:Broadly in favour of bits of the EU as they see them. It's instructive to look at the poll published in the FT today:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think that it was me and not Alan who was listing the occasions in which the electorate indicated that they were broadly in favour of the EU.
quote:It seems to be expected that the supreme court will rule this week in favour of Parliamentary democracy, and hence the government will need to get it's plans, such as they are, through Parliament. I think that too many MPs are under the misapprehension that the vote in June represents the "settled will of the people", and as such are unlikely to actually prevent some form of Brexshit. We can hope that they might manage to moderate the stupidity of the government plans into something less fascist.
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Is there any way to stop this shit? I don't want to be stuck in a xenophobic culture!
quote:That is certainly a worry (quite beside the point that Scottish exports leaving English ports are normally recorded as English exports, which may exaggerate the figure). On the other hand, trade can be rebalanced over time, and given Scotland's overdependence on one trading partner, that would maybe be a good project.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
As mentioned by someone upthread, Scotland's economy is far more dependent on the rUK than the UK's is on the EU. Two thirds of Scotland's trade is cross "border" to rUK.
quote:Um no, it got dubbed Project Fear, because that's what some Better Together insiders were allegedly calling their organisation (according to leaks), and that was in 2013, think - certainly "Project Fear" was well established before the referendum.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's ironic, but I don't think it's deliberate. It got dubbed Project Fear because that's what the Yes campaign in Scotland had coined for the No side in 2014.
quote:The first reference to "Project Fear" in the media, to my knowledge was in The Herald in June 2013, as you say a phrase being used within Better Together.
Originally posted by molopata:
quote:Um no, it got dubbed Project Fear, because that's what some Better Together insiders were allegedly calling their organisation (according to leaks), and that was in 2013, think - certainly "Project Fear" was well established before the referendum.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
It's ironic, but I don't think it's deliberate. It got dubbed Project Fear because that's what the Yes campaign in Scotland had coined for the No side in 2014.
quote:Yet another argument to add to the list of ones that are apparently OK to use of Scotland leaving the UK, but that magically become ridiculous when used of the UK leaving the EU.
Originally posted by molopata:
On the other hand, trade can be rebalanced over time, and given Scotland's overdependence on one trading partner, that would maybe be a good project.
quote:Not really. There's very little likelihood of Parliament blocking it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So the UK Parliament will have its say. That will be interesting.
quote:It was, of course, a different scenario in 2014. If the Scottish government could achieve what they wanted (independent Scotland within the EU) then Scotland would be trading with the rest of the UK, both as EU members. Clearly if/when there is another Scottish independence campaign then the rest of the UK having left the EU will result in a different equation - regardless of whether Scotland can regain EU membership.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yet another argument to add to the list of ones that are apparently OK to use of Scotland leaving the UK, but that magically become ridiculous when used of the UK leaving the EU.
Originally posted by molopata:
On the other hand, trade can be rebalanced over time, and given Scotland's overdependence on one trading partner, that would maybe be a good project.
quote:If Parliament actually blocks triggering Article 50 then it would be an incredible surprise. Labour have decided to roll over and not be the Opposition. I doubt the Lords would want to trigger the constitutional crisis that would result if they rejected calling Article 50.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Not really. There's very little likelihood of Parliament blocking it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So the UK Parliament will have its say. That will be interesting.
quote:I haven't read it yet but I believe it is here (pdf) or here (html).
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't find the full text of the judgement, only the court summary.
quote:I think it's very much to the point.
It is nothing to the point that there was, for UK purposes, no content in the specified category until the 1972 Accession Treaty was ratified (on the day after the 1972 Act received the royal assent).
quote:Lord Hughes (paragraphs 275-283) makes the same point in somewhat simpler language, as he's basically just showing that he agrees with Lord Reed. One crucial sentence dealing with the notion that only Parliament can change the 1972 Act:
The contingency is that the rights, powers and so forth are “such ... as in accordance with the Treaties are without further legal enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom”. It follows from that contingency that the effect given to EU law in our domestic law is conditional on the Treaties’ application to the UK. That condition was not satisfied when the Act came into force, because the Treaties did not then apply to the UK. The content of the specified category was therefore zero. The satisfaction of the condition, some months later, depended on the decision of a UK entity: it depended on the Crown’s exercise of prerogative powers. The content would return to zero if the condition ceased to be satisfied as the result of the UK’s invoking article 50. That would be so whether the decision to invoke article 50 had, or had not, been authorised by an Act of Parliament.
quote:For my part, I'm very familiar with situations where a law exists but in practice has no work to do. I'm actually drafting such a law right now. It will in practice do precisely nothing when it commences. It will do something meaningful once other events happen, but if those actions are undone, it will go back to being practically useless again. All without Parliament touching it.
The Act is not changed; it does, however, cease to operate because there are no longer any treaty rules for it to bite upon.
quote:What a way to go down that would be though. Much better than the quiet sputtering finish that they'll have otherwise.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I doubt the Lords would want to trigger the constitutional crisis that would result if they rejected calling Article 50.
quote:I seem to remember Labour elected Corbyn to be leader on the grounds that he was going to be the Opposition and not roll over.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Labour have decided to roll over and not be the Opposition.
quote:If a majority of the Lords believe that triggering Article 50 is not in the national interest then it's their plain duty to reject it. It would be a great way to go.
I doubt the Lords would want to trigger the constitutional crisis that would result if they rejected calling Article 50.
quote:The whole point of devolution is that you give the area in question independent control over certain things, but not over everything. This is one of the things they don't have independent control over.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
So the devolved governments have no real power it seems. It seems very odd to me that you would devolve power until it comes to something like this and then say, 'Oh no, you don't get to vote on this'. It's a golden egg to Nicola. I see an independent Scotland looming large on the horizon.
quote:Yep, they can now proceed to strip the NHS much more efficiently. Can use the Snooper's Charter to erode personal freedoms with much more ease...
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even so, it's never going to work as smoothly as a system where UK people write and make UK laws specifically for the UK, using UK terminology and referring to UK institutions.
quote:One imagines that Mrs. May would reach for the Parliament Act under such circumstances.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I doubt the Lords would want to trigger the constitutional crisis that would result if they rejected calling Article 50.
quote:That's what Parliamentary Sovereignty, which the people who want Parliament involved in withdrawal from the EU keep banging on about, actually means. Because it certainly doesn't mean the EU being in control and overriding decisions of the UK Parliament.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Yep, they can now proceed to strip the NHS much more efficiently. Can use the Snooper's Charter to erode personal freedoms with much more ease...
Originally posted by orfeo:
Even so, it's never going to work as smoothly as a system where UK people write and make UK laws specifically for the UK, using UK terminology and referring to UK institutions.
quote:Yes, but in making the judgment in this way the justices have now made it clear that the whole basis upon which devolution is based is at the whim of Westminster.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The whole point of devolution is that you give the area in question independent control over certain things, but not over everything. This is one of the things they don't have independent control over.
quote:That's a bit of an odd thing to say given that we live in a devolved settlement where we recognise that the devolved areas of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are not the same as England - even to the extent of those areas having some law-making powers. It seems to me to be strange to say on the one hand that those places can have enough self-determination to make laws and set priorities but not enough to decide for themselves about something that will affect each region differently.
As for not being able to vote on it: the Scottish people had as much of a vote as anyone else in the UK during the referendum, and 59 of the 650 MPs who will now vote on Article 50 are from Scottish constituencies - most of them being SNP members.
quote:This is true. However, the primary "efficiency" I have in mind from my own experience is being able to work out what the fuck the law of a jurisdiction actually is. Whether you like the law or not is not the question I was thinking about.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW efficiency isn't necessarily a blessing as far as government is concerned. Smooth roads speed the journey to Hell more oft than heaven.
quote:Surely it was a foregone conclusion that any UK court would rule that parliament has more power than the "royal prerogative", in light of the outcomes of the Civil War and the Glorious revolution of 1688. Or as Justice Neuberger put it "centuries of constitutional practice". I was surprised that there were anydissenting judges.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't find the full text of the judgement, only the court summary.
[snip]
Having said that, the patches of the full judgement I've seen do already strike me as better than the decision of the lower court, as they do a better job of addressing the fact that the current situation depends not just on Parliament's Act but on treaties.
quote:My personal preference was not what I was thinking about, either.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whether you like the law or not is not the question I was thinking about.
quote:Because they aren't nation states. Scotland, in 2014, specifically voted that it isn't an independent country. It's like trying to separate London from England or Ceredigion from Wales, both areas which voted Remain. The UK, which IS a nation state narrowly voted Leave. In any election regions vote differently. Scotland's old argument that it has never voted for a Tory government is balanced by the fact that almost every Labour government (except 1945 and 1997) has only managed to govern England by relying on its Scottish members.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A majority of Scotland and Northern Ireland voted Remain, why should they be forced to Leave just because they're numerically smaller than England and Wales?
quote:Labour will be able to better judge the mood after the Stoke-on-Trent by-election. The right wing press is crowing that UKIP's Paul Nuttall is set to win it. If he does then Jeremy Corbyn's game is up, especially in knowing which way to turn over Brexit. His working class constituencies in the midlands and north mostly voted for Brexit, while his London base was strongly Remain. I don't envy him trying to balance his concerns.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem for Labour is that if they come out solidly in favour of Brexit they alienate half the electorate, and will really struggle in 2020. If they come out solidly against Brexit they alienate the other half of the electorate, and will struggle in 2020.
quote:But the royal prerogative has involved control of treaties. For centuries after the events you're referring to.
Originally posted by Tukai:
quote:Surely it was a foregone conclusion that any UK court would rule that parliament has more power than the "royal prerogative", in light of the outcomes of the Civil War and the Glorious revolution of 1688. Or as Justice Neuberger put it "centuries of constitutional practice". I was surprised that there were anydissenting judges.
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't find the full text of the judgement, only the court summary.
[snip]
Having said that, the patches of the full judgement I've seen do already strike me as better than the decision of the lower court, as they do a better job of addressing the fact that the current situation depends not just on Parliament's Act but on treaties.
quote:
On only two occasions since 1945 has the UK Government's overall parliamentary majority depended on Scottish (or Scottish and Welsh) MPs – two Labour governments one elected in October 1964 with a fourseat majority, and the minority government elected in February 1974 Both were replaced by majority Labour governments within a short while (in March 1966 and October 1974 respectively).
quote:If it's a power that Parliament has let the executive exercise, is it not also a power that Parliament can also take back from the executive?
Originally posted by orfeo:
This isn't some general assertion of executive power over Parliament, this is an area of power that Parliament has been perfectly happy for the executive to exercise.
quote:There's no taking back involved. The Parliament has not tried to take the power. Well, until now.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:If it's a power that Parliament has let the executive exercise, is it not also a power that Parliament can also take back from the executive?
Originally posted by orfeo:
This isn't some general assertion of executive power over Parliament, this is an area of power that Parliament has been perfectly happy for the executive to exercise.
quote:Erm, are you sure about this bit...?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The decision by the Tories not to stand in Stoke is going to cloud the issues a bit.
quote:But that's to do with the fragile constitutional arrangement in the UK - which incidentally in at least part is settled because of the EU memberships - and only tangentially to do with the fact that they're not "nation states".
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Because they aren't nation states. Scotland, in 2014, specifically voted that it isn't an independent country. It's like trying to separate London from England or Ceredigion from Wales, both areas which voted Remain. The UK, which IS a nation state narrowly voted Leave. In any election regions vote differently.
quote:It has been reported, and the list of candidates do not include a Conservative (though, Labour haven't named their candidate yet either).
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Erm, are you sure about this bit...?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The decision by the Tories not to stand in Stoke is going to cloud the issues a bit.
quote:I don't think that article (which in any event is in the Huffington Post and is anonymously sourced) says what you're interpreting it as saying.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:It has been reported, and the list of candidates do not include a Conservative (though, Labour haven't named their candidate yet either).
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Erm, are you sure about this bit...?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The decision by the Tories not to stand in Stoke is going to cloud the issues a bit.
quote:I think that if Scotland did manage independence the question of what happens in NI would be very pertinent. Although I do think that a united Ireland is ultimately inevitable I honestly never thought it would appear as likely within my lifetime, but that opinion is shifting. The current Assembly crisis marks the beginning of what will perhaps be a long and turbulent period that I hope and pray doesn't mark a return to the troubles. If they can manage to keep a cap on that, if Scotland gains it's independence and if the UK isn't the promised utopia out of the EU they all said it would be, then I can see a remarkable sea change on the way very rapidly. The biggest problem will be the most ironic; namely, the Irish government and people won't really want a united Ireland. We certainly live in interesting political times.
there's been no evidence that there's any major shift in NI's wish to remain part of the UK.
quote:Explain the final sentence in the quote above to me.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If they can manage to keep a cap on that, if Scotland gains it's independence and if the UK isn't the promised utopia out of the EU they all said it would be, then I can see a remarkable sea change on the way very rapidly. The biggest problem will be the most ironic; namely, the Irish government and people won't really want a united Ireland.
quote:I'll have a go, based on my Irish relatives. The North is a sea of troubles, angst and a massive benefits bill.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Explain the final sentence in the quote above to me.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If they can manage to keep a cap on that, if Scotland gains it's independence and if the UK isn't the promised utopia out of the EU they all said it would be, then I can see a remarkable sea change on the way very rapidly. The biggest problem will be the most ironic; namely, the Irish government and people won't really want a united Ireland.
quote:I think Labour are trying to face two ways, it's true, not a very comfortable position.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Labour will be able to better judge the mood after the Stoke-on-Trent by-election. The right wing press is crowing that UKIP's Paul Nuttall is set to win it. If he does then Jeremy Corbyn's game is up, especially in knowing which way to turn over Brexit. His working class constituencies in the midlands and north mostly voted for Brexit, while his London base was strongly Remain. I don't envy him trying to balance his concerns.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The problem for Labour is that if they come out solidly in favour of Brexit they alienate half the electorate, and will really struggle in 2020. If they come out solidly against Brexit they alienate the other half of the electorate, and will struggle in 2020.
quote:But the supposedly 'hard' Brexit is just Brexit, isn't it?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose also they may believe that Mrs May has made a terrible mistake by going for hard Brexit, if that's what she has gone for.
Corbyn has nothing to lose really; if she has, and the economy crashes, Labour could win an election.
quote:These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In any event, the Republic needs to make clear to its EU partners that a special bilateral deal between them and the UK must be respected by the rest of the EU. The Common Travel Area, in force since 1922, and the historical, cultural and economic ties which bind the two countries can't be sacrificed to EU bureaucreatic wrangling.
quote:This is what so many British Remainers seem to overlook. Mrs May has judged, and I think she'd be proved right if she called a general election, is that the British people voted for control of out borders and laws, and knew very well that leaving the EU would entail leaving the Single Market. Nick Clegg who is now touting a Norway style deal said, rightly during the campaign, that it's the worst of all worlds. That is even assuming that it's possible for the UK to acquire EEA membership. Hard Brexit is on the basis of finding it impossible to secure a satisfactory deal with 27 countries all of which have their own agendas.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But the supposedly 'hard' Brexit is just Brexit, isn't it?
quote:Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
quote:I think that is one of the reasons that the Brexiteers are comparatively relaxed about the consequences of leaving the Single Market. Governments can screw things up pretty comprehensively as long as the electorate are convinced that the Opposition would do worse, given the chance.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:But the supposedly 'hard' Brexit is just Brexit, isn't it?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose also they may believe that Mrs May has made a terrible mistake by going for hard Brexit, if that's what she has gone for.
Corbyn has nothing to lose really; if she has, and the economy crashes, Labour could win an election.
Besides, today at PMQs Mr Corbyn offered his condolences to the family of a dead police officer who is, in fact, very much alive. No matter what happens, I don't think there's any danger of Labour romping home to victory any time soon.
quote:The Common Travel Area, will as you say be a UK problem. For the rest of the EU, since UK passport holders leaving Ireland will still need to pass through the "non-EU citizen" gates at immigration that's simply the same as any other non-EU citizen transiting through Ireland. The potential problem for the UK is that EU citizens can freely enter Ireland, and then cross into the UK via the open land border. But, the UK already has all the powers needed to control immigration from the EU, powers granted by the EU treaties - it's just that the UK government has chosen not to use those powers to control immigration from the EU (while telling porkies about "uncontrolled immigration from the EU"). So, the issue is one of UK government competance - which, I grant would seem to be insurmountable.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In any event, the Republic needs to make clear to its EU partners that a special bilateral deal between them and the UK must be respected by the rest of the EU. The Common Travel Area, in force since 1922, and the historical, cultural and economic ties which bind the two countries can't be sacrificed to EU bureaucreatic wrangling.
quote:People keep saying this. Kindly set out exactly what measures would allow the RoI to simultaneously maintain free movement, as per their treaty obligations with the EU and implement British immigration policy and allow Irish and UK nationals to travel freely between North and South.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
quote:The RoI doesn't need to implement British immigration policy. The British government would implement British immigration policy.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:People keep saying this. Kindly set out exactly what measures would allow the RoI to simultaneously maintain free movement, as per their treaty obligations with the EU and implement British immigration policy and allow Irish and UK nationals to travel freely between North and South.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
quote:As above; outline the measures that can be used to prevent this.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
quote:Well - that is hardly surprising, given that Brexit, like everything else in Northern Ireland, is a sectarian issue. Nationalists voted Remain by a large majority. Unionists voted Leave by a (not quite so) large majority. So any move towards a United Ireland on these grounds will be interpreted (as normal, and not without some justification) by the Unionists as "another convenient excuse to sell us down the river".
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In my opinion now would be the right time for a United Ireland to get round these problems, but it has to be by consent, not coercion, terrorist or otherwise. It seems there's still little appetite for it even given NI's strong Remain vote.
quote:I think you might be wrong on both counts.
It seems there's still little appetite for it even given NI's strong Remain vote. The citizens of the South have a long term romantic dream of a UI, but tell them that their taxes would increase exponentially in order to finance the North and they'd run a mile.
quote:Here are some unrealistic plans!
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:As above; outline the measures that can be used to prevent this.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
Furthermore, you mentioned 'economic ties'. How will this work once the UK is out of the customs union?
quote:Aha! That is very interesting and I was unaware of those Unionist voting patterns. Are we really really sure about this - are the polls reliable? Indeed it would be unprecedented if true!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The remain vote in NI marked the beginning of a possible sea change of voting tactics. For the first time in four decades the people of NI refused to vote on the basis of what their favoured party declared as their wish for the vote. The majority of unionists actually voted against what their favoured party politicians posited. This event has sent the political analysts in NI into a tail spin of excitement because it is entirely unprecedented. The unionist parties were for a leave vote because they believed that this would strengthen the union further and make the possibility of a untied Ireland less likely or more difficult and weaken the power sharing, cross border agreements and the political agreements with the RofI. In short, the vast majority of unionists voted the wrong way.
quote:Of Turquoise Tastic's 5 points, the first 4 are unlikely, but the 5th has possibilities.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
As above; outline the measures that can be used to prevent this.Furthermore, you mentioned 'economic ties'. How will this work once the UK is out of the customs union?
quote:The EU makes exceptions to its rules when it suits. Tiny Lichtenstein has an immigration cap of 90 people per year and retains access to the single market. Even tinier Jersey sells its potatoes and milk freely while having a very strict immigration policy. A special deal, even if against the rules, is needed to maintain the stability of the Irish peace process. No one, not least the EU negotiators, will want to be seen to undermine a fragile peace with bureaucratic rules.
5. Special deal from EU along lines of "we know this is against all the rules, but hey, it's Northern Ireland and we all know what those guys are like"
quote:The figures entirely back up your assertion. I've never previously seen a breakdown of how different groups voted in the referendum. They show that NI society is as divided as ever along ethnic (pro British vs pro Irish) lines, albeit that things are infinitely better than in the awful times of the Troubles. All parties to negotiations about the UK's future relations with the EU need to make an absolute priority of maintaining the stability of Northern Ireland.
Originally posted by Turquoise Tastic:
I would point to Tables 1, 2 and 11 as largely backing up my interpretation
quote:I agree it would be easier. And, maintain current provision for free movement between the UK and EU. Both would be simpler and make sound economic sense. But, I see no evidence for the UK government to be asking for either.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if we just maintain the free trade which already exists, which is what the UK government will be asking for?
quote:That is not what the UK government is asking for at all. The current UK government has a desire for a free trade agreement of some sort, but has already rejected the current mechanisms for ensuring common regulation that make this possible as well as the mechanism for resolving disputes.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Wouldn't it be easier for everyone if we just maintain the free trade which already exists, which is what the UK government will be asking for?
quote:Had I been alive a hundred years ago, I would have supported the partition of Ireland on the grounds of "Home Rule means Rome Rule" which De Valera's Free State proved. During the Troubles I supported the democratic right of NI to remain in the UK if it chose to. While I still support that democratic principle, I no longer see the point of the border. A UI would solve so many problems.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Irish Unity Tangent: When Jack Lynch was Taoiseach, he joked about his reluctance to call for Britain to leave Northern Ireland for fear that Margaret Thatcher would take him at his word and reply: "Right. We're going Tuesday."
quote:Why not?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The UK cannot have an effective immigration policy without frontier controls,
quote:If you want to sell into any market, you need to comply with the rules demanded by that market. As the UK is already synced to the EU market, there would be no difficulty in maintaining that position. If you see the ECJ as the only means of resolving disputes, there are problems, but other countries who trade with the EU, the EEA countries apart, aren't bound by the ECJ. It isn't required to trade freely.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That is not what the UK government is asking for at all. The current UK government has a desire for a free trade agreement of some sort, but has already rejected the current mechanisms for ensuring common regulation that make this possible as well as the mechanism for resolving disputes.
quote:If the proposal is that both countries put in measures to prevent EU Citizens using the RoI as a back door to the UK, it implies that the RoI is going to take some responsibility for UK immigration policy.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The RoI doesn't need to implement British immigration policy. The British government would implement British immigration policy.
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:People keep saying this. Kindly set out exactly what measures would allow the RoI to simultaneously maintain free movement, as per their treaty obligations with the EU and implement British immigration policy and allow Irish and UK nationals to travel freely between North and South.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
quote:'Just Brexit' seems to be rather malleable. Mrs May has talked of some kind of deal with the customs union, hasn't she? I suppose that would be 'just Brexit'.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:But the supposedly 'hard' Brexit is just Brexit, isn't it?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose also they may believe that Mrs May has made a terrible mistake by going for hard Brexit, if that's what she has gone for.
Corbyn has nothing to lose really; if she has, and the economy crashes, Labour could win an election.
Besides, today at PMQs Mr Corbyn offered his condolences to the family of a dead police officer who is, in fact, very much alive. No matter what happens, I don't think there's any danger of Labour romping home to victory any time soon.
quote:Even if that, in practice, turns out to be the case, we are talking about averting what could be an absolute disaster, ie the hardening of the Irish border. People need to think outside the box and come up with something which satisfies the need to keep the border as invisible as it is now.
Originally posted by Callan:
If the proposal is that both countries put in measures to prevent EU Citizens using the RoI as a back door to the UK, it implies that the RoI is going to take some responsibility for UK immigration policy
quote:If that is the proposal. But, that assumes immigration control relies on border checkpoints. That hasn't been the case for a long time. What do you think will be happening at a major UK airport post-Brexit? Will the passport control desks at Heathrow be stopping everyone with an EU passport to check they're entitled to enter the UK, or simply assume that they're visiting for a short period as a tourist or to attend a business meeting and wave them thruogh exactly as they do now? In fact, basically exactly as they do for most non-EU citizens coming into Heathrow.
Originally posted by Callan:
If the proposal is that both countries put in measures to prevent EU Citizens using the RoI as a back door to the UK, it implies that the RoI is going to take some responsibility for UK immigration policy.
quote:First, they may not be eligible for entry under any circumstances; second, they may be seeking to work without documentation and there are plenty of employers happy to have them do so; third, they may be entering in order to make a claim to status (such as that of refugee).
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why not?
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The UK cannot have an effective immigration policy without frontier controls,
If we assume immigrants are travelling for the purpose of work, then current requirements to demonstrate residence status (eg: to obtain a valid NI number) would suffice. Likewise for registering with a GP, or applying for benefits etc.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If you want to sell into any market, you need to comply with the rules demanded by that market. As the UK is already synced to the EU market, there would be no difficulty in maintaining that position.
The UK trades in both goods and services with the rest of the EU, these are covered and affected to varying degrees by a number of regulations and directives. The only way of the UK 'staying synched' would be constant wholesale adoption into UK law of all subsequent amendments and additions to these laws insofar as they affect trade policy (which in itself will require a constant untangling of legislation).quote:The current situation, under the treaties governing the freedom of movement within the EU, allows the UK to deny entry to people from the EU - for example, because of suspected terrorist association, because of a serious criminal offence. If someone falls under those criteria then they're likely to be banned from entry to the RoI anyway, or if not they can currently enter the UK through the RoI and nothing will change if post-Brexit there is no hard border
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:First, they may not be eligible for entry under any circumstances
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we assume immigrants are travelling for the purpose of work, then current requirements to demonstrate residence status (eg: to obtain a valid NI number) would suffice. Likewise for registering with a GP, or applying for benefits etc.
quote:There are already issues with employers and illegal immigrants. Plenty of people gain entry into the UK illegally at present, and will continue to do so (simply over staying the 90d of a visa waiver scheme will do it). Another, relatively complicated route through Ireland isn't going to make that much difference. The effective method to the problem is to identify and prosecute those employing people illegally - which will also identify some of those working illegally, allowing arrangements for them to be deported (subject to maintaining their human rights, of course).
second, they may be seeking to work without documentation and there are plenty of employers happy to have them do so
quote:In which case they will be presenting themselves to someone to make that claim very soon after arrival.
third, they may be entering in order to make a claim to status (such as that of refugee).
quote:They will need to handle a large number of people, irrespective of whatever sort of border controls you have. Unless you stop everyone entering the country for any reason. And, even the best wall won't stop illegal immigrants. The majority of illegal immigrants enter the country legally, but then don't leave when they are supposed to.
the administrative measures to which Alan Cresswell refers might work with a small intake, but would not likely handle a larger intake.
quote:My maths isn't that bad! I'm not advocating prioritising trade with the US over the EU. I'm saying that Scotland trades more with the rest of the world than it does with the EU and many times more with the rest of the UK. So it is in Scotland's economic interests to prioritise its markets with the EU being the least important.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If I follow your argument then you're suggesting it'll be good for Scotland to ditch a trade deal with the EU (£12b) for the possibility of a trade deal with the US (£4b). Is that right?
quote:Those who want an independent Scotland's problem isn't even that though is it? If it leaves the UK then its largest single export market is the rUK.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's still pie in the sky. It's putting up trade barriers to £12b of exports for the potential of reducing trade barriers through a long drawn out series of negotiations with hundreds of countries amounting to £16b of exports. It's a long term gamble.
So, maybe it makes sense to prioritise getting a deal with the US, the largest single export market.
quote:At the moment, of course, the Scottish government isn't planning another white paper on independence to put to the people of Scotland, although the possibility is being discussed. When that happens it'll take a lot of heads to think through the issues relating to Brexit, but until we know what Brexit means that thinking is only about a range of possibilities.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Those who want an independent Scotland's problem isn't even that though is it? If it leaves the UK then its largest single export market is the rUK.
With the rUK leaving the EU, Scexit is putting up trade barriers to £49.8bn of exports. Unless the Scexiteers want to talk to the rUK about a free-trade deal, which is sort of incompatible with iScotland's putative EU membership...
quote:Is a somewhat skewed comparison to say the least. 'The rest of the world' are multiple markets driven by multiple agreements, trade with the EU is with a single entity for all intents and purposes (that single market again). If you get access to Germany, you also get access to the other 25 states.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I've just been reading some interesting statistics about Scotland's exports in 2015. The country did rather well, increasing its exports by £3.6 billion to £78.6 billion. It breaks down like this:
£49.8 billion rUK
£16.4 billion rest of the world.
£12.3 billion rest of EU.
So Scotland's least important market is the EU.
quote:This is cherry picking at its best. Even assuming the EU agrees a special deal for Scotland, which I doubt, would allow Scotland to retain free trade with rUK if the rest of the EU is made to erect tariffs? When Ms Sturgeon assures us that she's not bluffing about a second referendum, and Scotland has to choose which side of a tariff barrier it's on, would she really expect the voters to choose the EU?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Plan B would be some deal whereby Scotland (still as part of the UK) has access to the European free trade area and free trade within the UK, that would create some small changes
quote:I strongly disagree with this. There is a plan. Admittedly bare bones, but there can't be more until we know what response this will get from the EU team. Only then will any clarity be possible. There is no proper mandate, which is why I wish the PM would call an election. I have little doubt that she'd get a whopping mandate for her negotiating position. Andrew Marr has proved via playbacks that both George Osborne and David Cameron made it clear in interviews that a Leave vote would mean leaving the Single Market. It's an insult to suggest that those who voted leave(which I didn't) were so stupid as not to know this. So there is a plan. No clarity is yet possible. The PM is giving the country what it voted for, and if she is forced to seek a proper mandate, she'll likely get it. What more do people want except perhaps to reverse the result?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At present there is still no plan, no mandate from the UK population for any plan, and certainly no clarity. About the only certainty is that whatever the UK government cooks up will not be what the people of the UK clearly voted for in June - because there is no clarity about what people who put their cross in the Leave box were actually voting for.
quote:Yes, as you say bare bones. But, of the 12 points listed:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There is a plan. Admittedly bare bones
quote:Sorry, when were either Osborne or Cameron campaigning to Leave the EU and be in a position to define what the Leave campaign wanted? The only way to know what the Leave campaign wanted is to see what they were saying - and remaining in the Single Market was what they were saying (well, most of the time - they managed to say just about everything at some point since they were not given the opportunity to produce a coherent plan, which would have required at least one more year before the referendum campaign started).
Andrew Marr has proved via playbacks that both George Osborne and David Cameron made it clear in interviews that a Leave vote would mean leaving the Single Market.
quote:.. and the comparisons Farage and Hannan (among many others) were fond of drawing on was with Norway or Switzerland.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only way to know what the Leave campaign wanted is to see what they were saying - and remaining in the Single Market was what they were saying
quote:You say this like it was a bad thing.
What more do people want except perhaps to reverse the result?
quote:For the most part I believe the "Leave" vote was not motivated by stupidity, immigration, economic arguments and sovereignty, but a great desire to stick one up the government.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The PM is giving the country what it voted for, and if she is forced to seek a proper mandate, she'll likely get it. What more do people want except perhaps to reverse the result?
quote:Don't confuse Brexit itself with any putative trade deal that may subsequently be set up between the UK and the EU. The latter will require the agreement of the 27 countries, but the former does not.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
1. A Brexit deal requires agreement from both the country in question (UK) and all the other countries which are involved (the other 27 countries).
quote:OK, but a Constitutional change was required to ratify Lisbon.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Only changes to the Irish Constitution require a referendum in Ireland.
quote:from wikipedia
Ireland was the only EU member state that held public referendums on the Treaty. Ratification of the Treaty in all other member states is decided upon by the states' national parliaments. The referendum was part of the larger EU ratification of the Treaty, which required that all EU members and the European Parliament must ratify it. A "No" vote in the referendum could have blocked the treaty in the EU altogether. However, the Treaty of Nice was ratified by Ireland in 2002 in a second referendum after the first vote rejected it by a narrow margin in 2001.
quote:As I understand the argument - which as I've said may or may not be true - Article 50 requires everyone to agree.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Don't confuse Brexit itself with any putative trade deal that may subsequently be set up between the UK and the EU. The latter will require the agreement of the 27 countries, but the former does not.
quote:Britain leaving the EU doesn't change the Irish Constitution.
OK, but a Constitutional change was required to ratify Lisbon.
quote:As I understand it, it's not the triggering of Article 50 that requires the agreement. You still have your sovereignty as a nation despite what UKIP et al loudly proclaim, so you cannot be stopped from governing yourselves. What requires agreement is the 'how' it occurs and what you leave with and what you leave behind and how everyone can still in some way work with you to ensure your economy does;t become a basket case and your country a failed state on Europe's doorstep. I'm beginning to think agreement might come easier than was initially thought, so long as May keeps steering it away from what was formerly in the offing : a Britain out of Europe but wanting all the benefits of being in Europe retained.
As I understand the argument - which as I've said may or may not be true - Article 50 requires everyone to agree.
quote:Entirely agree - this is where we find ourselves. We're not about to get white knighted by another country vetoing something. It's just going to make the landing harder.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My expectation is that if a deal can not be negotiated and agreed within 2y then the UK leaves the EU without any specific agreement, and relations are the same as any other non-EU nation without a specific treaty - trade on WTO rules etc. If the deal is scuppered by any of the EU nations not agreeing to it (which in some cases will be by a referendum) then so long as there is time left within the 2y period the deal can be amended and another attempt to get everyone to agree can be tried - but, I don't think anyone is expecting there to be time for that.
But, that's what happens when you have a European Union which respects the sovereignty of the nations therein. Life would be so much easier if the EU actually is the monolithic government imposing itself on member states in the way that UKIP and similar loonies portray it.
quote:Article 50 says that the UK's departure from the EU will happen as soon as the EU agrees the terms on which we will leave or two years after we give notification of our intention to leave. If the member states don't agree on withdrawal terms within the two years then we just leave with no agreements in place at all.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:As I understand the argument - which as I've said may or may not be true - Article 50 requires everyone to agree.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Don't confuse Brexit itself with any putative trade deal that may subsequently be set up between the UK and the EU. The latter will require the agreement of the 27 countries, but the former does not.
quote:I do think it's a bad thing. If a government sees any issue as important enough to call a referendum, it must honour the result. An example I could give is that perhaps one day, republicanism will become such a force in British politics, that a referendum will be called on the future of the monarchy. If it happens in my lifetime I will vociferously campaign to keep the monarchy, and I will vote for it. But much more than I am a monarchist, I'm a democrat. After getting over my sadness, I'd vote for who I considered to be the best presidential candidate.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
quote:
What more do people want except perhaps to reverse the result?
You say this like it was a bad thing.
quote:If any country of the EU 27 requires a referendum on the Brexit deal, it will be the Irish Republic, because some aspect of Brexit could likely impinge on the Irish constitution which requires a popular vote. But along with the other 26, Ireland would have no power to prevent it. Although every country would be required to ratify a deal in accordance with its own constitution, this is why Theresa may has said she's willing to walk away without a deal if necessary. A good deal is what we want. No deal is acceptable. A bad deal isn't.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Only changes to the Irish Constitution require a referendum in Ireland.
quote:If a government sees any issue as important enough to call a referendum then the issue deserves a referendum where it's possible to know what people voted for. An issue important enough for a referendum is important enough for a serious discussion. That's a discussion that had barely started a year ago, and is a long way from concluded ... yet the referendum has already been held. It's a farce, a disgrace, a level of democracy not far removed from the Crimean independence referendum ... and, yes I would be delighted if the government would simply wake up to the reality and once they've decided on a plan for Brexit confirm that that is what the people of this country want before stampeding down the slope, headlong into ever increasing catastrophe.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If a government sees any issue as important enough to call a referendum, it must honour the result.
quote:The headlong slope into catastrophe! I don't think it will happen, that is, the catastrophe. The UK economy is strong and resilient with a long history of international trade. It will not wither and die. Even if Brexit causes a slight contraction of 1-2%, the economy will readjust, we will go more global and survive well. This isn't to minimise the adverse effects some people may experience in job losses, but an economic meltdown it isn't. People should stop talking down our national future and work to make it better. There may be profound changes in the EU next year which put this in perspective.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
confirm that that is what the people of this country want before stampeding down the slope, headlong into ever increasing catastrophe.
quote:This is at least the second time you've drawn this analogy. The Crimean referendum was held under illegal Russian military occupation. I can't help but think that any serious attempt at comparison is at best hysterical and at worst quite tasteless.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That's a discussion that had barely started a year ago, and is a long way from concluded ... yet the referendum has already been held. It's a farce, a disgrace, a level of democracy not far removed from the Crimean independence referendum .
quote:Believe me when I say that I'm not someone with any love for Russia, especially since the Bolshevik Revolution. But many in the West ignore the history of Crimea. It was Russian from 1783 after the Russians expelled the Ottoman Turks. It was administratively joined to Ukraine in 1954 by Krushchev when both were part of the Soviet Union. This was part of the Russian plan to fill up satellite states with its own people as they did in Lithuania. The addition of 850,000 Russians to the Ukranian population served the same purpose.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
This is at least the second time you've drawn this analogy. The Crimean referendum was held under illegal Russian military occupation. I can't help but think that any serious attempt at comparison is at best hysterical and at worst quite tasteless.
quote:If the last hundred years were going to teach us anything it is that democracy, political systems of any kind actually, and economies are fragile. Over and over and over again history teaches us this, but for some reason we refuse to believe it, refuse to take it in and repeat the mantra to ourselves that we are secure and stable. we believe we are so secure and stable in the political and economic realm that we can even play with politics, be rash in our decisions when we want to and vote things and people in that will entertain us as a way of giving 'the establishment' a bloody nose. And we believe that we can do all of this because we won't fall into the abyss. This of course does not only apply to the UK, not by any means. These days we live in a global economy and a sudden crash on the other side of the planet can send a ripple our way that can be felt for years - sure if the wind changes these days the stock markets go into a zig-zag. But to suggest that any economy or democracy is indestructible and resilient is to my mind completely deluded.
The UK economy is strong and resilient with a long history of international trade. It will not wither and die
quote:Of course, there were serious deficiencies in the Crimean referendum which would make any sensible person consider it invalid. The problem is some of those were shared by the EU referendum in June - the most significant being a very rushed vote with inadequate time to properly discuss the issues. On the other hand, the Crimean referendum was called by the Crimean Parliament which was campaigning for the independence of Crimea from the Ukraine (albeit a Parliament without substantial democratic authority), which is a substantial improvement over the farce of government elected on a manifesto to maintain the UKs place in the EU calling a referendum on the UK leaving the EU and then feeling compelled to accept this one very narrow vote (with no constitutional basis to be legally binding) as superseding a string of elections in which successive governments have been elected, sometimes on a landslide, committed to the UK staying in the EU.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:This is at least the second time you've drawn this analogy. The Crimean referendum was held under illegal Russian military occupation. I can't help but think that any serious attempt at comparison is at best hysterical and at worst quite tasteless.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That's a discussion that had barely started a year ago, and is a long way from concluded ... yet the referendum has already been held. It's a farce, a disgrace, a level of democracy not far removed from the Crimean independence referendum .
quote:Err yes it does. The EU Referendum in the UK is clearly "more valid" than the referendum in Crimea for those reasons.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, yes our referendum wasn't conducted with troops in the street, and with out evident wide spread voter fraud (or, indeed, any evidence of voter fraud). But, it doesn't make the result any more valid.
quote:This is a different thing. You are saying something about the debate and the way the discussion was framed. That's not the same as the validity of the referendum. Surely that's plainly obvious.
There is an established pattern for valid referenda on major constitutional issues - and it starts with the election of a government committed to that constitutional change, or at the very least a Parliamentary debate and vote in favour of it..
quote:Your position would be a lot stronger if you didn't slip into hyperbole and didn't try comparing things which are in no sense the same.
I know the chances of getting the government to see sense at this stage is next to zero. But, that doesn't mean we should stop exercising our democratic rights to attempt to do so. And, if we can't keep the UK in the EU then to make Brexit leave as many of the benefits of EU membership in place as possible (single market, freedom of movement, science & technology, environmental and workers rights legislation, product and services standards, etc) so that we can then elect a government to take us back into the EU as soon as possible with the minimal effort.
quote:Is validity a spectrum then? Rather than being binary? Either a referendum reflects the will of an informed electorate, or it doesn't. The question asked, the conduct of the campaign, the conduct of the vote and count either allow for government to justify an action as "the will of the people" or it doesn't.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Err yes it does. The EU Referendum in the UK is clearly "more valid" than the referendum in Crimea for those reasons.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, yes our referendum wasn't conducted with troops in the street, and with out evident wide spread voter fraud (or, indeed, any evidence of voter fraud). But, it doesn't make the result any more valid.
quote:No, it's not a different thing. The debate and the way the discussion was framed is what I'm talking about as defining the validity of a referendum.
quote:This is a different thing. You are saying something about the debate and the way the discussion was framed. That's not the same as the validity of the referendum. Surely that's plainly obvious.
There is an established pattern for valid referenda on major constitutional issues - and it starts with the election of a government committed to that constitutional change, or at the very least a Parliamentary debate and vote in favour of it..
quote:If you hadn't noticed, I've spent the last year expressing very clear opinions on the UK position in the EU - I'd have been doing so for several years if the discussion wasn't started suddenly by Cameron with practically no previous discussion. And, the last six months in particular have done nothing to convince me that there is any semblance of competence in our government. Starting from a leadership campaign that resulted in the Tories replacing an idiot, who at least supported Remaining in the EU, with a nobody who shows no evidence of actually supporting leaving the EU, but rather seeming as though she's compelled to do something she doesn't agree with. We're in the bizarre situation where the Leave campaign actually have very little say in what form Brexit comes in.
quote:Your position would be a lot stronger if you didn't slip into hyperbole and didn't try comparing things which are in no sense the same.
I know the chances of getting the government to see sense at this stage is next to zero. But, that doesn't mean we should stop exercising our democratic rights to attempt to do so. And, if we can't keep the UK in the EU then to make Brexit leave as many of the benefits of EU membership in place as possible (single market, freedom of movement, science & technology, environmental and workers rights legislation, product and services standards, etc) so that we can then elect a government to take us back into the EU as soon as possible with the minimal effort.
quote:And, as I thought I'd made clear, I agree that the situations were different. We only had one MP shot after all.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Your country was not invaded, your parliament was not seized by foreign troops, your state was not violently overthrown. None of these terrible things preceded the vote your side lost. Whatever the campaign's deficits in clarity and enlightenment, it wasn't even remotely close to the situation in Crimea.
quote:Well that might be what you like but that isn't what has ever happened, has it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A major constitutional change is something that should be the culmination of a process that gains the support for that change across all levels of government and society, a process on which the electorate has several chances to have their say at the ballot box.
quote:That hasn't happened at all. The 2015 Conservative Party manifesto promised to hold a referendum and honour the result. A referendum was held and the result is being honoured.
Yet, this anomalous (by a very narrow margin) result has lead the government to scrapping it's manifesto in relation to the EU and claiming a mandate to take an action that the electorate could not have known they'd be taking.
quote:Who are these 'Leave campaigners' other than Nigel Farage, who wasn't actually part of the official Vote Leave campaign?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, don't forget that Leave campaigners are on record as saying that a 48-52 result against them would result in them immediately starting to work on another referendum as soon as possible afterwards
quote:Did they all say that? I'm happy to be proven wrong...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who are they? Really?
Gisela Stuart, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, John Mills, Peter Cruddas...
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Had you really declared that the result would be invalid, whichever way it went? I'd be interested in seeing that, or even a close approximation, if you wouldn't mind providing a link to the appropriate thread.
quote:If it had gone the other way, and Farage et.al. were pointing out flaws that could allow them to put the same question to the people of the UK I'd agree with them re: legitimacy, the main difference being I would say that the question was too simplistic, and so a legitimate referendum would need to include a more specific question (even if the same words, backed by an agreed definition of what Brexit means). Also, having had a referendum with a significant vote to Leave that would mean that at least one party (other than UKIP) would have a commitment to leave the EU in their manifesto for 2020, and if they got into government then it would be a step along a legitimate route to Brexit.
(And are you really now using Nigel Farage and the Leave campaign to justify your own position re: legitimacy? That smells of desperation.)
quote:It's exactly what happened for the Scottish independence referendum, and the devolution referendum before that. Also the 1975 referendum to join the EEC in the first place.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Well that might be what you like but that isn't what has ever happened, has it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A major constitutional change is something that should be the culmination of a process that gains the support for that change across all levels of government and society, a process on which the electorate has several chances to have their say at the ballot box.
quote:I'm also on record of opposition to the AV referendum because AV wasn't what any of the parties had in their manifesto - the LibDems sought PR. As I just said, the 1975 referendum followed an Act of Parliament to join the EEC, following extensive treaty negotiations by a series of governments elected on a manifesto to negotiate entry into the EEC. And, of course, the 2016 is the one we're talking about.
From memory, there have been three nation-wide referendums of constitutional importance: the 1975 referendum on EC membership; the 2011 AV referendum; and the 2016 EU referendum.
The AV referendum wasn't, to my knowledge, based on any party's manifesto but came out of coalition negotiations, and the other two appear to have followed similar paths of development.
quote:The Conservative manifesto also included commitments to the single market, and to keeping the UK in the "family of nations in the EU". What do you do when one part of a manifesto contradicts other parts?
quote:That hasn't happened at all. The 2015 Conservative Party manifesto promised to hold a referendum and honour the result. A referendum was held and the result is being honoured.
Yet, this anomalous (by a very narrow margin) result has lead the government to scrapping it's manifesto in relation to the EU and claiming a mandate to take an action that the electorate could not have known they'd be taking.
quote:I don't agree. Apart from Michael Foot's pledge to renegotiate or leave in 1983, no party has offered the British people a say on Europe since 1973. Until Cameron announced on 23rd January 2013 that he would call a simple in/out referendum if he won the next election. After his surprise win in 2015, three years and five months to the day after making that pledge, he honoured it. After parliament had voted by 6 to 1 in favour of calling the referendum. Alan seems to be so distressed by this that he may have agreed with Gina Miller when she said that the thought of leaving the EU made her physically sick. But such level of emotion clouds judgement.
Originally posted by Alan Creswell:
But, my point about the anomaly is that there have been several elections where EU membership was a significant part of the question posed to the electorate, and in all cases the UK electorate chose the pro-EU option.
quote:Well, you mention 1983. Labour Party manifesto including withdraw from Common Market, Conservatives include commitment to EC membership. Result: Conservative landslide victory. Yes, there were other factors (not least the Falklands war effect), but support for leaving the EU was nowhere near strong enough for Labour to even have a good showing.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I don't agree. Apart from Michael Foot's pledge to renegotiate or leave in 1983, no party has offered the British people a say on Europe since 1973.
Originally posted by Alan Creswell:
But, my point about the anomaly is that there have been several elections where EU membership was a significant part of the question posed to the electorate, and in all cases the UK electorate chose the pro-EU option.
quote:Hell, I don't care. They all said stupid things they didn't mean to achieve a result they didn't actually want. So narrowing down who said exactly what is not worth the effort.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Did they all say that? I'm happy to be proven wrong...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who are they? Really?
Gisela Stuart, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, John Mills, Peter Cruddas...
quote:...which were 20-30 years ago. Attitudes change.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Well, you mention 1983...
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I don't agree. Apart from Michael Foot's pledge to renegotiate or leave in 1983, no party has offered the British people a say on Europe since 1973.
Originally posted by Alan Creswell:
But, my point about the anomaly is that there have been several elections where EU membership was a significant part of the question posed to the electorate, and in all cases the UK electorate chose the pro-EU option.
...
Or, 1997...
Just to mention two elections.
quote:Except the one where they were explicitly asked about EU membership. This line of argument reminds me of The Day Today's interview with a Pool Supervisor.
Originally posted by Alan Creswell:
But, my point about the anomaly is that there have been several elections where EU membership was a significant part of the question posed to the electorate, and in all cases the UK electorate chose the pro-EU option.
quote:Thanks for the pointer to the thread. I see nothing in your pre-referendum posts that comes anywhere near to suggesting that the result would be invalid because of the process. There were 150 such posts; had this notion been prominent in your thinking at the time, I would have expected to find some trace of it there.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Well, I was sure I had. But a quick skim through the thread didn't reveal it (I may need more time, it's possible I said it earlier in the thread than I thought, it's also possible I'm confused and it's something I said on Facebook). I certainly compared the referendum unfavourably with the Scottish independence referendum, though in that case in the context of the coherence of the Leave campaign. I've not found the Hell thread in Oblivion, but that may have been after the referendum anyway.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Had you really declared that the result would be invalid, whichever way it went? I'd be interested in seeing that, or even a close approximation, if you wouldn't mind providing a link to the appropriate thread.
quote:Yes, this is quite consistent with the losing side being shocked by the outcome, and grasping for ex post facto justifications for throwing it out. Perfectly understandable, if unedifying.
I'm not sure if I used the word "invalid", it was only after the referendum that people I heard regularly talking about valid/invalid [snip]
quote:No, absolutely not in regards to that last bit. General process of gaining support, yes. Repeated official votes, terrible idea.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A major constitutional change is something that should be the culmination of a process that gains the support for that change across all levels of government and society, a process on which the electorate has several chances to have their say at the ballot box.
quote:As an inhabitant of a country that has rather a lot of experience with referenda (we get multiple shots at them every three months at a national level), I would concur that you can't keep asking the same question time and again in quick succession, however you can either wait a bit (e.g. we find ourselves voting on national health insurance every seven or eight years), or you can rephrase the question in such a way that you move towards your ultimate goal in a drawn-out series of referenda in a process called "salami slicing".
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]If you go back and try to check the answers again and again, you're not going to make more people happy. You're going to make more people unhappy. If the result next time is different, all that you'll get is a large swathe of people who liked the first result feeling that they were cheated by having another go.
quote:As I said, a quick look and I couldn't find posts I'm sure I had made - which means it's possible that I posted those thoughts elsewhere (FB for example), or that actually it's reading back something that is now clear in my mind onto the posts I made while my thoughts were clarifying. But, I'm going to withdraw my claim that I was already questioning the validity of the referendum prior to the vote in June since neither of us can find the posts that demonstrate that.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Thanks for the pointer to the thread. I see nothing in your pre-referendum posts that comes anywhere near to suggesting that the result would be invalid because of the process. There were 150 such posts; had this notion been prominent in your thinking at the time, I would have expected to find some trace of it there.
quote:As I said, my first recollection of regular use of the language of "validity" was from the Leave campaign after the vote - in effect claiming that the vote was valid and binding, and that therefore those of us who were continuing to campaign for EU membership were being undemocratic and working against the expressed will of the majority of the people of the UK. Which might, of course, have been a reaction to a group I was unaware of claiming it was invalid and therefore seeking to throw it out (actually, there were some early legal challenges along those lines, of people who had been unable to vote saying the result should be thrown out because they had been prevented from voting, that I heard of).
quote:Yes, this is quite consistent with the losing side being shocked by the outcome, and grasping for ex post facto justifications for throwing it out. Perfectly understandable, if unedifying.
I'm not sure if I used the word "invalid", it was only after the referendum that people I heard regularly talking about valid/invalid [snip]
quote:Just to clarify, I wasn't talking about multiple referendums on the same question (or, even changing to a slightly different question and asking again), at least not within any one generation.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:No, absolutely not in regards to that last bit. General process of gaining support, yes. Repeated official votes, terrible idea.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A major constitutional change is something that should be the culmination of a process that gains the support for that change across all levels of government and society, a process on which the electorate has several chances to have their say at the ballot box.
quote:I understand all of that. It's why we have a Parliament, the manifesto pledges of a party do not become law immediately upon them gaining power but through a drawn out process of bills passing through Parliament with all the usual amendments and votes. Which is a good thing too, because I don't think anyone ever agrees with all the points in a manifesto (including those standing for election for that party) and the Parliamentary process provides a filter to separate policies with broad public support from those which the public don't really like but were part of a package that was approved on the basis of policies the public did like. Plus, of course, manifestoes are often contradictory (eg: the 2015 Conservative pledges to maintain the UKs position within the EU and hold a referendum on the question - the Leave vote made the first impossible to keep). And, finally as you'll appreciate, it takes a lot of work and scrutiny to convert a paragraph or two of text on a manifesto into a workable law.
Originally posted by orfeo:
Also, Alan, you seem rather confused about the function of party manifestos.
Take the proposal for the change of voting system. You observe, correctly, that the option presented to people wasn't in the manifesto of any party.
But so what? The entire process of Parliament is about compromises and negotiations, especially at a time of minority government. A party doesn't gain a general mandate for all of its policy ideas just through winning seats in Parliament. An election is the start of the process, not the end of it.
quote:Yes, I'm aware of those difficulties. Really, the whole thing is a mess on an international scale. Partly because no one really imagined this was going to happen, in the UK or elsewhere.
Originally posted by Gee D:
The trouble with that is that there does not seem to be any mechanism to withdraw a notice given under Art 50. What if the electorate says that it does no like the deal the EU offers? The EU simply says that that is what we're offering and whatever you may now think is irrelevant. And I think that the EU has said pretty clearly that the remaining countries are happy that the UK is leaving; it saves them from what for the last 40 years has been a series of requests from the UK for special treatment.
quote:The Germans or Europe?
....in my view the Germans have handled a couple of big issues (refugee crisis, Greek finances) somewhat poorly.
quote:But it isn't about changing your tune, it is about talking bollocks laced with spurious comparisons.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, if you go back to the pre-vote thread you'll see I was questioning the validity of the process before the outcome was known, when the polls were predicting a Remain win. So, I've not changed my tune.
quote:One MP dead, Farrage threatening that there will be blood on the streets if it doesn't go the 'right' way. Yeah, I'm sure you're right; no violence or threats there at all and nobody on the leave side ever told a lie, not even about money going to the NHS. That bus you saw must have been a mirage.
no reports of threats of violence
quote:There is no comparison between these things and tanks on the streets.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
One MP dead, Farrage threatening that there will be blood on the streets if it doesn't go the 'right' way. Yeah, I'm sure you're right; no violence or threats there at all and nobody on the leave side ever told a lie, not even about money going to the NHS. That bus you saw must have been a mirage.
quote:Hmmm ... Setting aside the fact that orfeo isn't British: what word describes someone who defends internationalism by means of national stereotyping?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
This demonstrates nicely Britain's overall attitude to the EU. It's all about not letting the dirty foreigners in and making sure we all stay nice and economically comfortable. Middle East turning to shit? Oh well, I'm alright Jack. A European country facing complete bankruptcy? Ah sure, let 'em sink, it's not on my doorstep.
quote:Thanks for the link, I'd expected it to have been cleared out of Hell by now. As someone will point out if I don't, that post also doesn't question the validity of the referendum either. But, perhaps I'll have time to look further through the thread later to see if there is a post there which does.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Alan - the reason you can't find the Hell thread in Oblivion is because it is still in Hell. Are you thinking of these posts from 19 June?
quote:Geez. It's on page 2. Of 4.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Thanks for the link, I'd expected it to have been cleared out of Hell by now.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Alan - the reason you can't find the Hell thread in Oblivion is because it is still in Hell. Are you thinking of these posts from 19 June?
quote:I don't get the logic of this. The Conservative party wasn't advocating leaving the EU even if some of its members believed in it. It was advocating giving the British people the final say on membership, which they did. I don't see any democratic deficit in this process. Many people have argued that it was a mistake to offer the referendum but that's another matter. Having offered it, they stuck by their promise with the outcome you hate so much. I think you are wrong to blame the process for an outcome you didn't want.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the concrete case of EU membership, the Conservative party would have needed to put withdrawal from the EU in their manifesto as a definite pledge (of course having first convinced their own party members of the benefits).
quote:How you got half of that stuff from my post (including, apparently, a belief about my nationality that is wrong), I've no idea.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Orfeo:
quote:The Germans or Europe?
....in my view the Germans have handled a couple of big issues (refugee crisis, Greek finances) somewhat poorly.
Poorly?
In regards to the refugee crisis - the largest since the second world war - Saudi Arabia and Turkey (two countries with magically wonderful human rights records) have between them taken in just under six million refugees. Germany took in one million because no other rich nation in Europe could be bothered to help people in absolute desperation who literally had nowhere to go.
Greece handled badly? Yes, I'm sure they could have continued without any semblance of a sensible tax system and just borrowed and borrowed indefinitely, and sure Europe could have just let the whole place sink without a trace without a bail out. I'm sure that would have been just peachy; especially seeing it was the point of entry for all those refugees.
This demonstrates nicely Britain's overall attitude to the EU. It's all about not letting the dirty foreigners in and making sure we all stay nice and economically comfortable. Middle East turning to shit? Oh well, I'm alright Jack. A European country facing complete bankruptcy? Ah sure, let 'em sink, it's not on my doorstep.
quote:You're putting forward an interesting version of democracy, whereby popular participation is limited to picking which party the people want to tell them what to do for a 5-year period.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The logic (or, lack thereof) is that a Conservative government has forced itself into enacting a policy change which it doesn't believe in, and that has little support within their own party. Logically, governments would enact legislation that they believe to be the best for the country with the support of their party (perhaps with a small dissenting minority). It's a bizarre way to govern a country.
quote:Who do you get told that by? Parties that don't want their authority challenged.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, we keep getting told the benefits of a strong government (though I'm a long way from being convinced that a strong government equates with a large majority of MPs blindly following the directions of the whips). A government divided over an issue, from a party divided, leading a nation divided is the antithesis of strong government.
quote:I'm not quite sure where in any of my post I got your nationality wrong. Both of us are expressing opinions about Brexit and neither of us are living in Britain. I would hope that doesn't preclude us from expressing opinion, nor our opinions coinciding or conflicting with those who live there.
How you got half of that stuff from my post (including, apparently, a belief about my nationality that is wrong), I've no idea.
quote:You have that entirely the wrong way around, it's actually at its highest for 30 years.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting, since I thought inequality is now at its lowest for 30 years?
quote:Well, The Guardian from last month suggests *income inequality* is indeed at the lowest levels since 1986.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:You have that entirely the wrong way around, it's actually at its highest for 30 years.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting, since I thought inequality is now at its lowest for 30 years?
There was a period between 2001 and the start of the GFC where inequality fell, since 2008 it has been on the rise again.
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Well, The Guardian from last month suggests *income inequality* is indeed at the lowest levels since 1986.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:You have that entirely the wrong way around, it's actually at its highest for 30 years.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting, since I thought inequality is now at its lowest for 30 years?
There was a period between 2001 and the start of the GFC where inequality fell, since 2008 it has been on the rise again.
quote:Right. Because I said that the gap had gone.... I'm assuming you actually *read* what I wrote?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Well, The Guardian from last month suggests *income inequality* is indeed at the lowest levels since 1986.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:You have that entirely the wrong way around, it's actually at its highest for 30 years.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting, since I thought inequality is now at its lowest for 30 years?
There was a period between 2001 and the start of the GFC where inequality fell, since 2008 it has been on the rise again.
I'm assuming you actually read the article?
The "narrowing" gap is essentially the same as Bill Gates losing a tenner and me finding 50p on the pavement.
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:Income inequality was lousy in 1986, is as bad now as it was then and was worse in between. It has always been one of the nastier aspect of British society.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
"The figures, which show a fall in income inequality to levels last seen in 1986"
any other arguments you think I'm making are happening in your head.
quote:What arguments are you making? The bit I quoted, by itself, is rather anemic. It isn't OTT to assume it means what I thought it did.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
"The figures, which show a fall in income inequality to levels last seen in 1986"
any other arguments you think I'm making are happening in your head.
quote:15 weeks' paid holiday? In our dreams.
For those with an eye for detail, have a read of the Brexit white paper and tell me what is odd about chart 7.1 on the top of page 32. [Two face]
quote:I dunno, can that really be true? There can't be a legal maximum to the amount of holiday one is allowed to take can there? I bet if one looked hard enough it would be possible to find someone who had a paid year off.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I presume that if at least one person in the UK is entitled to 15 weeks annual leave then that's alright, because the chart is correct in showing the maximum amount available in the UK.
quote:Some might suggest that some of our representatives in Westminster and the European Parliament act as though they're just on one long paid vacation. And, those people who had earned the average UK annual salary by the 3rd January can presumably afford unpaid leave for most of the year.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I dunno, can that really be true? There can't be a legal maximum to the amount of holiday one is allowed to take can there? I bet if one looked hard enough it would be possible to find someone who had a paid year off.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I presume that if at least one person in the UK is entitled to 15 weeks annual leave then that's alright, because the chart is correct in showing the maximum amount available in the UK.
quote:As far as I can work out, that's only possible with either (a) a completely new trade agreement between the UK and the EU that allows free movement of things but not people or (b) some kind of new membership of the EEA.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Can anyone explain how we leave the customs union, and maintain the free movement of goods with the EU? One solution is to construct a duplicate of regulations within the customs union, so our mythical truck can still drive from Hungary to Manchester smoothly, or 'frictionlessly' as Mrs May has it.
quote:To me this is a much bigger issue. It might be possible to negotiate something sensible with the EU, but we're going to have to put a LOT more on the table than at present. I think there is only a moderate amount of fear within the Eastern-EU countries about the return of their nationals post-Brexit, I think pragmatically they believe that nothing much will change because the UK market needs low paid labour to get agricultural produce picked. Even if the UK did put in migration rules, at worst that'd just mean that the workers had to look elsewhere in the EU for work.
I suppose the point of this duplication is that we can avoid any immigration issues. As Osborne said in the Commons, the govt is subordinating the economy to this. I think he was being rather catty. Presumably, he will be there, saying 'told you so', if it goes pear shaped.
But even then, immigration has to follow labour shortages. Oh I forgot, we are taking back control, that's it.
quote:Yes there are - a previous place I worked at ran such a policy.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Apparently some companies have an "unlimited vacation" policy - where time off is not counted and instead it is about delivery of results.
quote:Not just seasonal labour for agriculture itself, but a lot of the industries that consume agricultural produce (food service companies, packing/canning facilities and so on).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think there is only a moderate amount of fear within the Eastern-EU countries about the return of their nationals post-Brexit, I think pragmatically they believe that nothing much will change because the UK market needs low paid labour to get agricultural produce picked.
quote:Certainly the food service industry. I work in the "machinery of government" and many of the staff employed in our restaurant, café and shop are from Eastern EU states. Some of our cleaners too. Mostly way over qualified for the jobs.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Not just seasonal labour for agriculture itself, but a lot of the industries that consume agricultural produce (food service companies, packing/canning facilities and so on).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think there is only a moderate amount of fear within the Eastern-EU countries about the return of their nationals post-Brexit, I think pragmatically they believe that nothing much will change because the UK market needs low paid labour to get agricultural produce picked.
quote:The explanation is probably simpler than that. The bars on the right show entitlement to maternity leave, the ones on the left show entitlement to annual leave. It looks as if whoever created the report slapped the chart together at the last minute without considering whether it was *really* a good idea to merge two charts like this.
Maybe the chart was including other types of paid leave as well - allowances for paid sick leave, compassionate leave, leave for jury service and the like. Which most people will only take a day or two (usually sick) in the year, but in theory is there if needed.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No, no, no, no! All those jobs can be filled by the lazy, unemployed. Duh.
"You there, benefits scrounger. Do you want to be a doctor, vegetable picker or IT professional?
Scratch that, the NHS can't afford doctors anymore. Vegetables or IT? Perhaps you'd care to be an engineer?"
quote:Yes, I realise you didn't mean to be exhaustive. I was trying to point out how far into everyday life these decisions would actually intrude (and yes, while some of these jobs pay the minimum wage, not all of them do).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Right, sorry, I wasn't intending that list to be exhaustive.
I think quite a large proportion of our economy depends - directly or indirectly - on cheap labour, which is almost inevitably linked to low paid migrants.
quote:There is an additional 13 weeks (bringing the total to 52) of unpaid maternity leave that a mother may take if she wishes. So, the graph is technically correct, even if most people don't think of unpaid leave entitlements.
Originally posted by Jane R:
...wait, paid maternity leave is 39 weeks. OK, I'll let them off the charge of not knowing maternity leave entitlement.
quote:Thing is Slough has peculiar issues that have tended to exacerbate any problems.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting Panorama (BBC1), tonight from Slough, which is booming, partly because of immigration. Many different voices, employers who love having immigrant labour, not because they're cheap, but very hard working. Low unemployment, high wages.
quote:Though, as most of these consequences were predicted prior to the referendum they shouldn't make a case for another vote. The good people of the UK have had their say, and chose to destroy the NHS (and, all the other effects on our education system, agriculture, industry at all levels etc). Assuming of course you accept the government argument that a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave under the scheme they subsequently developed.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Over time as these elements of consequences become more and more apparent, the stage will be set to put it to the vote once again.
quote:I was in the midst of typing a long reply to disagree with you, and then I realised you were right. However, I only agree cautiously. For example, while there was discussion about the detriment caused to the City of London, there was no discussion at all about loss of financial passporting, which would be the main reason for this. While I agree that holding a second referendum on the same question is (and will be rightly decried as) having another go at getting the "right answer" surely there is a point at which it becomes legitimate to say that the low quality of the previous debate, together with ermergence of issues since makes a second vote appropriate. I think the very pragmatic and sensible Lib Dem proposal of a second referendum on final separation terms would be the way to do this.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Though, as most of these consequences were predicted prior to the referendum they shouldn't make a case for another vote. The good people of the UK have had their say, and chose to destroy the NHS (and, all the other effects on our education system, agriculture, industry at all levels etc). Assuming of course you accept the government argument that a vote to Leave was a vote to Leave under the scheme they subsequently developed.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Over time as these elements of consequences become more and more apparent, the stage will be set to put it to the vote once again.
quote:Privatised or public sector, medical staff will still have to be trained within it and there won't be enough trained medical staff, so the immigrant worker issue won't go away in this as in so many other industries and business sectors.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He's not far off. If the current path is followed, the NHS will be privatised out of existence and the U.K. will have the same, disgraceful system as the US.
quote:Just with extra costs involved. Because I'm not expecting the UK government to issue visas to allow EU nationals to live and work in the UK free of charge, even for people coming to work in the NHS. So, either employers will need to pay those extra costs, or the employees will quite reasonably expect a little extra to pay them.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:Privatised or public sector, medical staff will still have to be trained within it and there won't be enough trained medical staff, so the immigrant worker issue won't go away in this as in so many other industries and business sectors.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
He's not far off. If the current path is followed, the NHS will be privatised out of existence and the U.K. will have the same, disgraceful system as the US.
quote:My understanding is that article 50 is irrevocable. Once you've invoked it, you're on the way out and can't change lane.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which gives us the big question of what if we say no? Do we stay in the EU? Or, exit on even less favourable terms? I don't really see that happening either.
quote:This is one I've been thinking about.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas, sometime before Christmas the BBC (at least in Scotland) carried an interview with one of the lawyers who wrote the treaty, saying that it is possible to revoke an Article50 declaration prior to the end of the negotiating period and remain within the EU. Though (I assume, I don't recall him saying it) with considerable impact on good will and reputation with the other EU nations and practically zero political capital when it comes to future negotiations within the EU.
So, ISTM, if there is to be a referendum on whether the UK electorate want the sort of deal our government wants then that should be done as soon as possible, and before we start the negotiating process - though ongoing dilly-dallying will have it's own impact on our future within the EU.
quote:Perhaps you (and he) are right. I see that this is also the opinion of Mr. Tusk.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Whereas, sometime before Christmas the BBC (at least in Scotland) carried an interview with one of the lawyers who wrote the treaty, saying that it is possible to revoke an Article50 declaration prior to the end of the negotiating period and remain within the EU.
quote:Well, I never said anything about independence from party politics. What I said was the Lords aren't beholden to party politics in the same way as the Commons - and, freedom from being elected is part of that. But, as Hesseltine has found out there are still jobs such as government advisors that can be at risk if peers don't vote as their party want.
Originally posted by anteater:
I think the difference with the Lords is not about independence from party olitics so much as freedom from being elected.
quote:It is fairly evident that the direction of travel at this point is to make a series of contradictory demands and then walk away from negotiations once they aren't accepted (hence the repeated 'no deal is better than a bad deal' language going into the negotiations).
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, I'm not seeing Mrs May wanting to give us such a referendum, delaying calling Article 50 while we spend the next 2 years discussing the issues in a reasonable manner.
quote:Do you REALLY believe that, Alan? I think that if the government were to go to the country now, it would get an overwhelming majority in favour of Mrs May's style of Brexit. It's the very small majority the government now has that is the best safeguard against its excesses. But let's not make the mistake of believing that membership of the Single Market will even be on offer from the rest of the EU. It won't.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Since the government is consistently denying the opportunity to get a mandate for their planned hard brexit direct from the people (presumably because they know the people of the UK will, if given the choice, vote for a much softer Brexit that keeps us in the single market - even if staying in the EU isn't on the cards) I don't see them suddenly caving in to give an early election.
quote:Since 48% wanted in the EU (and, a year later with more young voters and less older voters the deomographics are that the support for Remain would be higher), it only takes a few percent of those who voted Leave to want a soft exit that retains access to the single market for that position to be in the majority. We have had a year of major manufacturers (most recently car manufacturers) saying that loss of free access to the European market (to buy components and sell products) will increase their costs and decrease competitiveness. That will have resulted in the message to the electorate that not having free access to the European markets is a bad thing. Given a vote, I do believe that the majority of the UK would opt for a form of Brexit that maintains free access to the European market rather than Mrs Mays hard Brexit plan which will cut us out of the free trade area.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Do you REALLY believe that, Alan? I think that if the government were to go to the country now, it would get an overwhelming majority in favour of Mrs May's style of Brexit. It's the very small majority the government now has that is the best safeguard against its excesses. But let's not make the mistake of believing that membership of the Single Market will even be on offer from the rest of the EU. It won't.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Since the government is consistently denying the opportunity to get a mandate for their planned hard brexit direct from the people (presumably because they know the people of the UK will, if given the choice, vote for a much softer Brexit that keeps us in the single market - even if staying in the EU isn't on the cards) I don't see them suddenly caving in to give an early election.
quote:Primarily because the UK won't accept the current set of obligations that being in the Single Market would place on the UK.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But let's not make the mistake of believing that membership of the Single Market will even be on offer from the rest of the EU. It won't.
quote:Yep. And this needs to be emphasised every time the Leavers come out with "The will of the people" nonsense.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It's difficult to work out what May is up to at the moment. An early election seems to offer so many advantages to her, not least no longer being held to ransom by her own Brexit Berserkers.
Her brexit strategy seems to be "give people what they say they want and see how they like it", which smacks of Nanny, and children learning lessons the hard way.
Not even particularly appropriate: as has been said many times, no-one voted for hard Brexit. Some people may actually want it, but we can be fairly certain they are in a smaller minority than Remainers.
The clues may have been there all along; "Brexit means brexit" (with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight) implied that if we leave, we leave everything. If that had been made clear before the referendum, I suspect the result would have been very different.
quote:Are you sure of that?
In terms of an election, the Fixed Term Parliament Act makes it tricky. I don't think May wants to invest the parliamentary time needed.
quote:Indeed. But even a one sentence bill needs 3 readings in each house.
Originally posted by anteater:
Alienfromzog:quote:Are you sure of that?
In terms of an election, the Fixed Term Parliament Act makes it tricky. I don't think May wants to invest the parliamentary time needed.
I have previously referred to a widespread belief that all she needs is a one-line Bill stating that notwithstanding the Act, the next General Election will be at such and such a date.
Labour might chicken out, and the Lords might meddle to remind us they exist. But I belive it is totally legal.
quote:And a Committee Stage. Committee Stages have sunk and delayed many a Bill and a simple Bill could easily attract a lot of fire for things like unforeseen and unintended consequences. After all, the referendum question was simple but no one knew what the consequences of an "out" vote would be.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:Indeed. But even a one sentence bill needs 3 readings in each house.
Originally posted by anteater:
Alienfromzog:quote:Are you sure of that?
In terms of an election, the Fixed Term Parliament Act makes it tricky. I don't think May wants to invest the parliamentary time needed.
I have previously referred to a widespread belief that all she needs is a one-line Bill stating that notwithstanding the Act, the next General Election will be at such and such a date.
Labour might chicken out, and the Lords might meddle to remind us they exist. But I belive it is totally legal.
AFZ
quote:I think they did and there were many voices, but you had to search. It was certainly covered rather thoroughly in the European press. In the UK though, it seemed nobody was listening and for whatever reason, nobody wanted to hear it.
After all, the referendum question was simple but no one knew what the consequences of an "out" vote would be.
quote:There were many voices because there were many definitions of Brexit, even within the official Leave campaign and more if you introduce what UKIP and others were saying. And, then there was disagreement about what the consequences of the different versions of Brexit would be. It was a cacophany of voices that made hearing any of them difficult, even for those trying to listen.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Sioni:
quote:I think they did and there were many voices, but you had to search. It was certainly covered rather thoroughly in the European press. In the UK though, it seemed nobody was listening and for whatever reason, nobody wanted to hear it.
After all, the referendum question was simple but no one knew what the consequences of an "out" vote would be.
quote:It means that post-Brexit there are several options for the relationship between the EU and UK. Broadly there are three clusters of versions of Brexit:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I still don't know what 'versions of Brexit' means though.
quote:I read somewhere that negotiations between Canada and the EU have been going on for seven years. If you had to rank nations by trustworthiness I think Canada would be well up the list. A good deal higher than Britain at any rate.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I noticed that the Daily Express had a headline saying that tariffs could be settled in ten minutes. This shows the illiteracy of some journalists and probably some politicians. Do they realize how difficult it is to develop a mutual trading system, with the inspection of goods, vehicles, drivers, point of origin, blah blah blah?
quote:But of course the EU has its own negotiating position. It starts with your version 2 is what will be on offer until we have completed the withdrawal and agreed what compensation we're going to pay for withdrawing from our on-going commitments to various projects. Once that's all out of the way, we're no longer in the EU and we can start the process of negotiating your version 3. In the intervening 10 or more years, we're stuck at version 2 - and may never get beyond it once all the bridges have been burned.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:It means that post-Brexit there are several options for the relationship between the EU and UK. Broadly there are three clusters of versions of Brexit:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I still don't know what 'versions of Brexit' means though.What our government seems to be saying at the moment is that they will try for a deal they want (whether or not that's what the British people want), and if they don't get it then we will default to version 2.
- Where the UK remains within the free trade area, has access to some EU institutions (eg: research funding), but is not a member of the EU. Think of something like the relationship between the EU and Norway. This is the so-called "soft Brexit".
- Where all ties between the EU and the UK are severed, and the relationship is the same as between practically any non-European nation and the EU - initially trading under WTO rules, and then (probably) seeking to negotiate trade deals post-Brexit. This is the so-called "hard Brexit".
- Something in-between where a bespoke agreement is reached prior to Brexit, with trade deals that cover some goods and services but not full access to the free trade area and no obligations to allow free movement of people. Which is the almost impossible path Mrs May seems to want to walk.
Though the Leave campaign were woefully imprecise in what they wanted prior to the referendum, it was closer to a version 1 than version 3 by a long shot. So, assuming those who voted Leave did so because they liked the vague promises of the Leave campaign (and, what else do we have to go on?) then it seems to me that the mandate the government has is to try for something with less ties to the EU than a version 1, but probably default to a version 1 if that's not possible - or even Brexit to a version 1 and then negotiate our way further from the EU if needed.
quote:Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
Originally posted by anteater:
<snip>
Chance? Not much. But what was the probability of Brexit in 2014. The remainers need a Farage, I think. But who could it be?
quote:That certainly matches the expectation of 'how it goes down' throughout Europe. I'm not sure the EU necessarily wants to do that on the basis of knowing just how difficult that will be for Britain in so many respects; both culturally, socially and economically. However, I do wonder if they will actually have a choice of anything else in response to the leave result. It would appear very odd internationally to permit a country that has just voted to leave the EU to suddenly retain a number of benefits that other countries on the international stage are currently negotiated about in regards to trade deals. It leaves the EU in quite a bind in that respect.
It starts with your version 2 is what will be on offer until we have completed the withdrawal and agreed what compensation we're going to pay for withdrawing from our on-going commitments to various projects.
quote:That was my first thought. He's desperately unpopular, right now, and this time the Murdoch press will go for the jugular, but I wouldn't put it past him to have another go. It was quite telling how when he made his recent speech on the subject the right-wing press devoted acres of commentary as to how he wasn't relevant any more. "TONY BLAIR, WHO CARES WHAT HE THINKS! pp 1,2,3,4,5, 9,10,11, 12". It's a bit like the headlines of Le Moniteur during the hundred days. "The Brigand Flees Elba", "The Usurper enters Grenoble", "Bonaparte enters Lyon", "The Emperor enters Paris". Thus far we are no further than The Brigand fleeing Elba. But if everything goes tits up, who knows how far he will get. Meanwhile the Bourbons who have forgotten nothing and learned nothing are haunted by the notes of "Things Can Only Get Better". Aux Armes Citoyens! Tainted by failure and scandal he's still so much better than anything we've had since and the bastards know it, and it burns.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
Originally posted by anteater:
<snip>
Chance? Not much. But what was the probability of Brexit in 2014. The remainers need a Farage, I think. But who could it be?
quote:Absolutely. I would be up for that too.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Guy Verhofstadt has come out and said that Britons should keep EU rights after leaving
I'm certainly up for that.
quote:It's a nice idea, but I can't see how it would work.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Absolutely. I would be up for that too.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Guy Verhofstadt has come out and said that Britons should keep EU rights after leaving
I'm certainly up for that.
The brexiteers are saying 'go and live there then' as if the EU is a country
quote:No, we don't. We need someone with conviction and passion about remaining in the EU. But, also someone of integrity and honesty who won't try to con others with deliberate fabrications, distortions or threats of violence. Someone very different from Farage.
Originally posted by anteater:
The remainers need a Farage, I think. But who could it be?
quote:If a job requires spending significant time within the EU, then it's not unreasonable that a precondition for employment is the right to work in the EU. At present that includes all UK citizens, post Brexit there will need to be alternative arrangements. One option would certainly be an "EU citizenship" for UK citizens, granting all the rights of other EU citizens in relation to living and working in the EU. A visa could be issued to cover those rights, but would a visa to live and work in Germany also allow someone to do their job in France and Greece if that's where they're needed?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Some firms would undoubtedly start using that status as a precondition for employment - which raises some legal questions, particularly for those who are already in employment somewhere.
quote:Yes. This makes a lot of sense. Sure, lots of people hate him. But then lots of people hate Farage, too.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:Anthony Charles Lynton Blair
Originally posted by anteater:
<snip>
Chance? Not much. But what was the probability of Brexit in 2014. The remainers need a Farage, I think. But who could it be?
quote:If a job requires working in the EU, it's not unreasonable that a precondition for employment is the right to work in the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If a job requires spending significant time within the EU, then it's not unreasonable that a precondition for employment is the right to work in the EU.
quote:A student or postdoc employed by a UK university but doing work at a US lab would probably apply for (and get) a B1 visa, which allows longer-term business travel (but does not entitle the holder to "work" in the US.)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or a university student or early career researcher needing to spend months at a time at CERN? Or a self-employed consultant with clients across the continent?
quote:A key factor is what our negotiating partners within the EU would want.
then it seems to me that the mandate the government has is to try for something with less ties to the EU than a version 1, but probably default to a version 1 if that's not possible - or even Brexit to a version 1 and then negotiate our way further from the EU if needed.
quote:So if I were Teresa, I'd accept your option 2 as the likely outcome and preferred default, although I (like she) would have liked it much more if none of this had happened, although clearly I am not as regretful as many on this ship.
In practice, we must accept that our free-trade offer will be rejected and that no remotely acceptable post-Brexit trade agreement between the UK and the EU is negotiable. This is not, for the most part, out of hostility to the UK.
It is largely because, throughout the EU today, the political establishment is threatened by the rise of anti-establishment political parties, many of them somewhat unsavoury, such as the Front National in France, which (it is believed) would gain strength from anything that could be remotely construed as giving a Brexit benefit to the UK. This is the overriding political context in which the Article 50 talks will take place.
quote:Yes. But visa != work permit. Work permits are harder to get than visas, and subject to more political nonsense (taking jobs away from citizens etc.) So in a post-Brexit future, the question of whether you need to be able to "work" in the EU, or just visit it for regular business trips could make quite a lot of difference.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, two of my three examples would need visas for the US.
quote:A Leave Victory was supposed to be a supernova to the Tory Party. But Hark, I see no noise of a catastrophic chasm opening.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
If that is conditional on freedom of movement continuing for 10 years, I seriously doubt that it would be acceptable to the headbangers. Facing them down would be a test of May's mettle, one which she has so far shown no appetite for.
quote:Other EU states have been torturing refugees, apparently for years, and you're blaming it on Brexit?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The EU is screwed. We might have holed it below the waterline to such an extent that sending someone back to another EU state is a war-crime.
quote:I don't think anyone would deny that some of the countries that joined post 1995 have a long way to go before they reach the same standards of human rights enjoyed in the rest of the EU, equally though in a lot of cases the EU has been a force for improvement in all sorts of ways.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It kinda gives the lie to the idea that the EU is some bastion of progressive left-wing politics as well, now I come to think of it.
quote:No, in the UK refugee care is outsourced, and complaints of abuse are generally poorly investigated. Besides, the claim that the UK is better than the poorest ex-Soviet country shouldn't be a huge point of provide.
Say what you like about how bad the British attitude towards refugees is, but we don't fucking waterboard them.
quote:The real cost is going to be in years of slower GDP growth, or wondering 10 years from now why the UK is poorer than the RoI.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
A man jumped off the 40th floor of a tower block. As he passed the 20th floor, he was heard to say, 'Well, I'm all right so far.' We haven't left the EU yet.
quote:It would take a very dramatic fall indeed for the UK to end up poorer than the RoI. The UK started with many more resources and connections and is a much more diverse economy.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The real cost is going to be in years of slower GDP growth, or wondering 10 years from now why the UK is poorer than the RoI.
quote:Less-than-enthusiastic engagement with the EU together with a grotesque attitude by the British to avoid virtually any interaction with refugees has precipitated a situation whereby these things happen.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Other EU states have been torturing refugees, apparently for years, and you're blaming it on Brexit?
quote:No, we just allow others to. Because we Brits never like actually getting blood on our hands, we prefer to tut from a distance whilst secretly assisting those who are doing the nasty.
It kinda gives the lie to the idea that the EU is some bastion of progressive left-wing politics as well, now I come to think of it. Say what you like about how bad the British attitude towards refugees is, but we don't fucking waterboard them.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So, we've kicked if all off then.....
quote:Pulled the trigger
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So, we've kicked if all off then.....
quote:How on earth could it be a win-win for the EU and the UK? If it is a win for the UK, it will by definition be a fail for the EU - the UK wants unfetted access to the single market without the inconvenience of freedom of movement. If the UK gets that without paying a high price, the EU is finished.
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
This could be Win/Win for the EU and the UK.
quote:Neither politics nor economics is a zero-sum game. In principle, it is possible for both the EU and the UK to benefit from an alteration in the arrangements between them.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
How on earth could it be a win-win for the EU and the UK? If it is a win for the UK, it will by definition be a fail for the EU
quote:I don't think it has to be. For example, the UK is one of few net contributors to the EU budget, so (on paper) it might make sense for the EU negotiators to agree something which the UK is happy with that involves the UK paying a net contribution - as this would at least fill a bit of the EU's economic hole.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Neither politics nor economics is a zero-sum game. In principle, it is possible for both the EU and the UK to benefit from an alteration in the arrangements between them.
quote:But I'm not talking about a theoretical impossibility, I'm asking how exactly a win-win would look like without either the destruction of the EU or things that the UK (apparently) doesn't want like free movement.
I don't think that will happen with Brexit, but it's not a theoretical impossibility.
quote:A third country can decide to conform their regs to the EU regs, thus removing one barrier to trade. Which still leaves the EU nations deciding the regulations within the EU, and hence having a say in those regulations (as the UK has had, with a large proportion of EU regulations, including it seems several on the Tory hit list to get rid of in a show of "regaining control from Europe", being introduced by the UK). That other nations decide to adopt those same regulations is their decision, even if in so doing they surrender their regulations to an organisation over which they have no influence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the EU awards harmonized regs to a third country, then there is no point to the EU, is there?
quote:Well join the queue because there'll be about 16 million of us.......
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Oh well. Here we go.....trigger pulled, bullet entering brain....
.....and I think I'll move to Scotland, 'cos the First Minister has nice legs (better than Maybe's, anyway).
IJ
quote:I think the Brexit hardliners think that the EU is so desperate for British products that they'll fall over themselves to take them. This seems fundamentally like a delusion to me.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I suspect that post-Brexit the UK government will have a symbolic Act repealing a small number of largely irrelevant regulations to be able to say "look, we've regained control" but actually find the vast majority are not a problem. Then, either the UK Parliament will adopt all new EU regulations (just give them a British sounding title as though they thought them up), or UK business will do so by default inorder to trade with the EU. Ultimately, regardless of any lofting aims of creating an international trading empire overnight, the EU will always be our largest trading partner by a long way.
quote:In the prisoners dilemma (at least the standard version) both prisoners have an equal hold over the other. In the coming Brexit negotiations that isn't an equality. Though a Brexit to WTO rules would be bad for both parties, the EU would be much better able to absorb the damage than the UK. And, fundamentally, Mrs May has two strong cards in her hand to play - the nuclear option of walking away to WTO rules, and the status of EU nationals currently settled in the UK. If she has any nous at all she will realise that although both may appeal to the hard core Brexiteers in her party and UKIP, both will be deeply unpopular with the UK electorate. If she plays either card to try and force something from the EU that the EU isn't willing to give, even worse if she plays both, then the prospect of a good 2020 general election are shot - even Labour would be picking up seats from all but the bluest of blue seats, and UKIP likely to gain from a platform of "the Tories failed" platform (despite actually liking the result). She really needs to produce a deal, any deal, to stand any prospect of electoral victory in 2020. Which basically means she's walking into negotiations where the EU holds all the strong cards. And, where the EU negotiators know she will be desperate for a deal. That's not a good position to be in when entering negotiations.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So whilst politics is not generally a zero-sum game, it is really, really hard to see how the EU and the UK can possibly agree a win-win deal. Indeed, it seems more like a version of the prisoners gamble, in some ways it would be better for both sides (politically) to blame the other for a breakdown in negotiations and WTO rules, even though this would appear to be the worst possible deal for both sides.
quote:The EU has many problems. Mainly caused by the EURO and a reluctance to change. The CAP (Agriculture) is a mess relying on subsidies to support non-agricultural activities like breeding Race Horses. (every EU country says it should be abolished or radically altered) With Britain's money gone the EU are going to have to radically look at ways of saving money. Of course there is a Win/Win in every situation in Life. You get around 90% of what you want on both sides.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:How on earth could it be a win-win for the EU and the UK? If it is a win for the UK, it will by definition be a fail for the EU - the UK wants unfetted access to the single market without the inconvenience of freedom of movement. If the UK gets that without paying a high price, the EU is finished.
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
This could be Win/Win for the EU and the UK.
If the EU wins, then the UK is paying a high price for less-than-EU-membership. Which will not be good for the UK economy, and the EU regulations will still have force.
So, what exactly is this mythical win-win?
quote:True, but also false, in my opinion.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the coming Brexit negotiations that isn't an equality. Though a Brexit to WTO rules would be bad for both parties, the EU would be much better able to absorb the damage than the UK.
quote:And yet the U.K. was allowed to opt out of the Euro. Whatever problems it causes, and I'd be happy to agree it causes problems, those problems are largely confined to the countries that actually use the Euro. Brexit seems to be a non-solution to what is a non-problem, at least as regards the Euro.
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The EU has many problems. Mainly caused by the EURO and a reluctance to change.
quote:of the EU. Which is a bit of cognitive dissonance. And I wonder how, say, Norway and Switzerland feel about that?
closest friend and neighbour
quote:The issue of security is out side by side with a trade agreement and appears to serve as an implicit threat: "you must be soft in negotiations because terrorism". Shades of Project Fear all over again.
If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened.
quote:I'm not sure it will go down well this side of the Channel either.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm really not sure this will go down well on this side of the Channel.
quote:That's incredibly crass. It's basically an implicit threat to let ISIS get on with it, if we don't get what we want. I am currently envisaging a scenario where a bunch of French people get murdered by Islamists and it transpired we knew but didn't tell the French government because Mrs May wasn't happy with the EU's position on passporting.
The issue of security is out side by side with a trade agreement and appears to serve as an implicit threat: "you must be soft in negotiations because terrorism". Shades of Project Fear all over again.
quote:In point vi there's something about a trade agreement covering financial services as a priority, which sounds like a bid to stop flight from the City.
Originally posted by Callan:
because Mrs May wasn't happy with the EU's position on passporting.
quote:No chance. Not a snowball in Hell's. The EU will happily allow us to keep buying their cars, wine and machine tools, and send them Peppa Pig and lots of our money in return. But the position on financial services will be "Services are just people, and you don't want people, so all those banks can move to Paris and Frankfurt."
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In point vi there's something about a trade agreement covering financial services as a priority, which sounds like a bid to stop flight from the City.
quote:Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but surely the number of people who didn't vote was not a fact prior to the referendum.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
This evening (approx. 5:40 p.m.) on BBC Radio 4's PM programme, there were two people speaking on the subject of leaving the EU, one a pro and one an anti. The man who was a strong remainer was pointing out just how many people did not vote in the referendum and how many voted to remain. I wish far more time had been given to this glaringly obvious fact prior to the referendum.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The relevant bit about the number of people who voted is that the referendum does not support Mrs May in her assertions of what the people of the UK voted for. Her confidence in her statements does not alter the fact that the question did not allow anyone to know. Did the majority vote for more control over immigration? Did the majority vote against the Single Market? Did the majority consider cooperation over security to be a bargaining chip? We simply don't know - but the chances that the majority of people who voted last year would have supported what Mrs May proposes is very unlikely.
quote:The free movement of persons is one of the core rights guaranteed in the European Economic Area (EEA), the extended Internal Market which unites all the EU Member States and three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. It is perhaps the most important right for individuals, as it gives citizens of the 31 EEA countries the opportunity to live, work, establish business and study in any of these countries.
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Does EFTA need free movement?
quote:Within a decade the changing demographics of the UK electorate would be well and truly pro-EU membership. At least one of the national parties will stand on a return to the EU platform, the LibDems being most likely to do that along with the Greens. Whether that would be all the way back to full EU membership (which would be to a different position than the UK currently has - there will probably need to be a commitment to enter the Eurozone and Schengen, and no rebates) or to EFTA will depend in part on how badly things go in the first 5-10 years post Brexit.
And if the LibDems manage to get back into power - we return?
quote:An interesting thing to observe will be to see whether the EU leaders can actually agree an EU-wide Brexit position given that they seem to be moving in different directions.
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The BBC Correspondent today had it right when he said 'Brexit seems to have been a wake-up call to the EU Leaders who now seem determined to address the many problems the EU has.' Hallelujah.
quote:First, the question wasn't poorly considered: it was a clear IN or OUT - and it had to be that because the rest of the EU didn't take seriously the chances of the UK voting to leave. The only way that either option could have been better defined with any credibility would have been if the other EU leaders and, in particular, members of the European Commission had shown any willingness not only to address some of the very real issues which were brought to them by the UK government but also to propose credible solutions. In other words, the Eurocrats and 27 leaders should have taken the election in the UK seriously: they didn't and the result was seen at the Referendum. The Leave campaign had to make it up on the hoof (a bit like punching fog) and the Remain campaign had to try to defend an institution whose actions and words throughout the campaign showed intransigence, arrogance and no regard for democracy.
The issue is that the question was very poorly considered since one option (Leave) was undefined. Which is the result of Cameron playing political games.
quote:I think it might be wise to wait and see what happens to the EU over the next couple of years before committing to that particular political manifesto.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I really would not want to be a UK negotiator. 'Success' will be redefined as the best bad job we can manage. And I'll be voting for any party that supports rejoining.
quote:The whole thing sounds like fantasy Brexit to me. 'Regulatory alignment', which used to be known as convergence, passporting, and high immigration.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:No chance. Not a snowball in Hell's. The EU will happily allow us to keep buying their cars, wine and machine tools, and send them Peppa Pig and lots of our money in return. But the position on financial services will be "Services are just people, and you don't want people, so all those banks can move to Paris and Frankfurt."
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In point vi there's something about a trade agreement covering financial services as a priority, which sounds like a bid to stop flight from the City.
quote:Except OUT wasn't at all clear. You had different Leave campaigners saying different things - some that Leave would be to remain in the EFTA, others that it would be control over immigration from the EU (mutually contradictory), most saying we would be able to regain legislative control (but, no agreement on what we were being prevented from doing as a government - a lot of the examples still being given of "we'll be able to do this post Brexit" are things we'd have been equally free to do within the EU), a lot of Leave campaigners who were (and still aren't) in Government promising the Government would do things post Brexit without any means to put that in place (eg: UK government paying farmers the subsidies lost from CAP, ditto for regional development and social fund or scientific research funding).
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Alan Cresswellquote:First, the question wasn't poorly considered: it was a clear IN or OUT
The issue is that the question was very poorly considered since one option (Leave) was undefined. Which is the result of Cameron playing political games.
quote:What real issues? When did the UK government go to the EC, or any other European institution or national government, with "very real issues" to be addressed? We had David Cameron parading around Europe with a bit of paper that would tinker a bit around the edges, but real issues? Get real. He was playing at being a great statesman, and the genuine great statesmen and women within Europe saw right through him.
if the other EU leaders and, in particular, members of the European Commission had shown any willingness not only to address some of the very real issues which were brought to them by the UK government but also to propose credible solutions.
quote:Exactly. A serious referendum campaign would have started with the Leave campaign defining exactly what they wanted. Something at least as substantial as the Government produced in the White Paper a few months back. Making it up as they went along, finding the words to appeal to each audience in turn, without consideration of whether they were contradicting themselves or promising the impossible, wasn't a serious campaign. It was a game, the aim to win as many votes as possible by any means possible (including from some campaigners threats of violence).
The Leave campaign had to make it up on the hoof (a bit like punching fog)
quote:The EU institutions were exemplars in staying out of the campaign. We all knew what they thought, that they didn't want the UK to Leave. But, they respected our democracy enough to let UK politicians do the campaigning. It wasn't the EU that decided that a national referendum was a suitable method of preventing a few thousand Conservative Party members defecting to UKIP. What sort of regard for democracy is that? And, subsequently it wasn't the EU that decided that the version of Brexit with the least support among the UK population was "what the people voted for", what sort of regard for democracy is that? Nor, the EU that is preventing the democratically elected government of Scotland ask the people of Scotland what future they want, what sort of regard for democracy is that?
and the Remain campaign had to try to defend an institution whose actions and words throughout the campaign showed intransigence, arrogance and no regard for democracy.
quote:He was trying to lance the boil within his own party. To drag the whole nation through an ill-defined, highly devisive referendum just to fix a problem within a single party is playing games. Politics always has been a bit of a game anyway, but that took things to new heights. And, he didn't even play the game well. The manifesto pledge did the trick of getting him back into No 10, kept his party together for one more election. If he'd played the game well his next move would have been to ask a Leave campaign group to form and define what they were going to campaign for - that would have tied them up for years of internal dispute and infighting, giving him both a get-out on holding the referendum, and probably destroying UKIP in the process (or, at the very least, making defection to them look a lot less attractive). He'd have pissed off the Scots by having that in the manifesto (because, you can't say "Scotland is assured a place in the EU only if it stays in the UK" one moment and then suggest a referendum on whether the UK stays in the EU the next), but he was unlikely to avoid pissing off the Scots anyway. It wouldn't have been enough to justify another IndyRef, though might have brought that time scale forward a few years from the other side of 2030 as we all expected in Sept 2014.
Second: I think history will confirm that Mr Cameron wasn't playing games, he was desperately trying to lance the anti-EU boil
quote:Yes, there has always been a small but vocal minority wanting out of the EU. A larger number who had specific concerns (eg: about fisheries policy) but not as stringent a position against the EU.
Yes, you could say that there has been a large and vocal minority of the UK electorate who have never wanted to be in the EU, but it has to be acknowledged that much of the damage done to the pro-EU cause before the 2016 referendum was done by the EU.
quote:I'm not sure that the nebulous Very Serious Concerns gain much clarity by being promoted to Very Real Issues.
Originally posted by L'organist:
in particular, members of the European Commission had shown any willingness not only to address some of the very real issues which were brought to them by the UK government but also to propose credible solutions.
quote:There are two issues. One is did we know the proposal that Leave was campaigning for? The second is what the ramifications of that would be. Of course the ramifications were, and still are, unknown. There's a slim chance that it will actually all work out quite well. Time will tell, and we can look back and analyse that in 10 years time.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Dear me, can we stop rehearsing this argument now? Nobody knew the full ramifications of voting Leave, we all know that now. Move on, it is a broken record.
quote:How is it helping? It is beyond doubt that the British government, as the Executive of the UK Parliament, has the power to invoke Article 50. The referendum wasn't binding, the simple binary question has been used as an unofficial mandate for the invoking, which wasn't legally necessary.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the UK electorate had clearly and unambiguously voted for the course of action Mrs May is taking I would be unhappy with it, but would reluctantly accept that it is the will of the people. As it is I'm not going to shut up, because that isn't the case.
quote:This, exactly this.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I bet the right-wing press are lining up their headlines for EU 'intransigence' and 'bullying'. After all, any club should be glad to carry on giving benefits to ex-members.
quote:I think this is right - although quite what effect a massive walk-out of the London financial set would have, I don't know.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But I do think things will work out OK (ish) as many many people, especially in business, will work their socks off to make it work. My brother is one of these. He didn't vote 'leave' but is already working to make sure his business survives - why wouldn't he?
quote:Completely agree. I voted Remain*, but it was pretty clear from the 24th of June that we were going. So since that time we've been working out how to survive in the new world. I would be lying if I said that it hasn't been/isn't exciting actually.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think this is right - although quite what effect a massive walk-out of the London financial set would have, I don't know.
Originally posted by Boogie:
But I do think things will work out OK (ish) as many many people, especially in business, will work their socks off to make it work. My brother is one of these. He didn't vote 'leave' but is already working to make sure his business survives - why wouldn't he?
It would be nice to believe that EU products in the UK market were replaced by locally produced items, that British items were only exported where they could actually be competitive (even with any trade tariffs) and that things will work out alright.
I don't know that we can have any certainty on any of that, but knuckling down and trying to work out how to make the best of it seems like pretty good advice for everyone. The game has changed, so we've got to work out how to change with it.
quote:What you seem to be complaining about here is that human are punctual entities, only capable of directly perceiving one point in time and unable to see the future. While true, this is not unique to the Brexit vote. Indeed, the inability to foresee all ramifications is inherent in all decisions. If that weren't the case we wouldn't need a term like "unintended consequences".
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are two issues. One is did we know the proposal that Leave was campaigning for? The second is what the ramifications of that would be. Of course the ramifications were, and still are, unknown. There's a slim chance that it will actually all work out quite well. Time will tell, and we can look back and analyse that in 10 years time.
quote:However the range of outcomes was fairly wide, and even the likes of Hannan and Farage were playing up the Norway/Switzerland comparisons.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Still, as far as the Brexit goes, the range of likely outcomes was fairly easy to guess by interpolating from the relations the EU has with various friendly but non-EU nations.
quote:Why should it help? Or not?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:How is it helping? It is beyond doubt that the British government, as the Executive of the UK Parliament, has the power to invoke Article 50. The referendum wasn't binding, the simple binary question has been used as an unofficial mandate for the invoking, which wasn't legally necessary.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If the UK electorate had clearly and unambiguously voted for the course of action Mrs May is taking I would be unhappy with it, but would reluctantly accept that it is the will of the people. As it is I'm not going to shut up, because that isn't the case.
So how we got here now doesn't really matter. They lied, they cheated, they managed to persuade poor people to blame the other.
Yes, we know. Got it.
quote:Who is brushing anything under the carpet? Who is even disagreeing with you? Nobody that I can see.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why should it help? Or not?
I don't see how it helps to brush under the carpet the truth that Brexshit was achieved by deceipt, lies, cheating. Why shouldn't we stand up and say again and again that Mrs May is not acting with the support of the whole UK population, or even a majority of it?
quote:Yes, we do. And, the best is still if the UK government does a U-turn and either doesn't proceed with Brexit or at least seeks to retain full access to the single market (including the freedom of movement). So, I am resolved to do all I can, very small though that is, to try and make the best of the situation - by ceaselessly trying to get the UK government and people to see sense and stop acting like first-rate morons. And, when this fight is over and the Brexit agreement has been agreed by the UK government, the 27 other EU governments, European Parliament and anyone else that needs to ratify that then I will move onto the next fight in the battle to make the best of the situation - either for Scottish independence and entry into the EU, or for the UK as a whole to seek re-entry into the EU.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
some of us are resolved to try and make the best of a shitty situation
quote:I didn't say you should do anything of the kind.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I don't see any reason why I should knuckle down and help the government lead the country, and the rest of the EU, to disaster. I'm not going to doff my cap to Mrs May as though she was in someway my superior. I'm not going to join the ranks of those who have followed what they knew to be stupid orders because it was their duty. I don't want to be in a position where there is a great injustice that I have not fought against because I was "following orders".
quote:Nope. Because the debate can be totally captured and distorted by say, to pick an example at random, 20 years of lies an propaganda by the tabloid press...
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
I was reading a book on Psychology the other day. The bit that interested me was 'Guess the Weight of the Cake'. Apparently if you average all the weights guessed you are usually spot on the real weight. The more guesses that are made the more accurate the average. Perhaps Brexit and Democracy is like that. No-one knows everything about it - or even a little - but maybe the sum total is spot on.
quote:The trouble is how the sort of complex questions to which you seek answers could have been put in a referendum.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:There are two issues. One is did we know the proposal that Leave was campaigning for? The second is what the ramifications of that would be. Of course the ramifications were, and still are, unknown. There's a slim chance that it will actually all work out quite well. Time will tell, and we can look back and analyse that in 10 years time.. .
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Dear me, can we stop rehearsing this argument now? Nobody knew the full ramifications of voting Leave, we all know that now. Move on, it is a broken record.
If the UK electorate had clearly and unambiguously voted for the course of action Mrs May is taking I would be unhappy with it, but would reluctantly accept that it is the will of the people. As it is I'm not going to shut up, because that isn't the case.
quote:I have said before that I would have prefered a combination of Parliamentary and direct democracy. An approach in which elected representatives, ideally in which a majority have been elected on a platform of "leave the EU", do the work of sifting through options to produce a clear definition of Brexit which is then put to the people in a referendum with a simple "do you agree or not?" question.
Originally posted by Gee D:
The trouble is how the sort of complex questions to which you seek answers could have been put in a referendum.
quote:Like when the government calls a consultative referendum in which 72 per cent of eligible voters do vote, and there's a majority of more than 1.2 million in favour of leaving the EU, then both houses of parliament debate the resulting bill, the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017, with our elected representatives approving the bill, unamended, by 494 to 122, a majority of four to one.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I have said before that I would have prefered a combination of Parliamentary and direct democracy.
quote:Richard Dawkins recently argued that the decision ought not to have been made by 'ignoramuses' (in which category he included himself) but by 'elite parliamentarians'. The trouble with this argument is that the 'elite parliamentarians' voted for both the Referendum and then, subsequently, for Article 50. In fact they did so in a much higher proportion than the ignoramuses did in the Referendum.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
ISTM that the essential problem with this whole wretched process has been that our elected representatives (with a few honourable exceptions) are a bunch of craven numpties who are more worried about their own careers than they are about ruining the country's future.
quote:Actually I think the biggest problem was that David Cameron, his government and Parliament all thought that a referendum would be a resounding victory for Remain. They underestimated the groundswell of public opinion on various issues (not all relating to the EU) that found focus in the referendum with a massive "Fuck You" to the political system. They underestimated the ability of minority political groups to create false fears in the population (in particular over immigration) and then offer Brexit as a solution to a non-existant problem.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
ISTM that the essential problem with this whole wretched process has been that our elected representatives (with a few honourable exceptions) are a bunch of craven numpties who are more worried about their own careers than they are about ruining the country's future.
quote:Really? Let's look at the polling data post the vote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I agree with you, Alan, but I think there was no excuse for the underestimation of the "Fuck you" factor, especially on the Labour side.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Actually I think the biggest problem was that David Cameron, his government and Parliament all thought that a referendum would be a resounding victory for Remain. They underestimated the groundswell of public opinion on various issues (not all relating to the EU) that found focus in the referendum with a massive "Fuck You" to the political system. They underestimated the ability of minority political groups to create false fears in the population (in particular over immigration) and then offer Brexit as a solution to a non-existant problem.
quote:Well quite, but if they generally had a poor opinion of politicians, they were likely to be fairly immune to persuasion by a bunch of politicians. Furthermore, removing their ability to cast a protest vote wasn't likely to be particular popular either.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Analysing the vote by professed party allegiance doesn't tell the whole story. Many of the people who voted Leave were people who don't usually vote, but who were motivated by the prime opportunity which Cameron gave them to stick two fingers up at politicians generally.
quote:This is pretty much the reasoning that led Harriet Harman to abstain on the welfare bill in 2015.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Really? Let's look at the polling data post the vote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I agree with you, Alan, but I think there was no excuse for the underestimation of the "Fuck you" factor, especially on the Labour side.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/LR-by-party.jpg
So essentially Labour did about as well in pushing their voters to vote Remain as the SNP did.
You can argue that they should have done more to stop the referendum to start with (which I assume is the point of the rest of your post), but this is on par with the argument that they should do more to resist Brexit now (i.e if you assume it's not a viable tactic now for electoral reasons, why would you assume that resisting a referendum would have been a viable tactic previously).
quote:It would have been more constructive to actually address their grievances, some of which are real and are related to the relentless austerity policies which have been pursued for the last 7 years, despite plenty of evidence that they are not succeeding even in reducing the budget deficit, their stated objective.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Well quite, but if they generally had a poor opinion of politicians, they were likely to be fairly immune to persuasion by a bunch of politicians. Furthermore, removing their ability to cast a protest vote wasn't likely to be particular popular either.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Analysing the vote by professed party allegiance doesn't tell the whole story. Many of the people who voted Leave were people who don't usually vote, but who were motivated by the prime opportunity which Cameron gave them to stick two fingers up at politicians generally.
quote:On which point you would get no argument from me whatsoever, but these are largely the policies of the present government and your original comment was about what *Labour* parliamentarians should have done to engage the economically/socially left behind.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It would have been more constructive to actually address their grievances, some of which are real and are related to the relentless austerity policies which have been pursued for the last 7 years, despite plenty of evidence that they are not succeeding even in reducing the budget deficit, their stated objective.
quote:This seems like a problematic stance for the EU to take, since the whole point of the EU is that its individual members don't negotiate side deals regarding trade. We discussed the difficulties associated with some kind of special arrangement along the Republic of Ireland/Northern Ireland border (the only other place besides Gibraltar where the EU and UK share a land border) about five months ago.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But included in the wording of the EU response to the PM's Article 50 letter, Spain has the chance to exclude Gibraltar from any trade deal agreed between the UK and the EU, because the clause says “no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom”.
quote:As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
We should, and I trust we will, side with the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be.
quote:This is bullshit of the highest order. Gibraltar's rights haven't been discarded. It's just unfortunate for them that the majority of the UK voted differently from them. With their dependence on the open border with Spain, it was unlikely that they would want Brexit. But what they want even less is to be part of Spain. The Chief Minister has said today that The Rock will cope with Brexit and will be more British than ever. That democratic right has to be respected and protected.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
quote:This argument is nonsense.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
quote:In terms of 'rights' Gibraltar's have not been discarded. In practical terms they have been thrown under a bus. Exactly how does a scenario where Gibraltar leaves the Single Market and the Customs Union work out in practice?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:This is bullshit of the highest order. Gibraltar's rights haven't been discarded. It's just unfortunate for them that the majority of the UK voted differently from them. With their dependence on the open border with Spain, it was unlikely that they would want Brexit. But what they want even less is to be part of Spain. The Chief Minister has said today that The Rock will cope with Brexit and will be more British than ever. That democratic right has to be respected and protected.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
quote:Different parts of a democracy can and do vote in different ways. I voted Remain, not because of any love for the EU, but because I feared that Brexit would break up the UK and destabilise Ireland. I didn't think much about Gibraltar at the time, but it's hardly surprising that they overwhelmingly wanted to Remain. I have no idea how leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union will work out for any of us, not just Gibraltar, but I do know that the people of The Rock would much rather suck it in than lose their sovereignty to Spain. That's a principal the UK must defend.
Originally posted by Callan:
In terms of 'rights' Gibraltar's have not been discarded. In practical terms they have been thrown under a bus. Exactly how does a scenario where Gibraltar leaves the Single Market and the Customs Union work out in practice?
quote:Everyone got thrown under. Some pitched in and helped throw themselves, but everyone will be mashed by the wheels.
Originally posted by Callan:
In terms of 'rights' Gibraltar's have not been discarded. In practical terms they have been thrown under a bus.
quote:[mr cheesy look away because I'm going to bang a drum I've banged a lot recently]
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell, you're now introducing for the first time your idea of decision making shared between a parliament and direct public participatio through referendums. That may get you out of trying to deal with the questions I raised, but it still seems impractical to me. Has that been trialled anywhere?
quote:If Gibraltar has a democratic right to self-determination that overrides the interests and wishes of the majority of the UK when the majority of the UK votes differently from them then the UK wouldn't be leaving the EU.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:This is bullshit of the highest order. Gibraltar's rights haven't been discarded. It's just unfortunate for them that the majority of the UK voted differently from them. With their dependence on the open border with Spain, it was unlikely that they would want Brexit. But what they want even less is to be part of Spain. The Chief Minister has said today that The Rock will cope with Brexit and will be more British than ever. That democratic right has to be respected and protected.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As 96% of Gibraltar voted to stay in the EU the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be has already been discarded. Any concern on that score from Brexiteers is hypocrisy and crocodile tears.
quote:Sure. The UK chest beats for months about what a good deal the EU will be forced to give them, appoints a trio of unqualified and undiplomatic buffoons to head the negotiation, talks about people as bargaining chips, but it's all the EU's fault.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But Gib is as sure as ever that it's British, and yes I do blame the EU if this becomes an issue in Brexit
quote:The difference is that the 2014 question was in the light of a process that had, over the course of decades of discussion including 6 years of deliberation by Parliament, defined "independence" (or, rather what the Scottish government would try their hardest to obtain). In 2016 there was no corresponding definition of "Leave" - and no amount of repeating "Brexit means Brexit" changes that. We still won't have had the level of democratic scrutiny (in both Parliament and among the wider electorate) of what sort of arrangement the UK should seek with the EU even when the various signatories to a deal have agreed whatever comes out of the negotiations over the next 18 months that had happened before the Scottish government called the referendum held in 2014 - much less so than what we had had by the time we voted in 2014. That is the democratic deficit that Paul isn't seeing.
Originally posted by Gee D:
AIUI, the question on the paper was "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Not all that different to the question asked on the EU referendum. And recent posts on this thread iare the first time you've raised wthe question of working in tandem, as it were.
quote:Well, in the Scottish example that was dealt with by the Parliamentary process and public consultation that winnowed the options down from many, through four then three then two. There's no reason, apart from undue haste, that such a process couldn't have dealt with the multiple options for the EU referendum. Of course, if that had happened we would still be discussing options and not have held a referendum - and, probably not having a referendum until after the 2020 election. But, that's the undue haste of trying to do a decade or more worth of careful deliberation in six months.
You still need to deal with the point I raised about putting the mulltiple reasons for leaving on the referendum paper.
quote:See my answer to GeeD above.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But Alan speaks as if there was some democratic deficit in the 2016 EU referendum and I don't see it.
quote:The UK is a representative democracy. Part of the representative is that the government inform its voters and the government failed to adequately do so.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Very few of those choosing to vote for leaving would have given a more than a moments thought to the means; they were concerned with the outcome alone and voted for it.
quote:And, why shouldn't public consultations take that into account? Do you think the SNP success in building substantial public support in elections, two terms of majority government one of which was a landslide etc was based entirely on rationalism? Of course not, their success built upon a whole load of factors that can't be put in a test tube, and that emotional/irrational Scottish identity sentimentality made it's way into that 670 page document presented to the people as the outline of what the Scottish government would seek in negotiations for & after independence.
Originally posted by Gee D:
you're scientist and work in a world of rationalism. Politics is not in that world, it inclused irrationalism and emotionalism.
quote:The means of achieving the end is actually (more or less) the same for each outcome. The government produces an argument for the end they want to achieve, the EU (or UK government in case of Scottish independence) produces a counter argument and the two sides sit down and discuss the issues to (hopefully) reach a mutually agreeable compromise.
The second is that you're confusing an outcome (independence or exiting) with the means by which that outcome is to be achieved. The example I gave set out 3 of many possible reasons for wanting to leave. Very few of those choosing to vote for leaving would have given a more than a moments thought to the means; they were concerned with the outcome alone and voted for it.
quote:So if the UK wants to accept a deal from the EU but the EU won't offer that deal to Gibraltar then Gibraltar can never have a veto over a UK wide deal. You want Gibraltar to have a veto over the final deal.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Dafyd, I'm really missing something from your reasoning here. The 30 thousand inhabitants of Gibraltar can never have a veto over a UK wide vote. Had the UK vote pushed the people of Gib to look to Spain for their future, then the UK would have to respect the change in Gibraltar's democratic status and allowing m. it. But Gib is as sure as ever that it's British, and yes I do blame the EU if this becomes an issue in Brexit
quote:I assume that if you think we should Leave you do so because you don't think the rest of the EU should dictate terms to the UK? So why should the rest of the EU dictate terms to Spain?
Do I take it from what you say, Dafyd, that you think Spain should be given a veto on allowing Gibraltar to have the same deal as the UK?
quote:Residency rights =/= right to vote. These UK residents didn't have full voting rights to start with. (And, by the by, I thought the UK government wanted to negotiate the status of EU residents in the UK early on to minimise uncertainty but Angela Merkel refused to talk until after Article 50 had been triggered.)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's the same as the hypocrisy of the Leavers refusing EU-nationals residency rights because they want to guarantee UK residents in other EU countries residency rights; when the Leavers refused to give those same UK residents a vote at all.
quote:Well, we could also point to the Spanish government for putting that line in the text...?
The fact is, we are leaving the EU. We no longer get a say in whether Spain should be given a veto on Gibraltar. That is a matter for the EU. We don't get to dictate anything.
If that is a stupid position to be in then it is entirely our fault.
quote:Where does negotiation come into that? These are people who are living entirely under the UK Government. Short of EU governments recalling their citizens, what does what the EU says on the topic have to do with whether or not these people can stay in the UK?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Residency rights =/= right to vote. These UK residents didn't have full voting rights to start with. (And, by the by, I thought the UK government wanted to negotiate the status of EU residents in the UK early on to minimise uncertainty but Angela Merkel refused to talk until after Article 50 had been triggered.)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's the same as the hypocrisy of the Leavers refusing EU-nationals residency rights because they want to guarantee UK residents in other EU countries residency rights; when the Leavers refused to give those same UK residents a vote at all.
quote:I had to smile over the double standards over bargaining chips. Spanish use of Gibraltar - a heinous and dastardly trick, typical of foreign perfidy. Brits' use of EU citizens and cooperation over security - a noble and strategic evolution of policy.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Sure. The UK chest beats for months about what a good deal the EU will be forced to give them, appoints a trio of unqualified and undiplomatic buffoons to head the negotiation, talks about people as bargaining chips, but it's all the EU's fault.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But Gib is as sure as ever that it's British, and yes I do blame the EU if this becomes an issue in Brexit
For all the complaints about the left encouraging victim mentality, they have nothing on the right's actual efforts.
Couple of things; what is the rate of corporation tax in Gibraltar ? How many people cross the (for now internal) border for employment every day ?
Oh, and incidentally, Gibraltarians have been concerned for some time that informal talks between the FO and Spain presaged a willingness to try and use them as a means of separating Spain from the rest of the EU.
quote:I reckon both sides have far more chips on their shoulders than they can usefully bargain with.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I bet both sides have some more chips to put on the table, sorry, I mean thoughtful strategic visions to bring to the negotiations.
quote:Yes, good point. I hope the British side don't take the poker analogy too far, as in poker, usually there is one winner, and everybody else loses. I suppose you can recoup your losses at a later game. I wonder what thoughtful strategic vision Boris has in his locker? Something about darkies, maybe.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I reckon both sides have far more chips on their shoulders than they can usefully bargain with.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I bet both sides have some more chips to put on the table, sorry, I mean thoughtful strategic visions to bring to the negotiations.
quote:There was no reason why they couldn't have been given a postal vote given that they had a clear interest in the question.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Residency rights =/= right to vote. These UK residents didn't have full voting rights to start with.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
It's the same as the hypocrisy of the Leavers refusing EU-nationals residency rights because they want to guarantee UK residents in other EU countries residency rights; when the Leavers refused to give those same UK residents a vote at all.
quote:The UK shouldn't have wanted to negotiate the status of EU residents to begin with. The decent thing to do would have been to unilaterally announce that they had the right to remain.
And, by the by, I thought the UK government wanted to negotiate the status of EU residents in the UK early on to minimise uncertainty but Angela Merkel refused to talk until after Article 50 had been triggered.
quote:If we insist on treating every issue as a self-interested negotating point then we have no right to be indignant when the EU nations respond in kind.
quote:Well, we could also point to the Spanish government for putting that line in the text...?
The fact is, we are leaving the EU. We no longer get a say in whether Spain should be given a veto on Gibraltar. That is a matter for the EU. We don't get to dictate anything.
If that is a stupid position to be in then it is entirely our fault.
quote:And apart from the headbanging tendency within the Spanish PTB, there are real grounds for concern. Gibraltar is a tax haven-lite in all but name at even the moment, the Spanish government might not be entirely happy with a tax haven next door that has all the privileges that are extended to the UK on the basis of London's financial markets. Secondly, Gibraltar is dependent on outside labor to run its economy, which implies an open border - Gibraltar also has an international airport, again a situation which could be of legitimate concern to the Spanish government - and one that might well have to be handled differently to whatever agreement on movement that is reached between the EU and UK as a whole.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If we insist on treating every issue as a self-interested negotating point then we have no right to be indignant when the EU nations respond in kind.
If we had any goodwill from the other EU nations I imagine they could have had a quiet word with Spain. (Spain appear to have decided that they can't push their luck on an independent Scotland joining the EU as well.)
quote:I happen to agree that the way people voted was very complex, and a mixture of reasons - many of which were not rational.
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell, I'm sorry, but you're not convincing me at all. I think that it boils down to this: the no vote was entirely emotional (and wrong for all sorts of reasons, but that's an aside) . The sort of process you're talking of is rational and that was not what the Leave vote was about. No matter how the pre-referendum process had gone, the Leave voters would have taken the same step.
quote:Given that the none of the conditions of leaving the EU can be unilaterally dictated by the leaving member, trying to include them in the referendum would have been deceptive. Especially since Article 50 seems to be written with an implicit 'no backsies' structure.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, I thought we were talking about multiple options for a future relationship between the UK and EU, not multiple reasons for leaving (though they may be related). We have a referendum result which shows that a small majority of the 2016 electorate wanted to leave the EU, that result stands regardless of why they wanted to leave. In many ways the why they wanted to leave is irrelevant. What is relevant is that nowhere in the process was what they wanted to leave to defined.
quote:I have heard various opinions relating to Article 50 by people who ought to know (including the peer who apparently wrote it). Whilst some say it is now inevitable that we leave the EU, some also seem to think that triggering Article 50 is a statement of intention not a foregone conclusion.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, the referendum addressed the only question (Leave or Remain) that was actually within the power of the British government to act on. Trying to cram in "we'll leave if X, but not if Y" implies powers not available to a country leaving the EU.
quote:I gather that Mr. Donald Tusk shares the opinion that a country can rescind article 50 before the process has completed, and so remain an EU member.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
According to some, May could get to the end of the 2 year period and say "nope, the terms offered by the EU are too crappy, I've decided that we're not leaving after all, we're staying".*
quote:I'd argue that any ambiguity was deliberate to dissuade member nations from leaving, since most establishments are averse to uncertainty. In other words, the uncertainty of what would happen is a feature, not a bug.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I have heard various opinions relating to Article 50 by people who ought to know (including the peer who apparently wrote it). Whilst some say it is now inevitable that we leave the EU, some also seem to think that triggering Article 50 is a statement of intention not a foregone conclusion.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, the referendum addressed the only question (Leave or Remain) that was actually within the power of the British government to act on. Trying to cram in "we'll leave if X, but not if Y" implies powers not available to a country leaving the EU.
According to some, May could get to the end of the 2 year period and say "nope, the terms offered by the EU are too crappy, I've decided that we're not leaving after all, we're staying".
To me the wording seems ambiguous. Possibly intentionally, given it appears they thought nobody would ever want to leave the EU when the treaty was drawn up.
quote:While I can understand everyone's desire for #3 to be an option (a preferred option, even) I don't see support for it in the text of Article 50. The decision to withdraw would seem to have already been made and submitted to the European Council in accordance with Section 2 of Article 50.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
As I understand Lord Kerr's position, I think he is arguing that Section 3 is to be read in association with Section 2.
The point being (according to this argument) that the 2 years are the limit that the EU is prepared to put into negotiating a deal with the departing nation - but ultimately it is down to that nation to decide whether or not to leave as per Section 2.
So, I guess, from this point of view there are three options available to a nation which has triggered Article 50 at the end of the period stated in Section 3:
1. Leave without agreement. I am guessing that the EU believed/believes that this is so bad that nobody would want to do it.
2. Leave with a basic agreement agreed with the European Council. This seems vague because obviously the UK is a full member of the EU until it leaves, and obviously has many members of the European Parliament. Personally, I still find it hard to believe that all of the EU will be able to agree to something anyway.
3. Decide not to leave.
I am not a lawyer and I might have misunderstood Kerr's views.
quote:Well, I've no idea. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm simply noting that there are credible opinions (including but not limited to the career diplomat Lord Kerr who wrote the section in question) which disagree with your assessment.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While I can understand everyone's desire for #3 to be an option (a preferred option, even) I don't see support for it in the text of Article 50. The decision to withdraw would seem to have already been made and submitted to the European Council in accordance with Section 2 of Article 50.
quote:I think this is like saying that because no politician can guarantee to get their manifesto implemented there is no point in politicians having manifestos. I appreciate that a decisive proportion of the US electorate did indeed cast their votes on that principle; but I'm not sure the principle is justified by the result.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, the referendum addressed the only question (Leave or Remain) that was actually within the power of the British government to act on. Trying to cram in "we'll leave if X, but not if Y" implies powers not available to a country leaving the EU.
quote:No, it's more like pointing out that voters are voting for a politician to take office, not for a manifesto to be enacted. The question being asked of the electorate is "which candidate should hold office", not "which manifesto should be enacted". You may be able to draw some conclusions about the latter from the former, but that doesn't change what question is actually being asked.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think this is like saying that because no politician can guarantee to get their manifesto implemented there is no point in politicians having manifestos.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, the referendum addressed the only question (Leave or Remain) that was actually within the power of the British government to act on. Trying to cram in "we'll leave if X, but not if Y" implies powers not available to a country leaving the EU.
quote:Absolutely, which is why questions about how "hard" Brexit will be can't be decided by the British Government. An example already mentioned, if Spain insists on leaving Gibraltar out in the cold, Brexit MUST be very hard indeed. Most of us would accept that the UK must pay its obligations before leaving, but £50 billion? We own our share of EU assets to offset against that bill. And there are the voters to contend with. Any one of a number of issues, when put to 27 national parliaments, some regional parliaments and the EU parliament could derail the process in a way in which the UK Government couldn't accept the terms. It's a possibility.
Originally posted by Croesos:
Given that the none of the conditions of leaving the EU can be unilaterally dictated by the leaving member, trying to include them in the referendum would have been deceptive
quote:I agree that the question being asked is 'which politician do want to elect to the office?' The point is that if a politician doesn't go to the trouble of producing a manifesto that constitutes a reason for not voting for that politician. If they're not going to go to the trouble of producing a manifesto out of office they're probably not going to go to the trouble of making workable laws and policies in office. Nor do you know for sure what if anything they say on the campaign trail should be taken seriously or literally. Naming no names.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:No, it's more like pointing out that voters are voting for a politician to take office, not for a manifesto to be enacted. The question being asked of the electorate is "which candidate should hold office", not "which manifesto should be enacted". You may be able to draw some conclusions about the latter from the former, but that doesn't change what question is actually being asked.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think this is like saying that because no politician can guarantee to get their manifesto implemented there is no point in politicians having manifestos.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, the referendum addressed the only question (Leave or Remain) that was actually within the power of the British government to act on. Trying to cram in "we'll leave if X, but not if Y" implies powers not available to a country leaving the EU.
quote:Really? Why exactly MUST it be very hard indeed? Should Spain resist giving Gibraltar giving access to some aspects of an eventual trade deal, why should the UK give up a trade deal with the EU?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Absolutely, which is why questions about how "hard" Brexit will be can't be decided by the British Government. An example already mentioned, if Spain insists on leaving Gibraltar out in the cold, Brexit MUST be very hard indeed.
quote:A qualified majority is defined as:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Presumably the British government can huff and puff about the unfairness, but if any EU state* refuses to co-operate on a point of principle then they can presumably scupper any deal.
*Although I think the Article 50 agreement is by qualified majority voting. I'm not sure what that means in this context.
quote:Since the Brexit was proposed by the British government (i.e. not the European Commission or the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy) a qualified majority is the stricter 72%/65% system I've bolded above. In other words, an agreement would require the approval of at least 20 of the remaining 27 EU nations that contain at least 65% of the remaining EU population.
On 1 November 2014, a new procedure for QM voting, the ‘double majority’ rule, was introduced. Here, when the Council votes on a proposal by the Commission or the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a QM is reached if two conditions are met:
- 55% of EU countries vote in favour - i.e. 16 out of 28;
- the proposal is supported by countries representing at least 65% of the total EU population.
When the Council votes on a proposal not made by the Commission or the High Representative, a decision is adopted if:
- there are 72% of EU country votes in favour; and
- they represent at least 65% of the EU population.
quote:Makes sense.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is an early period of bluffs and threats, isn't it?
quote:Seems to me that this bland and somewhat vague list sounds a lot like the EU. In other words, given the U.K.'s ostensible desire to leave a system that facilitated "trade, co-operation, fair treatment of its citizens abroad, and a close diplomatic relationship where countries listen to each other and try to jointly head off small disputes before they become big disputes", either your assertion doesn't hold or there is some fine detail not included in your broad-brush litany that's problematic.
Originally posted by Russ:
What does Britain want from these negotiations? Pretty much what any sovereign country wants from a neighbour and close ally - trade, co-operation, fair treatment of its citizens abroad, and a close diplomatic relationship where countries listen to each other and try to jointly head off small disputes before they become big disputes. Is there anything there that isn't beneficial to both sides?
quote:Whispers: foreigners
Originally posted by Crœsos:
or there is some fine detail not included in your broad-brush litany that's problematic.
quote:The thing is I'm not sure the UK knows how to reach a compromise.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is an early period of bluffs and threats, isn't it?
quote:Yes. The British in general and the English in particular have never accepted that they are Europeans. Edward Heath, a small group around him, and the old Liberals did - virtually no-one else.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Whispers: foreigners
Originally posted by Crœsos:
or there is some fine detail not included in your broad-brush litany that's problematic.
quote:This somewhat broad brush generalisation got me thinking of where I might think of myself in identity terms. I live on the edge of what, in UK terms, is a Great City, which voted remain, where it meets a brexit-voting hinterland. For all that, most of my friends, relatives and acquaintances would consider themselves to be, to a greater or lesser extent, (western) Europeans. For myself, a hierarchy of identities, in descending order of importance, might be Christian, Northerner, Brit, European, and maybe, if push comes to shove, English, or more accurately, English speaker.I have always been in favour of the maximum possible degree of European integration, hoping ultimately for a Federal Republic of Europe. I don't think I'm that strange or that unique.
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:Yes. The British in general and the English in particular have never accepted that they are Europeans. Edward Heath, a small group around him, and the old Liberals did - virtually no-one else.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Whispers: foreigners
Originally posted by Crœsos:
or there is some fine detail not included in your broad-brush litany that's problematic.
quote:I don't know - I think that puts you as far on the Remain wing as the sort of person who wants to bring back pounds and ounces is on the Leave one.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I have always been in favour of the maximum possible degree of European integration, hoping ultimately for a Federal Republic of Europe. I don't think I'm that strange or that unique.
quote:My personal position on that would be that if a convincing case was made that the people of Britain (and of Europe) would be best served by Britain becoming part of a federal republic of Europe, I would be in favour of it. I would guess that quite a lot of people would share that view.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
IME few are on either side are that far out, and even among British remainers I think "maximum possible degree of European integration"* and "Federal Republic of Europe" are extreme minority pursuits at best.
Not for me to say whether you're strange, but definitely niche. Probably over-indexes as a position on this board though!
quote:I think you are right - but possibly for the wrong reasons.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The thing is I'm not sure the UK knows how to reach a compromise.
I think one of the fundamental divergences between the EU and the UK is the practice in the former of hammering out compromises between ad hoc cross-party coalitions to get legislation passed. This is a million miles from the winner-takes-all political system in the UK, epitomised by the "no deal is better than a bad deal" stance.
quote:Definitely niche. Personally I think the vote and its consequences are catastrophic because we are leaving the Single Market and because it undermines the western alliance. I also think that the Euro was a bad idea and the whole Federal Europe thing leaves me cold. Ironically, I suspect that the net result of Brexit will mean that my grandchildren are much keener on being members of a Federal Europe and embracing the Euro than I am. Think of yourself as a forerunner rather than an eccentric.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:I don't know - I think that puts you as far on the Remain wing as the sort of person who wants to bring back pounds and ounces is on the Leave one.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I have always been in favour of the maximum possible degree of European integration, hoping ultimately for a Federal Republic of Europe. I don't think I'm that strange or that unique.
IME few are on either side are that far out, and even among British remainers I think "maximum possible degree of European integration"* and "Federal Republic of Europe" are extreme minority pursuits at best.
Not for me to say whether you're strange, but definitely niche. Probably over-indexes as a position on this board though!
quote:It might be less that 50 billion! I have seen reports of Britain receiving fourteen billion from the EU but that was in the Express.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
4. The EU 'bill' might be a problem, but is probably less than 50 million, and can be spread over ten years or whatever.
quote:Yes to a point - though the problems arise when they need to prove they have done, which is where even mild regulatory divergence starts to cause issues (and where re-locating manufacturing/assembly to a country where the regulatory authorities are part of those enforcing the real EU regulations starts to look more attractive).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
2. But the incorporation of EU law into British law provides an opportunity. Ministers can preach and prate about now being governed by British laws, while companies will be shadowing EU regulations, since they have no choice.
quote:Good points. On your first point, it's already happening as jobs connected with the euro, will presumably be taken to EU territory. I would think that May is hoping for a 5 year breathing space, so she can win the next election, based on spin-spin. That's what counts, isn't it?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Yes to a point - though the problems arise when they need to prove they have done, which is where even mild regulatory divergence starts to cause issues (and where re-locating manufacturing/assembly to a country where the regulatory authorities are part of those enforcing the real EU regulations starts to look more attractive).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
2. But the incorporation of EU law into British law provides an opportunity. Ministers can preach and prate about now being governed by British laws, while companies will be shadowing EU regulations, since they have no choice.
The other problem with those steps is that in pandering to the Blue Passport/Invade Spain crowd, the government has set the direction of travel. They have to keep pandering to the hysteria they've whipped up in case it starts to eat them up. Expect many more 'NOW THEY ARE STEALING EASTER BECAUSE PLICKLE KERREKNESS' stories.
quote:It's even funnier when you consider that May issued her condemnation from that well known bastion of religious pluralism and Christian values, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On a sidenote, it is rather hilarious that Santamu and May condemn Cadburys on the basis that their founder was a Christian.
In fact he was a Quaker in an era when they steadfastly refused to celebrate religious festivals. The idea that he'd be bothered if the "meaning of Easter was lost" is laughable.
quote:Filthy, brown, foreign heathens killing other filthy, brown, foreign heathens . Morally neutral at worst.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Presumably, May was also there to help sell arms, which are being used to kill Yemeni people. Well, Easter eggs seem more important in any moral calculus.
quote:I've heard "7 years" cited in another, non-Brexit context as the minimum amount of time to go from initial negotiations to final implementation if you're creating an international trade agreement from scratch. So if negotiations start roughly two years from now there should be something in place by roughly 2026, assuming everything goes smoothly.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?
quote:I think these things tend to be over-determined, there's a certain amount of what you say, but also it fits in with the current 'taking back control from foreign' narrative - the various UKIP types were going on about 'Judeo-Christian values' and blaming 'halal'.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think that's the narrative. This whole "oh, the nasty secularists are trying to erase British Anglican Christian values" has been around for ages. I don't think Brexit makes much difference - it is more that it is a distraction from real questions as to the competence of May to deliver on her Brexit promises.
quote:I think that period refers to the negotiations going on between Canada and the EU. If such famously polite people as Canadians can't strike a deal with the EU in seven years what the hell chance have the British?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I've heard "7 years" cited in another, non-Brexit context as the minimum amount of time to go from initial negotiations to final implementation if you're creating an international trade agreement from scratch. So if negotiations start roughly two years from now there should be something in place by roughly 2026, assuming everything goes smoothly.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?
quote:It is largely not in UKIPs interests that the negotiations go well, and in the short term anything they can do to stir up conflict raises their profile and allows them to play up the 'difficult eurocrat' angle to their base.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Apparently UKIP and their spokesman are blustering about the EU putting conditions that are impossible to comply with in negotiating Brexit.
quote:I'm still waiting for the 'punishment budget', an 18% drop in house prices and World War III to start. (Not sure in which order they're supposed to occur.)
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Is there a website tracking the claims made by Remain and which ones have come true already and which are still to come true?
quote:A change in the May tone has become noticeably lately. There could be something going on behind the scenery whereby someone will eventually poke their head through the curtains and say this has all been a bad dream.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if the government are in full retreat over Brexit. So far, they seem to have conceded that two years is a ludicrous under-estimate of the time required for negotiations, and that talks on a trade deal won't start for two years. Also that the transitional arrangement after that, could take a number of years, during which time, freedom of movement may still apply.
Also, the idea that there will be 'regulatory alignment' appears to concede that some companies, and possibly the City, will be 'shadowing' EU regulations. Actually, they have no choice.
Also, that just leaving is not really appropriate.
quote:No "punishment budget" yet, but property prices are being kept high by overseas buyers and WW3 hasn't become less likely thanks to Trump's enlightened approach to NK and his only rival for the title of the worst national leader's haircut.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I'm still waiting for the 'punishment budget', an 18% drop in house prices and World War III to start. (Not sure in which order they're supposed to occur.)
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Is there a website tracking the claims made by Remain and which ones have come true already and which are still to come true?
quote:One of the very few silver linings (and I admit you have to look hard) in all this is that the £ has been about 20% overvalued for the best part of a decade (if not longer, depending on who you believe) and the BoE has been praying for a way to get it down for at least that long.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
17.1% drop in the pound since the Brexit vote.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If you could make it drop another 15% at a minimum that would be quite good. It would certainly make import duty for all us Europeans that little bit easier to bear in two years time.
- but then it would be actually low rather than recovered from an artificial high so I won't be praying for it sorry!
quote:I'm a bit perplexed by the distinction between market forces valuing a currency "actually low" versus "artificial[ly] high", given that currency and everything to do with it is a product of human artifice (i.e. "artificial"). Seems like a case of "the valuation of the pound most convenient for my personal circumstances is the 'actual' value, and anything else is 'artificial'".
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If you could make it drop another 15% at a minimum that would be quite good. It would certainly make import duty for all us Europeans that little bit easier to bear in two years time.
quote:Point of order - if Trump starts WW3 then it won't be because of Brexit.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...WW3 hasn't become less likely thanks to Trump's enlightened approach to NK and his only rival for the title of the worst national leader's haircut.
quote:Probably a better one. The glaringly obvious difference is that there is currently free trade between the UK and all other EU member states. Everyone knows what it looks like and what the ramifications of it are. All the regulations have been thought through and are in place, via EU legislation. This was clearly not the case with Canada, for the simple reason that it was not an EU state and was therefore subject to border tariffs and other import restrictions.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I think that period refers to the negotiations going on between Canada and the EU. If such famously polite people as Canadians can't strike a deal with the EU in seven years what the hell chance have the British?
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I've heard "7 years" cited in another, non-Brexit context as the minimum amount of time to go from initial negotiations to final implementation if you're creating an international trade agreement from scratch. So if negotiations start roughly two years from now there should be something in place by roughly 2026, assuming everything goes smoothly.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?
quote:Perhaps a subject for another thread, but I expect they realise that outside in the real world, the average person only thinks of Christianity in terms of paedophilia, gay bishops, homophobia, superstition, the patriarchy and spats about Easter eggs. This is due to the steady and deliberate removal of Christianity from the public sphere. I can understand why they might get just a little bit sensitive.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On a sidenote, it is rather hilarious that Santamu and May condemn Cadburys on the basis that their founder was a Christian.
In fact he was a Quaker in an era when they steadfastly refused to celebrate religious festivals. The idea that he'd be bothered if the "meaning of Easter was lost" is laughable.
quote:I think it less deliberate than a recognition that it doesn't belong in the public sphere along with more and more people just not being fussed.
Originally posted by Cod:
This is due to the steady and deliberate removal of Christianity from the public sphere.
quote:Not sure what system of ethics and morals is unique to Christianity.
Originally posted by Cod:
You're confusing motive with result. Christianity no longer provides the dominant source of ethics and morals in the average Western society. If it did, it would be absurd to "recognise" that it had no place, as it quite clearly would.
And if you subscribe to a system of ethics that is not only being pushed relentlessly to the margins but is also regarded as absurd in many parts of polite society, a little hissy fit every now and then seems forgivable.
quote:I liked this piece in the Guardian from Victoria Coren Mitchell.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think it less deliberate than a recognition that it doesn't belong in the public sphere along with more and more people just not being fussed.
quote:
I remember a News of the World columnist writing, at the time: "I'm always suspicious of lefties who live in palaces… yet still feel entitled to pontificate about the poor."
But he's the Archbishop of Canterbury! "Entitled to pontificate" is precisely what he is.
quote:[Sorry for going all the way back to this. I've been suffering a severe case of loss-of-internet (and, I can't even blame it on UKIP)]
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Given that the none of the conditions of leaving the EU can be unilaterally dictated by the leaving member, trying to include them in the referendum would have been deceptive. Especially since Article 50 seems to be written with an implicit 'no backsies' structure.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, I thought we were talking about multiple options for a future relationship between the UK and EU, not multiple reasons for leaving (though they may be related). We have a referendum result which shows that a small majority of the 2016 electorate wanted to leave the EU, that result stands regardless of why they wanted to leave. In many ways the why they wanted to leave is irrelevant. What is relevant is that nowhere in the process was what they wanted to leave to defined.
In other words, the referendum addressed the only question (Leave or Remain) that was actually within the power of the British government to act on. Trying to cram in "we'll leave if X, but not if Y" implies powers not available to a country leaving the EU.
quote:This does not make things necessarily any simpler, because of the particular direction of travel that the UK has embarked upon. The UK will assume - as part of the 'great repeal bill' - much of this into UK legislation, without an agreed mechanism for updating this legislation in future, and often the bodies enforcing these regulations are ones that the UK may or may not recognize in future. The ultimate arbiter is often the ECJ - which becomes a problem for all the sovereignty nuts in the current government.
Originally posted by Cod:
Probably a better one. The glaringly obvious difference is that there is currently free trade between the UK and all other EU member states. Everyone knows what it looks like and what the ramifications of it are. All the regulations have been thought through and are in place, via EU legislation.
quote:These [the politian ones] are the scroungers that proposed to 'pretend to be Irish to get EU funding'. The European values of respect, justice, fair play etc... are a foreign book to them.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Since it was clear more than a year age that EU institutions located in EU nations would have to move if that nation ceases to be in the EU then they have no basis to complain.
quote:Strange, I thought those were British values. Clearly since they're European values we need to ditch them to make sure no one mistakes the British for Europeans.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
values of respect, justice, fair play etc...
quote:I wish I was surprised. But very little surprises me about how stupid a significant portion of Brexiteers are. Not all of them, just the ones who appear to be the ones who the politicans believe have the money to pay, and thus are letting them call the tune.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Brexiteers now complaining that the EU has had the temerity to start drawing up plans to relocate agencies serving the EU away from the UK
quote:It's that time of the year. Little practical progress on Brexit beyond Article 50 itself in a whole ten months. Has the PM been to Buck House?
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Eyes down for an unscheduled Downing Street statement by the Prime Minister at 11:15 am this morning. All journalists caught on the hop. Snap Election anybody?
quote:Missed the traditional early May date - June 8th allegedly....
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It's that time of the year. Little practical progress on Brexit beyond Article 50 itself in a whole ten months. Has the PM been to Buck House?
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Eyes down for an unscheduled Downing Street statement by the Prime Minister at 11:15 am this morning. All journalists caught on the hop. Snap Election anybody?
quote:Why bad? It's a chance to get rid of the government you've all been complaining about for so long, rather than being stuck with them until 2020. Surely that should make you happy?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bollocks. This is bad.
quote:Well y'know, I'm being quite positive as to the chances of taking out some of the worst Tory Brexiteers. I don't think they're going to get a majority.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why bad? It's a chance to get rid of the government you've all been complaining about for so long, rather than being stuck with them until 2020. Surely that should make you happy?
quote:The likelihood is five more years of Tory misrule including five years of hopeless negotiations that will impoverish the country. This old place is utterly fucked and it can't blame anyone but itself.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Why bad? It's a chance to get rid of the government you've all been complaining about for so long, rather than being stuck with them until 2020. Surely that should make you happy?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bollocks. This is bad.
quote:Man is, by nature selfish and/or stupid. If s/he can't see that we are going to carry on with dumbass populist governments until Trump etc blow us all to kingdom come.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So basically, it's bad because you know you're in the minority and will lose the election?
Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work though? You make your points, they make theirs, and whoever is most convincing gets the most votes. Even if you lose, at least an election gives you the chance to make your points.
quote:You are quite right about this, as you are about approximately what each party will say about Brexit. But isn't this what you've always wanted? You have said so many times that the PM has no authority to take us out of the Single Market, and that it wasn't what the British people voted for. We will see on June 8th. No political party can take for granted the result of a General Election. The pollsters have been proved wrong many times. In the event of a hung parliament in which Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP can form a coalition, they will have the opportunity to seriously change direction, either by finding a way to cancel Brexit or to water it down or to call another referendum. If Tim Farron is right and all the Remainers and the softer of the Brexiteers support his position, he should get more votes than any Liberal since Lloyd George.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All the other issues of government - welfare, healthcare, education, law and order etc will take a very definite back seat.
quote:Pretty much what I would have said if I'd got there first. People have been stating that May doesn't have a mandate so she's decided to go get one. A risky strategy but one that could pay off.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:You are quite right about this, as you are about approximately what each party will say about Brexit. But isn't this what you've always wanted? You have said so many times that the PM has no authority to take us out of the Single Market, and that it wasn't what the British people voted for. We will see on June 8th. No political party can take for granted the result of a General Election. The pollsters have been proved wrong many times. In the event of a hung parliament in which Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP can form a coalition, they will have the opportunity to seriously change direction, either by finding a way to cancel Brexit or to water it down or to call another referendum. If Tim Farron is right and all the Remainers and the softer of the Brexiteers support his position, he should get more votes than any Liberal since Lloyd George.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All the other issues of government - welfare, healthcare, education, law and order etc will take a very definite back seat.
If, however, the polls are right, and the PM substantially increases her majority, the Remainers need to pipe down and accept that twice the British voters have told us what they want. It will be no good saying that there is no mandate for the PM's vision of Brexit if she wins this election. How many ways of testing public opinion do people want before they accept that, even when the result is deeply offensive to their own personal view, it has democratic authority?
quote:Yes, I want the PM to gain a democratic mandate for her position. But, I don't want a general election to determine that. A General Election is an opportunity to elect people to represent us on general issues - it's not a time for single issue questions. I don't want a government (regardless of the colour of the rosette) elected on the basis of a vision for Brexit then considering they have a mandate to enact reforms of the NHS, education, welfare etc over the next five years.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:You are quite right about this, as you are about approximately what each party will say about Brexit. But isn't this what you've always wanted? You have said so many times that the PM has no authority to take us out of the Single Market, and that it wasn't what the British people voted for. We will see on June 8th.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All the other issues of government - welfare, healthcare, education, law and order etc will take a very definite back seat.
quote:Are you saying we should get rid of democracy? Or that every Party should refuse to give the people what they want and collude to only offer the "right" policies?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Man is, by nature selfish and/or stupid. If s/he can't see that we are going to carry on with dumbass populist governments until Trump etc blow us all to kingdom come.
quote:A select group of friends, obviously. There are of course issues with education etc in Scotland. Though, our education and healthcare is doing better than south of Hadrians Wall. For welfare, the situation is difficult because most of the powers needed are either held in Westminster or only recently transfered to Holyrood. The Scottish government has marginally increased taxation now they have those powers to fund services, but there are limits to what they can do. Put simply, it's entirely possible to address all the needs of government and start the process of holding another referendum at the same time. Which the SNP are doing.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
As for the business of government, you're already living that one out. Pretty all my Scottish friends wish the SNP would put the same energies into fixing Scotland's issues - health, education, social etc - as they do into trying to get IndyRef2 The Re-Run. Whatever their stance on independence.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You seem to have missed the point I have been (repeatedly) trying to make. No one (or, at least, no one with brains) expects to be able to put the final terms of a constitutional change on the ballot prior to the start of negotiations. What I've been saying is that an informed vote requires the intention of the government to be defined.
quote:How could that possibly have been "clear" if the intention of the government had not been defined? It's almost as if the one thing (the UK leaving the EU) could logically and reasonably be expected to lead to certain easily-anticipated consequences (EU organizations would no longer operate or be based within the UK). Astonishing!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Since it was clear more than a year age that EU institutions located in EU nations would have to move if that nation ceases to be in the EU then they have no basis to complain. If they voted Leave expecting the EU to continue operate major institutions in countries outwith the EU then they were stupid. If they didn't realise there are EU institutions in the UK then they're stupidly ill-informed.
quote:Pretty much. But probably no more selective than yours. We all tend to end up in an echo chamber which means that coming across different opinions OR discovering we're actually in a minority can come as a bit of a shocker. Based on the Ship discussions, Remain was a shoe-in. Based on the conversations I'd had elsewhere, I knew we were screwed before polling even opened.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:A select group of friends, obviously. There are of course issues with education etc in Scotland. Though, our education and healthcare is doing better than south of Hadrians Wall. For welfare, the situation is difficult because most of the powers needed are either held in Westminster or only recently transfered to Holyrood. The Scottish government has marginally increased taxation now they have those powers to fund services, but there are limits to what they can do. Put simply, it's entirely possible to address all the needs of government and start the process of holding another referendum at the same time. Which the SNP are doing.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
As for the business of government, you're already living that one out. Pretty all my Scottish friends wish the SNP would put the same energies into fixing Scotland's issues - health, education, social etc - as they do into trying to get IndyRef2 The Re-Run. Whatever their stance on independence.
In the meantime the SNP (and Greens who are also in favour of independence) continue to get elected and form a pro-independence government. They must be doing something right, otherwise why haven't the voters rejected them in favour of the unionist parties?
quote:Because there are many versions of what "leave the EU" means, and without knowing which version was being proposed before the referendum campaign kicked off we were denied an informed choice.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You seem to have missed the point I have been (repeatedly) trying to make. No one (or, at least, no one with brains) expects to be able to put the final terms of a constitutional change on the ballot prior to the start of negotiations. What I've been saying is that an informed vote requires the intention of the government to be defined.quote:How could that possibly have been "clear" if the intention of the government had not been defined? It's almost as if the one thing (the UK leaving the EU) could logically and reasonably be expected to lead to certain easily-anticipated consequences (EU organizations would no longer operate or be based within the UK). Astonishing!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Since it was clear more than a year age that EU institutions located in EU nations would have to move if that nation ceases to be in the EU then they have no basis to complain. If they voted Leave expecting the EU to continue operate major institutions in countries outwith the EU then they were stupid. If they didn't realise there are EU institutions in the UK then they're stupidly ill-informed.
quote:Nope, just an everyday, heartfelt and considered opinion of mankind. Being good isn't natural IMHO and Christianity doesn't see "natural man" as being in great moral shape either.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Are you saying we should get rid of democracy? Or that every Party should refuse to give the people what they want and collude to only offer the "right" policies?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Man is, by nature selfish and/or stupid. If s/he can't see that we are going to carry on with dumbass populist governments until Trump etc blow us all to kingdom come.
quote:'twas ever thus. As true in the 40s and 50s as it is today.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Nope, just an everyday, heartfelt and considered opinion of mankind. Being good isn't natural IMHO and Christianity doesn't see "natural man" as being in great moral shape either.
Parties are for the most part interested in power, so they have to offer what natural man desires.
quote:Sure, but in the sixties we had the Race Relations Act, abolition of capital punishment and legalisation of homosexuality which were all regarded as election losers, but approved by both houses. There was some moral courage in Parliament in those days.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:'twas ever thus. As true in the 40s and 50s as it is today.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Nope, just an everyday, heartfelt and considered opinion of mankind. Being good isn't natural IMHO and Christianity doesn't see "natural man" as being in great moral shape either.
Parties are for the most part interested in power, so they have to offer what natural man desires.
quote:I don't get this. You and many others, Tim Farron for example, have questioned the PM's mandate for Brexit. I've questioned her mandate full stop. She wasn't elected Prime Minister. There's no requirement to call an election when the ruling party changes leader. Both Labour and the Tories have done that before. But here there is a serious constitutional issue involved with Brexit and the Great Repeal Bill which change the international status of British citizens. So I've always believed she needed a vote to secure her position. Or to lose it according to the will of the British people. So how would you suggest that the PM finds out if there is a democratic mandate for her position? I rather suspect that you fear that she'll get an overwhelming mandate for a position you find repulsive.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, I want the PM to gain a democratic mandate for her position. But, I don't want a general election to determine that
quote:As far as I can tell, one of the reasons for representative governments is that past a certain point, the issues get so complex that they need representatives with time set aside to examine them and discuss their finer points.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When I walk into the polling station and I'm faced with a list of names and their associated parties (or, that they're independent) none of those words on the ballot paper say anything about a specific issue.
quote:In the EU referendum, the opposite appeared to happen.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In today's complex world, referenda almost inevitably give the power to the people who get to set the question, not to the voters.
quote:That's because our representatives refused to use their power to set the question, leaving each voter to try and figure out what they were voting for or against.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:In the EU referendum, the opposite appeared to happen.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In today's complex world, referenda almost inevitably give the power to the people who get to set the question, not to the voters.
quote:Oh and once again, how can you fight a General Election over something that's already happened? Article 50 has been triggered. There's no going back on Brexit.
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Last June both main parties were for Remain but both have since changed their position so how can a General Election be fought over something when the two main parties are agreed and stand for essentially the same thing on the issue over which it's been called? Makes no sense.
quote:I didn't say what the outcome of having that power might be. Either getting your way, or stirring chaos.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:In the EU referendum, the opposite appeared to happen.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In today's complex world, referenda almost inevitably give the power to the people who get to set the question, not to the voters.
quote:I agree entirely.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:As far as I can tell, one of the reasons for representative governments is that past a certain point, the issues get so complex that they need representatives with time set aside to examine them and discuss their finer points.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When I walk into the polling station and I'm faced with a list of names and their associated parties (or, that they're independent) none of those words on the ballot paper say anything about a specific issue.
quote:Agreed. The biggest problem is that our representatives failed to put time aside to discuss the very complex issues before calling a referendum (indeed, they have failed to do so after the result as well). Which is why we're still talking about different forms of Brexit, whether the government approach is the best and whether we should hold a general election to further define that. We are still at the start of that discussion, both within Parliament and wider society, and without even asking the people in a referendum whether we want Brexit on the same terms as our government Article 50 has already been triggered - and even if we return a majority of MPs opposed to Brexit and revoke A50 our relationship with the rest of Europe has been irrevocably changed.
Brexit is a screaming example of a complex issue being painted as a simple one for party political purposes, with the electorate falsely enlisted under the pretence of giving them a say.
quote:We had a referendum last year. And, we were denied the option of an informed vote. If we had had an informed vote, a clearly defined vision for Brexit that 52% of the electorate voted for, then I wouldn't still be banging on about this issue. If we had held a referendum that was well thought through, where our MPs had put in the time to discuss the issues and frame the question in a sensible manner (in consultation with the rest of the UK population), then I would have accepted the views of the people ... that would be democracy, and not getting what we each individually want everytime is part of democracy. As it was, we had a farce. And, it's a farce that's continuing as Mrs May continues to play the political game by calling an election at a time that suits her.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The question was asked in a referendum last year. Almost 50% of voters didn't get the answer they wanted.
quote:Why not?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But we can't all be like the SNP and ask for another referendum every time the wind changes direction.
quote:First bit agree - second bit I'm not sure it would be feasible to go further than the famous "the government will implement what you decide" from last year.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That does, however, need a clear statement of what that negotiating position will be before you vote, and who will be conducting those negotiations on our behalf. Neither of which were provided prior to the referendum last year.
quote:Given that terms of the Brexit will be largely out of the hands of British negotiators, doesn't requiring "an assessment of the ability of those doing the negotiating to get a deal that is close to their stated preferred outcome" essentially mean you can never hold a vote on Brexit?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Obviously you can't vote for a particular outcome for negotiations. You can vote for a particular negotiating position, what is sought with the expectation that the final result is as close as possible to that position - and, part of the considerations that go into deciding whether to vote for that negotiating position in an assessment of the ability of those doing the negotiating to get a deal that is close to their stated prefered outcome.
quote:I don't believe that the terms of Brexit are going to be completely independent of what the UK negotiators go in and ask for. Otherwise there would be little point in negotiating, and we just take whatever terms the Commission dictates. We may end up there anyway, depending on whether the UK negotiators ask for the impossible (which appears to be what they've put on the table) and whether they are any good at negotiating international treaties (of which they have no experience).
Given that terms of the Brexit will be largely out of the hands of British negotiators, doesn't requiring "an assessment of the ability of those doing the negotiating to get a deal that is close to their stated preferred outcome" essentially mean you can never hold a vote on Brexit? [/QB]
quote:It was every bit as informed as the 2014 Indyref.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:We had a referendum last year. And, we were denied the option of an informed vote.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The question was asked in a referendum last year. Almost 50% of voters didn't get the answer they wanted.
quote:Bollocks.
Originally posted by Cod:
It was every bit as informed as the 2014 Indyref.
quote:We were assured by the Leave campaign that the British negotiators would be able to have the moon on a stick and eat it. Are you implying that Boris Johnson does not always adhere to the strictest standards of veracity? Next thing you'll be saying that the US President sometimes tells stretchers.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that terms of the Brexit will be largely out of the hands of British negotiators, doesn't requiring "an assessment of the ability of those doing the negotiating to get a deal that is close to their stated preferred outcome" essentially mean you can never hold a vote on Brexit?
quote:This is kind of what I was referring to. Let's consider an hypothetical Brexit referendum that specifies that the EU will, when the UK leaves, provide every British household with a free pony. Is a referendum a good place to determine whether or not this is a reasonable position? If the public votes in favor are we to take it as an endorsement of leaving the EU, or as a desire for free ponies? Given that Article 50, once invoked, seems to call for an automatic exit after two years if no agreement on terms can be reached, what recourse is available to the British voter if no ponies are forthcoming? Does the specificity about ponies really clarify the Stay/Leave question?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:We were assured by the Leave campaign that the British negotiators would be able to have the moon on a stick and eat it.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given that terms of the Brexit will be largely out of the hands of British negotiators, doesn't requiring "an assessment of the ability of those doing the negotiating to get a deal that is close to their stated preferred outcome" essentially mean you can never hold a vote on Brexit?
quote:Still absolute bollocks.
Originally posted by Cod:
Alan,
Absolutely not bollocks.
quote:It is possible that the referendum question specifies something that the British government has some reasonable prospect of delivering. For example, if it had specified continued membership of the free market on terms similar to Norway then it would be reasonable to assume that the UK could achieve that.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
In other words, I'm not seeing a lot of value in specifying a bunch of details that the UK government has no actual ability to deliver.
quote:Alan the level of passion you have against Brexit is unquestionable and you have expressed this very well over these last months. But not everyone agrees with you. Even many people who oppose Brexit don't question the democratic legitimacy of last year's referendum. Gina Miller's court case ensured that the government couldn't circumvent parliament by Royal Prerogative. Now the PM is going to find out if she has a mandate to do Brexit in her way. I really don't agree with you that there is any lack in this democratic process.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Still absolute bollocks.
quote:The PM had better spell out exactly what her way is, and as far as I know negotiations are not being conducted openly, so how the heck can we have an informed election?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Now the PM is going to find out if she has a mandate to do Brexit in her way. I really don't agree with you that there is any lack in this democratic process.
quote:And what if that were never a realistic negotiating position - after the Article 50 notice was given, the EU said point blank that that would not be an acceptable outcome.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would everyone who voted Leave have done so if they had known that Brexit was to leave the single market and the other points summarised in that white paper? If they voted expecting negotiations to seek to retain single market (as many Leave campaigners promised) and that wasn't what they got then they voted without information.
quote:First, I agree that very few people will read through a white paper - personally I only read the summary of the Scottish Independence one. Though, political pundits in the media do (and, with some bias, distill what they see as the key points) as do politicians (or their advisors) on the other side to find the holes they can exploit. But, the opportunity for those so inclined is there.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I really can't see joe public sitting down studiously reading through a white paper: as I said before, the subject is simply too complex.
...
The whole idea of elected representatives, and power plant operators, is to delegate the finicky business of running a complex piece of machinery to people on a full-time basis.
quote:People don't even know who the Famous Five are these days?! O tempora O mores!
Originally posted by Gee D:
Our local bookshop is selling Five On Brexit Island, with the Five (plus dog) appearing as usual on the cover. Very prescient of Ms Blyton.
quote:Generally I think that is valid, and as I have already pointed out, there was such a document (North's Flexcit), interestingly issued by the supposedly loony end of the Brexiteers, and it advocated a rather soft Brexit, basically EEA for at least the next ten years including free-movement, contributions and ECJ, with progressive incremental disengagement. But definitely out of the Customs Union.
By September 2014 we had had a decade of Parliamentary debate and public consultation on independence, a decade of independence being a significant part of the political discourse, an issue on election days etc. We had had a 700 page document detailing the government position on independence
quote:That may be the case. However, it's also undoubtedly the case that if they tried to produce a specific plan they'd have fallen into in-fighting and that would have resulted in a very large Remain victory - nothing destroys electoral prospects like in-fighting (just ask the current Labour party). The official Leave campaign new that, and carefully avoided anything resembling a discussion on specifics, even to the extent of having mutually incompatible statements. Which, of course, also made any meaningful discussion of the plan for Brexit impossible.
Originally posted by anteater:
From what I have read, Official Leave decided not to endorse any specific plan because it would be rubbished as pie in the sky
quote:And, others were not as convinced that all the goals were unattainable. Continuing EU membership should have been relatively straightforward, the use of the pound as currency as well - there was never anything to stop that, although having some input to fiscal policy would be more challenging.
of course this was the case in the Scottish referendum, where goals such as a currency union with rump-UK, continuing EU membership et all, were rubbished as unattainable, fairly convincingly in my view.
quote:No, you're correct. The vote was to provide the mandate to the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a clear plan endorsed by the people, with the expectation that the government would enter those negotiations to get the best deal possible ("best" being defined as closest to the plan).
As I understand it, if Scots voted to leave the UK, that was no guarantee at all of the future since there was no promised final vote on the terms actually achieved rather than what was hoped for. Am I mistaken on this?
quote:A lot more than that. It laid out the detail of the plan, the basis for judging whether we agreed with the plan and whether (if the vote was Yes) the government had done a good job. Those details were essential to an informed decision by the electorate.
So to me, your 700 page document was "of interest" but no more.
quote:As irresponsible as introducing a referendum with no clear plan? Or campaigning for an outcome in that referendum that one didn't truly want?
Originally posted by Cod:
I would take a stronger view than anteater, given the Yes camp's claims regarding the pound and Scotland's ability to obtain continued EU membership. Frankly, it was astonishingly speculative and optimistic beyond the point of irresponsiblity.
quote:OTOH Freedom of movement doesn't have to be implemented in the way that the UK implements it. The EU directives define freedom of movement of labour, rather than freedom of movement of people. Not heard the entire speech/interview but assume this may have been what Starmer meant when he talked about EU citizens still being able to come here if they had a job offer.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'm missing something here. The EU has made it clear that full access to the Single Market only comes with freedom of movement
quote:Strangely, only when it's their favoured candidates who are being opaque.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
opacity has a strange mystical allure for the right-wing press.
quote:Indeed, most of what I have heard talk about are already provisions under existing EU treaties. Without changing our status with the EU one iota the UK government could enforce existing provisions to achieve what Starmer appeared to be saying, that could be done almost immediately independently of any Brexit negotiations.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:OTOH Freedom of movement doesn't have to be implemented in the way that the UK implements it. The EU directives define freedom of movement of labour, rather than freedom of movement of people. Not heard the entire speech/interview but assume this may have been what Starmer meant when he talked about EU citizens still being able to come here if they had a job offer.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'm missing something here. The EU has made it clear that full access to the Single Market only comes with freedom of movement
quote:Well, surely, Corbyn's vagueness is deleterious, and in fact, unpatriotic. May's vagueness is a resplendent exemplar of Britannia in action; she will confound Eurocrats with her dazzling vacuity.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:Strangely, only when it's their favoured candidates who are being opaque.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
opacity has a strange mystical allure for the right-wing press.
Mysticism is the only thing Brexit has going for it; The allure of a return to a mythical golden age when the sun never set over the Empire, every man had a job and every woman had a sink, and Johnny Foreigner had to buy our stuff because we'd send a gunboat if he didn't. As soon as you focus on details, it all starts getting rather scarey.
quote:None of this is known. However what we do know is the Britain will be Great again(said sarcastically).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
.... If we become a 'third country', how do we export to Europe? How do you go on the various electronic databases which enable smooth passage over borders for your goods? How do planes take off and use European air-space? How does 'just in time' production work, when there may be delays for checking of documents at borders? Etc.
quote:No. The question was:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The vote was to provide the mandate to the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a clear plan endorsed by the people, with the expectation that the government would enter those negotiations to get the best deal possible ("best" being defined as closest to the plan).
quote:That's what the entire vote was about. The rest is irrelevance. The Scottish government would only have been empowered to negotiate the exit terms, and they would have been in at least as much a position of weakness as the UK government is now.
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
quote:Yes. Considerably more so in fact. Leaving an international co-operative organisation such as the EU is quite difficult enough. Establishing a new state with a new constitution, a new currency, a new central bank, a new defence force, social security arrangements and taxation system, to give only the few examples that immediately spring to mind is in quite another order of things. Of course it can be done, and has been done by many countries over the past few decades, but let's not fool ourselves that Brexit would be harder.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:As irresponsible as introducing a referendum with no clear plan? Or campaigning for an outcome in that referendum that one didn't truly want?
Originally posted by Cod:
I would take a stronger view than anteater, given the Yes camp's claims regarding the pound and Scotland's ability to obtain continued EU membership. Frankly, it was astonishingly speculative and optimistic beyond the point of irresponsiblity.
quote:If it was that simple then the same would apply to an election where the question is "which of the following candidates do you prefer?", but doing so without reference to their manifestos, previous experience, whether they appear to be competent etc. People don't enter the voting booth of an election without having formed an opinion based on a large range of factors, the same with a referendum. We went to the polls in 2014 voting on a question that was framed in the context of decades of political discourse, several rounds of Parliamentary debate, an extensive white paper and a long campaign. The whole campaign was dominated by whether or not the governments plan was realistic and feasible. And at the end of the day 55% voted to say one (or more of) not wanting independence, not wanting the form of independence the government proposed, or wanted that form of independence but didn't think it could be achieved. 45% either wanted independence at any cost, or what the government proposed and considered it achievable (I was in that second group - I strongly favour independence but not at any cost).
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:No. The question was:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The vote was to provide the mandate to the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a clear plan endorsed by the people, with the expectation that the government would enter those negotiations to get the best deal possible ("best" being defined as closest to the plan).
quote:That's what the entire vote was about. The rest is irrelevance. The Scottish government would only have been empowered to negotiate the exit terms, and they would have been in at least as much a position of weakness as the UK government is now.
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
quote:The question at the ballot box at the General Election is 'Which candidate do you want to represent your consituency?' (Or some such.) That doesn't mean that the government has a free hand to raise taxes or national insurance contributions when the candidate's party manifesto has said that they wouldn't.
Originally posted by Cod:
The question was:
quote:That's what the entire vote was about. The rest is irrelevance. The Scottish government would only have been empowered to negotiate the exit terms, and they would have been in at least as much a position of weakness as the UK government is now.
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
quote:Actually, it does. Once elected there is nothing (other than the prospect of the next election, of course) that forces the government to stick to its manifesto. Reneging on manifesto promises happens in every parliament, the clearest example in recent times being Blair's government introducing top-up tuition fees when their manifesto had specifically said they wouldn't.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That doesn't mean that the government has a free hand to raise taxes or national insurance contributions when the candidate's party manifesto has said that they wouldn't.
quote:That and backbench rebellions. As we saw when Hammond tried to raise national insurance contributions. There may not be any formal rule binding a government to its manifesto, but a government has a lot more political capital to implement policies that were in its manifesto than policies that weren't.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Actually, it does. Once elected there is nothing (other than the prospect of the next election, of course) that forces the government to stick to its manifesto.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
That doesn't mean that the government has a free hand to raise taxes or national insurance contributions when the candidate's party manifesto has said that they wouldn't.
quote:The Scottish voters certainly aren't idiots. That's why so few of them want another independence referendum. Or why it's by no means certain that they would vote for independence if they had one. As I often say, polls aren't always right, but this gives the lie to First Minister's assertion that she has a mandate to call a second referendum. The SNP speaks for the SNP, not for Scotland.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To assume that the people who live in Scotland went to the polls without considering what the question meant is tantamount to calling us idiots.
quote:
The UK is urgently drawing up new laws that will enable it to continue imposing sanctions on foreign countries after Brexit, the BBC has learned.
Ministers began consulting on the plans last week after officials realised most of the powers to apply sanctions will disappear when the UK leaves the EU.
quote:Come on though, I voted Remain and I nevertheless struggle to see how that story actually fits the tone of its own first paras "officials realised" etc. There's no idea of chronology in the article - did they really realise last week, or, given that it's dealt with in the White Paper, is this just something else that's actually quite reasonable?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And in further evidence of how Leavers utterly failed to think through the consequences of their agenda...
quote:
The UK is urgently drawing up new laws that will enable it to continue imposing sanctions on foreign countries after Brexit, the BBC has learned.
Ministers began consulting on the plans last week after officials realised most of the powers to apply sanctions will disappear when the UK leaves the EU.
quote:So are you saying that mandates derive from opinion polls? That seems odd to me. I thought that in this case, the Scottish government had previously said that there would be no new referendum, unless there was a substantial change in circumstances. I think Brexit counts as substantial.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:The Scottish voters certainly aren't idiots. That's why so few of them want another independence referendum. Or why it's by no means certain that they would vote for independence if they had one. As I often say, polls aren't always right, but this gives the lie to First Minister's assertion that she has a mandate to call a second referendum. The SNP speaks for the SNP, not for Scotland.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To assume that the people who live in Scotland went to the polls without considering what the question meant is tantamount to calling us idiots.
quote:Yes, I agree with you. Politically though, it's like handing the SNP a loaded gun, they could shoot it if they want to, because they've got the gun and they've got the bullet - the question is more one for them as to whether to pull the trigger or not. Get it wrong, and they'll have screwed up in the same way as the Parti Quebecois. On the other hand, there are people in the SNP whose trigger fingers are itching regardless of the sense.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:So are you saying that mandates derive from opinion polls? That seems odd to me. I thought that in this case, the Scottish government had previously said that there would be no new referendum, unless there was a substantial change in circumstances. I think Brexit counts as substantial.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:The Scottish voters certainly aren't idiots. That's why so few of them want another independence referendum. Or why it's by no means certain that they would vote for independence if they had one. As I often say, polls aren't always right, but this gives the lie to First Minister's assertion that she has a mandate to call a second referendum. The SNP speaks for the SNP, not for Scotland.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
To assume that the people who live in Scotland went to the polls without considering what the question meant is tantamount to calling us idiots.
So the government quite correctly took this to the Scottish Parliament, who approved the proposal for a new referendum, not now of course.
How else would the Scottish government proceed? Obviously, everything has now changed, but presumably, the Scottish government would have a mandate for IndyRef2, if it is formed by the SNP. And if not, not.
quote:At the very least I think it means they had not realised the snap General Election would require them to do something about it, and possibly that they had not realised the nuts-and-bolts implications of the White Paper.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'm not remotely one for BBC bias so I'll assume that they didn't intend it to be part of the " no one has thought this through narrative" either.
quote:Yes, I was getting muddled up about various elections. I was mainly objecting to PaulTH's bizarre statement that there is no mandate, because of opinion polls. Eh?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, the Scottish government, with the support of the Parliament, want to call IndyRef2 in autumn 2018 or spring 2019. That will be before the next election - though if Westminster blocks that referendum I would expect even greater support for the pro-indy parties in the next election, and an overwhelming call for IndyRef2 early in that Parliament.
quote:...except that it appears the Civil Service first raised this issue in February. Presumably it has taken two months to come to the top of someone's in-tray because of all the other Very Important Things that the government must do Right Now (that would be totally unnecessary if it wasn't for Brexit).
Two ways of reading it - "because no one had given it any thought this just emerged as problem out of a clear blue sky"; which I'd argue the article doesn't support...
quote:Well, the Scottish government keeps *saying* it wants to. I can't help but think a number of people at the top of the SNP are looking at the numbers and the reception on the doorstep and increasingly hearing the spectral voice of John Le Mesurier in their ear, "are you quite sure that's wise...?"
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, the Scottish government, with the support of the Parliament, want to call IndyRef2 in autumn 2018 or spring 2019.
quote:Well, I'm not someone who sees any real difference between Brexiteers and Scexiteers (both want to wreck something imperfect because the snake oil they've got's purer) so you'll expect me to disagree with that analysis, and I do.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
That will be before the next election - though if Westminster blocks that referendum I would expect even greater support for the pro-indy parties in the next election, and an overwhelming call for IndyRef2 early in that Parliament.
quote:But the point is also that it *is* covered by the Great Repeal Bill (as is everything else that touches the EU - it's the point of the Bill to write the lot onto the Statute Book so it can be worked through over time without causing immediate chaos) - so in the short term it doesn't matter whether we bring in the new legislation or not.
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac:quote:...except that it appears the Civil Service first raised this issue in February. Presumably it has taken two months to come to the top of someone's in-tray because of all the other Very Important Things that the government must do Right Now (that would be totally unnecessary if it wasn't for Brexit).
Two ways of reading it - "because no one had given it any thought this just emerged as problem out of a clear blue sky"; which I'd argue the article doesn't support...
quote:That was my first thought too, but unless the BBC article is a storm in a teacup that doesn't appear to be the case...?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
the point is also that it *is* covered by the Great Repeal Bill
quote:The big difference is the nature of the current relationships.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Well, I'm not someone who sees any real difference between Brexiteers and Scexiteers
quote:Who knows. I would have said not, but as Brexit is all about TAKING BACK CONTROL!!! being able to impose our own sanctions regime is presumably a vital aspect of exercising our sovereignty.
All the new legislation would do is let us come up with a sanctions regime that is different from the EU's sanctions regime. In the short term, given that sanctions work best multilaterally anyway, should it *be* anywhere near the top of anyone's in-tray?
quote:...whilst at the same time pretending to cooperate on matters of profit, sorry I mean interest, to the UK.
...Brexit seeks to end mutual cooperation between the UK and other European nations.
quote:Yes, and a large portion of the Leave vote in Scotland came from those communities, and it was a vote against EU fisheries policy. Not only was the Leave vote in Scotland smaller than the rest of the UK, the reasons for it were different.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Meanwhile, SNP parliamentary candidates for coastal constituencies are busily signing the Fishing Pledge, which if they were to honour it would rule out Scottish EU membership...
quote:Well it should be able to provide some tangible evidence that the people of Scotland want a referendum. There isn't any. In the YouGov poll in yesterday's Times, even after Brexit, only 35& wanted another referendum with 48% saying No. OK we all know the limitation of polls, but in Northern Ireland since the GFA, the Secretary of State can authorise a border poll when there's evidence of a sizeable shift in public opinion. There is no evidence of a substantial shift of public opinion in Scotland since 2014, but plenty of indication that the people don't want IndyRef2.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How else would the Scottish government proceed?
quote:OK, legally speaking the Scottish goverment could have ignored a Yes vote. Politically, that's not how things work.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:If it was that simple then the same would apply to an election where the question is "which of the following candidates do you prefer?", but doing so without reference to their manifestos, previous experience, whether they appear to be competent etc. People don't enter the voting booth of an election without having formed an opinion based on a large range of factors, the same with a referendum. We went to the polls in 2014 voting on a question that was framed in the context of decades of political discourse, several rounds of Parliamentary debate, an extensive white paper and a long campaign. The whole campaign was dominated by whether or not the governments plan was realistic and feasible. And at the end of the day 55% voted to say one (or more of) not wanting independence, not wanting the form of independence the government proposed, or wanted that form of independence but didn't think it could be achieved. 45% either wanted independence at any cost, or what the government proposed and considered it achievable (I was in that second group - I strongly favour independence but not at any cost).
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:No. The question was:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The vote was to provide the mandate to the Scottish government to enter negotiations with a clear plan endorsed by the people, with the expectation that the government would enter those negotiations to get the best deal possible ("best" being defined as closest to the plan).
quote:That's what the entire vote was about. The rest is irrelevance. The Scottish government would only have been empowered to negotiate the exit terms, and they would have been in at least as much a position of weakness as the UK government is now.
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
To assume that the people who live in Scotland went to the polls without considering what the question meant is tantamount to calling us idiots.
quote:The question as phrased by you implies that you trust the candidate you vote for to exercise his or her judgement on your behalf. The manifesto provides a guide as to how they might exercise it, but fundamentally it is an open-ended discretion. All governments make some U-turns on manifesto commitments. It's generally not a form of dishonesty, but rather a reflection that circumstances change and policies have to be changed to reflect them.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The question at the ballot box at the General Election is 'Which candidate do you want to represent your consituency?' (Or some such.) That doesn't mean that the government has a free hand to raise taxes or national insurance contributions when the candidate's party manifesto has said that they wouldn't.
Legally speaking a candidate can run without a manifesto. And the electorate can take that into account when they decide whom to vote for.
quote:Yes, that was the question - and the debate over decades had taken the SNP and (after devolution) the Scottish Parliament and Government to prefer sovereignty over further devolution (through to at least the end of the 70s the SNP were divided, with the majority favouring devolution - it was to a very large extent the actions of the Thatcher government that pushed the SNP to unite around full independence). But, that is just part of the question, especially in an internationally connected world where sovereignty is never absolute. Which international agreements do you want to continue - EU membership? NATO? How are you going to relate to the former colonial power south of the border? What would you want to do with UK assets in Scottish territory? What about the things you don't want (like a nuclear submarine base)? What currency will you use?
Originally posted by Cod:
The vote was on whether Scotand should be an independent country. Everyone knows what that means. They certainly seemed to know that that meant when I lived in Scotland, and it wasn't devo max, home rule or something similar. It was sovereignty.
quote:But, we still vote according to what is in the manifesto, though you are right that most of us do so expecting that circumstances might result in some variation in action from the manifesto. And, yes we trust our politicians to act with discretion, intelligence and judgement. But, also to do so keeping as close as possible to the manifesto they were elected on. There is discretion, but it isn't open ended.
The question as phrased by you implies that you trust the candidate you vote for to exercise his or her judgement on your behalf. The manifesto provides a guide as to how they might exercise it, but fundamentally it is an open-ended discretion. ...
That's quite different from a closed and specific answer such as "Yes, Scotland should be an independent country". There is no discretion. The politicians' only mandate is to bring about the result.
quote:For anyone in Scotland to say that it's governed by a foreign nation is atrocious misuse of language. The union of crowns happened in 1604 and the United Kingdom of Great Britain happened 310 years ago in 1707 by a mutual vote. Since then Britain has won and lost an empire and gone through conflicts severe enough to threaten our existence, where we've stood side by side as a single nation. England and Scotland are old countries with their own distinctive cultures, but have far more in common than any of us have with the near continent. The poisonous drip of SNP thought is obviously getting through. To date, England and Scotland are not separate countries though you would sometimes think so with Sturgeon talk. No one of them rules or governs the other. They are two former nations which chose, at a moment in their history, to work together for their greater good, and forged the most successful merger in world history. Though I doubt it, my sincere wish is to see Sturgeonism beaten and put back into a long sleep.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Scottish independence seeks to end the state of being governed by a foreign nation,
quote:I would have thought that the merger of the thirteen states of revolutionary North America might have a claim to be more successful.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
They are two former nations which chose, at a moment in their history, to work together for their greater good, and forged the most successful merger in world history.
quote:Having the capital in the South East, even from an English perspective, skews the balance of the country too much in one direction. But it has always been so. It's no different from the Shetlands feeling as remote from Edinburgh as they do from London. England won the joint parliament because of its larger size and population. But I make no apology for being a passionate believer in the Union. I think the United Kingdom is and always has been bigger than the sum of its parts.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The equal nature of the merger is no doubt symbolised by the fact that the joint parliament and seat of government is in the one nation and almost as far as it can be from the other
quote:Not exactly. To be blunt, Wales and Ireland were conquered by England. Scotland came into the Union (relatively) peacefully, after James VI & I inherited the English throne from Elizabeth I. For another hundred years or so after that, Scotland was governed as a separate kingdom that just happened to be ruled by the same monarch as England. Even after the Act of Union, Scotland was allowed to retain far more of its own institutions than Ireland or Wales.
Yet, the United Kingdom is a union of four nations...
quote:Lord preserve us! Scotland did not vote to leave the Union when it was asked two and a half years ago. It's people don't currently want to be asked again. If they did, there's no evidence they would vote for it now. There's zero chance that Wales would vote to leave the Union. It's a tiny principality of two million people that's been joined to England for 700 years. What pleasure do you get from the destruction of our country? There's every reason to continue to fight for the Union which I intend to do.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
hopefully Wales will also have the chance to follow Scotland out of the Union.
quote:We are not a principality, we are a country
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Lord preserve us! Scotland did not vote to leave the Union when it was asked two and a half years ago. It's people don't currently want to be asked again. If they did, there's no evidence they would vote for it now. There's zero chance that Wales would vote to leave the Union. It's a tiny principality of two million people that's been joined to England for 700 years. What pleasure do you get from the destruction of our country? There's every reason to continue to fight for the Union which I intend to do.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
hopefully Wales will also have the chance to follow Scotland out of the Union.
quote:OK if you want to call Wales a country, but it isn't a nation and hasn't been since medieval times. Also on a scale of 1 to 10, please tell me how likely you think it would be to vote for independence? It may even elect the Tories for the fist time!
Originally posted by Kitten:
We are not a principality, we are a country
quote:This belongs more on the thread about the general election, but in the context of this discussion, I am no passionate Tory believe me. But I would see Jeremy Corbyn being elected to a position of power, as the biggest catastrophe of my life. I wish we had the choice there was in 1997, when I enthusiastically voted Labour. The problem of Tory unpopularity in Scotland has been a big issue since the 1980's, but they may get a bigger vote than they've had for a long time even there.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When you get a chance to vote, remember that the Tories policies are destructive to the UK,
quote:Unless you live in Wales, you don't really get to make that determination. Frankly, the Welsh have had hundreds of years of the English telling them what they are or aren't (which is usually some variation on a hole in the ground only good for getting profits for someone else) and it isn't really a very good look.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
OK if you want to call Wales a country, but it isn't a nation and hasn't been since medieval times.
quote:I don't think there is a lot of support for independence for Wales at the moment - however if the Tories get in and there is a really hard Brexit then Wales is going to be hit much harder than almost anywhere else. And I think in that scenario the voices calling for independence are going to be a lot louder, and quite possibly will gain increased support.
Also on a scale of 1 to 10, please tell me how likely you think it would be to vote for independence? It may even elect the Tories for the fist time!
quote:I keep wondering about an uncomfortable possibility, that May and her cohort are rather dim, and not all that well briefed, and that they will make a dog's dinner of negotiations, partly because they don't really know what they are talking about. But come on, we are talking about the PM, who has risen to great heights in the political hierarchy - tell me it ain't true.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
.. and the Brexit negotiations themselves continue to go about as well as expected:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/04/30/the-uk-government-is-completely-deluded-about-brexit/
quote:I think she is a plodder who by grim determination has overcome others doubts a few times and because of this is wont to over-estimate her own competence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or on the other hand, she genuinely believes that she can cherry-pick from assorted goodies, such as 'frictionless' trade across EU borders, without paying anything back.
quote:Yes, see my last post. It didn't enter my head that she may be rather dim, and not very clued up. I can see that Corbyn is a ditherer, but May seems both a ditherer and not very bright. So it goes.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I think she is a plodder who by grim determination has overcome others doubts a few times and because of this is wont to over-estimate her own competence.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Or on the other hand, she genuinely believes that she can cherry-pick from assorted goodies, such as 'frictionless' trade across EU borders, without paying anything back.
quote:Regarding Scotland, this is ideological garbage. The fact is that Scotland was not colonised by England but benefitted greatly from British imperialism. Indeed, its sons, supported by not a few daughters, played a major role in the expansion of the Empire, and Glasgow flourished less "through the preaching of the word" (its motto) that its full participation in the triangular trade of slaves, tobacco and sugar. The most successful part of its economy, financial services, is an integral party of a system underpinned by the Bank of England, as was demonstrated by the recent rescue of its banks.
Yes, Scotland has not done as bad from English oppression as other nations in the Union. Most of Ireland has already shaken off the yoke of English colonialism, hopefully Wales will also have the chance to follow Scotland out of the Union.
quote:Of course there was some very obvious hyperbole in my post. But, leaving that aside it's no more "ideological garbage" than everything said by the Brexiteers in regard to the EU. And, if that was good enough to swing England in line behind the ideology of the far right why shouldn't arguments based on a more solid foundation swing Scotland behind the Scottish government?
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Alan Cresswellquote:Regarding Scotland, this is ideological garbage.
Yes, Scotland has not done as bad from English oppression as other nations in the Union. Most of Ireland has already shaken off the yoke of English colonialism, hopefully Wales will also have the chance to follow Scotland out of the Union.
quote:No, that's not part of the SNP view of Scotland - hence why I said I went overboard with the hyperbole. There are very good reasons for Scottish independence, shaking off the yoke of English oppression isn't one of them.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think that the SNP portray Scotland as a colony of England, do they? Hence, parallels with Ireland don't really work, as Ireland can be seen as a former conquest.
quote:Even we dedicated unionists freely acknowledge that democratic right. As should we with that other union the EU. But before Brexit threw a spanner in the works, the SNP used to say that it wouldn't call another referendum until support for independence consistently polled at around 60%. Yet they were waiting to pounce on any opportunity to make trouble towards their aim. Not one pollster has provided any evidence that support for independence has increased since 2014, and even less so that the people of Scotland want another vote. That's why I agree that this is not the time and that the SNP alone doesn't represent the views of Scotland.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The way I see it is that if there is a union, then both parties are free to leave.
quote:Apart from the Braveheart and Bannockburn mentality, I don't think there are. The majority of Scotland's trade is internal to the UK, and the UK taxpayer supports Scotland to the hilt. Nicola is a vociferous opponent of austerity, but a massive dose of it would be necessary to rebalance the economy of independence.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are very good reasons for Scottish independence,
quote:The SNP and Scottish government position (noting that the Scottish government position may change should pro-indy parties ever gain a majority in Parliament) was that another referendum would be held "after a generation" (which I think most of us took to be sometime after 2030) or if there was a substantial change in the constitutional status of the UK (specifically mentioning UK withdrawal from the EU in the SNP manifesto). At no stage has the level of support for independence in polling been considered a factor. Without a shadow of a doubt the "substantial constitutional change" has occured, and therefore the Scottish Government has the mandate to request another referendum since the SNP and Greens were elected on a platform that explicitely named Brexit as a basis for doing so. Now that Mrs May has that letter requesting a referendum, the longer she sits on it the more she will be seen as holding the Scottish government in contempt, and the stronger the case for independence will be.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But before Brexit threw a spanner in the works, the SNP used to say that it wouldn't call another referendum until support for independence consistently polled at around 60%.
quote:Of course the SNP alone doesn't represent Scotland. But, the Scottish Parliament and government do, and they have determined that the Brexit referendum result, coupled by an unwillingness to compromise on the part of Mrs May (eg: to consider remaining in the Single Market), means that this is the time to request another referendum. You think it's the wrong time, Mrs May thinks it's the wrong time, many people in Scotland don't want it. We know that. If Mrs May had any nous at all she would, of course, let the Scottish Government call a referendum and let the Scottish Conservatives exploit the unpopularity of holding a referendum to their advantage in June, and when the referendum is held. But, as her negotiating stance with the EU is demonstrating, common sense is something she lacks.
That's why I agree that this is not the time and that the SNP alone doesn't represent the views of Scotland.
quote:This is bullshit. Not wanting to be in this position is not the same as hoping it goes poorly. It is simply that reality indicates it will.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I know that the last thing most contributors here would want is a successful Brexit.
quote:The most successful Brexit is, of course, no Brexit. But, there doesn't appear to be any way that will happen. So, yes, I want the next best from the negotiations. Which would be to keep all the good things about EU membership - single market, customs union, common standards, freedom of movement, cooperation on science and technology, structural funds, cooperation on fishing, environment, international relations. But, the UK government seems intent on ditching all of those as well. So, I guess we're going to have to see how well this small island can stand on it's own without the benefits of being part of the European club. Which doesn't look good to me.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is bullshit. Not wanting to be in this position is not the same as hoping it goes poorly. It is simply that reality indicates it will.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I know that the last thing most contributors here would want is a successful Brexit.
quote:I wasn't suggesting that Britain shouldn't have to pay anything. But today when I read that it may be 100 billion Euros to support such things as Polish agriculture into the 20's, I wonder if someone is taking the piss because they don't really want a settlement. And my question was more about whether this should be part of a package which includes our future relationship with Europe rather than a figure we're forced to agree up front. I can't see the electorate buying the latter.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why should Brexit be any different? Just because "the children" in the analogy are assorted projects (regional development, science & technology etc) and the jobs and pensions of EU staff.
quote:Why shouldn't she be difficult when she's dealing with someone like Juncker? What emerges from this is his need to make the UK suffer as much as possible to deter others. We already knew that, but what, for example, is wrong with the PM's suggestion that the mutual rights of citizens be agreed next month? Or his response "Brexit can't be a success." He will do everything to ensue it isn't a success. We need someone who will be difficult with him.
Originally posted by Boogie:
May saying she's going to be 'bloody difficult' won't help either.
quote:Other than the fact that the rights of EU citizens in the UK should have been guaranteed in June last year? Or, that that has already been said to be one of the priorities of the negotiators on the EU side?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
what, for example, is wrong with the PM's suggestion that the mutual rights of citizens be agreed next month?
quote:I'm sure that if everyone approaches negotiations in a serious and thoughtful manner, seeking to find the compromise that's the best possible outcome for all, then there will be an agreement that is mutually acceptable - and probably a lot less than €100b. But, since EU budgets are set for extended periods (7 years is quite typical) it doesn't surprise me that CAP budgets have already been set beyond 2020.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I wasn't suggesting that Britain shouldn't have to pay anything. But today when I read that it may be 100 billion Euros to support such things as Polish agriculture into the 20's, I wonder if someone is taking the piss because they don't really want a settlement.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why should Brexit be any different? Just because "the children" in the analogy are assorted projects (regional development, science & technology etc) and the jobs and pensions of EU staff.
quote:I can't see it being anything other than a pre-requisite for any deal (other than a complete separation), though it wouldn't prevent negotiations on other aspects of a deal to maintain access to EU markets starting in parallel.
And my question was more about whether this should be part of a package which includes our future relationship with Europe rather than a figure we're forced to agree up front. I can't see the electorate buying the latter.
quote:Yes, and we've had 7 ramshackle years under the Tories, who have borrowed a huge amount, and not paid off the deficit.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I wouldn't place any reliance on Mayhem and Co. having long-term plans. She repeatedly said she was not going to have an election until 2020, and yet here we are.
quote:Only by socialist standards. If you judged the Labour governments of the 40s and 50s by capitalist standards you would say they ballsed everything up as well.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Oh, we can rely on Mrs May. Just look at the Tory government record over the last few years:
The economy - ballsed it up
Education - ballsed it up
Health - ballsed it up
Welfare - ballsed it up
National unity - ballsed it up
quote:OK, so where haven't they ballsed it up?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Only by socialist standards. If you judged the Labour governments of the 40s and 50s by capitalist standards you would say they ballsed everything up as well.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Oh, we can rely on Mrs May. Just look at the Tory government record over the last few years:
The economy - ballsed it up
Education - ballsed it up
Health - ballsed it up
Welfare - ballsed it up
National unity - ballsed it up
quote:No, you wouldn't.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Only by socialist standards. If you judged the Labour governments of the 40s and 50s by capitalist standards you would say they ballsed everything up as well.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Oh, we can rely on Mrs May. Just look at the Tory government record over the last few years:
The economy - ballsed it up
Education - ballsed it up
Health - ballsed it up
Welfare - ballsed it up
National unity - ballsed it up
quote:I'm in a quandary now. I'm not sure whether Marvin knows less about socialism or capitalism.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Only by socialist standards. If you judged the Labour governments of the 40s and 50s by capitalist standards you would say they ballsed everything up as well.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Oh, we can rely on Mrs May. Just look at the Tory government record over the last few years:
The economy - ballsed it up
Education - ballsed it up
Health - ballsed it up
Welfare - ballsed it up
National unity - ballsed it up
quote:This isn't the only one of your posts in which you confuse not wanting Brexit to be a success with thinking that Brexit won't be a success.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Or his response "Brexit can't be a success." He will do everything to ensue it isn't a success.
quote:"Brexit can't be a success" is a realistic statement, not a punitive one. May is campaigning for all of the benefits of EU membership without any of the responsibilities. Admittedly, it is typical Tory policy to try to get all they want with someone else footing the bill; but this time they cannot manipulate the rules.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Or his response "Brexit can't be a success." He will do everything to ensue it isn't a success. We need someone who will be difficult with him.
quote:What would success look like? From the Referendum campaign I got the impression that we could have all the good bits of EU membership but none of the bad bits. Frankly this strikes me as being Walter Mittyism. You have to be either deluded or thicker than a whale omelette to think that this was ever on the agenda as far as the rEU were concerned.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:This isn't the only one of your posts in which you confuse not wanting Brexit to be a success with thinking that Brexit won't be a success.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Or his response "Brexit can't be a success." He will do everything to ensue it isn't a success.
quote:Yes but unfortunately nobody benefits if trade slows down due to tariffs and customs checks. That's the lose/lose situation. A win/win for both sides is where as much of current trade as possible can be preserved.
Originally posted by Callan:
You have to be either deluded or thicker than a whale omelette to think that this was ever on the agenda as far as the rEU were concerned.
quote:I'm not sure that's the case. Since the EU has tariffs and customs checks for various non-EU countries there's at least a prima facie argument that the EU sees at least some benefit from the practice. Given that one of the big selling points of the Brexit was independence from EU-mandated regulations it would seem only prudent for the EU to verify UK goods are in conformity with EU standards. In other words, customs checks.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Yes but unfortunately nobody benefits if trade slows down due to tariffs and customs checks. That's the lose/lose situation. A win/win for both sides is where as much of current trade as possible can be preserved.
quote:I just reread your post, and you have hit the nail, with 'one of the big selling points of Brexit was independence from EU-mandated regulations'.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I'm not sure that's the case. Since the EU has tariffs and customs checks for various non-EU countries there's at least a prima facie argument that the EU sees at least some benefit from the practice. Given that one of the big selling points of the Brexit was independence from EU-mandated regulations it would seem only prudent for the EU to verify UK goods are in conformity with EU standards. In other words, customs checks.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Yes but unfortunately nobody benefits if trade slows down due to tariffs and customs checks. That's the lose/lose situation. A win/win for both sides is where as much of current trade as possible can be preserved.
quote:Flippant as this might sound, can we take a moment to be grateful for the last bit?
Originally posted by Jane R:
I think she's trying to channel Mrs Thatcher on the eve of the Falklands War, without actually having a war.
quote:I don't think we have the means to make war or enforce peace independently nowadays. As you say, this is just as well.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Flippant as this might sound, can we take a moment to be grateful for the last bit?
Originally posted by Jane R:
I think she's trying to channel Mrs Thatcher on the eve of the Falklands War, without actually having a war.
quote:If you have the patience to read a long Twitter thread,
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, watching the news with Mrs May giving her speech in front of No 10, and I wonder what planet she is on? Does she seriously believe all that twaddle?
quote:Even though I'm only 36, elections - and this one in particular - are not good for my health. I'm recusing myself from all social media until 9th June, just in the vanishingly unlikely event that anyone wonders where I've gone!
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I don't think we have the means to make war or enforce peace independently nowadays. As you say, this is just as well.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Flippant as this might sound, can we take a moment to be grateful for the last bit?
Originally posted by Jane R:
I think she's trying to channel Mrs Thatcher on the eve of the Falklands War, without actually having a war.
quote:Just look at the tabloids this morning for your answer - 'Hands off our election!' - and so on. They don't care if it's a genuine story or not, they can whip up anti-EU sentiment, and she can hoover up UKIP votes, and everything is rosy.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, watching the news with Mrs May giving her speech in front of No 10, and I wonder what planet she is on? Does she seriously believe all that twaddle?
quote:Only so long as nobody decides to make war against us.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't think we have the means to make war or enforce peace independently nowadays. As you say, this is just as well.
quote:Any examination of history will show that Britain was (and remains) far more often the aggressor. It's probably good for the world that Britain doesn't have the military force it once had, because too often we succumbed to using it unwisely.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Only so long as nobody decides to make war against us.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I don't think we have the means to make war or enforce peace independently nowadays. As you say, this is just as well.
quote:Maybe, maybe not. We certainly weren't the aggressor in the World Wars, the Falklands, the First Gulf War or Kosovo.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Any examination of history will show that Britain was (and remains) far more often the aggressor.
quote:You make it sound like Britain is the only country in the world that has ever pursued military expansion and/or empire building. Shit, Russia is doing it right now.
It's probably good for the world that Britain doesn't have the military force it once had, because too often we succumbed to using it unwisely.
quote:Is that actually a serious question?
If you go back much further than the World Wars it becomes more difficult to judge, because most of the conflicts Britain fought back then were against rebelling colonies. Who gets termed the aggressor in such a conflict?
quote:I'm not. All this sort of shit is just one more way for people to go on about how shit Britain is, was and will forever be unless it signs away its sovereignty to paragons of virtue like Germany, France, Spain and Italy, none of whom would ever dream of being aggressive towards the rest of the world.
Originally posted by Jane R:
If you are really interested in learning more about the history of British aggression
quote:<my italics>
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'm not. All this sort of shit is just one more way for people to go on about how shit Britain is, was and will forever be unless it signs away its sovereignty to paragons of virtue like Germany, France, Spain and Italy, none of whom would ever dream of being aggressive towards the rest of the world.
Originally posted by Jane R:
If you are really interested in learning more about the history of British aggression
quote:Yeah, why not sign away membership a union of equals and instead replace it with free trade deals which only benefit tax-dodging multinational corporations. Great idea.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'm not. All this sort of shit is just one more way for people to go on about how shit Britain is, was and will forever be unless it signs away its sovereignty to paragons of virtue like Germany, France, Spain and Italy, none of whom would ever dream of being aggressive towards the rest of the world.
quote:I think you'll find the clue is in the word 'colonies'...
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If you go back much further than the World Wars it becomes more difficult to judge, because most of the conflicts Britain fought back then were against rebelling colonies. Who gets termed the aggressor in such a conflict?
quote:Anyone who had an education knows about the history of human aggression. In which Britain certainly took part. But it doesn't prevent many of us having on balance a positive view of our national history and a love of being British.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Marvin isn't interested in learning more about the history of British aggression.
quote:All of which shouldn't prevent us from learning more. It's the unwillingness to learn more so as to appreciate the point of view others may have that makes me despair.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Anyone who had an education knows about the history of human aggression. In which Britain certainly took part. But it doesn't prevent many of us having on balance a positive view of our national history and a love of being British.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Marvin isn't interested in learning more about the history of British aggression.
quote:I hope you are not suggesting that those of us who criticise our government's actions love our country less than you do.
Anyone who had an education knows about the history of human aggression. In which Britain certainly took part. But it doesn't prevent many of us having on balance a positive view of our national history and a love of being British.
quote:I don't need to learn more to appreciate their view. They think Britain (or more accurately England) is utterly and irredeemably shit and can only possibly be improved by being yoked to the whims of other countries. Those countries somehow not being utterly and irredeemably shit despite having done plenty of things that were just as bad as (or worse than) anything Britain has done.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's the unwillingness to learn more so as to appreciate the point of view others may have that makes me despair.
quote:Yes, they've decided to use political means to unite the continent under their rule rather than military ones.
Originally posted by Jane R:
...view the Germans as enemies (they've moved on since then...
quote:If anything ever needed to be said to justify the opinion you accuse others having of Britain, then you have just said it!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I don't need to learn more to appreciate their view. They think Britain (or more accurately England) is utterly and irredeemably shit and can only possibly be improved by being yoked to the whims of other countries. Those countries somehow not being utterly and irredeemably shit despite having done plenty of things that were just as bad as (or worse than) anything Britain has done.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's the unwillingness to learn more so as to appreciate the point of view others may have that makes me despair.
quote:Why Marvin, why not use some xenophobia, then we'll have the full set of baseless idiotic Tory claims on this thread.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, they've decided to use political means to unite the continent under their rule rather than military ones.
quote:My 1980s O level history was also 20th century - and included Vietnam, Suez and other events into the 70s. Part of the course work was a project working through source materials (newspaper reports, some diaries and the like) on a (small part of) modern history - in our case, that was Biaffra. So, it is possible to teach not only what happened, but give pupils the ability to assess events. But, perhaps the more modern emphasis on equating education with being able to pass exams has squashed those aspects of the curriculum.
Originally posted by Jane R:
When I was at school in the 1970s I was taught 20th century history, but we didn't stop at the Second World War; we also studied the 1950s and 60s and learned about the origins of the EU.
quote:If you feel like that, you'd have to agree it's the 'will of the people' that we let them do it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, they've decided to use political means to unite the continent under their rule rather than military ones.
Originally posted by Jane R:
...view the Germans as enemies (they've moved on since then...
quote:Pointing out that other countries have done things that were just as shit as - if not worse than - the things Britain has done is that bad, is it?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:If anything ever needed to be said to justify the opinion you accuse others having of Britain, then you have just said it!
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I don't need to learn more to appreciate their view. They think Britain (or more accurately England) is utterly and irredeemably shit and can only possibly be improved by being yoked to the whims of other countries. Those countries somehow not being utterly and irredeemably shit despite having done plenty of things that were just as bad as (or worse than) anything Britain has done.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's the unwillingness to learn more so as to appreciate the point of view others may have that makes me despair.
quote:Not any more, it's not. Not for Britain, anyway.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:If you feel like that, you'd have to agree it's the 'will of the people' that we let them do it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Yes, they've decided to use political means to unite the continent under their rule rather than military ones.
Originally posted by Jane R:
...view the Germans as enemies (they've moved on since then...
quote:Yes, I'm always amazed by English nationalism, and its poison. Also sheer bloody ignorance. I was talking to a Brexit fan, who said triumphantly, 'we're going to cut our ties with Europe'. Of course, if we did that, we would end up eating grass.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess I find the raw xenophobia on show here to be shocking. It does put the whole Brexit sham in its correct context though. It's just sad that political decisions are made in the realm of hatred and astounding ignorance.
quote:Fine. Britain is utterly and irredeemably shit, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is xenophobia.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess I find the raw xenophobia on show here to be shocking.
quote:It's amazing we survived so long before joining the EU, really. Grass must be more nutritious than we realised.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was talking to a Brexit fan, who said triumphantly, 'we're going to cut our ties with Europe'. Of course, if we did that, we would end up eating grass.
quote:But we had ties with Europe before the EU, I remember my dad used to travel to Holland, to fix their textile looms. But if we abandon EU regulations now, our trade will may well be choked.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's amazing we survived so long before joining the EU, really. Grass must be more nutritious than we realised.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was talking to a Brexit fan, who said triumphantly, 'we're going to cut our ties with Europe'. Of course, if we did that, we would end up eating grass.
quote:Relevance to what is actually being discussed?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Fine. Britain is utterly and irredeemably shit, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is xenophobia.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess I find the raw xenophobia on show here to be shocking.
No other country in the history of the world has ever done anything bad, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is xenophobia.
Britain is a uniquely evil nation that must be eradicated as a political and cultural entity, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is xenophobia.
Germany is a martyr to the cause of European unity that would never even dream of overruling the policies of the elected government of another EU member to further its own economic interests, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is xenophobia.
Did I miss anything?
quote:Hold on a sec. Aren't you claiming that Britain is uniquely evil and no other country has ever exploited colonized countries here? That's your reaction to anyone else saying anything remotely critical of British colonialism/imperialism. What's the standard on how much anyone is allowed to be critical of past British imperialism? Is it forbidden unless you also include a complete analysis of all imperial powers throughout all of human history? Or are you arguing that imperialism is okay as long as everyone else is doing it too?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Honestly, I don't mind you hating the fact that Britain had an Empire that wasn't very good for the people in the countries it colonised.
quote:Avoiding the suggestion that we're somehow unique in having an imperialist past. Honestly, that was the very next line of my post - you must have read it in order to delete it from your reply.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's the standard on how much anyone is allowed to be critical of past British imperialism?
quote:There is no relevance. It's a schoolyard tactic employed to deflect the criticism of repulsive xenophobia.
Relevance to what is actually being discussed?
quote:Well, since I can just about remember that time, I have to agree with your analysis. We ended up becoming a successful, pluralist, tolerant nation inside the EU. Now we look like we're going to throw that all away by leaving it.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:It's amazing we survived so long before joining the EU, really. Grass must be more nutritious than we realised.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was talking to a Brexit fan, who said triumphantly, 'we're going to cut our ties with Europe'. Of course, if we did that, we would end up eating grass.
quote:You can just about remember the entire history of the UK prior to EU membership? Wow, you're older than you look
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, since I can just about remember that time, I have to agree with your analysis.
quote:I refute the notion that pointing out that Britain is hardly alone in having a history of imperialism constitutes "repulsive xenophobia".
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's a schoolyard tactic employed to deflect the criticism of repulsive xenophobia.
quote:You think the rest of the EU will have decided to forgive and forget Brexit by then? It's more likely they'll have concluded that De Gaulle was right all along.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Leaving the EU is a terrible, terrible mistake. We'll undo it in 20 years when that's finally been acknowledged. Hopefully I'll still be around for that.
quote:No, which is why when we negotiate re-entry to the EU there aren't going to be any rebates or other special deals on the table. The EU has bent over backwards to keep us in the club (because it's good for the EU as well as the UK), they aren't going to be disposed to do so again to let us back in. Of course, it won't be the same UK then anyway - Northern Ireland will have united with the south and be back in the EU, Scotland would have finally said we have had enough of Westminster governments using us as a pawn in their political games and gained independence. Even London may be seeking a way to break away from the rest of the UK and attempt to regain some standing as a financial centre (with the UK Parliament abandoning Westminster for some cheap concrete block elsewhere, as they wouldn't be able to afford anything else).
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:You think the rest of the EU will have decided to forgive and forget Brexit by then? It's more likely they'll have concluded that De Gaulle was right all along.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Leaving the EU is a terrible, terrible mistake. We'll undo it in 20 years when that's finally been acknowledged. Hopefully I'll still be around for that.
quote:Well, of course there aren't unlimited benefits. Nothing has unlimited benefits. But, there are considerable benefits of EU membership that a minority of the UK population has thrown away out of nothing more substantial than racist pique (with the blind obedience of larger numbers of people deluded by their lies).
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
You talk as if membership of the EU has given us unlimited benefits.
quote:Which is why the Eurozone, and most EU nations outside the Eurozone, have been enjoying economic growth over the last 5+ years while the UK economy has stagnated. And, why when the UK decided to get out of the EU it was found that our bureaucracy would need to expand by more than the entire European Commission to handle all the complexities of international trade, standardisation etc. The same number of people for one nation as was needed for 28 (with multiple languages and legal codes to complicate things), yes incredibly bureaucratic and inefficient.
Its closed bureaucracy has set it on a path of long term economic decline.
quote:I see no benefits of leaving for me, either. It seems that there are some people who will benefit. A headline in the Times says that Brexit will be a "bonanza for billionaires". I noticed that the newspapers which are owned by very rich people supported Brexit.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... IMO there are simply no benefits of leaving ...
quote:The newspapers that backed Remain are also presumably owned by very rich people?
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I noticed that the newspapers which are owned by very rich people supported Brexit.
quote:On the right/Brexiter side, it seems that the Daily Mail is owned by Viscount Rothermere. The Daily Express is owned by Richard Desmond. The Sun and the Times are owned by Rupert Murdoch. The Daily Telegraph is owned by the Barclay brothers.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The newspapers that backed Remain are also presumably owned by very rich people?
quote:Who also owns the Mail on Sunday, which backed Remain.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
On the right/Brexiter side, it seems that the Daily Mail is owned by Viscount Rothermere.
quote:The Times also backed Remain (although the Sunday Times backed Leave).
The Sun and the Times are owned by Rupert Murdoch.
quote:Murdoch owns the Simpsons (essentially). Doesn't make him any less reprehensible.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:The newspapers that backed Remain are also presumably owned by very rich people?
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I noticed that the newspapers which are owned by very rich people supported Brexit.
quote:There will certainly be benefits for rich foreigners, who will benefit from the lower exchange rate (and Britain's desperation to get any kind of deal after leaving the EU). I'm sure that wasn't the intention of the Brexiteers.
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:I see no benefits of leaving for me, either. It seems that there are some people who will benefit. A headline in the Times says that Brexit will be a "bonanza for billionaires". I noticed that the newspapers which are owned by very rich people supported Brexit.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... IMO there are simply no benefits of leaving ...
quote:Not sure how pervasive this was, whilst you are right that the Sun et al seemed to be salivating over a Le Pen win last week, only the Telegraph seemed to run with that line today:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The xenophobic vitriol pouring out of UK media and on social media today is frightening and deeply disturbing. There seems to be a very strong sense that France has betrayed Britain and a sense of disappointment that Herr Penn didn't get in.
quote:It's a bubble and may reflect where you're looking. No one I know has been anything than pleased that France managed to avoid a Le Pen presidency. Although a few have pointed out that France isn't out of the woods yet. The turn out wasn't great and a lot of people voted against something than for something else. 2020 anyone?!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I, and many millions upon millions throughout Europe today, breathed a sigh of relief that France wasn't being led by an extreme right wing lunatic and that hope did indeed triumph over hate yesterday. The xenophobic vitriol pouring out of UK media and on social media today is frightening and deeply disturbing. There seems to be a very strong sense that France has betrayed Britain and a sense of disappointment that Herr Penn didn't get in.
Is this just a representation of a bubble, or is this a general and genuine feeling about the French Presidential election?
quote:And so, instead of staying within the EU and working to make sure it isn't entirely dominated by Germany (why do you think the Poles are so upset that we're leaving?) we leave the EU and... what? Sit in splendid isolation 20 miles off the coast of France? Start another war?
Yes, [the Germans have] decided to use political means to unite the continent under their rule rather than military ones.
quote:Me too. And I still believe the EU is valuable and would vote remain again. But the EU doesn't always help themselves. With pronouncements about how English is not an international language anymore because we're leaving and demands for an exit payment that's over the odds they may have no legal basis for. Junker would be best locked in the same cupboard as BoJo for the duration.
Originally posted by Callan:
I voted Remain because of the Single Market, because the inevitable acrimonious row with our erstwhile partners will undermine NATO, because of the Irish Peace Process - now under threat, and because the thought of how smug the likes of Farage, Hopkins and the rest of the thinly veiled fascists would be if they'd won. Three concrete achievements of Margaret Thatcher, Ernest Bevin and Tony Blair and John Major (and one insubstantial but highly gratifying side effect) all thrown away for piss and wind offered by a bunch of chancers. I'd be interested to see if anyone can offer a single tangible benefit, as opposed to empty rhetoric and xenophobia which can be offered by the Leavers.... Nope. Didn't think so.
Those whom the gods destroy...
quote:I hope it's a bubble, but given the results of the UK local elections...
I, and many millions upon millions throughout Europe today, breathed a sigh of relief that France wasn't being led by an extreme right wing lunatic and that hope did indeed triumph over hate yesterday. The xenophobic vitriol pouring out of UK media and on social media today is frightening and deeply disturbing. There seems to be a very strong sense that France has betrayed Britain and a sense of disappointment that Herr Penn didn't get in.
Is this just a representation of a bubble, or is this a general and genuine feeling about the French Presidential election?
quote:There did seem to be a hope (among parts of the media at least, probably spreading to the right wing political parties) that the French election could result in an ally within the EU, someone on the side of the English in negotiating Brexit. There's a historic irony that some English people were looking to France for friendship.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Not sure how pervasive this was, whilst you are right that the Sun et al seemed to be salivating over a Le Pen win last week, only the Telegraph seemed to run with that line today:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The xenophobic vitriol pouring out of UK media and on social media today is frightening and deeply disturbing. There seems to be a very strong sense that France has betrayed Britain and a sense of disappointment that Herr Penn didn't get in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs/the_papers
I wonder to what extent it was on the back of a hope that the UK wouldn't be alone (in leaving the EU), which is somewhat ironic.
quote:He came up with an interesting solution to Brexit. Essentially, say to the EU, "okay, we'll be Norway. Give us what Norway has. We'll pay what Norway does."
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Without wanting to big-up Yanis Varoufakis - who I think is behaving like an arse at the moment - it does rather feel like everyone is trying to play hardball without appreciating their own roles in EU-wide Economic Game Theory.
quote:It's dumb shit like that which really makes me think he has lost his senses. There is no sense that Norway is a model which will appeal to the Tory-UKIP vote. There is no way that May can sell that.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
He came up with an interesting solution to Brexit. Essentially, say to the EU, "okay, we'll be Norway. Give us what Norway has. We'll pay what Norway does."
It's an already tried-and-tested deal for a country outside but allied to the EU. It's an off the shelf thing that we can try for a decade, and see how we go. And in the (dire) circumstances we find ourselves in, I'd be happy with being Norway.
quote:I think it's probably a silly idea now - though it may have had legs in the past if it had been officially floated as the path to leave (it would have also called Hannan/Farage etc on their bluff as they were very fond of comparisons with Norway and Switzerland) and a lot of people were fond of the 'we only ever voted to join a free trade block' argument.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It's dumb shit like that which really makes me think he has lost his senses. There is no sense that Norway is a model which will appeal to the Tory-UKIP vote. There is no way that May can sell that.
quote:Juncker can't help but be a wind up merchant at times and he can be wickedly amusing with it too. I actually like him a lot because he has an ability to get right to the core of something and cut through all the crap. While his statement about the english language was obviously political in relation to France's election, there is an element of truth to it. With Britain out of the EU the core and central country of the english language exits stage left (or perhaps right). Can they really pretend that english should continue to be the central language of the EU because a few irish speak it and a smattering of EU countries have it as their second language?
With pronouncements about how English is not an international language anymore because we're leaving and demands for an exit payment that's over the odds they may have no legal basis for. Junker would be best locked in the same cupboard as BoJo for the duration.
quote:The UK government does even worse at building a soild and stable position for negotiations. Setting up everyone else as enemies you need to defeat rather than friends you want to maintain cordial relationships with is hardly a good place to start if you want cordial relationships at the end of the process. Adverserial politics is a rubbish way to do business.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
But the EU doesn't always help themselves. With pronouncements about how English is not an international language anymore because we're leaving and demands for an exit payment that's over the odds they may have no legal basis for.
quote:I for one have been banging on about the benefits of cooperation on scientific research for a year. But, I clearly don't speak for Britain.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Britain always did a poor job of promoting this within the UK. It never blew the trumpet of this as one of the many great benefits of EU membership and one of the great benefits of countries actually working together; not just financially, but in combining intellectual and scientific talent.
quote:Agree entirely.
Despite all of that, Britain's government seems utterly insistent on telling it's population of the great and immense benefit of leaving the EU, but I have to be honest, I haven't heard a single good reason that doesn't boil down to: 'We won't have to let the dirty foreigners in'.
quote:I know I said I wasn't doing social media, but I was passing and although it doesn't change your point much there are at least 3... UK, ROI, Malta.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, at present within the EU there are two nations for whom English is an official language
quote:No shit?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the UK is prepared to take a Norway deal, it might as well stay in the EU. There is absolutely no advantage at all.
quote:Wouldn't the committed figures be whatever the UK's annual contributions to the EU for that particular budgetary cycle?! Once that's over, the EU has to set a new budget anyway - minus whatever they would have got from the UK. That means they'll need to find money from elsewhere (hello EU-27) or cut their budget.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The UK government does even worse at building a soild and stable position for negotiations. Setting up everyone else as enemies you need to defeat rather than friends you want to maintain cordial relationships with is hardly a good place to start if you want cordial relationships at the end of the process. Adverserial politics is a rubbish way to do business.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
But the EU doesn't always help themselves. With pronouncements about how English is not an international language anymore because we're leaving and demands for an exit payment that's over the odds they may have no legal basis for.
On the other points. Of course, at present within the EU there are two nations for whom English is an official language, when one of those leaves the EU (the one with much greater economic, political and social clout) then English will diminish in importance within EU discourse, quite substantially. That is entirely natural. If we want to be an isolated little archipeligo sitting off the coast of a major trading network then we have to accept that that isolation will spread to our language as much as our trade.
And, also the EU negotiators (nor, anyone else who has any authority to make such statements) have not issued any figures on what the committed UK contributions to the EU budget are, and what sort of one-off payment would be needed to clear those debts - and, of course, we all know that if a deal was suitable then writing off some of that debt may be needed.
quote:Yes, that's the easy part of a "divorce bill" to calculate - at the moment about £8bn per year, with projects winding down over the 3-5 years post Brexit the cost/y will decrease steadily, maybe somewhere around £20b (not an expert, figure plucked almost from the air) to fund committed projects to conclusion. If the UK government agreed to take over direct funding of ongoing projects with expenditure in the UK (eg agriculture, projects funded by structural funds) then that could be less (though the UK gov would still pay the same, but maybe easier to sell in UK).
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Wouldn't the committed figures be whatever the UK's annual contributions to the EU for that particular budgetary cycle?!
quote:Yeah, but one is a real goat.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Both sides are as bad as each other. Both are trying to set the other up as scapegoat should it all go horribly wrong.
Tubbs
quote:It’s right that the UK pays for the rest of this budget cycle, for relocation expenses for EU institutions and longer tail liabilities like pensions for UK staff / MEP but I’m not convinced about some of the other things.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Yes, that's the easy part of a "divorce bill" to calculate - at the moment about £8bn per year, with projects winding down over the 3-5 years post Brexit the cost/y will decrease steadily, maybe somewhere around £20b (not an expert, figure plucked almost from the air) to fund committed projects to conclusion. If the UK government agreed to take over direct funding of ongoing projects with expenditure in the UK (eg agriculture, projects funded by structural funds) then that could be less (though the UK gov would still pay the same, but maybe easier to sell in UK).
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Wouldn't the committed figures be whatever the UK's annual contributions to the EU for that particular budgetary cycle?!
What is a lot harder to calculate is the pot of money needed for other EU expenses that we have a moral obligation to support. Chief among them the pot to ensure EU employees receive the pension they deserve. Again, the immediate bill could be reduced if the UK government commits to pay our share of those costs when they occur over the next 70 years ... but, do you see the UK gov being able to sell ongoing payments for decades? Or, the EU trusting that the UK gov will actually make those payments if that's what's agreed?
quote:I would guess that the "other things" are actually effectively small change. Pensions liabilities will be a substantial chunk of money, probably the largest single component by far.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It’s right that the UK pays for the rest of this budget cycle, for relocation expenses for EU institutions and longer tail liabilities like pensions for UK staff / MEP but I’m not convinced about some of the other things.
quote:I suspect that it will be twenty years before we see another non-Tory Prime Minister and when we do they will take us back into the EU.
Originally posted by rolyn:
The only chance Labour have got of ever seeing power again is if the wheels come of Brexit completely, and even then they will need the Lib-dems.
The Tories have piled all there chips on the table over this thing working out. It's almost as if all of Cameron's dire warnings over exiting the EU were never uttered, and we are headed for the great blue beyond sat on a Tory Landslide.
Is this all surreal or what.
quote:A comment/question. AFAICT the figures announced by the media stem from extrapolations from various statements by the French and German governments, none of which have explicitly mentioned figures. The higher figure (100bn Euros) seems to stem from a projection by the FT, and includes investments in some projects where there would be some returns in future.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I would guess that the "other things" are actually effectively small change. Pensions liabilities will be a substantial chunk of money, probably the largest single component by far.
quote:If, say, I have had a subscription to the Guardian for 25 years that I decide to cancel in favour of reading the Independent website free of charge, am I obliged to continue paying money to the Guardian which it has previously relied on?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What is a lot harder to calculate is the pot of money needed for other EU expenses that we have a moral obligation to support.
quote:Interesting post. But it is very much this, isn't it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU isn't a...law maker.
quote:In what way? The EU does produce a relatively small number of regulations and directives, but they only become law once passed through the legislative processes of each nation state (who are sovereign after all). In the UK an EU originating regulation doesn't become law until it is made law by Parliament. It doesn't even become a regulation or directive without the agreement and input of UK MEPs and ministers.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Interesting post. But it is very much this, isn't it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU isn't a...law maker.
quote:You make it sound as if Parliament has some say in the matter. If an EU law is made, it might be made law in the UK Parliament but that has to happen if we're to remain in the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:In what way? The EU does produce a relatively small number of regulations and directives, but they only become law once passed through the legislative processes of each nation state (who are sovereign after all). In the UK an EU originating regulation doesn't become law until it is made law by Parliament. It doesn't even become a regulation or directive without the agreement and input of UK MEPs and ministers.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Interesting post. But it is very much this, isn't it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU isn't a...law maker.
quote:EU regulations on cabbages: zero words.
Originally posted by M.:
EU Regulations are of direct effect; they don't require national legislation.
Directives do require national legislation, but Regulations seem more common these days.
M.
quote:Really? The UK will pay all its debts? Oh, you just mean to white people.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The UK is and must remain a country which pays its debts.
quote:Only a fool thinks the final figures won't be discussed.
So let's get an independent authority to work out how much we REALLY owe to the EU and commit to paying it as part of a package which includes favourable trading arrangements.
quote:Honourable. This mess is the result of a result that the Brexit "proponents" didn't want. Since they got the result they didn't want, they appointed a person who is doing her best to make sure the resultant deal is as far from what they truly did want as possible.
Come up with an honourable figure and an honourable country will do the honourable thing.
quote:So it'll be just like we trade with every non-EU country then? (Unless trading with non-EU countries 'just equals stupid'?)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, Some in the UK do not wish EU input into the UK legal system. But they wish to continue trading with the EU, which requires acceptance of EU laws. Which now the UK will have no control over.
Every way you look at this, it just equals stupid.
quote:The intent was not to leave the EU, but that is the result. Which is stupid.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:So it'll be just like we trade with every non-EU country then? (Unless trading with non-EU countries 'just equals stupid'?)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So, Some in the UK do not wish EU input into the UK legal system. But they wish to continue trading with the EU, which requires acceptance of EU laws. Which now the UK will have no control over.
Every way you look at this, it just equals stupid.
quote:My understanding is that it is the Commission that has the monopoly (or virtual monopoly) on initiating EU legislation?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU institutions merely facilitate that cooperative process, rather than generate the directives and regulations independently of the sovereign nations of Europe.
quote:That is my understanding too, and if we pull out of the EU we will have no say whatsoever in what the EU Commission may decide, much of which will determine our trading relationship with EU member states.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:My understanding is that it is the Commission that has the monopoly (or virtual monopoly) on initiating EU legislation?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU institutions merely facilitate that cooperative process, rather than generate the directives and regulations independently of the sovereign nations of Europe.
quote:You can (could?) get involved
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:My understanding is that it is the Commission that has the monopoly (or virtual monopoly) on initiating EU legislation?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU institutions merely facilitate that cooperative process, rather than generate the directives and regulations independently of the sovereign nations of Europe.
quote:Another naysayer who can'd find a good word for Britain. I believe in this country and that it is honourable in its dealings. We will pay what we owe to the EU, but perhaps not some inflated sum dreamed up by a Eurocrat. An independent assessor is needed here.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, wait, you said honourable. Which country are you speaking of?
quote:I thought the UK government wanted to do an early deal on residency rights but the EU refused?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An honourable country wouldn't leave millions of innocent people in limbo for a year or more.
quote:If you cannot admit its faults, you do not truly love a country.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Another naysayer who can'd find a good word for Britain.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, wait, you said honourable. Which country are you speaking of?
quote:Not an excuse for not doing one's best.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are no Utopias on planet earth.
quote:There are plenty of people in impoverished and oppressed places who love their countries, so this, from a privileged person in a privileged country means little in itself.
I feel lucky to have been born and lived in this land.
quote:The EU refused to start Brexit negotiations before article 50 was triggered.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I thought the UK government wanted to do an early deal on residency rights but the EU refused?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An honourable country wouldn't leave millions of innocent people in limbo for a year or more.
quote:You mean like the Financial Times, which came up with the 100 billion figure?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Another naysayer who can't find a good word for Britain. I believe in this country and that it is honourable in its dealings. We will pay what we owe to the EU, but perhaps not some inflated sum dreamed up by a Eurocrat. An independent assessor is needed here.
quote:It's amazing how the right wing keep insisting that the EU came up with the 100 billion figure, and before that, the 60 billion figure. Reputable journalists are in fact referring to the FT, but I suppose fake news is meat and drink to some people. In fact, in Barnier's last speech, he said no figure had been arrived at. Give me strength.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:You mean like the Financial Times, which came up with the 100 billion figure?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Another naysayer who can't find a good word for Britain. I believe in this country and that it is honourable in its dealings. We will pay what we owe to the EU, but perhaps not some inflated sum dreamed up by a Eurocrat. An independent assessor is needed here.
quote:Do you think the EU should've done the right thing and acknowledged the massive benefit to EU27 countries by British migrants by offering them on-going rights to live and work there?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:The EU refused to start Brexit negotiations before article 50 was triggered.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I thought the UK government wanted to do an early deal on residency rights but the EU refused?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An honourable country wouldn't leave millions of innocent people in limbo for a year or more.
That was no reason not to do the right thing - to acknowledge the massive benefit to the country from all EU immigrants, and to guarantee ongoing right to live and work in the UK. It wasn't dependent on any reciprocal guarantee to UK citizens elsewhere in the EU.
quote:Alan wasn't talking of Utopias and you know that.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are no Utopias on planet earth. I feel lucky to have been born and lived in this land.
quote:Yes, because people aren't pawns in some political game. So, everyone does the right thing because it's the right thing, not as part of the Brexit negotiations. But, the question was how honourable the UK government is.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Do you think the EU should've done the right thing and acknowledged the massive benefit to EU27 countries by British migrants by offering them on-going rights to live and work there?
quote:
If you cannot admit its faults, you do not truly love a country.
Patriotism isn't flag waving and slogan shouting. Patriotism is doing what is best for the country. And that means treating the wounds, not putting a flag coloured plaster over them.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
This.
quote:It occurs to me that by the time the new government is formed, the UK - courtesy of the current government - would have spent the year since the vote dithering. No negotiation has been started, the departments responsible for negotiating have not been staffed up to cope, the UK is literally - modulo minor re-arranging of the furniture in Whitehall - in the same place it was a year ago.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU refused to start Brexit negotiations before article 50 was triggered.
quote:In a classic case of the Dunning-Kruger I believe some of them haven't (David Davis as an example). I think some of them are basing their belief on past experience which may or may not be relevant (Theresa May and possibly Boris Johnson).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, probably the govt have also realized this, but have to keep talking about it, to keep the Daily Mail sweet.
If they haven't worked out the implications of no deal, then we really are in deep shit.
quote:I feel that simply by having Corbyn and Starmer instead of May and Johnson, Fox, and Davis the UK would earn enough goodwill from the rest of the EU to avoid having the negotiations fall apart.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, there is an argument that if Labour were to win the election (very unlikely, I think), they would be completely shattered by Brexit negotiations, and would collapse, as we either face empty supermarket shelves, or street riots, or widespread terrorism, or all of them.
quote:Yes but there is no radical difference between what Labour is proposing even if they insist that a bad deal is worse than no deal which can't in any case be right, depending on what is demanded of us. I have seen Corbyn say on several occasions that free movement ends when we leave the EU. Mrs Merkel has repeatedly made it clear that without free movement, there is no free access to the Single Market. Sir Keir Starmer has said that he won't allow the ECJ to oversee the rights of EU citizens living in the UK, which was a core demand made by Messieurs Barnier and Juncker. Labour are saying that they won't be confrontational like the Tories, but they still have their red lines which exclude the UK from unfettered access to the SM.
Originally posted by Louise:
Labour are not the people claiming 'no deal is better than a bad deal' that's the Conservatives and that's the way to the catastrophic scenario that will happen if we crash out and have to trade on WTO rules - a danger which I don't think has been highlighted enough this election
quote:This may be the case. Nicola Sturgeon has said that, because Scotland suffers more from depopulation than overpopulation, she wants free movement to continue. That would allow membership of the EEA, provided we also accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ and continue to make contributions to the EU budget. In that case we would still have access to the Single Market. But I don't believe that this is what people voted for last June 23rd, and neither the Tories nor Labour are offering that. The Tories may have taken a harder position in rhetoric, but I see little difference in their bottom line negotiating position.
Originally posted by Louise:
Whichever party is in government will need to backpedal when the full extent of this expensive disaster dawns on the voters, which it hasn't yet as we're still in the phoney war period.
quote:At this point the EU hasn't mentioned a figure, and all such figures are extrapolated and so highly speculative. However, your approach is unlikely to be acceptable for at least part of that amount - purely because it will be against spending commitments for projects past (pensions and the like).
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
No deal is better than a bad deal probably means, for starters, that we wouldn't agree to handing over £84 billion unless it's linked to future arrangements.
quote:It's nothing to do with 'federalism' but simply a second order effect on how comprehensive the Single Market (in Goods and Services) is.
For her and all the federalists, free movement is a fundamental inviolable principal of access to the Single Market.
quote:This strikes me as one of those unpredictable turns that make "a week a long time in politics".
Originally posted by Louise:
Brexit has put us on the wrong side of the free world versus fascists, dictators and wannabe fascist dictators. We should be standing with Macron and Merkel against Trump and Putin but instead Theresa May sucks up to Donald and our European allies can no longer rely on us.
quote:Louise, it's easy to see your utter frustration at Scotland being shackled to a UK bent on ripping itself out of the EU, but in both cases the problem is that pesky little thing called democracy. I fear terribly for our future whoever wins on June 8. But there are two types of people, those who want Brexit to be a success, and those who want it to be a disaster. The latter group can be divided into two diametrically opposed opinions. There are those on the hard right who want a very hard Brexit so the UK is "forced" to deregulate the economy bit time in order to retain a level of competitiveness. That would achieve everything Margaret Thatcher wanted but failed to get.
Originally posted by Louise:
I get the impression you don't know why that is so bad and what it entails
quote:And, that's just your belief. No one knows what people voted for, because the question wasn't framed in a manner that allows anyone to know that. Any statement about what people voted for needs to be preceded by a referendum where the people are asked what they want.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But I don't believe that this is what people voted for last June 23rd
quote:Which, of course, is so similar to freedom of movement that we might as well stay with freedom of movement. The British economy (and wider society) needs EU citizens to work in our bars and cafes, to harvest our crops and a whole range of other jobs which would fail to meet the sort of points system that we currently (stupidly) apply to immigration from the rest of the world. Our government is already spending lots of money enforcing a draconian immigration system that is strangling our economy and causing considerable upsets to our communities as families are ripped apart for no good reason. We need to get rid of those immigration controls, not add more.
Labour haven't made clear how they would deal with this point, but have said that free movement ends when we leave the EU, and have promised to replace it with a controlled immigration system based on decency combined with the needs of the British economy.
quote:I'm not entirely sure how the tiny microstates in Europe get away with what they do, but I suspect it is a lot to do with geography. Liechtenstein, San Marino and Vatican city have a different status to the Channel Islands, Gibraltar etc. I think this is because of where they are and their size - they're surrounded by EU countries and are so small as to have a very limited effect on the working of the EU or EEA zones.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One point about freedom of movement - that EEA permits an emergency brake - article 112 - which has been applied to Liechtenstein.
Of course, you could say that this is a one-off, since L is so small, and was allowed to put a brake on migration.
I have no idea if such a deal would be on, but I wonder if politicians are aware of this loophole? It might be sullied by Cameron's use of the term, emergency brake, which came to nothing.
quote:I'm not entirely sure that even if the full catastrophe of the whole affair comes to light just before the final trigger is pulled that people will get particularly vexed about it. There's a long history in Britain of treating the EU with contempt, especially in the press. Much of that coverage in the past makes Trump's 'alternative facts' look like a stroll in the park. This kind of stuff has been drip fed into Britain for decades, not just months. The growing insular nature of politics (even within the United Kingdom itself with its latent perception of 'provinces') has proved to have taken a deep root. For decades the idea that immigrants are a nuisance, stealing jobs, benefits, being a drain on taxes and the NHS have all led to a most unpleasant xenophobia. The game was up when Farage was sent to Europe - the one moment when Britain could have had someone in there to actually work for their benefit and to look at what truly needs changing in the EU. Cameron hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of ever convincing the EU of anything; after all, the arrival of Farage before him told every member of Europe (rightly or wrongly) that Britain held the EU in utter contempt. The British public seemed to think the presence of Fraage was a great joke without realising there were many other European countries who saw this treatment of the EU as incredibly shocking, especially in light of their own struggles to establish stability and democracy in their own countries. Britain seemed to have little concept of this.
There is also a sadly non-negligible possibility of a catastrophic outcome which currently people aren't giving enough weight to.
quote:Couldn't agree more.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It is without doubt the weirdest most incomprehensible thing I've ever seen in my life.
quote:But we do know what they voted for - they voted to leave the EU, which was the question asked, the question for which so many had been campaigning for decades.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:And, that's just your belief. No one knows what people voted for, because the question wasn't framed in a manner that allows anyone to know that. Any statement about what people voted for needs to be preceded by a referendum where the people are asked what they want.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But I don't believe that this is what people voted for last June 23rd
quote:I'll grant that it can be argued that a slim majority voted against EU membership. Which is different from voting for a particular alternative relationship with the EU. The vote last year can not be used as support for any particular version of Brexit - so, we can't say the people of the UK (or even those permitted to vote) voted for an end to freedom of movement, exiting the customs union or single market or anything else.
Originally posted by Gee D:
But we do know what they voted for - they voted to leave the EU, which was the question asked, the question for which so many had been campaigning for decades.
quote:Yes, a few percent difference between the two options presented. Not enough to define the clear will of the people (even if the question was asked in a manner that allowed that even with a much larger majority). A long way from a "strong and stable" basis to build a major constitutional change on - as recognised by many in the Leave campaign who said that a 48-52 vote would mean another referendum after a short period of time. Something that a) they deny to those who want to Remain in the EU and b) deny to the people of Scotland wanting another IndyRef.
Originally posted by Gee D:
IIRC, there was quite a substantial majority of those voting. Just as there had been in the Scottish Independence referendum also.
quote:1. In the UK (and, probably all other representative democracies) the decision will always lay with Parliament (or equivalent body). Constitutionally, a referendum is always advisory. This was recognised in the cursory debate in Parliament to approve the referendum, and most MPs made a commitment to abide by the referendum result.
Originally posted by romanesque:
Nothing in the lead up suggested the vote was advisory and the ballot questions were unequivocal.
quote:All a referendum could do was confirm what we've known for decades, that Britain was deeply divided on everything concerned with the EU. The referendum was offered because Cameron saw it as an opportunity to rid himself and the Tory party of its Euro rebels once and for all.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QB] Constitutionally, a referendum is always advisory.
quote:The only remaining question is the legitimacy of the referendum. If it was above board the question was settled from the 24th June last year. That leaves whether it was a good idea or not, or challenges to its legality.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Page 39 and we are still re-hashing the basics...
quote:There wasn't much that Remain needed to make clear - remain in the relationship we currently (at the time) have with the EU. It's a known entity. Some of us would prefer it if the UK entered more fully into the EU, entered Schengen and joined the Euro, but that would be best decided by a future referendum when that option becomes available and didn't need to be part of the Remain package.
Originally posted by romanesque:
Neither Brexit nor Remain campaigns were clear about the detail of the choices on offer, and haven't been since the referendum,
quote:All these 39 pages have demonstrated is that it's as practical to define Brexit as it is to define Christianity, according to the members of the ship.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:There wasn't much that Remain needed to make clear - remain in the relationship we currently (at the time) have with the EU. It's a known entity. Some of us would prefer it if the UK entered more fully into the EU, entered Schengen and joined the Euro, but that would be best decided by a future referendum when that option becomes available and didn't need to be part of the Remain package.
Originally posted by romanesque:
Neither Brexit nor Remain campaigns were clear about the detail of the choices on offer, and haven't been since the referendum,
It was the Leave campaign that failed (and still fails) to define what they wanted. In the single market or out? In the customs union or out? etc
quote:The problem with this analogy is that (even) Farage's public prouncements have changed over time. Prior to the referendum, he was usually compared the UK post Brexit to Norway or Switzerland.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Some people are fully on board with the Pope (Farage? Now there's an image), and other people are fully on board with Richard Dawkins (Clegg? Sturgeon?) And in between, just about all sorts....
quote:Does he have *anything* to say now? Like many prominent "Leave" campaigners he has been very quiet on the benefits of leaving the EU since 24th June 2016.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:The problem with this analogy is that (even) Farage's public prouncements have changed over time. Prior to the referendum, he was usually compared the UK post Brexit to Norway or Switzerland.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Some people are fully on board with the Pope (Farage? Now there's an image), and other people are fully on board with Richard Dawkins (Clegg? Sturgeon?) And in between, just about all sorts....
Very few people voted Leave on the basis of no deal and WTO rules only.
quote:Could that be because there are no benefits to leaving?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Everybody has been quiet about the benefits of leaving.
quote:He's tended to side with the 'hard Brexit' side. He's also said that if Brexit isn't a success he'll leave the country and live elsewhere.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Does he have *anything* to say now? Like many prominent "Leave" campaigners he has been very quiet on the benefits of leaving the EU since 24th June 2016.
quote:Understandable, really. If Brexit isn't a success it'll be because it was sabotaged by all those unpatriotic remoaners, and who'd want to share living space with that shower?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:He's tended to side with the 'hard Brexit' side. He's also said that if Brexit isn't a success he'll leave the country and live elsewhere.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Does he have *anything* to say now? Like many prominent "Leave" campaigners he has been very quiet on the benefits of leaving the EU since 24th June 2016.
quote:Absolutely. It would be clear enough, probably would not require massive legislation, and would satisfy exporters, banks, etc.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I can't remember if I've already said it here or elsewhere, but an 'off the shelf' Norway deal will do. Just go in, say, give us what Norway has, and stick to that line. We can review matter in say, seven years.
quote:I really can't see what there is to gain from being Norway than from being Sweden. Norway is like being in the EU with none of the influence and more of the cost.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I can't remember if I've already said it here or elsewhere, but an 'off the shelf' Norway deal will do. Just go in, say, give us what Norway has, and stick to that line. We can review matter in say, seven years.
quote:Yes. You're absolutely right. But being Sweden is off the table. Being Norway is on it.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I really can't see what there is to gain from being Norway than from being Sweden. Norway is like being in the EU with none of the influence and more of the cost.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I can't remember if I've already said it here or elsewhere, but an 'off the shelf' Norway deal will do. Just go in, say, give us what Norway has, and stick to that line. We can review matter in say, seven years.
quote:Harald Hardrada had a bloody good try. Maybe his plan is finally coming to fruition.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps we should just ask Norway to take us over, lock, stock, and barrel.
IJ
quote:The ultras will soon be irrelevant as Mrs May is now in hock to Ruth Davidson's 13 seats and Arlene Foster's 10, neither of whom will support the Brexit May had in mind. The EEA would indeed be the obvious choice, but will the EU or EFTA be willing to allow it? It seems there's little goodwill left for Britain after a year of delays and aggressive sabre rattling, of which the EU has also done its share. The window may already have closed on that option, and we may simply be expelled without a deal. But it's definitely what the British negotiating team should be pursuing. Many commentators have said that the serious talks won't get under way before the German elections in the Autumn. I hope this is the case as it's obvious that the PM has secured no mandate for her previous stance and must now reinvent the wheel on this.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Actually, the obvious choice now is EEA, but will the Ultras accept this?
quote:Remember that any immigration system has to work both ways, allowing UK citizens to live and work in the EU. The loss of the opportunity to live and work anywhere in the EU is one of the big costs with the loss of freedom of movement - it's created the uncertainty over the rights and future of UK citizens already living elsewhere in the EU, and many UK citizens have benefitted from working or studying elsewhere in the EU.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Well, if we bring in a points based immigration system - per what we do for the rest of the world - could we not strike a bargain along the lines of, for as long as all eu citizens get default 100% points available for their visa unless they are on a terrorist watch list can we have tariff free acccess, interim deal for the next x years.
Then each successive government gets to decide whether decreased immigration is worth increased tariffs. Whilst the eu either gets citizen movement or tax income.
quote:What sabre rattling has the EU done? Though, some UK newspapers have done a bit of sabre rattling on their behalf, producing various numbers for the exit bill that the EU will demand with precious little in the way of evidence that these are what the EU would want.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It seems there's little goodwill left for Britain after a year of delays and aggressive sabre rattling, of which the EU has also done its share.
quote:I hope so.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had two thoughts this morning, when I got up. One, I wonder if the UK political class has the intellectual ability to deal with Brexit. It is very complicated, with many different areas of regulation and degrees of convergence. Recently, I have been reading articles on aviation, race horses being transported, perishable food, Formula 1 cars, the Irish border, and so on.
Two, it might be better then to 'park' somewhere as a transitional arrangement, while such matters are digested, and either changed or not. The obvious place is EEA, but apparently the Ultras object to this.
Presumably, the election has put paid to hard Brexit.
quote:Can I say that the enormous drop in the UKIP vote can only be attributable to the success of the Leave campaign in the referendum. People got what they wanted, to get the article 50 notice and then to get out.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Aye, Macron (and, indeed, Merkel etal) can make those sort of gestures knowing that noone in the UK government has the nous to cut our losses and exit Brexit, nor the backbone to stand up to the UKIPers and the rightwing media. With the added benefit that in the very unlikely event that the offer is accepted the people of the EU will all benefit from the UK remaining in the EU, without having to constantly bend over backwards to accomodate the UK.
quote:I don't think I've heard a public figure yet who can talk about Brexit with any detail. For example, people talk about hard Brexit nonchalantly as if it's just a question of tariffs. But the non-tariff barriers are the real problem - once we become a 'third country', our exports will not go through borders unchecked. This strikes me as a great difficulty. For example, transporting race horses at the moment is easy, as all details are entered on electronic databases, before the journey begins. But third countries don't have access to these. Over to you, Mr Davis.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:I hope so.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I had two thoughts this morning, when I got up. One, I wonder if the UK political class has the intellectual ability to deal with Brexit. It is very complicated, with many different areas of regulation and degrees of convergence. Recently, I have been reading articles on aviation, race horses being transported, perishable food, Formula 1 cars, the Irish border, and so on.
Two, it might be better then to 'park' somewhere as a transitional arrangement, while such matters are digested, and either changed or not. The obvious place is EEA, but apparently the Ultras object to this.
Presumably, the election has put paid to hard Brexit.
It really is fiendishly complex. I have got in trouble from well-meaning Christian friends for some of the criticism of the government I posted on Facebook. Primarily that the government had no answers to the specific challenges and in all public statements were glossing over some major problems. I have read the White paper. It's useless.
AFZ
quote:You plunge people into fear, uncertainty and doubt and then they have the temerity to stand up for themselves.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It seems that Guy Verhofstadt one of the senior Brexit negotiator is saying that if Britain wants to change its mind and revoke Brexit, we won't find the EU the same as before.
quote:This scenario is in line with my oft-repeated point that however much Remainers may dream of such a thing, there is no such thing as going back to the status quo - what is meant by "staying in" is in practice "re-admission on new, less favourable terms".
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
While echoing President Macron's view that the door is open to a change of heart, he said, “But like Alice in Wonderland, not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity.”
quote:Even if we get a deal that maintains FOM, the damage has been done. The UK has sent a message to EU nationals that they aren't really welcome here - both by voting to leave (apparently with immigration being the biggest reason) and then not giving assurances to people legally living here. If you were a nurse, research scientist, farm labourer etc would you want to come to the UK, even if FOM was retained? Or would you look at (say) France where the government is making all the right noises about welcoming people who will contribute to the national good?
Originally posted by Louise:
And anyway compared to the eye-watering damage to the economy and the pound (and hence rise in inflation) that completing Brexit without FOM would cause, this is still a much better deal than anything else on the table and would put a brake on the current kamikaze damage that even just the threat of ending freedom of movement has caused ( nurses, universities, farms construction, etc.)
quote:As noted earlier the EU makes its big decisions by "qualified majority" which requires, among other things, assent by nations representing at least 65% of the population of the EU. The inverse consequence of this is that a numerically small bloc of large, populous nations containing at least 35% of the EU's population can essentially veto EU actions. Under the current, U.K.-including EU this means that any EU action requires the approval of at least two nations of the [Germany / France / U.K. / Spain] set to reach the 65% of population mark. Or to put it another way, if any three of those four nations agree a proposal was a bad idea it doesn't matter what the rest think. After Brexit the bloc of four would be [Germany / France / Spain / Italy].
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
I thought the EU would be severely damaged by Brexit; that was my main reason for voting Remain. But since Macron's victory I am not so sure. His government's performance over the next few years will be crucial to the future of the EU. I think Germany is pretty solid but France is the other nation the EU cannot do without.
quote:We discussed sabre rattling a few posts back, but unless Verhofstadt is doing just that, he doesn't want to cancel Brexit. When I voted Remain I did so in the knowledge that the UK was already a semi-detached member of the EU. In addition to the opt outs we'd secured over the years, from the euro and from Schengen, David Cameron negotiated an opt out from "ever closer union." As someone who, as a very young voter, voted to stay in in 1975, that suited me, as I was never an enthusiast of the federal dream. It isn't in the British DNA. Our economy was slowly moving away from the EU, with some 60% of our exports going there in the noughties to only 44% today.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Exiting Brexit would be a case of cutting our losses, but losses there will be. Just a lot less than the losses that continuing with the Brexit madness will result in
quote:Guardian
Barwell replied saying: “We have not set out any formal plans to review the building regulations as a whole, but we have publicly committed ourselves to reviewing part B [the regulations governing fire safety] following the Lakanal House fire.”
Another leading expert, David Sibert, fire safety officer to the Fire Brigades Union, who was told he would sit on the review, confirmed to the Observer that he had yet to be invited to contribute to it. It is believed that at most only a limited start was made and then abandoned as civil servants were directed on to other matters, notably the need to secure Brexit.
quote:Worth keeping an eye on the Irish Times to see ourselves as others see us.
Finally, the economy is now visibly slowing. Inflation is on the rise, thanks mostly to the post-Brexit fall in sterling: the resulting squeeze on real incomes will dent consumer confidence and depress retail sales further.
Over the past few days we have witnessed plenty of evidence that shoppers are reluctant to spend...
And still it gets worse. That rise in inflation has now unexpectedly prompted three members of the Bank of England’s key monetary policy committee to vote for an immediate interest rate rise. That was a 5-3 split, so a rise in mortgage and other interest rates is getting very close.
...
Just wait until austerity-fatigued voters have to live through an economic slowdown.
quote:Which is exactly what the Remainers were saying a year ago. Not loudly enough or clearly enough to get through the rose-coloured fog constructed by the Brexiteers.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Philip Hammond's speech this morning was pretty plain.
There are no upsides to Brexit.
The economy is going to get worse.
Most people will be poorer.
quote:and the language of disaster was being used descriptively, as if this was something that was happening naturally rather than anything the UK had agency in choosing.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
All we can do is mitigate the disaster as if it was an actual disaster.
quote:Yes, after all the panic in the newspapers over how Labour *might possibly* do something that *might* impinge the country's economics and governance, it's interesting to note how sanguine they are when actual Tory policy really ruins the same things.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hammond's speech yesterday was quite enjoyable as a coded message. Surely, he was really saying that May's ramblings about Brexit are, well, ramblings, especially in relation to hard Brexit, which would decimate some businesses, and make exports difficult in purely physical terms.
quote:Very good point. Somebody was telling me yesterday that Brexit is economic nonsense, but makes political sense for some people, e.g. Little Englanders, racists, and what has been called Empire 2.0.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Yes, after all the panic in the newspapers over how Labour *might possibly* do something that *might* impinge the country's economics and governance, it's interesting to note how sanguine they are when actual Tory policy really ruins the same things.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hammond's speech yesterday was quite enjoyable as a coded message. Surely, he was really saying that May's ramblings about Brexit are, well, ramblings, especially in relation to hard Brexit, which would decimate some businesses, and make exports difficult in purely physical terms.
quote:Especially as it has been doing so for seven years. Austerity my arse.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Yes, after all the panic in the newspapers over how Labour *might possibly* do something that *might* impinge the country's economics and governance, it's interesting to note how sanguine they are when actual Tory policy really ruins the same things.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hammond's speech yesterday was quite enjoyable as a coded message. Surely, he was really saying that May's ramblings about Brexit are, well, ramblings, especially in relation to hard Brexit, which would decimate some businesses, and make exports difficult in purely physical terms.
quote:I believe they want to revert to a pre direct-rule Stormont parliament (ie, that which was in effect before 1972), which for practical purposes was an Orange Lodge.
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I sometimes wonder what NI unionism is about, given the vision of what society should be is so far from the way the rest of the country wish to live. What is it they so desperately wish to be part of ?
quote:The DUP want a Carson-esque state that they imagine is what Britain is, once was and should be today. Of course, it was never really any of these things. They will do anything to cement the idea of the Union in the minds of the people and most especially their voters and they have a terrible paranoid fear of things like border polls.
I sometimes wonder what NI unionism is about, given the vision of what society should be is so far from the way the rest of the country wish to live. What is it they so desperately wish to be part of ?
quote:How is SF smarter?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
This is not to say, of course, that SF are somehow better - they are not. SF are a mirror image of the DUP, except smarter. Frigteningly so.
quote:I had thought that a lot of DUP voters switched to them from the UUP some time ago not because they liked DUP's extremism but because they figured that the DUP was the main Unionist party now and the one most likely to wield political power, so they may as well vote for them (especially once many UUP politicians had switched to them).
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
But it should be noticed that the DUP has absorbed considerable numbers of former UUP voters, and also MPs (like Arlene Foster herself and the deeply annoying Jeffrey Donaldson). I would suggest that this has diluted the hard line to some extent. The constituency they represent is not as extreme as it once was.
quote:DUP politics tends to be quite reactionary a lot of the time, so all SF have to do is mention something contentious and the DUP will be on full rant mode allowing them to get on with other things. They also often appear to be two steps ahead of their opposition. They think through a strategy and exploit various crises in a very wiley way. They also know how to use public spectacle to great political gain. For instance, here in the RofI they hired a prominent venue on Dublin's main street for a exhibition on the 1916 rebellion in 2016. It was seriously well organised and actually very well presented, but had a certain SF thread running through all of it. To me it's twisted history, to some it was Gospel truth. Regardless of what camp you fall into, the action was clever and planned years and years in advance. The DUP tend to - or at least at times appear to - lack that long distance vision.
How is SF smarter?
quote:When I'm speaking about the DUP, then I'm speaking of the reformed churches. The RCC also had a role to play in forwarding the agenda of SF, but they were never afraid to talk politics. The cultural expectation among 'Protestants' was that did not talk politics from the pulpit. Of course, many still did. There were many notable exceptions to all of this and many clergy and members of churches who did very courageous things and who worked counter-culturally to try and find ways forward. Generally speaking though, the churches by and large contributed to the malaise of NI society.
And when you say the "churches of NI," do you only mean the reformed churches, or do you also mean the RCC (in support of Nationalism, if it is) and the C of I (In support of what?)?
quote:All of them, including the Church of Ireland. In many ways the churches became a microcosm of what was going on in society. That is still continuing for the reformed churches (I can't speak for the RCC currently) where the polarisation of society is becoming apparent in church polity; people tend to divide over one particular issue of church polity and look to division and disunity as the only possible way forward. It's a pollination to the extremist positions.
Also, what specific reformed churches in NI are you referring to? Is the Presbyterian Church in Ireland that bad? Are you mainly referring to the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster? Or are there other reformed churches in NI that I don't know about that you think are important actors in all this?
quote:That could well be seen, by the rest of the EU, as perfidious Albion wanting cake and eating it too. I'm pretty sure there won't be an offer of three of the four freedoms (Goods, capital and services), without the contentious fourth, namely freedom for workers and citizens to move within the whole area.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if another factor might be sheer tedium. If there is a deal a bit like a customs union, without free movement, are people really going to go to the barricades over it? It reminds me of some football teams which bore you to a result.
quote:It did feel to many as if the influx of Europeans into the UK was unsustainable. TM is now promising the 3 million already here the right to stay which sounds like a softening of rhetoric. Presumably, having been reelected she believes it safe to pee off the 'send 'em all back' mob element.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
....namely freedom for workers and citizens to move within the whole area.
It's certainly the issue that got the "I'm not a racist but" voters to tick the "Leave" box.
quote:Feelings are one thing, and certainly many people felt that. But, the response to those feelings was one-sided - the racist groups in our society, supported by large parts of the media, jumped on those feelings and sold the people the lie that their feelings were correct. It was one-sided because very few people were willing to stand up against these liars and proclaim the truth that immigration levels are sustainable - indeed, UK society and economy would be unsustainable without immigration.
Originally posted by rolyn:
It did feel to many as if the influx of Europeans into the UK was unsustainable.
quote:Perhaps she does actually recognise that the UK can't afford to lose the people who have come to live here, and those who want to come and work here, but is also too scared to speak the truth. So, she softens the rhetoric as much as possible.
TM is now promising the 3 million already here the right to stay which sounds like a softening of rhetoric. Presumably, having been reelected she believes it safe to pee off the 'send 'em all back' mob element.
quote:No. She is promising them the ability to acquire the right to stay here which is far less than that, it's also far less than the offer the Europeans made. Lastly, it's also far less than the measures Cameron wanted to announce but that May vetoed as Home Secretary.
Originally posted by rolyn:
TM is now promising the 3 million already here the right to stay which sounds like a softening of rhetoric.
quote:Was it lies that factories and small industries were being set up and filled with immigrant labour without positions ever being offered to locals?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Feelings are one thing, and certainly many people felt that. But, the response to those feelings was one-sided - the racist groups in our society, supported by large parts of the media, jumped on those feelings and sold the people the lie that their feelings were correct. It was one-sided because very few people were willing to stand up against these liars and proclaim the truth that immigration levels are sustainable - indeed, UK society and economy would be unsustainable without immigration.
quote:I've never seen any verified evidence that that happened. Same with Europeans turning up, getting hip replacements (or whatever) on the NHS and going home. Or any of the other stories that were bandied around in the right wing media. Maybe happened once or twice (and, for small family businesses maybe quite often people employed family members rather than openly advertising), but not often enough to make it a general feature of immigration.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Was it lies that factories and small industries were being set up and filled with immigrant labour without positions ever being offered to locals?
quote:But then you question whether immigrant labour is really a blessing; make up your mind which it is.
I have no doubt visitors work harder than indigenous Brits...
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Was it lies that factories and small industries were being set up and filled with immigrant labour without positions ever being offered to locals? ...
quote:John Simpson is right there. But it's not just the Soviet view. The Völkischer Beobachter was much the same. I'm sure Mr Trump sees things the same way.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Meanwhile, Andrea Leadsom, Leader of the House of Commons, has called for broadcasters to be more "patriotic" in their reporting of Brexit, ie to "pull together" and be more uncritical of the government's position. (The link's to a non-auto-playing video, btw.)
John Simpson, the veteran BBC reporter, described this as a "Soviet" view of patriotism - the broadcaster as propagandist for the government. That seems a worryingly accurate view of what Ms Leadsom is calling for.
quote:Since 1940, at least. And you can still find conspiracy nutters who believe that Churchill deliberately let Coventry burn...
Since when has visiting a disaster zone been part of what's expected of the Leader of the House of Commons?
quote:Churchill was Prime Minister and war leader. The Leader of the House of Commons is only a middle ranking figure with responsibility for managing government business in the House. He or she doesn't necessarily even have a place in the Cabinet and is below the level that receives a ministerial salary.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Enoch asked:quote:Since 1940, at least. And you can still find conspiracy nutters who believe that Churchill deliberately let Coventry burn...
Since when has visiting a disaster zone been part of what's expected of the Leader of the House of Commons?
quote:My bad, I misread your original post.
The Leader of the House of Commons is only a middle ranking figure...
quote:Ok so it seems non-Irish EU citizens allowed to stay in the UK post Brexit will not be able to vote for the Westminster Parliament, but they will be able to vote in local and regional elections.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who may vote.
[i]Three words and I still misspell.
quote:This will have to be negotiated.
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:Ok so it seems non-Irish EU citizens allowed to stay in the UK post Brexit will not be able to vote for the Westminster Parliament, but they will be able to vote in local and regional elections.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who may vote.
[i]Three words and I still misspell.
quote:Nope.
But citizens of Commonwealth Countries resident in the UK can vote in Westminster Parliamentary elections. Is the UK unusual in allowing so many non-citizens to vote in its local and national elections?
quote:Benefits are one. Right to which and how much depend on what type of resident one is.
Aside from freedom from deportation, what are the main legal differences between UK citizens and Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK?
quote:Interesting. Our former leader said something similar of the ABC, that it should be "on Australia's side". The managing director responded the ABC was the national, not state, broadcaster.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
Meanwhile, Andrea Leadsome, Leader of the House of Commons, has called for broadcasters to be more "patriotic" in their reporting of Brexit
quote:Ah well, we've always been seen as 'Insel Affe' (island monkies). It makes me laugh with them, we are a strange crowd of folks. And we've always been a little 'separate' from Europe - due to being and island, maybe.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Patriotism is love of your country. If you love your country, you want to do things that will be good for it.
Ideas of what is good for the country may differ.
Like Michael Heseltine (that well-known Trotskyite), I do not enjoy seeing my country humiliated. Pointing out to the increasingly delusional government that Britain is being humiliated, that it has become the laughing-stock of Europe as a direct result of their policies and will continue to be humiliated for as long as they persist in their fantasies, IS patriotic.
Never thought I'd find myself agreeing with Michael Hesel-swine...
quote:It is innate. But if people would understand that and think beyond, it would certainly help.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, there is no such thing as 'your country'. OK, it exists as a concept, and maybe you can love a concept, but in concrete experience, no. Still, I suppose it's just one of countless reifications which go on all the time.
quote:Ay, there's the rub.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I want to live in a country where noone is hungry (except from choice)
quote:That would be the same Chuka Umunna who - a few months back when Corbyn was being portrayed in the media as being soft on immigration - stated categorically that in his opinion leaving the SM was a price worth paying in order to control Freedom of Movement.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Following the large defeat of Chuka Umunna's amendment to the Queens Speech, requiring Britain to remain in the Single Market and Customs Union, Labour's position on Brexit has become so incoherent as to be dishonest. Chuka, who I sincerely wish was Labour's leader,
quote:Everyone is paralyzed and running scared of the press if they are seen to not play lip service to Brexit, OTOH most of the sane ones don't want to actually be in the position to have implemented Brexit because they fear the electoral consequences in the aftermath.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
They're all mad. I don't know what they think they're playing at.
quote:Touche Chris. I walked right into that one. And I thought Chuka was being serious about securing the softest possible Brexit!
Originally posted by chris styles:
That would be the same Chuka Umunna who - a few months back when Corbyn was being portrayed in the media as being soft on immigration - stated categorically that in his opinion leaving the SM was a price worth paying in order to control Freedom of Movement.
quote:I fear this is one of those issues on which very few serving politicians are pronouncing on unambiguously - and the ones that do are those most in favour of a very Hard Brexit.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Touche Chris. I walked right into that one. And I thought Chuka was being serious about securing the softest possible Brexit!
quote:Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Originally posted by Enoch:
But everybody is so afraid of the votes of those who voted leave, that nobody in the political sphere dares say that.
quote:Because the perception is that they are less likely to vote, and that as the most vocal newspapers are Leave anyone who sticks their head above the parapet will get monstered.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
quote:Because most Remainers accept the result...?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Originally posted by Enoch:
But everybody is so afraid of the votes of those who voted leave, that nobody in the political sphere dares say that.
quote:Since quite a lot of those who voted Leave are not "accepting the result" because the result isn't what they voted for I think it's becoming clearer that the story about anyone "accepting the result" is obviously a fiction. What we're all still waiting for is to find out exactly what the vote last year was for, then we can decide whether or not it's something we can support or at least accept.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Because most Remainers accept the result...?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Originally posted by Enoch:
But everybody is so afraid of the votes of those who voted leave, that nobody in the political sphere dares say that.
quote:We'll be waiting a long time too. Article 50 only covers leaving the EU. All the negotiations for trade deals, cross-border movement of currency, provision of financial services plus freedom of movement for people won't start in earnest until then.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Since quite a lot of those who voted Leave are not "accepting the result" because the result isn't what they voted for I think it's becoming clearer that the story about anyone "accepting the result" is obviously a fiction. What we're all still waiting for is to find out exactly what the vote last year was for, then we can decide whether or not it's something we can support or at least accept.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Because most Remainers accept the result...?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Originally posted by Enoch:
But everybody is so afraid of the votes of those who voted leave, that nobody in the political sphere dares say that.
quote:Aren't you forgetting 4. the "cliff-edge" Brexit where nothing is agreed at all?
Originally posted by Enoch:
There are three options.
quote:At least when it does all go to shit you have a very clear understanding of exactly who is to blame. I hope they are never allowed to forget it.
What a fucking nightmare the world has become in such a short time.
quote:The only way of explaining it is that May has taken an irrational exception to a number of bodies with 'Europe' in their name.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't think anyone except Alan has mentioned the prospect of crashing out of Euratom yet, but that looks truly alarming.
quote:And who is to blame for humanity's apparent misfortunes the Serpent for offering temptation or humans for yielding to it?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by LilBuddha:
quote:At least when it does all go to shit you have a very clear understanding of exactly who is to blame. I hope they are never allowed to forget it.
What a fucking nightmare the world has become in such a short time.
quote:No such luck, Anglican't.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Because most Remainers accept the result...?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Originally posted by Enoch:
But everybody is so afraid of the votes of those who voted leave, that nobody in the political sphere dares say that.
quote:Well I guess you could say that the twin serpents of Farage and Borris tempted enough with their fruit of knowledge, but Eve ate it whereas in this instance Adam will be force fed it whether he wants it or not - consequences be damned.
And who is to blame for humanity's apparent misfortunes the Serpent for offering temptation or humans for yielding to it?
Accepting that one little Island's exit from a former trading Bloc isn't the defining moment in the collapse of all human civilisation as we know it.
quote:I would give this a longer, more considered response but I've just mugged an old lady so got money to spend today. Going to get another swastika tattoo done and then hit the Stellas with the boys down the Dog & Duck.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:No such luck, Anglican't.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Because most Remainers accept the result...?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Originally posted by Enoch:
But everybody is so afraid of the votes of those who voted leave, that nobody in the political sphere dares say that.
It's because Remainers are polite middle class educated respectable people, who grumble rationally, protest nicely and encourage people to sign things, but Leavers are abusive skinheads who will smash up bus shelters and turn violent if thwarted.
You only have to look at the language of the two conversation streams on Facebook to pick this up.
quote:Noted Sir. I often use a point extreme to gain a sense of perspective on a seemingly dire situation, which isn't actually as bad as many believe.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You will note I didn't frame my answer in terms of the collapse of human civilisation but I can see what many mean when they say that the USA and the UK certainly has a 'last days of Rome' vibe at the moment. You know its gone to shit when a country pins its hopes of covering up its stupidity by gunning for a far right party to succeed in one of its nearest neighbours. When you get to that stage in local and global politics, you aren't just down the rabbit hole, you're fucked.
quote:Even by the time we reach the bottom of that article he'd retreated from that stark position.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That would be the same Chuka Umunna who - a few months back when Corbyn was being portrayed in the media as being soft on immigration - stated categorically that in his opinion leaving the SM was a price worth paying in order to control Freedom of Movement.
quote:First, lets be clear on what he's saying at the beginning of the article: the SM is important but ultimately it must give way to FoM. That is indeed the logic of his position - that if the choice is between the SM with FoM and no SM than he would choose the latter.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Even by the time we reach the bottom of that article he'd retreated from that stark position.
quote:The DUP are possibly more anti freedom of movement than the Conservative Party....
Originally posted by stonespring:
Would the DUP press the Tories to concede on free movement of people in order to achieve frictionless trade (not just with the Republic of Ireland but particularly with it)?
quote:The other day, friend made the case that the UK never properly engaged with EU by listing the awful people the UK sent there as MEPs. I was unable to refute her argument.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, in the case of UKIP it's OK if you're a rich stockbroker and want to marry a foreigner. But, no other foreigners allowed.
quote:But is the DUP willing to torpedo the NI economy, jeopardize the relative peace in NI in the last two decades, and thereby perhaps render itself politically extinct - all in order to end free movement of people? Does it maybe stand more to lose as a party from Brexit than the Tories?
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:The DUP are possibly more anti freedom of movement than the Conservative Party....
Originally posted by stonespring:
Would the DUP press the Tories to concede on free movement of people in order to achieve frictionless trade (not just with the Republic of Ireland but particularly with it)?
quote:We're going to build a wall and the English will pay for it.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:The DUP are possibly more anti freedom of movement than the Conservative Party....
Originally posted by stonespring:
Would the DUP press the Tories to concede on free movement of people in order to achieve frictionless trade (not just with the Republic of Ireland but particularly with it)?
quote:Except that is on the freedom of (mostly middle-aged) men in sashes and bowler hats to go where they please in Norn Iron.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The DUP are possibly more anti freedom of movement than the Conservative Party....
quote:Well, maybe. Except that Norway is stupid. There is absolutely no reason to want to be Norway. If you want Brexit, Norway offers no advantages over remaining in the EU. You don't save money, you don't get to opt out of free movement, you don't get to do any of the purported advantages of Brexit.
Originally posted by Boogie:
This is looking hopeful 🤔
quote:That sounds fairly accurate to me.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Now, there I think you are doing the Conservative Party an injustice, betjemaniac. They fully support (rich) British people's right to go wherever they wish. They just don't think anyone else should have the right to come here (unless they're rich tourists who will go home after their holiday is over and won't get in the way while they're here).
quote:It's easy. Too much brown and/or not enough money = trouble maker.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are differences of opinion over how to define "cause problems".
quote:Further fueled by the rise in sterling, which would also affect the JAMs more, but then perhaps the following reaction is more universal
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What is much more likely is that food prices will rise. Which won't bother the wealthy much, but could push even more of the JAMs into the food banks.
quote:Well you have rather brought this whole thing on yourselves. It wasn't the EU-27 who kicked you out, you know.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It's been fashionable in this long thread to blame every difficulty on Britain
quote:Which is why it would have been worth thinking through the implications of dropping out of, say, Euratom and the Single Aviation Market, both of which are under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, before committing to it.
a post Brexit UK should never have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ
quote:I'm keen to see democracy enacted. If that means leaving the European Court of Human Rights, then yes. So I ask again. Should the UK pay 100 billion Euros as a severance. I don't know how easy it would be to do, but let's put the figure before parliament. Many Commons and Lords members go on about scrutiny. Let them scrutinise a 100 billion payment and say if they agree with it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, I'm pretty sure not a few people voted Leave under the mistaken apprehension that doing so would ensure withdrawing, not from the ECJ but from the European Court of Human Rights, and its related Charter. Or are you keen to see that happen, too?
quote:You yourself have said that we have a moral obligation to honour our commitments. That is apparently what we have committed ourselves to: I see nobody disputing it whom I would trust with a box of tissues.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Should the UK pay 100 billion Euros as a severance.
quote:So your question is actually, "Should the UK pay a figure made up by the press?" ?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It's been fashionable in this long thread to blame every difficulty on Britain, while extolling the virtues of our beloved brethren in the EU for their noble behaviour. So I would like to ask if anyone thinks a "divorce bill" of 100 billion Euros is fair, or does it take the piss?
quote:Of course it isn't based on a deep knowledge. But you knew that! It's based on a distrust of the EU team's assessment of how much we owe. Which is why, from the beginning, I've wanted an independent arbitrator to tell us how much,
Originally posted by chris styles:
What's your basis for judging any figure as 'taking the piss'? Presumably this is a considered judgement based on a deep knowledge of every agreement and obligation the UK has been party to.
quote:They haven't assessed how much we owe, you are huffing over a strawman figure drawn up by the press.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of course it isn't based on a deep knowledge. But you knew that! It's based on a distrust of the EU team's assessment of how much we owe.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'm keen to see democracy enacted. If that means leaving the European Court of Human Rights, then yes.
I didn't know you elected judges in the UK... quote:I'm not sure if this is a case of accident or design.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The referendum also wasn't to leave EURATOM, which didn't stop Mrs May deciding to add another piece of stupidity to the whole Brexit scheme. I also don't recall much mention, if any, of the ECJ during the referendum campaign.
quote:I'm sure there's no conspiracy. Ill-thought-through is certainly the case.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I haven't looked into this much, but it seems to me that the ECJ is the highest court of appeal for EU law, so it makes some sort of sense for the UK, leaving the EU, not to recognise it as a jurisdiction. To me the fact that the link between things like EURATOM and the Aviation Single Market and the ECJ has not been well-publicised is more indicative of how ill-thought-through any Brexit plan has been than of conspiracy.
quote:Actually I'm pretty sure there is a legal impediment for any EU state conducting any kind of trade discussions outwith of the EU.
Originally posted by Cod:
Britain can't conclude trade deals. But there is no reason at all why it can't negotiate deals to put in place once Brexit happens. But the EU doesn't want that to happen. Now, I am not a Brexiteer, but as there is no legal impediment, it is possible to speculate that the EU is playing dirty tricks.
quote:I'm afraid I think they all know what they want isn't possible (ie things to remain exactly the same with respect to trade with the EU but magically without the European courts, without having freedom of movement, without having to be bothered with EU Regulations and so on) so their actual positions with respect of what it is that they do want are being carefully kept in the shadows so they can whip them out when it becomes clear that the EU is never going to accept their ridiculous pipe-dream.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Labour campaigned for a softer Brexit than the Tories, but the details were as vague as the Tory position on Brexit. At present we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to produce a defined policy on what they want from Brexit - Tories, Labour, even UKIP (though they couldn't agree on the colour of the sky on whatever planet they live on).
quote:According to the BBC it is the Consolidated version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - PART FIVE: EXTERNAL ACTION BY THE UNION - TITLE II: COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY - Article 207 (ex Article 133 TEC).
Originally posted by Cod:
Re negotiating trade deals: can anyone cite a provision in the EU treaties that prevents a member state negotiating? If there isn't one, that means a member state can do so.
quote:Yeah, experts. Who needs them, eh?
Originally posted by Cod:
As for me: I have no qualifications at all, and even if I did, why should you believe some random name on the Internet? I simply note the fact that the average developed nation outside the EU has pretty decent food security. To state that one needs to be an "expert" (ie, make a living writing for the papers and publishing the odd book) to point this out is as ridiculous as stating that the UK will face food shortages after Brexit. It's in the same league as the rather different claims made by the likes of Boris.
quote:I've finally got round to reading the Economist article behind the cover story*, and it usefully details six Brexit "menu deals" for membership (no à la carte options are allowed):
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl (on the 'Withdrawal from EU Bill' thread):
A typical article on EEA, as far as I can see. I'm not sure that calling it the Norway option is politic, but never mind.
quote:I thought that the notion of food shortages has come up in relation to a hard Brexit, whereby EU regulations, which the UK has followed hitherto, no longer apply.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Yeah, experts. Who needs them, eh?
Originally posted by Cod:
As for me: I have no qualifications at all, and even if I did, why should you believe some random name on the Internet? I simply note the fact that the average developed nation outside the EU has pretty decent food security. To state that one needs to be an "expert" (ie, make a living writing for the papers and publishing the odd book) to point this out is as ridiculous as stating that the UK will face food shortages after Brexit. It's in the same league as the rather different claims made by the likes of Boris.
The UK has some fairly unique geographical features which makes it different to anywhere else. Or do you have an uninformed and non-expert opinion as to why those things aren't going to be relevant?
quote:Oh FFs - what's with this road to Venezuela none sense - did you actually read the Labour manifesto ?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Everyone agrees that the surge in Labour support in the June general election came mainly from younger voters. But it now seems that the motivation was more about soft Brexit than about following Mr Corbyn along the road to Venezuela. The question is will he take this on board?
Sir Keir Starmer has said that he will table an amendment to the Repeal Bill aimed at keeping Britain in the Single Market and Customs Union. But this was already tried by Chuka Umunna which resulted in a three line whip to abstain and the sacking of three people from the shadow cabinet. Although Corbyn will look a bit daft if he now backs soft Brexit after previously rejecting everything which could take us there, perhaps Sir Keir's intervention will be the last chance to do this. Will it work?
quote:I suspect what Starmer is angling for is something similar to the Swiss / Turkish position and maybe a free movement compromise - by which I mean free movement in the transition deal, using all EU options such as you can't stay if you don't have a job etc. Then moving to a public debate as to whether to end that version of free movement and go full Turkey toward the end of the transition deal. (I.e. Public opinion may move if we continue to have a labour shortage in various sectors as we do now.)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Labour campaigned for a softer Brexit than the Tories, but the details were as vague as the Tory position on Brexit. At present we're still waiting for someone, anyone, to produce a defined policy on what they want from Brexit - Tories, Labour, even UKIP (though they couldn't agree on the colour of the sky on whatever planet they live on).
quote:What's your evidence for this? How would you expect someone to behave during a 'normal' set of trade negotiations? How would you differentiate between the two cases?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The EU negotiators think that the British will realise that no-deal would be catastrophic for the British economy so they can bombard the British government with paper and set terms of a negotiation.
quote:Well the evidence is that the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government and that it (the EU) is seeking to set the parameters of the negotiation.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
What's your evidence for this? How would you expect someone to behave during a 'normal' set of trade negotiations? How would you differentiate between the two cases?
quote:I'm pretty sure that any decent negotiator has done their research before reaching the table - worked out their position, tried their best to guess what the other side will want and produced the responses they would give etc. All of which will result in a significant amount of paperwork. Both sides would also attempt to set the parameters of negotiation, as far as possible in their favour. Thus, just in terms of common sense the rest of the EU producing lots of paper and seeking to set the parameters is what a decent negotiator would do. The UK having nothing prepared and just going with the flow isn't.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Well the evidence is that the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government and that it (the EU) is seeking to set the parameters of the negotiation.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
What's your evidence for this? How would you expect someone to behave during a 'normal' set of trade negotiations? How would you differentiate between the two cases?
quote:I don't know, it seems to me that both the EU and UK positions with regard to these negotiations is unusual, but I was mostly talking about the disparity between the attitude of the participants which is possibly related to their perceptions of the strength of their own positions and their view of the best outcome being that the other side backs down.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Thus, just in terms of common sense the rest of the EU producing lots of paper and seeking to set the parameters is what a decent negotiator would do. The UK having nothing prepared and just going with the flow isn't.
quote:The reason the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government is that the EU has got its act together; whereas the UK government are outclassed by the troupe in Noises Off.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Well the evidence is that the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government and that it (the EU) is seeking to set the parameters of the negotiation.
quote:I have problems with the language around 'generous terms' as it seems to imply that if the EU was operating out of goodwill those 'generous terms' would naturally apply.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If the UK were allowed to leave on generous terms, it would send a message that anyone else could too.
quote:I'm not missing that, I'm sure it is something that is a major driver of their negotiating strategy. I'm just not sure that this fear should necessarily be the only consideration - because if they end up pushing the UK away without a deal then I think the numbers are not going to stack up with regard to survival of the EU for very long.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What you are missing is that a decrease in contributions is not the only threat to the survival of the EU-27.
If the UK were allowed to leave on generous terms, it would send a message that anyone else could too. Over and above economics, that would be a betrayal of the very ideology of the EU, and I suspect that is seen as more important by the EU-27 than any economic threat.
quote:I think that it is absolutely true that the UK sees the EU differently than other countries do. But that's part of the problem with this negotiation.
I believe the UK has consistently and mistakenly viewed the EU as being more about economics than about ideology ever since it joined the "common market" in 1973, and that this misunderstanding has dogged relations ever since.
quote:I think it is deeper than that; the British feel that as they're already working to the EU standards and regulations, then there shouldn't be very much to discuss - and that it is all about economic interests. So the perception is that the EU is trying to punish the UK for leaving.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The reason the EU has generated a lot of paper compared to the UK government is that the EU has got its act together; whereas the UK government are outclassed by the troupe in Noises Off.
quote:I'm not sure how a botched UK referendum, the two main British parties both holding to the line of 'leave' and talks held to ransom by brexiteers can be understood as the EU pushing the UK away! Did you as a country not vote to leave, or did I just dream that? Much as I wish I did dream it, how will this effect he survival of the EU? I know there is a feeling in the UK that somehow in some weird la-la land the UK was the biggest and greatest player in Europe and funded the whole project - albeit in a different currency with countless amendments and opt outs and baby tantrums in a corner all dressed up with media spin and outright lies - but surely you don't believe that anymore? I can understand you might have been forgiven that notion of self importance back when Nelson was commanding his minions, but today? Really?
if they end up pushing the UK away without a deal then I think the numbers are not going to stack up with regard to survival of the EU for very long.
quote:Away from a close trading relationship.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I'm not sure how a botched UK referendum, the two main British parties both holding to the line of 'leave' and talks held to ransom by brexiteers can be understood as the EU pushing the UK away! Did you as a country not vote to leave, or did I just dream that?
quote:Look at the net contributors to the EU budget. And look at the likely ongoing costs. Now ask yourself how the EU will pay for the ongoing costs without a major contributor.
Much as I wish I did dream it, how will this effect he survival of the EU? I know there is a feeling in the UK that somehow in some weird la-la land the UK was the biggest and greatest player in Europe and funded the whole project - albeit in a different currency with countless amendments and opt outs and baby tantrums in a corner all dressed up with media spin and outright lies - but surely you don't believe that anymore? I can understand you might have been forgiven that notion of self importance back when Nelson was commanding his minions, but today? Really?
quote:Maybe some of the present front bench do, in which case they are sadly mistaken - part of any such regulation will be a mechanism to prevent regulatory divergence and the dispute resolution mechanism. The UK currently doesn't really have a approach to solving the first issue that would scale, and wants to opt out of main body that does the second.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it is deeper than that; the British feel that as they're already working to the EU standards and regulations
quote:How do you see the EU-27 pushing the UK away from a close trading relationship? It seems to me that basically the UK could have one, except for the domestic consideration that it more or less requires the corollary of free movement of labour, which is politically unpalatable. The UK has swallowed Boris' "have your cake and eat it" line with a contented burp of entitlement.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Away from a close trading relationship.
quote:Yes. There is something of unreal ideology on the Tory frontbench about this. I suspect this is blinding them to the reality of the shit they've got themselves into.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Maybe some of the present front bench do, in which case they are sadly mistaken - part of any such regulation will be a mechanism to prevent regulatory divergence and the dispute resolution mechanism. The UK currently doesn't really have a approach to solving the first issue that would scale, and wants to opt out of main body that does the second.
quote:Well I suppose what I mean is that if the negotiators were a bit more concerned about the hole in their budget, they might be less inclined to negotiate in such a testosterone filled way.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How do you see the EU-27 pushing the UK away from a close trading relationship? It seems to me that basically the UK could have one, except for the domestic consideration that it more or less requires the corollary of free movement of labour, which is politically unpalatable. The UK has swallowed Boris' "have your cake and eat it" line with a contented burp of entitlement.
quote:Well, for a start they won't have to put any money into the Uk anymore, whether that be through arts, infrastructure, farming or whatever else. They also won't have to spend a fortune on giggling the legislation to match UK tantrums when the same legislation seems to suit everyone else perfectly fine - or at least workable around without throwing some shit fit about an imagined 'sovereignty', whatever that is. But this is all part and parcel of the twisted view the UK has of itself within Europe, a 'they can't do without us' attitude. The whiff of testosterone that drifts across Europe from the UK currently is nauseating.
Look at the net contributors to the EU budget. And look at the likely ongoing costs. Now ask yourself how the EU will pay for the ongoing costs without a major contributor.
quote:I agree that you are walking away from a close trading agreement. This was a large part of what the EU was and continues to be about. But you walked away from it. Nobody is playing hard ball with you and nobody is showing you the door or pushing you through it; you went through it of your own free choice and all of Europe begged you to stay. You left and imagined that everyone wanted you to stay because you were so big and powerful and special and important. In reality we all wanted you to stay because none of us wanted a basket case economically and socially on our doorstep, and closer to home from my perspective, nobody here wanted to see a hard border and a re-ignition of the Northern Ireland troubles.
Away from a close trading relationship.
quote:How exactly are the EU negotiators tester one fuelled? When faced with the hard facts about what brexit actually means the UK is having another hissy fit - in exactly the same way it always had. It's sense of self importance is so blinding that it thinks it can have everything it wants with no perceived consequence or concern for anyone else but itself. I know that this has been the modus operandi from the empire years, but it's gone - get over it.
Well I suppose what I mean is that if the negotiators were a bit more concerned about the hole in their budget, they might be less inclined to negotiate in such a testosterone filled way.
quote:The UK is a net contributor. That means that even taking those deductions into account, it is still overall paying into the pot.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well, for a start they won't have to put any money into the Uk anymore, whether that be through arts, infrastructure, farming or whatever else. They also won't have to spend a fortune on giggling the legislation to match UK tantrums when the same legislation seems to suit everyone else perfectly fine - or at least workable around without throwing some shit fit about an imagined 'sovereignty', whatever that is. But this is all part and parcel of the twisted view the UK has of itself within Europe, a 'they can't do without us' attitude. The whiff of testosterone that drifts across Europe from the UK currently is nauseating.
quote:OK first of all, before you start accusing me of things, kindly remember that it wasn't me, I voted Remain and continue to believe that Brexit is bloody stupid.
I agree that you are walking away from a close trading agreement. This was a large part of what the EU was and continues to be about. But you walked away from it. Nobody is playing hard ball with you and nobody is showing you the door or pushing you through it; you went through it of your own free choice and all of Europe begged you to stay. You left and imagined that everyone wanted you to stay because you were so big and powerful and special and important. In reality we all wanted you to stay because none of us wanted a basket case economically and socially on our doorstep, and closer to home from my perspective, nobody here wanted to see a hard border and a re-ignition of the Northern Ireland troubles.
quote:Well you can take that right back, because I've never said anything resembling this.
How exactly are the EU negotiators tester one fuelled? When faced with the hard facts about what brexit actually means the UK is having another hissy fit - in exactly the same way it always had. It's sense of self importance is so blinding that it thinks it can have everything it wants with no perceived consequence or concern for anyone else but itself. I know that this has been the modus operandi from the empire years, but it's gone - get over it.
quote:No, I said they appeared to me to be negotiating in a testosterone-filled way. I don't need evidence when I'm expressing what I feel is happening and using an descriptive term which I think is appropriate.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You made the allegation that the EU-27 negotiators were "testosterone-fuelled" without adducing any evidence whatsoever.
quote:Who was it again who said "no deal is better than a bad deal"? I just can't quite remember...
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have explained several times what I think the problem is - namely that the negotiators appear to be be prepared to allow the UK to walk away without a deal and that this appears to me to be something that would cause lasting damage to the EU.
quote:
We want to be ready for all eventualities, including ‘no deal’, a possibility that has been mentioned again recently by several British ministers... In practice, ‘no deal’ would worsen the ‘lose-lose’ situation which is bound to result from Brexit. And the UK would have more to lose than its partners ... There is no reasonable justification for the ‘no deal’ scenario. There is no sense in making the consequences of Brexit even worse ... a fair deal is better than no deal
quote:And you mention repeatedly that there will be this enormous hole in the EU budget. What is that figure? Can you give a source (other than the Daily Mail hopefully)?
I'm sorry but this is just a fact. When the UK leaves, the EU loses a net contributor unless some kind of deal is struck whereby the UK somehow continues to contribute.
quote:Yes, but it is kind of the convention of debate; otherwise things might get complicated and confused rather fast. If you're arguing something, making a case, then it seems reasonable to me to address the response to you. I understand you may have voted differently, but my responses were in the case of the UK as a whole. I'm sorry you were unable to see that and took it personally.
OK first of all, before you start accusing me of things, kindly remember that it wasn't me, I voted Remain and continue to believe that Brexit is bloody stupid.
quote:If they 'allow' the UK to leave? Surely this is a slip of the tongue..or rather, the pen...or the keyboard? The UK have decided to leave. I don't think the UK leaving will leave the EU in such a decrepit and bankrupt state that they will be unable to pay the bills. The UK on the other hand.....
the UK is a net contributor to the EU coffers, so if the EU negotiators allow the UK to leave without having something in place to cover the losses of funds, then it is going to be tough to see how the EU can pay the bills
quote:Haven't I done that? There are a few trifling points regarding figures and facts - hard to respond without that really.
how about addressing the points I've actually made?
quote:Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you said testosterone 'filled' not testosterone 'fuelled'.
Well you can take that right back, because I've never said anything resembling this.
quote:There's that weird term again; 'allow'. Did they 'allow' the UK to have a referendum?
If they allow the UK to walk away with no-deal, that will potentially be very bad for the union.
quote:Look, I have no idea how this whole thing is being reported on in your part of the world, but 'allowing' the UK to walk away? Nobody needs to 'allow' you to walk off into the abyss of eternal happiness in your (royal use of 'your') new 'make Britain great again' fantasy, but where I am we were told the UK voted for this shambles and even send its own negotiators who sit and twiddle their thumbs at meetings.
the negotiators appear to be be prepared to allow the UK to walk away without a deal
quote:The thing you don't seem to be appreciating is that I have no love for the British negotiating position. And you simply seem to be failing to appreciate my point regarding the damage that a no-deal would do to the EU.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Who was it again who said "no deal is better than a bad deal"? I just can't quite remember...
And who was it who recently said the following?
quote:There are EU and UK Parliament estimates. Use google and find them.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
And you mention repeatedly that there will be this enormous hole in the EU budget. What is that figure? Can you give a source (other than the Daily Mail hopefully)?
quote:Oh I'm so sorry you took offense at me accusing you of believing something you don't.
Yes, but it is kind of the convention of debate; otherwise things might get complicated and confused rather fast. If you're arguing something, making a case, then it seems reasonable to me to address the response to you. I understand you may have voted differently, but my responses were in the case of the UK as a whole. I'm sorry you were unable to see that and took it personally.
quote:Again, you misunderstand the importance to the EU of losing a net contributor.
quote:If they 'allow' the UK to leave? Surely this is a slip of the tongue..or rather, the pen...or the keyboard? The UK have decided to leave. I don't think the UK leaving will leave the EU in such a decrepit and bankrupt state that they will be unable to pay the bills. The UK on the other hand.....
the UK is a net contributor to the EU coffers, so if the EU negotiators allow the UK to leave without having something in place to cover the losses of funds, then it is going to be tough to see how the EU can pay the bills
quote:Nope. You've added a load of bluster and accused me of holding to the British government position. That's pathetic.
Haven't I done that? There are a few trifling points regarding figures and facts - hard to respond without that really.
quote:I have never ever said anything in favour of the British flag waving Imperialism. You can immediately take back any comment that associates me with it.
quote:Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you said testosterone 'filled' not testosterone 'fuelled'.
Well you can take that right back, because I've never said anything resembling this.
quote:Well yes, I could do that, but you brought that up (repeatedly) in your argument, so I assumed you were arguing from a position of knowledge about it. Clearly not.
There are EU and UK Parliament estimates. Use google and find them.
quote:Awww, diddums. There, there now. Let me explain how this works. I posted this initially:
No. That's not good enough.
quote:That would be the question of figures again? The question you refuse to answer? And anyway, who cares right, seeing it has nothing at all to do with your personal claim that the EU 'allows/allowed' the UK to leave.
Again, you misunderstand the importance to the EU of losing a net contributor.
quote:Well, at least we're agreed on one thing; the British governments position is most certainly that.
Nope. You've added a load of bluster and accused me of holding to the British government position. That's pathetic.
quote:You know, I can imagine that this is almost exactly what is going on around a table in Brussels right now.
I have never ever said anything in favour of the British flag waving Imperialism. You can immediately take back any comment that associates me with it.
Until you do so, I have nothing else to say to you.
quote:You said:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The thing you don't seem to be appreciating is that I have no love for the British negotiating position.
quote:The clear implication of your words is that it is the EU-27 that would somehow be responsible for any lack of a deal.
I have explained several times what I think the problem is - namely that the negotiators appear to be be prepared to allow the UK to walk away without a deal
quote:You simply seem to be failing to read what I quoted Michel Barnier as saying in this respect.
you simply seem to be failing to appreciate my point regarding the damage that a no-deal would do to the EU
quote:What kind of "ground" do you expect them to "give"?
that doesn't make the EU position good and doesn't mean that if they are not prepared to give some kind of ground that there will somehow be no damage to the EU.
quote:Everyone is responsible if a situation is caused by negotiators where everyone loses out.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The clear implication of your words is that it is the EU-27 that would somehow be responsible for any lack of a deal.
quote:I'm not dancing to your drum. I've said what I've said, if you can't be bothered to read it then I can't be bothered to respond.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
While waiting for an answer from mr cheesy, I went looking for statistics on net contributions to the EU budget. They proved harder than expected to find.
quote:I never said that UK was the largest contributor. I simply said it was a contributor within a union where about half the members are not.
The EU-27 contributions from 2007-2013 on this page are confusing: net contributions from a country to the EU appear to be shown as negative numbers. If I've got that right, it seems to me that for that period the UK was not the largest net contributor in either proportional or absolute terms.
quote:It appears that the only bargaining chips that the UK has are that refusing to negotiate would cause damage to the EU - both in a reduction in trade from the UK and a reduction in overall net payments in the EU budget.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The UK currently has precisely what as bargaining chips, aside from the remnants of that mouldy mostly finished portion of fish and chips currently being swept out of the last carriage of the Brussels Eurostar?
quote:Oh look. That would be the UK's nose amputated flush with the skull, amputated by its own stupidity. Blood everywhere, stench of rotting foreign trade apparently now undetectable. And there's the tip of the EU's, bleeding admittedly but functioning adequately and already healing.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:It appears that the only bargaining chips that the UK has are that refusing to negotiate would cause damage to the EU - both in a reduction in trade from the UK and a reduction in overall net payments in the EU budget.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The UK currently has precisely what as bargaining chips, aside from the remnants of that mouldy mostly finished portion of fish and chips currently being swept out of the last carriage of the Brussels Eurostar?
If the UK says that it refuses to accept the judgements of the European courts (which appear to be the last resort of the European Commission with regard to the "divorce bill" that they've said the UK must pay) then there appears to be nothing that can be done to force the UK to pay it.
Which is a bit stupid, but then if the EU doesn't offer some kind of trade deal, then there isn't much of an incentive to send money to Brussels and a lot of internal pressure within the the UK not to.
quote:It sounds to me like the EU is quite split on this, with some in the West trying to sound nonchalant about the likely impacts whereas those in the East and South, where any cuts in the EU budget would be felt hardest, sounding increasingly like they want to cut a deal.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I have no idea. I agree with Barnier that everyone is worse off after Brexit. But I think that as of now, the EU has been galvanised into some form of unity of purpose and sense of solidarity by events. The same cannot be said for the UK.
quote:As I said above, if the EU wants to fill in the budgetary hole then the simplest solution is to arrange some kind of deal with the UK whereby it (the UK) continues net contributions to the EU. Even smaller net contributions would be better than a UK sized-hole in the budget.
I would still like to know what you think the EU-27 "giving ground" looks like, and whether you think the responsibility for any lack of a deal should be split 50-50.
quote:The most recent numbers, including rebate and direct EU payments to UK government, is £156m per week. Which isn't really all that much, the loss of that to the EU would be noticed, but it's not likely to be a catastrophe.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This really isn't difficult information to find.
Try this from the European Commission, click button top left select operating budget balance.
Negative numbers are net contributions.
quote:I don't understand how you think the impact on the EU is just going to be a flesh wound.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Oh look. That would be the UK's nose amputated flush with the skull, amputated by its own stupidity. Blood everywhere, stench of rotting foreign trade apparently now undetectable. And there's the tip of the EU's, bleeding admittedly but functioning adequately and already healing.
quote:Not sure how you can say that. It is £8.1 b (probably more than that now given the changes in the exchange rate) and the most recent 2017 EU financial assistance to Greece was 8.5 billion Euro.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The most recent numbers, including rebate and direct EU payments to UK government, is £156m per week. Which isn't really all that much, the loss of that to the EU would be noticed, but it's not likely to be a catastrophe.
quote:The relative scales of the two economies, the proportions of the exports of each which rely on the other, the relative capacities of the two economies to replace the trade conducted with the other. I admit that the EU is losing a net contributor, and that this is going to require some painful adjustment for the 27, but there again, the price paid by the UK civil service and public service users will be every bit as painful, and more.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I don't understand how you think the impact on the EU is just going to be a flesh wound.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Oh look. That would be the UK's nose amputated flush with the skull, amputated by its own stupidity. Blood everywhere, stench of rotting foreign trade apparently now undetectable. And there's the tip of the EU's, bleeding admittedly but functioning adequately and already healing.
quote:Well yes, those things are more complex than my argument allows. It seems to me that the best statistics do indeed show that the UK would be harder hit by a trade barrier between the UK and the EU.
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The relative scales of the two economies, the proportions of the exports of each which rely on the other, the relative capacities of the two economies to replace the trade conducted with the other. I admit that the EU is losing a net contributor, and that this is going to require some painful adjustment for the 27, but there again, the price paid by the UK civil service and public service users will be every bit as painful, and more.
quote:It's going to come from France and Germany, who are bigger net contributors to the EU than the UK, and can afford it. Will it sting a bit? Sure, but they'll survive. On the grand scale of things it's not such a big effect.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Whichever way you cut it, net UK contributions are more than the amount the EU is giving to Greece in 2017. If the UK doesn't contribute, where do you think this money is going to come from?
quote:Mmm. Interesting that you're all thinking this is a minor blow. I guess that might be interesting the next time there is an election in Germany or France.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It's going to come from France and Germany, who are bigger net contributors to the EU than the UK, and can afford it. Will it sting a bit? Sure, but they'll survive. On the grand scale of things it's not such a big effect.
quote:It's also approximately the amount spent on National Lottery tickets every year in the UK. The loose change the people in one country can fritter away in hope of a payout. Which, in my book, means there's slack in the system to compensate for a relatively small cut in income - there'll be discomfort (especially in the nations like Greece that need that restructuring funds most), but the end of the EU is a big stretch. The "no deal" scenario will be a whole lot less disastrous to the EU than it is to the UK. Of course the rest of the EU is going to want a deal that will reduce the pain of Brexit to the EU, but if the game of chicken plays out the rest of the EU can afford to wait a lot longer than the UK before blinking. The UK is still entering negotiations with a very weak hand and a lousy poker face.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Not sure how you can say that. It is £8.1 b (probably more than that now given the changes in the exchange rate) and the most recent 2017 EU financial assistance to Greece was 8.5 billion Euro.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The most recent numbers, including rebate and direct EU payments to UK government, is £156m per week. Which isn't really all that much, the loss of that to the EU would be noticed, but it's not likely to be a catastrophe.
Whichever way you cut it, net UK contributions are more than the amount the EU is giving to Greece in 2017. If the UK doesn't contribute, where do you think this money is going to come from?
quote:10 billion euros (which is the approximate figure) is about 35% of the surplus the German government ran last year. It's not a small figure - but at the scale of multiple national economies it's not an overwhelming figure either.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Mmm. Interesting that you're all thinking this is a minor blow. I guess that might be interesting the next time there is an election in Germany or France.
quote:As far as I can tell this is only realistically possible with some form of access to the Single Market, and thus freedom of movement and at least some role for the ECJ, both of which are deal-breakers for the UK. In fact I think the ECJ jurisdiction is a worse sticking point than freedom of movement. How do you think the EU-27 could overcome this short of giving the UK better treatment than it gives its own members?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
if the EU wants to fill in the budgetary hole then the simplest solution is to arrange some kind of deal with the UK whereby it (the UK) continues net contributions to the EU. Even smaller net contributions would be better than a UK sized-hole in the budget.
quote:I don't know, it's a problem isn't it. However I suspect that the bilateral trade deals between the EU and China, Canada, Australia etc are not mediated by the European courts, are they?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can tell this is only realistically possible with some form of access to the Single Market, and thus freedom of movement and at least some role for the ECJ, both of which are deal-breakers for the UK. In fact I think the ECJ jurisdiction is a worse sticking point than freedom of movement. How do you think the EU-27 could overcome this short of giving the UK better treatment than it gives its own members?
quote:I don't think this is right. The ECJ is about mediating between the member states, it isn't the final court of arbitration between the EU and external countries. If anything, that's the WTO, see here.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm willing to be corrected on this, but AIUI trade deals between the Single Market and the rest of the world come under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. If you want access to the Single Market then you need to accept the jurisdiction of the final court of appeal for that market. You also have to agree, naturally, that you won't make side deals with countries the Single Market has trade agreements with.
quote:Isn't this exactly the situation for Canada? I'm not following your logic here.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The UK apparently wants maximum opportunities to trade with the EU-27 (but no freedom of movement), refuses absolutely the jurisdiction of the ECJ going forward, and wants to be able to make its own deals on the side.
quote:The Canada option is number 5 in the Economist's lists of six "menus" referred to above, of which it is said:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Isn't this exactly the situation for Canada? I'm not following your logic here.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The UK apparently wants maximum opportunities to trade with the EU-27 (but no freedom of movement), refuses absolutely the jurisdiction of the ECJ going forward, and wants to be able to make its own deals on the side.
quote:So it is "free" but not "frictionless", and I would think the physical volume of trade across the Channel is considerably more than that coming in from Canada.
The disadvantage is that free trade is not the same as frictionless trade. There would be customs controls and rules-of-origin checks, many services would not be covered and there would be non-tariff barriers thanks to differential regulation.
quote:Absolutely.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So it is "free" but not "frictionless", and I would think the physical volume of trade across the Channel is considerably more than that coming in from Canada.
quote:AFAIU if you want to be Norway (or possibly Switzerland), then you have to have the ECJ. I you don't, then the nearest example appears to be the Faroes - who have fairly free trade in particular products.
The cost of escaping the ECJ appears to be customs controls: I don't know whether this would in practice amount to quetzalcoatl's queues of lorries on the border but quite possibly.
quote:Yes. And don't forget that the Canada deal took a really really long time.
The immediate drawback I can see with this plan is that it sounds fiendishly complicated and likely to require a lot more than the time on the clock. Which is once again a reason for the UK to stop dithering and start generating some paper of its own.
quote:I cannot offer any insight into the mind of the Tories. I was thinking overnight that what appears to be happening is that they're attempting to be Yanis Varoufakis and trying to stare down the EU. Not going to work. But then if the EU doesn't back down then it is bad news for everyone IMO.
Furthermore, the Economist says PM May favours this plan but does not say whether it is being pursued single-mindedly by her cabinet. Is it? The EU-27 can't start negotiating until they know what position they are negotiating with.
quote:Would this fit the bill?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The UK apparently wants maximum opportunities to trade with the EU-27 (but no freedom of movement), refuses absolutely the jurisdiction of the ECJ going forward, and wants to be able to make its own deals on the side. This is like wanting a car with automatic transmission and a stick-shift that runs on diesel and petrol and is both right and left-hand drive. What are the EU-27 supposed to offer?
quote:I think the problem is that the UK government have allowed the public to believe that in effect the UK can be Norway without the ECJ. They might argue "because of course we are much more important/larger than the Faroes or San Marino or wherever, so they will have to concede something", but this essentially economic argument obscures the legal fact that no matter how big or small you are this would entail coming under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. There is simply no way round that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
AFAIU if you want to be Norway (or possibly Switzerland), then you have to have the ECJ.
quote:That's my point. I think that throughout this farce the UK has expected the EU-27 to put everything on hold until such time as the UK is ready to make an alternative arrangement. This is a) arrogant and b) cloud-cuckoo land. Real-world decisions on the basis of Brexit started the day after the referendum. The longer this drags on the more people will start to plan, and invest, on the basis of the cliff-edge scenario.
And don't forget that the Canada deal took a really really long time
quote:I don't think so. I don't think the UK has firmly decided on a menu option (i.e. a starting-point for negotiations). The only way they can be said to be "staring down" the EU is to say "we don't have plan: deal with it".
I was thinking overnight that what appears to be happening is that they're attempting to be Yanis Varoufakis and trying to stare down the EU. Not going to work. But then if the EU doesn't back down then it is bad news for everyone IMO.
quote:At present it's unclear what other nations would want to negotiate a trade deal with the UK. The old days when nations like India or Australia would automatically want an agreement with the UK because the UK was the colonial power have died with the last vestiges of Empire. Nations will want trade deals with the UK if, and only if, they are good for them. And, of course many of those other nations (eg: Canada) already have trade deals which we will be backing out of. Backing out of one deal and then seeking to renegotiate another deal never seems to be a position of strength.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Also, I think it assumes that the UK can make up the inevitable decline of trade with the EU under this arrangement by trading elsewhere. My view is that this is a nostalgic delusion.
quote:Which particular goods, which particular services? Okay, so it's a bespoke trade deal you want? That takes time. It also doesn't necessarily solve the customs union issue.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But one would think that the EU can offer free access in particular goods and services without limiting side deals and without requiring ECJ oversight
quote:Agreed. Although to be fair, their argument is that this should be a lot easier than any other trade discussion given that the UK is an EU member and is already meeting the various requirements for trade - which third countries are not.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The argument that 'surely <complicated thing> should be trivial to do', is part of what led the UK into this mess in the first place - and is also a large part of what keeps it in this mess, as it's the line taken by the hard line Brexiters on the right of the Tory Party.
quote:Not unless the UK wants to be Norway. Which is obviously doesn't if it can't stomach free movement.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what the UK currently doesn't have is a mechanism to ensure continuation of those conditions post-Brexit. Does any UK-EU trade deal need to specify that the UK would enact all and every relevant EU regulation in the future?
quote:In other words, submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ without a say in it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what the UK currently doesn't have is a mechanism to ensure continuation of those conditions post-Brexit. Does any UK-EU trade deal need to specify that the UK would enact all and every relevant EU regulation in the future?
quote:Apparently not. But it still sounds fiendishly complicated, and again the UK is not Singapore.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:In other words, submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ without a say in it?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, what the UK currently doesn't have is a mechanism to ensure continuation of those conditions post-Brexit. Does any UK-EU trade deal need to specify that the UK would enact all and every relevant EU regulation in the future?
quote:But then again (this was my first thought: a forum for dispute resolution).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Apparently not.
quote:
Even in the ‘hardest’ possible Brexit scenario, ECJ case law will continue to matter because for UK businesses to sell their products and services in the EU single market they will have to respect the standards set by the ECJ. This operates as a permanent limit to the control that Britain can take back and degree of sovereignty it can restore.
quote:.. and as soon as they are able to agree to a mechanism for continuing to meet those requirements and a mechanism for dispute resolution over whether they meet those requirements .. and all this is part of the problem.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Agreed. Although to be fair, their argument is that this should be a lot easier than any other trade discussion given that the UK is an EU member and is already meeting the various requirements for trade - which third countries are not.
quote:Once again I think the impact Fletcher Christian is worried about, and the UK government seems to be blithely ignoring, is above all the political one. There is so much more than a "common market" at stake here.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is fairly scary what the EU is saying about the RoI - it seems to be suggesting that the impact on the Irish economy will be similar to that of the UK (ie higher than that of the rest of the EU) and that unless some deal is struck with regard to UK-RoI trade, then it'll be worse.
quote:Very possibly. The RofI does a very significant proportion of its trade with the UK. Currently that is shifting; in fact its been shifting very quickly since the vote. There are also new opportunities being presented too. Dublin city is furiously building commercial and financial sector properties in preparation for moves (a number of UK banks and institutions have already made commitments). There is almost manic expansion on the freight sector as Ireland will likely take up all the slack from the UK losses. Some here are predicting a significant hit to the economy, others suggest a temporary bad spell and others have claimed that it will all be cheques and balances and we'll hardly notice the difference. I guess without any deals on the table it's almost impossible to know how things will work out.
It is fairly scary what the EU is saying about the RoI - it seems to be suggesting that the impact on the Irish economy will be similar to that of the UK (ie higher than that of the rest of the EU) and that unless some deal is struck with regard to UK-RoI trade, then it'll be worse.
quote:The problem is that the Tory party are currently fighting a leadership election by competing over who can get the harder and worse exit deal. I suspect consideration of the national interest is a stretch, and considerations beyond the UKs borders are non existent.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If the UK decides it wants a hard Brexit then it would appear that a hard border is almost inevitable.
quote:So if I've got this right, this narrows down the menu options to 5 or 6. 6 is effectively "cliff-edge" Brexit, which they also say they don't want, so only 5 is left.
We are both clear that during this period the UK will be outside the single market and outside the customs union and will be a 'third-country' not party to EU treaties
quote:Sure, you can aggregate responses to determine a hypothetical set of priorities, but that's a billion miles from implementing actual policy.
Finding the public's view on what Brexit should look like has proven a tricky task for pollsters and politicians, as many of the technical issues and tradeoffs are not well understood. As an example, one poll showed 88% of the public supporting free trade with the EU post-Brexit, while 69% wanted customs checks at the border – a directly contradictory position, meaning at least 57% of respondents had said they supported both open and closed borders.
The academics tackled this by forcing respondents to choose between different plausible Brexit scenarios, then analysing the huge dataset this produced to find Leave and Remain voters' priorities for Brexit.
quote:It's not moot re: what the public want. It's only moot in the sense that the cabinet have picked an ideology position regardless of the public interest, and are sticking to it the face of common sense, reality and any shred of national interest.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As far as I can see the cabinet is united in insisting there will be no customs union, so I think that point is moot.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:This will fail for the same reasons as the demise in British manufacturing, a self appointed managerial class who believe that expertise is not needed, and that they an get through life with a breezy attitude and the odd Latin quote (after all, those guys down in the lab/ministry will sort out all the details - not the sort of thing to concern a gentleman).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The predominantly Tory EU-haters seem to have persuaded themselves that it is eminently possible for the UK to negotiate trade agreements directly with other markets;
quote:Why do you think (as you seem to imply) that this is not possible? It's presumably something that Britain was doing from her inception until the 1970s? (I appreciate that there might be issues, e.g. lack of home-grown trade negotiators, but I don't understand why one would think such a task is so entirely beyond us.)
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The predominantly Tory EU-haters seem to have persuaded themselves that it is eminently possible for the UK to negotiate trade agreements directly with other markets
quote:The EU and Canada have been trying to put a trade deal together for seven years. These things take time. Just how long do you think it will take for Britain to move from a WTO only situation, as we will be from April 2019, to having all the desirable trade deals in place?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Why do you think (as you seem to imply) that this is not possible? It's presumably something that Britain was doing from her inception until the 1970s? (I appreciate that there might be issues, e.g. lack of home-grown trade negotiators, but I don't understand why one would think such a task is so entirely beyond us.)
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The predominantly Tory EU-haters seem to have persuaded themselves that it is eminently possible for the UK to negotiate trade agreements directly with other markets
quote:Judging by other things being said it's an attempt to put together a grab bag of things - and isn't particularly well thought out.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So the proposal is a temporary customs union during which time the UK can also negotiate trade deals outside the customs union.
quote:Talk about rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. They're busy squabbling over who gets to decide to rearrange them. They just can't face reality.
the transition could vary between sectors and would be “driven by practicalities” rather than ideology or timing.
quote:As I said, I think that a Tory leadership contest is being fought with the EU negotiations as a proxy.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's not delusional. What's delusional is believing it could happen in anywhere near the two-year deadline
quote:Now out, apparently. The BBC report on it is here:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Apparently the UK government's position on the NI border is also due out this coming week.
quote:So the UK government wants to be out of the customs union, not have freedom of movement, and have a porous border with the EU where it suits them?
It says the government does not want to see any physical infrastructure at the Irish border, such as customs posts.
But Brexit critics have complained that the UK's proposals lack credible detail on how that aim could be achieved.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Yes, I agree. And, in all that is being said, there seems to be a ridiculous over-confidence in thinking that we can set the terms on which we leave when, in reality, we are totally at Europe's mercy and behest.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's eating one's own cake before it's even half-baked.
quote:The approach is not as stupid as it sounds. They have no credible plan, that much is clear, but the plot is to sit around and repeat the same thing over and over; no border posts. Eventually the EU will enforce something through the talks that the UK will have to accept - especially seeing that they have no alternatives themselves - then they can turn around and say, 'Oh look at the mess Europe made of this.' The ability to blame someone else other than themselves for the mess that will appear in NI will be quite important I suspect.
So the UK government wants to be out of the customs union, not have freedom of movement, and have a porous border with the EU where it suits them?
quote:It's not stupid in terms of trying to place the blame, but I can't for the life of me imagine a workable solution in practical terms other than either a hard land border or a "hard" sea border. Is there one?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The approach is not as stupid as it sounds (...) Eventually the EU will enforce something through the talks that the UK will have to accept
quote:Agreed.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think the sea border is the only 'workable' solution as far as I can see. (...) The problems relating to a hard land border are legion. In many respects that could be worse.
quote:
Now that would be an irony Paisley would have liked; 'Ireland says No!'
I can just hear him saying that (from beyond the grave). What a mess.
quote:The only possible option is to shift the emphasis on customs control from port of entry to point of use. So, if a company needs to import widgets then they place an order with the supplier, pay relevant import duty (gaining a certificate) and contract an import company to ship it who then just confirms there's a certificate in place. Customs inspection then involves checking books and physical inspections of places of business to confirm that all imported items have had the relevent import duties paid, conform to regulations etc. That then applies to all trade, goods imported from Ireland, or passing through Irish ports to NI, or anything else (ie: it also removes the queue of lorries at Dover/Calais). It can also apply to immigrants, no border checks of visas needed, but checks that employers have confirmed the status of their employees and whether they have the relevant visas.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:It's not stupid in terms of trying to place the blame, but I can't for the life of me imagine a workable solution in practical terms other than either a hard land border or a "hard" sea border. Is there one?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The approach is not as stupid as it sounds (...) Eventually the EU will enforce something through the talks that the UK will have to accept
quote:No, no, no! The UK will unilaterally get rid of all red tape by adopting free trade status and gain £135bn annually!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Another strange aspect of this is that a hard Brexit would increase red tape.
quote:and the same debunking works: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit06.pdf
Originally posted by Eutychus:
gain £135bn annually!
It's the Brexit bus all over again.
quote:I think the ECJ is a bit of a red herring because trade agreements between the EU and external countries is not adjudicated by the ECJ.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting article here, arguing that the UK cannot escape the influence of the ECJ, since if we are harmonized with EU regs, those regs will be assessed by the ECJ. What happens if there is disagreement? Presumably, the hard Brexit people want this judged by a different body, but that will be in fact, judging the judgments of the ECJ, without being able to affect them.
quote:I think they are possibly trying to generate a shock, but not entirely for the reasons you state, or rather they don't think of it in terms of a shock.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Another thought that someone recently mentioned to me.
I wonder if the hard Brexiteers are attempting to deliberately cause a recession to cause a rejig of the economy which they hope will make it more competitive in the longer term.
quote:I think they basically think in terms of old style 'discipling the labour force' - that makes sense of their rhetoric around 'regulations that are good enough for India' or 'bonfire of the regulations' and so on. See the pronouncements from https://redtapeinitiative.org.uk/ and read the detail of Minfords paper (basically manufacturing goes to the wall but in 'business terms' its better for GDP - which can translate to a heck of a lot more inequality).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, I agree it does feel a bit too much like organised thinking, and there isn't much evidence of any of that happening amongst the hard Brexiteers.
quote:The EU takes longer because 20+ different countries have to agree to the terms. With only two countries negotiating it should be much quicker.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The EU and Canada have been trying to put a trade deal together for seven years. These things take time.
quote:Trump's a narcissistic moron. Butter him up and treat him like he's God Almighty and he'll sign anything you put in front of him just to keep it coming. Even more so given how many of his allies in America are deserting him.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Yes, you're right, Marvin the M. It won't take more than 30 seconds to wave a white flag to President Trump's beautiful great America-first deal.
quote:I have also seen talk that it is all a conspiracy; that leaving the EU is far too complicated to be done in a short period and that the government is dragging feet in a pantomime way to eventually announce that it is all too difficult so let's not bother.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Of two Leave voters known to me, one is aghast at the incompetence and chaos and now regrets voting as he did, another is convinced that the govt is still under Remain control and is deliberately ballsing up the negotiations in order to put people off Brexit and prepare the ground for a second referendum.
quote:The leave campaign was successful: why shouldn't the Tories win elections? It's a matter of appealing to the electorate's lowest principles.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I have also seen talk that it is all a conspiracy; that leaving the EU is far too complicated to be done in a short period and that the government is dragging feet in a pantomime way to eventually announce that it is all too difficult so let's not bother.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Of two Leave voters known to me, one is aghast at the incompetence and chaos and now regrets voting as he did, another is convinced that the govt is still under Remain control and is deliberately ballsing up the negotiations in order to put people off Brexit and prepare the ground for a second referendum.
The problem is that the Tory headbangers would never get re-elected if this was true. Nobody would trust them again if it turned out to be a complex ruse.
quote:Proof, if any more were needed, that the Government in general, and the Brexiteers in particular, are living in an absurd and increasingly tragic parallel universe.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
According to some cabinet minister (I can't remember who it was now) on R4 this morning the new Brexit arrangement between the UK is going to be a perfectly simple set of 3 arbitrators, 1 each from the EU and the UK and 1 independent. Not judges, arbitrators.
So the UK can leave the ECJ and the EU still gets its interests heard in a normal adjudication system.
Of course there are several obvious problems with this idea. Why would the EU agree to a new arbitration panel when it has a perfectly well functioning court? What is the point of a separate arbitration panel if it is going to have to follow the rulings of the ECJ? Why would the EU pay for a separate body? Why would they agree to a trade arbitration body where the EU and UK look like equal parties rather than the ECJ where the UK is just one party of many countries?
Once again, this seems to boil down to the Tory government ministers asserting that the EU needs the UK more than the UK needs the EU, to the extent that they (the Tory ministers) think that they (the EU) will agree to a body that they (the EU) see no need for.
quote:Future dictionaries will feature Hannan as an illustration under sophistry. Link:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Not only are the government in a parallel universe, they're seeking to pull us all through the mirror (replicating EU regulations) to Wonderland so we can all join with the Mad Hatter at his insane tea party.
quote:The Mad Hatter is down the rabbit hole. Through the Looking Glass you find Tweedledum and Tweedledee (jam yesterday and jam tomorrow but never jam today) and Humpty Dumpty (when I say £350 million it means exactly what I choose it to mean neither more nor less).
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Not only are the government in a parallel universe, they're seeking to pull us all through the mirror (replicating EU regulations) to Wonderland so we can all join with the Mad Hatter at his insane tea party.
quote:There was some talk on twitter the other day from a non-Tory Leave supporter that this was the intention all along, that the Tory headbangers were always looking for economic collapse in order to bring in privatisation of the NHS, a complete breakdown in public services etc.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose they are winding up to hard Brexit, and there are even rumours of the govt pulling out of the talks. I can't believe that, as it could crash the economy.
quote:The only vaguely close historical parallel for me is British Empire Asians being ejected from East Africa. Any closer?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe what I'm reading......... here
Does nobody see the parallels that run down through history?
I'm utterly dumbfounded.
quote:Ian Wright, director general of the Food and Drink Federations said:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe what I'm reading......... here
Does nobody see the parallels that run down through history?
I'm utterly dumbfounded.
quote:Well, he said more but this represents the problems' root.
If this does represent the government's thinking it shows a deep lack of understanding
quote:It's a Home Office study. You don't have to be a raving xenophobe to work at the Home Office. One of my best friends used to work at the Home Office (as they say). But clearly the Daily Mail have put something in the water.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe what I'm reading here.
quote:Which goes along with their apparent strategy so far, which is to privilege the interests of the party (and their standing within it) over that of the country.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the govt will be focused on the party conference on 1 October.
quote:That would be nice. The problem is that most of the people's issues aren't the fault of the EU, but the failings of previous governments.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm a hopeful fool. I still hope that our government will see sense, take a step back and withdraw their stupid Article 50 declaration. At which point we can have time to do things properly. Recognise that the only thing the vote last year can say for certain is that a large portion of the electorate (maybe even a majority) have serious concerns about EU membership. That is justification enough for a proper debate on EU membership - Parliamentary time, public consultation, lots of impact studies (which the government have, apparently, done but in the name of giving Parliament power has decided not to share them with Parliament or anyone else), leading to a properly laid out plan for exiting the EU which we can then all vote on. A process that should take at least two terms of Parliament (so we get a chance to vote for people in Parliament who might be saying things on the subject we agree with, as well as time to actually do that work).
As I say, a hopeful fool am I.
quote:Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.
quote:In that case we may as well have stayed in. Let's face it, the "Four freedoms" come as a package, even the Swiss don't get to cherry pick.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.
quote:That's a generous view. Many of them don't seem to care about the interests of their party.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Which goes along with their apparent strategy so far, which is to privilege the interests of the party (and their standing within it) over that of the country.
quote:Well, a country like Turkey has a customs union with the EU, (not the customs union), but I don't know if the talk of hard Brexit would include that or exclude it. Presumably, the Turkish deal excludes free movement of people, but includes goods, and is tariff free. But I think Turkey has to accept EU regulations on various goods - that doesn't sound very hard.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.
quote:Frictionless trade in some areas and not others - most don't cover services at all.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.
quote:The Ultras are 50 - 60 MPs and there are 610 other ones who are, hopefully more sensible. The Guardian's story about the letter is here.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep trying to find out what hard Brexit actually means, and the Ultras have apparently written a letter to Mrs May, asking that all ties to the EU are broken. Surely, they cannot mean this literally? You can't break all ties - trade would be impossible. You couldn't even drive an HGV into France.
Well, it hasn't been published yet, so it's not clear. I suppose May may use this as a kind of bluff to the EU - look at these people, you'd better treat me nice, or I will release them.
quote:And, this is a surprise? Two years after we needed to know what a Leave vote was voting for it still appears that no one has worked out what Brexit means. When someone has worked that out, hopefully they'll let us know and we can vote on whether or not we want it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep trying to find out what hard Brexit actually means
quote:I don't know anyone who takes such an extreme view of breaking ties. Brazil, Japan and China all have trade ties with the EU. The fear is that the negotiations will go so sour that the EU will seek to exclude the UK, its citizens and produce from its markets. But that would be against WTO rules, and against Article 50 itself which says:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can't break all ties - trade would be impossible. You couldn't even drive an HGV into France.
quote:If it's important enough to trump the considerations of the Customs Union it's important enough to trump the considerations of the Brexit referendum.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The preservation of the Irish Peace Process is so important that it may have to trump the considerations of the Customs Union.
quote:I don't have access to a line by line account of the bill, but I presume that the UK team who "flabbergasted" their opposite numbers last week by picking it apart, know why they don't recognise the obligations listed. In fact there's no legal basis for a settlement within Article 50 "unless a withdrawal agreement is concluded which resolves this issue.(para. 135)." The EU needs to accept that any payments made over and above our membership up to the point of departure, are a good will gesture, and any agreement to pay more should be contingent upon our future relationship with the EU.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you think the bill is too much you need to say which specific items in the bill are unreasonable.
quote:I'm flabbergasted that you should chop my post up, and reply to one sentence from it. What's the point in doing this? I don't get it. It's misrepresentation, can you please stop doing it.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I don't know anyone who takes such an extreme view of breaking ties. Brazil, Japan and China all have trade ties with the EU. The fear is that the negotiations will go so sour that the EU will seek to exclude the UK, its citizens and produce from its markets. But that would be against WTO rules, and against Article 50 itself which says:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can't break all ties - trade would be impossible. You couldn't even drive an HGV into France.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union.
So the arrangements for withdrawal and the future relationship are requirements of the Article 50 process. It isn't possible for the UK to be expelled in March 2019 without the future relationship being agreed, albeit that the government may not get all it's asking for.
quote:It seems a common practice on this forum to take a line from someone else's post and comment on it. I'm sorry if you see this as misrepresentation. Your post was about Tory hardliners wanting to cut all ties with the EU. I don't imagine that even the nuttiest of them wants to see our aeroplanes and lorries grounded and unable to enter the EU. The ties they want to cut are with the Single Market, the Customs Union and the ECJ. The world is full of countries who trade with the EU on that basis. But I think there are enough opponents of such ultra Brexit in the Commons and the Lords to make it unlikely to happen.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm flabbergasted that you should chop my post up, and reply to one sentence from it. What's the point in doing this? I don't get it. It's misrepresentation, can you please stop doing it.
quote:At the moment I don't think the government knows what they want to ask for, even though that should have been laid out clearly two years ago. Of course, if they ask for nothing and get nothing then they will get all that they ask for.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the government may not get all it's asking for.
quote:This seems very peculiar. Are you suggesting that the EU should intervene and enforce something or come up with idea of governance and political and economic policy about something that the UK specifically voted for and is now enforcing; namely an exit from the EU? That would seem to me to be highly inappropriate on many levels, not least politically. Imagine trying to get this idea past the hardline Brexiteers; 'Well we have this great idea from the EU that's going to solve the issue we never even thought about when we started this whole charade; let's plumb for that'.
Everyone here, not just the UK, needs to think outside the box to find a way to preserve the open border. The UK has at least tried, No one else has.
quote:When you use quotes round 'flabbergasted' whom are you quoting?
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I don't have access to a line by line account of the bill, but I presume that the UK team who "flabbergasted" their opposite numbers last week by picking it apart, know why they don't recognise the obligations listed.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you think the bill is too much you need to say which specific items in the bill are unreasonable.
quote:The blog post you cite there disagrees with the House of Lords there and is arguing that there is indeed a legal basis.
In fact there's no legal basis for a settlement within Article 50 "unless a withdrawal agreement is concluded which resolves this issue.(para. 135)."
quote:I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this arrogant bollocks.
The EU needs to accept that any payments made over and above our membership up to the point of departure, are a good will gesture, and any agreement to pay more should be contingent upon our future relationship with the EU.
quote:'Ideas'? What 'ideas'? The UK hasn't come up with any 'ideas'. 'We won't have a customs union but we won't have customs checks either' isn't an idea. It's just a complete delusional refusal to face the problem.
The UK has set the ball rolling with ideas. Let's hear from the others.
quote:Perhaps some of them actually think of this kind of thing.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't imagine that even the nuttiest of them wants to see our aeroplanes and lorries grounded and unable to enter the EU.
quote:The UK came up with two possible scenarios, which depend on what future relationship we have with the EU. It has assured Ireland that it wants to maintain the Common Travel Area, so no immigration border will be required. Ireland has welcomed this. We also proposed a bespoke customs union, not The Customs Union, which would render a customs border unnecessary, which has been branded as delusional, fantasy etc. If the Irish government is deadly serious about the importance of an open border, it should respond in kind to such an offer, and petition Mr Barnier and his team to take this offer seriously, because it's the only solution possible which maintains an open border.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
'Ideas'? What 'ideas'? The UK hasn't come up with any 'ideas'. 'We won't have a customs union but we won't have customs checks either' isn't an idea. It's just a complete delusional refusal to face the problem.
quote:That's because it is delusional, fantasy, etc. If it's a different bespoke customs union from the Customs Union then it will need border checks. If it doesn't need border checks then it will be the Customs Union.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The UK came up with two possible scenarios, which depend on what future relationship we have with the EU. It has assured Ireland that it wants to maintain the Common Travel Area, so no immigration border will be required. Ireland has welcomed this. We also proposed a bespoke customs union, not The Customs Union, which would render a customs border unnecessary, which has been branded as delusional, fantasy etc.
quote:It is not a possible solution because it is not possible; it is nonsense. If the UK team were suggesting that there be border posts manned by leprechauns and that all cross-border traffic be carried by flying pigs it would be more realistic.
If the Irish government is deadly serious about the importance of an open border, it should respond in kind to such an offer, and petition Mr Barnier and his team to take this offer seriously, because it's the only solution possible which maintains an open border.
quote:If Ireland are to be forced to renegotiate their relationship to the rest of the EU then Ireland should have a say in the decision. It is bad enough that England outside London gets to impose its preferences upon Northern Ireland which voted against leaving the EU; at least Northern Ireland participated in the vote. The Republic of Ireland did not. The population of The Republic of Ireland is considerably larger than the margin of Leave over Remain in the referendum.
It may have to apply only to Ireland, in which case Ireland needs a bilateral arrangement with the UK, or if good sense were to prevail, it could apply to the whole EU/UK future relationship.
quote:If the UK voters think that then the UK team owe it to the taxpayers and electors either to explain to them why they're wrong or else to give them the tools to justify their position.
If 66% of UK voters think that a £20 billion divorce settlement is an outrage, and 72% think so of £30 billion, the UK team owe it to the taxpayers and electors to refuse to commit to anything unless it's woven into a future arrangement.
quote:Uh, no. There's another blindingly obvious one... It's called 'remaining a part of the European Union.' Another option is called 'remaining a part of the Single Market and Customs Union.' In case you hadn't heard, 48% of those voting thought the first was a good idea, and a non-zero number of the other 52% believed that a vote to leave did not mean leaving the single market.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If the Irish government is deadly serious about the importance of an open border, it should respond in kind to such an offer, and petition Mr Barnier and his team to take this offer seriously, because it's the only solution possible which maintains an open border.
quote:"flabbergasted"
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You did not answer my question about your source for the word 'flabbergasted'.
quote:Remaining part of the EU is what was rejected on 23rd June 2016. It was widely believed that ending freedom of movement was one of the biggest factors in this vote. I've heard Jeremy Corbyn agree with this. If David Cameron had been given a fig leaf by the EU on that subject, the referendum would likely have gone the other way. As the UK has been told countless times, we can't stay in the Single Market without accepting freedom of movement, but ending it is the only way to respect the will of the voters last year. Hence it's a non starter to remain in the SM. There is no point to Brexit if we stay in the Customs Union therefore eliminating any possibility of trading freely with the rest of the world. So to remain in the CU and Sm entirely negates Brexit. What many may wish for, but an insult to democracy.
Originally posted by MarsmanTJ:
Uh, no. There's another blindingly obvious one... It's called 'remaining a part of the European Union.' Another option is called 'remaining a part of the Single Market and Customs Union.' In case you hadn't heard, 48% of those voting thought the first was a good idea, and a non-zero number of the other 52% believed that a vote to leave did not mean leaving the single market.
quote:The idea of a bespoke customs arrangement has already been floated by the new Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar. It has nothing to do with leprechauns and flying pigs, it's a serious attempt to solve a difficult problem for which a solution must be found. I haven't yet heard anyone suggest anything better, except the broken record that the UK should remain in the SM and CU, which if Tom Watson has his way, is just another attempt to overturn a democratic vote.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If it's a different bespoke customs union from the Customs Union then it will need border checks. If it doesn't need border checks then it will be the Customs Union.
quote:No, the insult to democracy was the fact that the vote last year was conducted without any opportunity for the electorate to be informed about what they would be voting for by putting there cross on the Leave option. There were some prominent Leave campaigners who were saying that the UK would remain within the single market, and there would be no barriers to trade with the rest of the EU - the option you're now saying would totally negate Brexit.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So to remain in the CU and Sm entirely negates Brexit. What many may wish for, but an insult to democracy.
quote:Firstly, in absolute terms it wasn't necessarily the biggest factor:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Remaining part of the EU is what was rejected on 23rd June 2016. It was widely believed that ending freedom of movement was one of the biggest factors in this vote.
quote:The vote last year was a vote to leave the EU, it was not a vote to end FoM.
As the UK has been told countless times, we can't stay in the Single Market without accepting freedom of movement, but ending it is the only way to respect the will of the voters last year.
quote:They came up with two ideas around the issue of trade and free movement. So far they have not come up with any policy or workable framework. You keep insisting that Ireland has offered possible policy and a workable framework to allow this to happen, but they haven't. They have also talked about idea around the issues, pointing out the importance of these issues not only to Ireland but also to the future sustainability of Northern Ireland as part of the UK, as an Irish trading partner and the importance of protecting the agreed points in the GFA. You also insist that the EU hasn't proffered anything. In fact it has. It mooted what I would personally consider to be the only possible solution in regards to trade and free movement (which is clearly unacceptable to the UK, especially since they shacked up with the Diabolical Unionist Party) which involved a sea border. This would preserve the GFA. But ultimately, what you are repeatedly suggesting is that even though Britain is leaving the EU, the EU should be the ones to come up with solutions to their most intractable problems. Can't you see the irony there?
The UK came up with two possible scenarios
quote:So not so much flabbergasted by the UK negotiators going through the proposals line by line, as that the UK negotiators decided to waste the whole of a meeting doing something that they could perfectly well have done on paper in advance of the meeting.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
"flabbergasted"
quote:The majority of a majority may be a minority. 48% of the population did not vote to leave the EU. If only another 3% did not want to leave the single market then there is no majority in favour of leaving the single market or ending freedom of movement.
Remaining part of the EU is what was rejected on 23rd June 2016. It was widely believed that ending freedom of movement was one of the biggest factors in this vote.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What is widely believed about people's reasons for a vote does not amount to an absolute democratic mandate.
quote:What's in the bill is only one consideration. While I don't take over seriously the comments of ardent leavers like Jacob Rees-Mogg or John Redwood, they have both said independently that David Davies has no authority to agree an exit payment to the EU, and that it would have to go before parliament. I don't claim to know definitively if that is true, but if so, I would be interested to see which members would be willing to vote away £90 billion knowing that two thirds of voters think that anything over £10 billion is unacceptable. Mr Barnier is a clever man and must know this. Ultimately the government can only agree an amount which would garner the support of parliament, and it won't be a figure of 75 billion or more.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We still don't know if there's anything actually in the bill that the UK can reasonably object to.
quote:I write this as someone who has never believed that immigration from the EU has been a problem to the UK, quite the opposite. But if it isn't considered a vote winner or loser, why does every politician go on about it. Sir Keir Starmer's latest Labour plan, which includes staying in the SM and CU for a protracted interim period, could be made permanent, he says, provided a deal can be struck on restricting freedom of movement.I don't know why he thinks he would have a better chance of achieving what David Cameron failed to achieve. Had such been on offer, we wouldn't be in his situation.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The majority of a majority may be a minority. 48% of the population did not vote to leave the EU. If only another 3% did not want to leave the single market then there is no majority in favour of leaving the single market or ending freedom of movement
quote:Such a move might preserve the GFA, and that is so important as to make it worth considering. But if it sets up a customs border between NI and rUK it would make no economic sense. Much more of NI's trade is with rUK than with ROI or the rEU. As the economy of NI is small it could be worth subsidising it to maintain the GFA, which happens already. But as you point out, try getting that past the DUP.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It mooted what I would personally consider to be the only possible solution in regards to trade and free movement (which is clearly unacceptable to the UK, especially since they shacked up with the Diabolical Unionist Party) which involved a sea border. This would preserve the GFA.
quote:I agree with you that a vote just on that question will not get through the House - for some it will be a case of "we can avoid the need to pay this if we stay in the EU" and others who will say "it's too high a price to pay for continuing access to the EU markets". But, if it comes as part of a package deal then it may not get so much difficulty - though without enforcing the whip to get it through any package will struggle to get through Westminster anyway; too many it will be too far (MPs are largely Remainers, who will probably reluctantly vote for a deal which maintains the benefits of EU membership even at a cost), to a few it's likely to not be far enough.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't claim to know definitively if that is true, but if so, I would be interested to see which members would be willing to vote away £90 billion
quote:The difference is that 13 years ago the UK government had a choice - the treaties that enabled the expansion of the EU included provisions that allowed existing EU nations to limit immigration from the new nations. The UK government at the time (rightly) saw that a large influx of young, motivated workers would be a significant economic boost to the UK. Many other nations in the EU were afraid of their right wing and chose to enact the restrictions available to them - the UK profited from a lot of Poles, Romanians etc because they were not able to go to Germany or France. Those particular provisions have timed out now (though, should there be a further expansion to, say, include Turkey then similar provisions will almost certainly exist). What does still exist are the provisions that can already be used to limit freedom of movement - host countries are not obliged to support someone who has no source of income after three months (so, after that immigrants need to have found a job or have some other income such that they do not need support from the welfare system), host countries are not obliged to provide medical assistance unless the immigrant has the means to pay for it (either through medical insurance, or some arrangement that their own country pays for it), and other similar measures. The UK is under no obligation to provide a home for welfare scroungers or health tourists. Though the number of people concerned is very small, and the costs to the NHS and welfare system miniscule, we didn't need to leave the EU to address those concerns that people have about immigration.
Today I read that Tony Blair now thinks we should be working to control immigration from inside the EU. In what comes as close to an apology as a man like Mr Blair is capable of, he conceded that perhaps he didn't have it right 13 years ago when he opened up the gates to Eastern Europe.
quote:As they've both voted against giving Parliament any final say on the deal I can only think that's a piece of cynical political opportunism.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
While I don't take over seriously the comments of ardent leavers like Jacob Rees-Mogg or John Redwood, they have both said independently that David Davies has no authority to agree an exit payment to the EU, and that it would have to go before parliament.
quote:If the UK cannot be counted on to honour spending commitments they've already made I'm sure the EU will take that into account. The EU can also decide that no deal is better than a bad deal with a known welcher.
I don't claim to know definitively if that is true, but if so, I would be interested to see which members would be willing to vote away £90 billion knowing that two thirds of voters think that anything over £10 billion is unacceptable.
quote:Simply, no politician has the courage to challenge the right-wing press on this and it is easier to use immigration as a scapegoat for the UK's problems than to do something about the real causes.
I write this as someone who has never believed that immigration from the EU has been a problem to the UK, quite the opposite. But if it isn't considered a vote winner or loser, why does every politician go on about it.
quote:Leaving the Single Market makes no economic sense, so we've ruled that out as a reason for doing or not doing anything.
Such a move might preserve the GFA, and that is so important as to make it worth considering. But if it sets up a customs border between NI and rUK it would make no economic sense.
quote:Fortunately for the government as a whole, nobody who has looked upon May's election campaign would suspect her of being such a person.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Someone appearing to be an idiot with no credible plan is not going to get a great reaction from people who just see him wasting their time.
quote:Absolutely right, as far as I can see.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What a - fucking - mess. There is no good path out of this for anyone.
quote:Uh, yes. Pretty much. And yet, Remainers who said that there would be a problem with Ireland and that we might be facing a new version of the Troubles after Brexit were accused of peddling 'Project Fear'.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What a - fucking - mess. There is no good path out of this for anyone.
quote:I suppose that could be a last ditch solution for the EU. if official trade links with the UKare broken, but the Irish border is open. Then if some stuff does go Europe->Ireland->Northern Ireland->Uk then at least Ireland does get some benefit. If good stuff comes the reverse route, ditto (the issue is of course is if bad stuff does, but at that point for it to contaminate Europe there should be some liable importer).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't know, it seems like a spiral to me. Possibly the EU as a whole would be protected from being dragged into the vortex by quickly severing trade links with the UK, but it seems like the poor Irish are connected at the hip whatever happens.
What a - fucking - mess. There is no good path out of this for anyone.
quote:In addition to what Alan said above; it's a matter of record that the Tory party at the time campaigned along similar lines. Pledges to expand the EU were in their 1992 manifesto, and their 2004 manifesto outlined their vision to expand the EU to Turkey (they were a rather lonely figure in this).
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Today I read that Tony Blair now thinks we should be working to control immigration from inside the EU. In what comes as close to an apology as a man like Mr Blair is capable of, he conceded that perhaps he didn't have it right 13 years ago when he opened up the gates to Eastern Europe. But why does he think this can now be achieved when it couldn't before?
quote:It seems to me that actually this is quite simple: if one wants levels of harmonisation, then third countries have to comply with EU regulations in those sectors - otherwise the EU would be swamped with cheap products produced in ways that wouldn't be tolerated within the Union.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have been struggling to understand how harmonization (or convergence), works for a 'third country', which is what we will become after Brexit.
It seems that the UK will hope to match EU regulations, on things like medicines, vehicle types, chemicals, and so on.
quote:I was involved in importing products from a third country which had a tariff free agreement with the EU. The process to import wasn't exactly easy - one had to get their trade of commerce to certify that the items had been produced in the correct place and was on the list as being able to be imported tariff free. one then needed to inform the EU customs that the shipment was coming with the correct item code. When it arrived it was kept in bonded warehouses awaiting customs checks of the paperwork.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose you could have a patchwork system, whereby the UK matches EU on some things, but not others. It does sound baffling.
quote:Right. I suppose I'm just saying that one could have some kind of free trade agreement but still have huge barriers to trade (compared to being inside the customs union). A Canada-style EU/UK agreement does not mean friction free trade.
But I think somebody has already made the point - we want to leave the customs union, as we are not in control, but we want to obey EU regs, where we are not in control. Of course, this leaves out free movement.
quote:It's known as the California effect. Products tend to be produced to the highest market standards. Even if they're not originally meant for that market as it means they could be sold there if they wanted. It's actually quite common. (It just makes a nonsense of all the claims that we're taking back control and will be able to get things like proper lightbulbs back. No one's going to produce bulbs that can't be sold in more than one market. Not commercially viable).
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:It seems to me that actually this is quite simple: if one wants levels of harmonisation, then third countries have to comply with EU regulations in those sectors - otherwise the EU would be swamped with cheap products produced in ways that wouldn't be tolerated within the Union.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have been struggling to understand how harmonization (or convergence), works for a 'third country', which is what we will become after Brexit.
It seems that the UK will hope to match EU regulations, on things like medicines, vehicle types, chemicals, and so on.
So agreements are in place with countries who have a range of products they want to be able to trade with the EU - such as Canada - where products are able to be traded in both directions because they have apparently harmonised trade rules.
But the big difference is that the UK wants to continue in the present regime (ie no trade barriers of any kind or any checks on the types of trade) at Dover and across the Irish border.
Which one would think is only possible if EU regulations are kept for every conceivable product.
I'm at a loss to understand how else this could be done.
quote:A paper label will be slapped across the package with the relevant information. Already done for the even more backwards markets.
Originally posted by Jane R:
...and anyone who voted for Brexit in the hope of being able to go back to Imperial weights and measures is doomed to disappointment, unless they buy all their food at the local market and only patronise traders who are willing to put up with their foibles.
The big food companies are not going to do separate packaging just for us.
quote:And, getting "proper lightbulbs" back isn't very likely since the UK government was one of the leading lights in pressing for an EU ban on incandescent light bulbs in the first place.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
It's known as the California effect. Products tend to be produced to the highest market standards. Even if they're not originally meant for that market as it means they could be sold there if they wanted. It's actually quite common. (It just makes a nonsense of all the claims that we're taking back control and will be able to get things like proper lightbulbs back. No one's going to produce bulbs that can't be sold in more than one market.
quote:Perhaps you could explain the ways in which we benefitted and Germany/France didn't between 2004 and the credit crunch. I can't say I noticed any massive rise in national prosperity during that time, nor did I notice us pulling ahead of those countries economically.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The difference is that 13 years ago the UK government had a choice - the treaties that enabled the expansion of the EU included provisions that allowed existing EU nations to limit immigration from the new nations. The UK government at the time (rightly) saw that a large influx of young, motivated workers would be a significant economic boost to the UK. Many other nations in the EU were afraid of their right wing and chose to enact the restrictions available to them - the UK profited from a lot of Poles, Romanians etc because they were not able to go to Germany or France.
quote:It wasn't noticed because it was largely taken for granted. The UK has lower productivity than either France or Germany, and without the boost from migration it wouldn't have kept track with those other economies.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the economic boost was so significant then shouldn't we have noticed that we were getting it and they weren't?
quote:Which could be taken as how it was meant; as a simple observation rather than a threat.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A few months age, President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Brexit "cannot be a success."
quote:That old hoary chestnut ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36276175
Dafyd seems to think that we must owe the EU anything which it tells us we owe. I wouldn't trust figures cooked up by an organisation so financially incompetent and wasteful that it hasn't been able to sign off its own accounts for 20 years.
quote:Except for all the times they don't - like when the US wants to extradite someone from the UK.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The UK is a democracy with an internationally respected judicial system, which is perfectly valid to take care of the rights of all citizens be they British, American or European.
quote:We'll need to wait and see what the courts say, but they are now being asked to judge on the legality of the Home Office deporting EU citizens, even those who have lived in the UK for more than 5 years who theoretically have security of residence, on the flimsiest of cases. When it takes the courts to act to prevent the UK government from acting contrary to any basic justice or human rights then there's something seriously wrong - and as an EU citizen I would certainly prefer the ECJ to have jurisdiction if it prevents other EU citizens to be unjustly deported or prevented to enter the country.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
On citizens rights, Mr Barnier wants the ECJ to have jurisdiction over future rights of EU citizens resident in the UK. No sovereign nation could permit that because it's unprecedented anywhere on earth. Should a US court be taking care of the rights of US citizens in the UK? The UK is a democracy with an internationally respected judicial system, which is perfectly valid to take care of the rights of all citizens be they British, American or European.
quote:We would have noticed even less doctors and nurses than we have, even less care workers, fields of fruit and veg rotting unharvested etc.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:It wasn't noticed because it was largely taken for granted. The UK has lower productivity than either France or Germany, and without the boost from migration it wouldn't have kept track with those other economies.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the economic boost was so significant then shouldn't we have noticed that we were getting it and they weren't?
quote:So he did not say 'must not be a success', or 'ought not be a success'. He said 'cannot be a success'. 'Cannot' is a prediction or statement of fact, not the expression of a wish. He is saying that there is no way in which Brexit can result in a better situation for anybody, the UK or the EU.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A few months age, President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Brexit "cannot be a success."
quote:I don't believe that is why you suspect that. I think you'd suspect that no matter what Juncker or Barnier or anybody else in the EU had said.
This is why I suspect that Mr Barnier has an unwritten brief to scupper the negotiations.
quote:It's not unprecedented. It is the status quo in the UK at the moment.
On citizens rights, Mr Barnier wants the ECJ to have jurisdiction over future rights of EU citizens resident in the UK. No sovereign nation could permit that because it's unprecedented anywhere on earth.
quote:Internationally respected, yes. Respected within the UK? The cheerleaders for Brexit in our press called our 'internationally respected' judicial system 'enemies of the people' last year with little to no rebuke from the present government.
The UK is a democracy with an internationally respected judicial system, which is perfectly valid to take care of the rights of all citizens be they British, American or European.
quote:I think that unless you can give concrete evidence that the EU bill is too high you have no grounds for saying that it is too high.
Dafyd seems to think that we must owe the EU anything which it tells us we owe.
quote:So setting up customs barriers between Northern Ireland and Britain is ruled out because the Unionists won't stand for it.
On the NI border. There has to be a customs agreement, at least on the island of Ireland to permit an open border. This could involve a customs border in the Irish Sea. But the Unionists would never tolerate that. It could involve Ireland being given a unilateral special relationship with the UK, which Barnier rejects. It could involve Northern Ireland being given a special status within the EU, which was rejected by the European Parliament on 5th July. Or it could involve a customs deal between the EU and the UK, as suggested by the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar. When that was suggested in the UK position paper it was branded an "unworkable fantasy." But there are very few options left, and the EU thinks it's up to the UK to solve this.
quote:Keir Starmer isn't in government. To say that the Government has plans for a transitional deal is laughable. As part of the Cabinet's internecine feuds and jockeying to take over from May, some Cabinet Ministers, slightly more in touch with reality, have in public said that a transitional deal might be necessary. Other Cabinet ministers and backbench Tory MPs have shot the statements down.
Even plans for a transitional deal have been met with a lukewarm response, and I fail to see why any British politician, Sir Keir Starmer too, who has any reason to believe that such a deal will be on offer.
quote:The status quo is that the UK is in the EU. Apparently, that's going to change.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Every single EU citizen who moved to the UK before 2016 did so in the knowledge that the ECJ had jurisdiction. The UK government wants to unilaterally withdraw that. Barnier is merely asking for the status quo to continue.
quote:Of course it's up to the UK to solve it. This is what they call 'taking back control', 'guarding our own sovereignty' and 'not having to do what Europe tells us'.This - and not having anything to do with dirty foreigners and some fantasy nonsense about giving the NHS 350 million per annum - was what the vote was won on. Wasn't it?
But there are very few options left, and the EU thinks it's up to the UK to solve this.
quote:The original remit of the ECJ is the arbitration of treaty obligations between EU (formerly EEC etc) members. It still retains that role. If the rights of EU citizens in the UK or UK citizens in the EU are to be granted in a treaty some body has to arbitrate disputes over whether the parties are adhering to that treaty. Since the ECJ already has a body with that kind of responsibility there's no reason why a new body needs to be set up. It is true that the UK would need to have continued representation in the ECJ if it had that function. But that's easily solved.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
M. Barnier wishes, apparently, to extend the ECJ's remit to give it jurisdiction (presumably in interpreting whatever new treaty the UK and EU signs) in order to protect EU citizens against the UK changing its laws in the future to the possible detriment of EU citizens.
Is he willing to offer the UK courts the same role in interpreting the treaty in order to protect UK citizens living in the EU against some hypothetical future change in the law of either the EU or an EU member state?
quote:This article clarifies the differences between the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Originally posted by Jane R:
Also, the European Court of Justice is NOT AN AGENCY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.
As the UK has just been censured by the United Nations for not respecting the human rights of disabled people, I can perfectly understand why the EU negotiators are concerned. Our judicial system is independent of Parliament, but its role is to uphold British law. And the whole point of leaving the EU is to gain the freedom to change laws without reference to the rest of the EU - including the Human Rights Act. The courts cannot uphold it if it's repealed.
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
quote:If it's any consolation I'm sure she has done so deliberately.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Oops, you're right. And I have criticised Mrs Mayhem for getting them mixed up
<wanders off in search of caffeine>
quote:It's more likely to be six of one ... There are Ultras on both sides who've got no interest in achieving anything. Hopefully the moderates will win out, but who knows?!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's a strong sense that the Ultras are getting ready to blame the EU for any perceived delays or blockages in negotiations. In fact, it's already going on, as can be seen in the trash press.
However, cynics are also wondering if an element of provocation may come in - that is, a deliberate messing up of the talks, followed by the finger pointing - it's Barnier's fault.
But to what extent will government ministers follow suit? It seems impossible to say, but again, cynics are saying, watch this space. How long before May and Davis are following suit? Her Maj government has tried earnestly and assiduously to conduct honourable negotiations, but we are up against perfidious foreigners.
quote:Or Brexiters are full of crap.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
We were told that getting a 'good deal' from the EU would be 'the easiest thing in the world'. If negotiations are proving difficult, it must be because the Commission is being deliberately obstructive.
quote:Bonfire of the regulations and the UK gets close to zero chance of doing any trade deals - because everyone fears that the UK becomes a backdoor for shipping substandard crap into their trade area.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose there is a conflict between ideology and pragmatism. Ideologically, the right wing envisage a bonfire of regulations, low taxes, trade of an unimaginable freedom, outside the EU.
quote:I read that as a typically English ironic statement. The Leavers looked like snake oil salesmen then and they still do.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
We were told that getting a 'good deal' from the EU would be 'the easiest thing in the world'. If negotiations are proving difficult, it must be because the Commission is being deliberately obstructive.
quote:Yes, I've heard that if the UK did start to import crap US food, such as the mythical chlorinated chickens, the EU inspection regime would be micro-managed to prevent dross slipping through.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Bonfire of the regulations and the UK gets close to zero chance of doing any trade deals - because everyone fears that the UK becomes a backdoor for shipping substandard crap into their trade area.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose there is a conflict between ideology and pragmatism. Ideologically, the right wing envisage a bonfire of regulations, low taxes, trade of an unimaginable freedom, outside the EU.
The right wing are barking. Their latest proposal has a steampunk flavour about it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41232991
[Amusingly, Legatum are connected via 'Baroness' Stroud to the rump of what would pass for a Religious Right in the UK].
quote:The other EU nations and the Commission have been worried for years about UK imports, because enforcement of the standards has been so lax (mostly a result of cut backs affecting staff numbers and morale) that the UK is the choice port of entry for sub-standard goods to the EU.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I've heard that if the UK did start to import crap US food, such as the mythical chlorinated chickens, the EU inspection regime would be micro-managed to prevent dross slipping through.
quote:The latter in particular seems to capture David Davis' entire negotiating strategy.
"IT WAS a wise Irish civil servant who told me once, years ago, that the time to be afraid of British negotiators was when they offered a flurry of ideas. “Read them,” he said, “and you’ll notice one thing. They’re trying to trap you into discussing points of detail, so you end up ignoring the fundamentals.”
That’s why the British paper, which pretends that you can have a hard Brexit without hard borders, reminds me so much of the “angel papers” they used to produce during the Anglo-Irish negotiations.
They were called angel papers, and it was a British term, because they had no official standing. A paper could be produced full of the kind of language in which an agreement could be framed. But it would be presented as “random thoughts” or “musings”. If you didn’t like them, no harm done. "
quote:Any flag retailer?
Originally posted by Eirenist:
My main difficulty in carrying out this plan (much to my wife's relief) is the unavailabilty, in the UK, of a readily available source of EU flags. Can shipmates suggest any solution?
quote:There are lots of flag manufacturers with websites. They'll make whatever you want.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Such as?
quote:Amazon will sell flags and ship them via Prime. I assume you should be able to find such things on ebay also.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Such as?
quote:The ECJ is a court of the EU.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Since the ECJ already has a body with that kind of responsibility there's no reason why a new body needs to be set up.
quote:I think the EU basically is saying that this is the deal, take it or leave it: if you want to sell freely into the market you need to be subject to the ECJ as if you were an EU state.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The ECJ is a court of the EU.
Would you agree that a treaty between the UK and USA should have the US Supreme Court as ultimate arbiter? No, you wouldn't, because you might reasonably suspect that SCOTUS might be just a touch partisan.
Would you agree that a new court, consisting of the 9-member SCOTUS plus one UK judge, should govern such a treaty? No, you wouldn't agree to that either.
So why would the UK agree to a UK/EU treaty being arbitrated by a body consisting of 27 EU judges and one UK judge?
quote:I think you're partly right. I did some reading up on EFTA. EFTA has its own court system to rule on implementation of EU law in EFTA nations. According to wikipedia the EFTA court was set up specifically because there were legal difficulties in giving the ECJ direct jurisdiction over non-EU nations. So you're right that a similar relationship has been considered in the past and found infeasible, though not I think for exactly the reason you're proposing.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
So why would the UK agree to a UK/EU treaty being arbitrated by a body consisting of 27 EU judges and one UK judge?
quote:Which is a reasonable thing to want to negotiate, certainly. Mutatis mutandis, it would not be sensible for the UK to rely on the goodwill of the EU system as regards its own citizens in Europe, which brings us back full circle.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore the EU does not want to rely on the goodwill of the UK system.
quote:If I understand wikipedia correctly, the ECJ is responsible under the relevant treaties with the three EFTA countries for ensuring that EFTA nationals in the EU are treated in accordance with the EU law.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:Which is a reasonable thing to want to negotiate, certainly. Mutatis mutandis, it would not be sensible for the UK to rely on the goodwill of the EU system as regards its own citizens in Europe, which brings us back full circle.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore the EU does not want to rely on the goodwill of the UK system.
quote:And who is responsible for ensuring that EU nationals are treated in accordance with the EFTA treaties when in the EFTA countries?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If I understand wikipedia correctly, the ECJ is responsible under the relevant treaties with the three EFTA countries for ensuring that EFTA nationals in the EU are treated in accordance with the EU law.
quote:Well, the Tory party conference is coming up.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Thanks, shipmates, for helpful suggestions on obtaining EU flag (and window protection). Now, can anyone suggest how I can find a fanatical horde?
quote:Only on a level of discourse. As long as there is a prospect of keeping power, the usual suspects will fulminate wildly and then obediently allow themselves to be herded through the division lobby.
Originally posted by roybart:
Is there any likelihood that the selection of a Brexit extremist as party leader (and therefore P.M., I assume) could trigger a split in the Tory party?
quote:Middle-aged pub bores who suffer from minor chronic pain and thus adopt a stance of weaponized viciousness to the rest of humanity.
Originally posted by roybart:
Also (with apologies for the double post), what is the basis of Johnson's support?
quote:Over half of the Tory rank and file are above 60, and you could argue that Johnson would be - in some ways - more 'realistic' a choice to such people than Hague, Howard or IDS. He has some name recognition and is seen by them as something of a 'character' - plus if he takes a hard brexit line, enough of them may be willing to hold their nose and vote for him on the basis that he will get the job done.
Originally posted by roybart:
And does the Tory party (and Britain as a whole) have so many of these that they can elect a Party leader not to mention an electible PM?
quote:Boris can at least point to his comparative success while Mayor of London to show for his efforts, which neither Hague, IDS nor Howard can do. My feeing is that Boris is angling for the blue-rinse vote at conference, via the "Michael Heseltine effect".
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Over half of the Tory rank and file are above 60, and you could argue that Johnson would be - in some ways - more 'realistic' a choice to such people than Hague, Howard or IDS. He has some name recognition and is seen by them as something of a 'character' - plus if he takes a hard brexit line, enough of them may be willing to hold their nose and vote for him on the basis that he will get the job done.
Originally posted by roybart:
And does the Tory party (and Britain as a whole) have so many of these that they can elect a Party leader not to mention an electible PM?
quote:That's mainly me, but I'm a Corbynista. Well I would be if he'd had his head above the parapet for a month and more it feels like.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Middle-aged pub bores who suffer from minor chronic pain and thus adopt a stance of weaponized viciousness to the rest of humanity.
Originally posted by roybart:
Also (with apologies for the double post), what is the basis of Johnson's support?
The same people who like Clarkson and Farage.
quote:The blue-rinse vote is important at conference and they do turn out to vote. Moreover many of them fell for the scare tactics about Corbyn being a Sinn Feiner last time around. I wonder if that will change now that the government has got into bed with "the other lot"?
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Is the blue-rinse vote enough to win elections these days? It seems to me that relying on the votes of older people is precisely what brought about Mrs. May’s downfall in the last election.
People under thirty are waking up to the fact that need to take an interest in politics. And they are voting for the Labour party.
quote:Well, I don't pretend it's a winning strategy necessarily - just that they need to think that it might be.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Is the blue-rinse vote enough to win elections these days? It seems to me that relying on the votes of older people is precisely what brought about Mrs. May’s downfall in the last election.
quote:Doubt it. The DUP is not linked with terrorists who conducted campaigns on the mainland, and the gutter press is being careful not to draw everyone's attention to just how vile they are.
Moreover many of them fell for the scare tactics about Corbyn being a Sinn Feiner last time around. I wonder if that will change now that the government has got into bed with "the other lot"?
quote:It looks that way. Presumably, he is trying to preempt May's speech on Friday; there are rumours that she is going to suggest some payments to EU in return for a deal, so the Ultras will probably try to undermine that.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Over half of the Tory rank and file are above 60, and you could argue that Johnson would be - in some ways - more 'realistic' a choice to such people than Hague, Howard or IDS. He has some name recognition and is seen by them as something of a 'character' - plus if he takes a hard brexit line, enough of them may be willing to hold their nose and vote for him on the basis that he will get the job done.
Originally posted by roybart:
And does the Tory party (and Britain as a whole) have so many of these that they can elect a Party leader not to mention an electible PM?
quote:Link
Originally posted by Jane R:
Sioni Sais:quote:Doubt it. The DUP is not linked with terrorists who conducted campaigns on the mainland, and the gutter press is being careful not to draw everyone's attention to just how vile they are.
Moreover many of them fell for the scare tactics about Corbyn being a Sinn Feiner last time around. I wonder if that will change now that the government has got into bed with "the other lot"?
quote:By 'comparative' you mean in relation to Hague et al? I wouldn't have described Johnson's time in London as a success relative to anyone else. Leaving aside all the white elephants he managed the considerable feat of bringing in a new make of bus that turned out even more unpopular than Livingstone's bendy buses which it was supposed to replace.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Boris can at least point to his comparative success while Mayor of London to show for his efforts, which neither Hague, IDS nor Howard can do. My feeing is that Boris is angling for the blue-rinse vote at conference, via the "Michael Heseltine effect".
quote:You missed charm. He does have charm and that works for a surprising number of people, even those who don't like him.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I suppose Johnson's basic appeal is that he looks posh, which gives the Tories a warm feeling, and he looks authentic because you can't imagine anyone calculating being so blatantly untruthful.
quote:Boris’ problem is that he’s yesterday’s shiny new thing. He’s been replaced by Rees-Mogg (or Moggy FFS) and Ruth Davidson etc. Both are better politicians and totally showing him up. He’s also heavily linked with Brexit. If / when it all goes horribly wrong, there’s only so much blame he’s going to be able to shift. Same goes for the Tories. Brexit is totally their thing.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:You missed charm. He does have charm and that works for a surprising number of people, even those who don't like him.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I suppose Johnson's basic appeal is that he looks posh, which gives the Tories a warm feeling, and he looks authentic because you can't imagine anyone calculating being so blatantly untruthful.
Charm, personality, charisma; all things that get people elected and forgiven.
With Boris it is natural and calculated at once. But it works.
quote:It is hard to disagree that this quote from a recent LRB isn't accurate:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Quite right fletcher. If Jeremy Clarkson was in politics his method and message would be the same: well educated, smart, but plays dumb.
quote:Indeed, Boris isn't playing to the electorate at large. He's only addressing the members of the Conservative Party, and more specifically those who get heard at Conference. It's still all about the internal feuds of the Tories, played out at the expense of the nation.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:The blue-rinse vote is important at conference and they do turn out to vote.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Is the blue-rinse vote enough to win elections these days? It seems to me that relying on the votes of older people is precisely what brought about Mrs. May’s downfall in the last election.
quote:To paraphrase William Hague's article in the Telegraph, if the Tories don't get their shit together, who gets to be the next party leader is irrelevant. Corybn will be PM.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Indeed, Boris isn't playing to the electorate at large. He's only addressing the members of the Conservative Party, and more specifically those who get heard at Conference. It's still all about the internal feuds of the Tories, played out at the expense of the nation.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:The blue-rinse vote is important at conference and they do turn out to vote.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Is the blue-rinse vote enough to win elections these days? It seems to me that relying on the votes of older people is precisely what brought about Mrs. May’s downfall in the last election.
quote:Which sounds awfully like, "We made this mess but it's your job to clean it up". Which I'm sure will go down delightfully with Barnier and the EU leaders who, er, haven't been invited to what is apparently a very important Brexit-related speech.
While the UK’s departure from the EU is inevitably a difficult process, it is in all of our interests for our negotiations to succeed … so I believe we share a profound sense of responsibility to make this change work smoothly and sensibly, not just for people today but for the next generation who will inherit the world we leave them.
quote:Just remember that the referendum was supposed to break the log-jam, then the recent election (which only made the Irish border question more complicated) and now there is the hope that the conference of one political party, rather than negotiations, will do so.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This speech is supposed to break the log-jam. But hasn't this been created by UK reluctance to discuss the EU citizens, the leaving payment, and Ireland? If the UK got a move on with these, there would be no log-jam.
But there is probably another agenda going on - the Tory party conference coming up. May will be able to go there and say that she is being productive, but the nasty EU won't help.
I was amused to see that some journos are saying that Barnier has already replied to May's speech, in Rome, just to upstage her.
quote:Some of them are - maybe - but at this point the Tory party could hardly be said to speak with one voice.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think what May is basically admitting is that the whole idea all along was to refuse to properly participate in a discussion with the EU - because the basis on which the EU wants to negotiate is not acceptable to the Tories - and so they're hoping to keep kicking the can down the road until after the German General Election.
quote:Deliberate or not, this is the inevitable end point of the negotiations at present.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The next step should be interesting, as May has given very little detail on the 3 outstanding items, so will the EU say, not enough?
More paranoid people are saying that this is deliberate, and May intends to crash the negotiations.
quote:Complete with 80% of housing stock owned by the state?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Singapoor here we come.
quote:No, no, no, no, no Chris. None of that silly bolshie nonsense. Zero tax for rich foreigners, especially if they buy up all social housing and everything behind the façade of state health and 'social' care and education. Free London offices for all foreign banks. See how it'll all trickle down!
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Complete with 80% of housing stock owned by the state?
Originally posted by Martin60:
Singapoor here we come.
quote:Absolutely. My point was more that those (mainly on the right) who point at Singapore as a possible model blithely ignore all the ways in which Singapore is a very different society and focus narrowly on economics and low headline rates of income tax, ignoring public ownership of housing, compulsory savings, the very low dependency ratio and comparatively high rates of migration that keep everything balanced.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's a lot to be said for public ownership of housing stock. Lack of affordable housing is one of the big issues facing the UK at the moment
quote:I don't think we were - we were reacting to Martin's point (which I assumed was made facetiously) that the UK could become like Singapore.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you're all missing the main point:
quote:Fair enough, I'm sure Martin was being facetious too. I think there is a danger of saying aloud things like "what is going to become of the NHS post-Brexit" without recognising that there is a great danger that we'll not have an NHS if we can't get exports.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I don't think we were - we were reacting to Martin's point (which I assumed was made facetiously) that the UK could become like Singapore.
quote:Absolutely correct. Some are stupid, some are selfish, some are ignorant...
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but I think some of us need to remind ourselves that not every one of them is insane.
quote:Who said they were insane? It is clear that at least some of them are of the notion that it would be a good idea to shrink the state - and perhaps from their point of view this would make perfect sense. Equally it's clear that there are others who for all their fine words will - when it comes to a vote - obediently march through the correct division lobby.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but I think some of us need to remind ourselves that not every one of them is insane.
quote:Bit of a straw man, isn't it? I think the Tories are dicking around with Brexit, and with the country in general, but they are getting it away with it. This is partly because a lot of people probably don't have a clue what Brexit involves. See the amazement when somebody suggested that air travel could be affected. Who knew?
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I'm no Tory, but I think some of us need to remind ourselves that not every one of them is insane.
quote:EVERYONE is dicking around with Brexit. So much so that I often say, without any blasphemous intent, "Jesus where are we?" The one day consensus between Boris and Hammond over Theresa's speech has blown apart again over the weekend. Nigel Farage says that a two year implementation is "two fingers to 17.4 million people" and now threatens to form a new Brexit party. In the meanwhile, the Labour Party Conference has refused to discuss Brexit, while hundreds of ardent socialists protest outside that Brexit should be reversed. So let's not pretend that Labour has any unity on the subject either.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories are dicking around with Brexit
quote:You are talking like there is a wonderful solution to this mess, if only people put their minds to it.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In the meanwhile, the Labour Party Conference has refused to discuss Brexit, while hundreds of ardent socialists protest outside that Brexit should be reversed. So let's not pretend that Labour has any unity on the subject either.
quote:You're not being expelled - the UK voted to leave. That's not the EU's fault.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Sorry I meant to add that the only likely outcome of this is the hardest Brexit, because the mood in much of Europe is that we should be expelled without a deal in 2019. Saints preserve us. Again no blasphemy!
quote:I have to say this ongoing complaint irks me as much as those still protesting that Hillary won the popular vote.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
against the wishes of the majority of the UK electorate.
quote:It's simple maths, and the effect of not having put a defined question before the electorate. 16.1M people voted to remain in the EU. 17.4M voted for some form of Brexit - how many of those would have voted for what the government is cobbling together is an unknown, but it would only take 1M of those people to have voted Remain if they had known what form of Leave they were going to get and we wouldn't be in this mess.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I have to say this ongoing complaint irks me as much as those still protesting that Hillary won the popular vote.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
against the wishes of the majority of the UK electorate.
quote:It never occurred to any of the "Remainers" that the vote would go against them, certainly not Cameron, Osborne and their friends. Even Theresa May was for staying. Their complacency including an unwillingness of the "Remain" Tories to campaign against a noisy, prejudiced and disreputable minority within their parliamentary party caused the mess we are in in now, and shall be for many years to come.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've no doubt you're right, but as far as I know the Remain campaign accepted the terms of the referendum. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I don't remember any protests on the part of Remainers in that respect prior to the vote, or calls for a supermajority to apply.
Things are very different, say, from the arguments about the SSM "survey" in Australia, whose defects are being pointed out ahead of any result.
quote:I think this can be stated in terms of the result but I'm not sure it was actually that straight forward at all. It may have been in a large part to how it was reported here, but there was more than an explicit suggestion that it boiled down to three specific issues:
....17.4M voted for some form of Brexit...
quote:There is something surreal about the reversal which goes on for the Ultras, whereby the UK wish to become a third country is converted into the EU expelling the UK! It reminds me of violent husbands saying, 'she made me do it'.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:You're not being expelled - the UK voted to leave. That's not the EU's fault.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Sorry I meant to add that the only likely outcome of this is the hardest Brexit, because the mood in much of Europe is that we should be expelled without a deal in 2019. Saints preserve us. Again no blasphemy!
quote:and as this Irish Times article points out, all she did was kick the can down the road while explicitly ruling out all the possible deals that the EU currently already has mechanisms for, which means the UK is still in 'have cake and eat it' territory.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Similarly, Mrs May has still not given any detail on the 3 outstanding issues about withdrawal, but presumably, the Tories will say that the EU are being obdurate.
quote:I think the same is true of the 3 issues - EU citizens, Ireland, and final payment. I don't think Barnier dreamed these up one night after too much Belgian beer, but they follow logically from the EU procedures for leaving.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:and as this Irish Times article points out, all she did was kick the can down the road while explicitly ruling out all the possible deals that the EU currently already has mechanisms for, which means the UK is still in 'have cake and eat it' territory.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Similarly, Mrs May has still not given any detail on the 3 outstanding issues about withdrawal, but presumably, the Tories will say that the EU are being obdurate.
quote:From one point of view, that makes sense. If you take the long-term view, the important question is "what sort of relationship should the UK have with the EU in the future" and the precise details of the transition are of second order.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But the Tories seem to want to do a trade deal, before doing a secession deal.
quote:(At least some of) the Tories want an EEA type arrangement, that includes a customs union and an FTA in goods and services. Simultaneously an overlapping subset want no freedom of movement, no payment to the EU, freedom to set any and all regulation of products (or none).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But you could argue that the Tories are being very picky about doing a trade deal. They are rejecting various avenues, such as EEA
quote:Though, several prominent Leave campaigners were perfectly happy to talk about EEA membership - because that was the future relationship with the EU that they wanted. From what I saw at the time of the campaign, that position was particularly popular among fishing communities - it retains the EU market for British caught fish, but removes much of the European fisheries regulations.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the interesting points about Brexit, is that being in the EEA is not the same as being in the EU.
You would think that this would have been discussed before the referendum, but that would be to over-estimate the ability of politicians.
quote:Which is my point. That number can not be interpreted in a straight forward manner at all.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Alan:
quote:I think this can be stated in terms of the result but I'm not sure it was actually that straight forward at all.
....17.4M voted for some form of Brexit...
quote:Or because it suited them to allude to such a thing - because in general there was a fair constituency of people who would support the idea that the 'EU should go back to being a purely free trade area' - whether they were actually that sincere in referring to the EEA/EFTA is open to question (see the various videos of people like Farage, Hannan etc).
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, several prominent Leave campaigners were perfectly happy to talk about EEA membership - because that was the future relationship with the EU that they wanted.
quote:Well, probably more accurately, not enough people saw fit to challenge them, or no one who was heard. I know when this last came up, I couldn't find any posts where I had expressed issues with the lack of a definition of Brexit before the referendum was held, so I can't put down evidence that I was asking how anyone could make an informed choice between the options we were given before the vote took place. But, I'm sure there were people making those points.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As discussed on the other thread, they were indeed allowed (unlike the Catalonians), and that is what democracy is all about.
Them's was the rules, and nobody saw fit to challenge them before the outcome.
quote:Yes, I've noticed that the various North blogs on Brexit are now sounding very alarmed by the way things are going, or rather, not going. I suppose the influence of the Ultras was under-estimated, and also the paralysis of May, Davis, et. al.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
It appears that the more self-aware Brexiters are already setting the stage to be able to blame 'the wrong sort of Brexit' for any ill effects:
http://archive.is/K6jsf
quote:If the UK walks out without a deal, it won't be taking the ball with it but leaving the ball behind.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting arguments going on about preparing for no deal, in the sense of putting money aside for it. Because it could cost a ton of money, if you think of special lorry parks, inspection offices for goods, inspectors of goods, rerouting of certain routes, various arrangements on the Irish border, and so on.
This is a bit like playing chicken - or is it bluff? Do the UK govt really anticipate walking out with no deal, or is that a threat to the EU? If you don't play, we'll run away with the ball.
quote:They will end up either tearing the country apart, tearing their party apart, or both.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's only one logical option. Which, of course, the government won't take.
quote:FWIW I do find the 'is a bad deal better than no deal?' question a little bit disingenuous because it's not really clear what's being asked.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Back to the "No deal" scenario: Amber Rudd, the (spectacularly hapless) Home Secretary now says that would be "Unthinkable".. On the other hand, David Davis (Brexit minister and more useless still) defended the "No deal" option.
quote:Can you actually map that option out?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's only one logical option. Which, of course, the government won't take.
quote:But "better" or "worse" depends on your point of view. Consider a UK-EU trade deal that incorporated freedom of movement. Is that "good" or "bad"? That all depends on your opinion of the freedom of movement. Most remainers would argue that freedom of movement and immigration is good for us, and so that's a good deal. Brexiteers would argue that we left the EU to get away from that, and so being forced to agree to it to get a trade deal would be a bad deal.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
if the EU is reasonable, and is inclined to make deals, then the deal it offers must be better than WTO because offering anything else would be a waste of everyone's time.
quote:I think the difficulty is that other EU states seem to have devised ways to limit EU citizen's freedom of movement in ways that the UK hasn't, and whilst I think some Brexiteers might have accepted a model that was (for example) more like Belgium's rules regarding movement, that's really hard to row back to from where we (the British) are now.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But "better" or "worse" depends on your point of view. Consider a UK-EU trade deal that incorporated freedom of movement. Is that "good" or "bad"? That all depends on your opinion of the freedom of movement. Most remainers would argue that freedom of movement and immigration is good for us, and so that's a good deal. Brexiteers would argue that we left the EU to get away from that, and so being forced to agree to it to get a trade deal would be a bad deal.
quote:That's an excellent point - and further illustrates why the question is disingenuous. It is a question about something other than what it seems to be about.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
But "better" or "worse" depends on your point of view. Consider a UK-EU trade deal that incorporated freedom of movement. Is that "good" or "bad"? That all depends on your opinion of the freedom of movement. Most remainers would argue that freedom of movement and immigration is good for us, and so that's a good deal. Brexiteers would argue that we left the EU to get away from that, and so being forced to agree to it to get a trade deal would be a bad deal.
quote:The problem is that the government have a clear idea of what they want from Brexit, and therefore are not in a position to negotiate anything.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Can you actually map that option out?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's only one logical option. Which, of course, the government won't take.
quote:and the results you get are exactly what you'd expect to get if you asked people if they preferred the tough sounding option or the weak sounding option.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I do find the 'is a bad deal better than no deal?' question a little bit disingenuous because it's not really clear what's being asked.
quote:Largely by following the letter of EU Law, which is explictly drawn up around freedom of movement of 'labour' rather than of 'people':
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think the difficulty is that other EU states seem to have devised ways to limit EU citizen's freedom of movement in ways that the UK hasn't
quote:Once again this appears to me to be totally unrealistic and unreasonable, first and foremost because it basically attempts to put the EU-27 on hold while the UK sorts its mess out.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The logical solution, indeed ISTM the only reasonable option, is for the government to sort out what they want (...) Of course, that process will take an extended period of time, years if not decades.
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I hope the secret legal advice on revoking article 50 supports the idea that it can be done without further recourse to parliament.
quote:The one that voted to give the PM power to invoke article 50. I just think it's going to be better for the country if as few people as possible take the hit when it has to be reversed. And ultimately it will have to be, as it's becoming clear there's no such thing as a good Brexit. If we get some constitutional reform and improved oversight of the PM in the long term as a result then so much the better.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I hope the secret legal advice on revoking article 50 supports the idea that it can be done without further recourse to parliament.
What kind of banana monarchy is this?
quote:A decision has been enabled by the passage of an Act of Parliament (and that decision basically enshrined Parliament's acceptance of the referendum result).
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
It's not reversing the bill - the bill was enabling only. It gave power to the PM to make the decision. And the referendum itself was only ever advisory, and should never have been held in the first place (at least not in the form it was).
quote:It's not that it "sounds too EU-ish", it's that it doesn't deliver on the issue of sovreignty aka "taking back control". This even more than all that money for the NHS is the big lie that was sold to the Leavers.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The obvious solution is to go for EEA/EFTA, but the govt seem to have ruled that out, as it still sounds too EU-ish.
quote:There are a lot of big-talking middle-aged people on the interweb. I'd be fascinated to see how the "Gammons" would get off their computers, let alone take to the streets.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Brexiteers may be a minority but they are an especially vocal one and include an extreme fringe that would probably take any reversal to the streets.
quote:It can be done however is legal. The ardent Brexiteers aren't going to give a shit about process if they don't get to destroy the country the way they want, and doing it via the PM rather than parliament means the number of people forced to commit political suicide in order to achieve it can be minimised. I'd rather see it reversed in parliament with grand speeches given about why it's in the national interest, preferably accompanied by Boris, Gove, Davies and Fox in the pillory being pelted with rotten fruit but I'll settle for it happening legally in some fashion.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
How can that reasonably be undone except by another Act of Parliament, or be seen as anything other than political suicide by whichever government passes it?
quote:As I understand it, the NHS pays (all/some of) the costs of medical care for Brits abroad. Unless some kind of equivalent is found, then that's going to be a cost to the EU country, which presumably they're going to want to pass back to the British retiree.
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
On retirees: any British pensioner in Europe who voted to leave the EU is terminally stupid (and there were not negligible numbers of them). Whatever their legal status, I predict quite a lot of British pensioners are going to be headed back to Blighty in the next few years. I doubt most of them will get thrown out of the countries they’re living in. However, there is no reason why they would continue to be entitled to healthcare and social security benefits on the current terms once the UK is no longer subject to reciprocal EU arrangements. A lot of older British people in Spain may soon have to start shelling out for their own medical costs, and it’s going to be expensive.
quote:Let's start this response with this link from a Brexiter - in fact the person who wrote the 'Flexcit' paper that Brexiters were so found of quoting prior to the referendum:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Reneging on Brexit would be fuel to the far-right's fire.
quote:But we don't have to accept the lie. That is really rolling over and saying that the Daily Mail/Express faction hold all the aces.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:It's not that it "sounds too EU-ish", it's that it doesn't deliver on the issue of sovreignty aka "taking back control". This even more than all that money for the NHS is the big lie that was sold to the Leavers.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The obvious solution is to go for EEA/EFTA, but the govt seem to have ruled that out, as it still sounds too EU-ish.
Now that it has been sold, I wish the hard Brexiteers would set about making the best of that bad job and assume responsibility for that "control" they've "taken back".
quote:Britain seems to have a blind spot over this. On the one hand it mocks Trump but politically and socially acts like Trump and cheers on the far right in Europe. The rest of Europe looks on in fear and trembling. There appears a brazen attitude to diving headlong into the abyss, as if it might be funny and entertaining for a season. When people become this complacent and dismissive of democracy and actually begin to play games with it, if you add economic hardship on top the result will be far, far away from a laugh. I think the Tories should have a new campaign slogan: 'Things will only get worse'.
Imagine a 10th of that near apocalyptic rendering comes to pass - what does the extreme right do? Will they shut up? No. They'll double down and insist on an ever more extreme set of measures.
That kind of economic hardship will just metastasize them as a movement.
So the question is - do you want to take them on now, or later?
quote:Although Pete North's father has been writing reams of stuff about how the UK side are cocking up the negotiations, because they are looking over their shoulder at the Ultras, that is, the right wing. Richard has been advocating EEA or some version of it, and seems to hate the Ultras.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Let's start this response with this link from a Brexiter - in fact the person who wrote the 'Flexcit' paper that Brexiters were so found of quoting prior to the referendum:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Reneging on Brexit would be fuel to the far-right's fire.
http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/i-dont-like-this-brexit-but-i-will-live.html
Okay - so he goes all millenarian, but the fact is that that brand of weaponised viciousness ('it'll be good for those young people to have a period of hardship, what with their lattes and stuff'), seems to animate a lot of the more extreme pro-Brexit sentiment.
Imagine a 10th of that near apocalyptic rendering comes to pass - what does the extreme right do? Will they shut up? No. They'll double down and insist on an ever more extreme set of measures.
That kind of economic hardship will just metastasize them as a movement.
So the question is - do you want to take them on now, or later?
quote:I think the Ultras see this as a chance to dump the welfare state, and produce a low tax, low wage economy, utterly deregulated. Of course, they have Brexit as a useful fig-leaf. I'm not sure if the political establishment has the balls to unmask them.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Chris:
quote:Britain seems to have a blind spot over this. On the one hand it mocks Trump but politically and socially acts like Trump and cheers on the far right in Europe. The rest of Europe looks on in fear and trembling. There appears a brazen attitude to diving headlong into the abyss, as if it might be funny and entertaining for a season. When people become this complacent and dismissive of democracy and actually begin to play games with it, if you add economic hardship on top the result will be far, far away from a laugh. I think the Tories should have a new campaign slogan: 'Things will only get worse'.
Imagine a 10th of that near apocalyptic rendering comes to pass - what does the extreme right do? Will they shut up? No. They'll double down and insist on an ever more extreme set of measures.
That kind of economic hardship will just metastasize them as a movement.
So the question is - do you want to take them on now, or later?
quote:Not only inevitable; deliberate.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think the Tories should have a new campaign slogan: 'Things will only get worse'.
quote:At some point the refusal to take anything seriously, and the ability to turn everything into a joke becomes a serious liability in coping with reality.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Britain seems to have a blind spot over this. On the one hand it mocks Trump but politically and socially acts like Trump and cheers on the far right in Europe. The rest of Europe looks on in fear and trembling. There appears a brazen attitude to diving headlong into the abyss, as if it might be funny and entertaining for a season.
quote:I actually expect this too, to be honest, but I think it will be heavily flavoured with xenophobia and racism. You can't move towards isolationism and then declare yourself all welcoming and nice to strangers. If there is an over-riding British culture then it would surely be a profoundly Christian one, but recognising you are in fact your brothers keeper and that you should love your neighbour as yourself seems to be two of the elements that have been fecked out into the ditch fairly promptly. It doesn't really bode well for what will take the cultural space left behind. I also find it odd that the lower middle class seem to be the target. It seems to me that they already have the squeeze on them in the UK economy and are rapidly moving down the scale towards poverty. Brexit will surely hasten that. It seems even more odd to leave out the big business bods and their ridiculous bonuses and the wealthy elite and the titled and monied. I wonder if the blogger has certain connections.
I expect to see a cultural revolution where young people actually start doing surprising and reckless things again
quote:Yes, there is a very "The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate" feel to all of it.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It seems even more odd to leave out the big business bods and their ridiculous bonuses and the wealthy elite and the titled and monied. I wonder if the blogger has certain connections.
quote:You got them after they had been pulled out of the ground by East Europeans.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Tell you what, I have 20 kilos of turnips in storage, don't ask how I got them. I am willing to auction them, they make excellent soup, and of course, useful at Halloween. Any bids?
quote:May as well start now
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Let's start this response with this link from a Brexiter - in fact the person who wrote the 'Flexcit' paper that Brexiters were so found of quoting prior to the referendum:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Reneging on Brexit would be fuel to the far-right's fire.
http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/i-dont-like-this-brexit-but-i-will-live.html
Okay - so he goes all millenarian, but the fact is that that brand of weaponised viciousness ('it'll be good for those young people to have a period of hardship, what with their lattes and stuff'), seems to animate a lot of the more extreme pro-Brexit sentiment.
Imagine a 10th of that near apocalyptic rendering comes to pass - what does the extreme right do? Will they shut up? No. They'll double down and insist on an ever more extreme set of measures.
That kind of economic hardship will just metastasize them as a movement.
So the question is - do you want to take them on now, or later?
I used some quotes from that blog post to point out to my MP that no one voted for that particular shit-show so she might want to vote for the various amendments designed to prevent it. Unless she's looking for the Tories to go the way of the Liberals.* Haven't had a reply yet though. quote:But will they blame Brexit? I suspect not. I think they will more likely blame the EU for being "unreasonable".
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It was largely the despised lower middle classes who voted for Brexit. One of the reasons they did so was because they believed that it would protect their jobs, services and communities. Once they find out that they've been conned - again - they will be in a poisonous mood.
quote:I don't necessarily agree with (1), or at least I think even if the majority of people are not fooled, the direction is still set by the vocal majority that is.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I think that (1) a lot of people will not be fooled - not everyone is that stupid and (2) this powderkeg will blow sometime, whatever we do now, and the landing will be softer if the economy is still in reasonable shape.
quote:If article 50 is revoked, we haven't left. There is no "readmission". Clearly the UK will be about as welcome and as relevant as a stale fart at the EU negotiating table in that scenario, but all the vetos that are still in place will remain. The "deal" that was offered to Cameron before the referendum is off the table, but that deal had no content anyway, so that makes no difference.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And even assuming this domestic upheaval was somehow contained, once again your aspiration seems to assume the EU will welcome back the prodigal with open arms. I just can't see this happening. Any agreement by the 27 to let the UK back in will be on far different terms, with joining the Euro probably topping the list.
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If article 50 is revoked, we haven't left. There is no "readmission".
quote:The EU-27 cannot simply pretend the UK never began the withdrawal process; it has already had too many real-world consequences. And it cannot afford to pretend that for fear of other countries engaging in the same stupidity.
starts the withdrawal process
quote:Not doing the right thing because you don't want to deal with potential violence seems like cowardice. And, somewhat akin to giving in to terrorism.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's not the internet denizens I'm concerned about, more the people behind racially-motivated attacks.
Reneging on Brexit would be fuel to the far-right's fire.
quote:I was responding to the suggestion that Brexit could be undone without fuss because the only people who might object would be elderly keyboard warriors.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Not doing the right thing because you don't want to deal with potential violence seems like cowardice. And, somewhat akin to giving in to terrorism.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It's not the internet denizens I'm concerned about, more the people behind racially-motivated attacks.
Reneging on Brexit would be fuel to the far-right's fire.
quote:The problem with this, fundamentally, is that a majority of those who voted Leave did not vote for a substantial worsening of their lives. Because that was never on the voting slip during the referendum.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was responding to the suggestion that Brexit could be undone without fuss because the only people who might object would be elderly keyboard warriors.
The fundamental reason I think Brexit should not be undone, especially by means of some secret legal artifice, as was suggested upthread, is because that would be a denial of the democratic and parliamentary process, and I think that would do more damage to the UK long term than accepting the consequences of Brexit.
If accusations of cowardice are to be made, they should be laid at the door of political leaders who seem incapable of doing just that.
quote:This sounds unfortunately like an echo of the "it's all the EU's fault" mantra people are said to be rehearsing. If the UK cocks up the exit process it's adopted, that's hardly the EU-27's fault.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
A scenario whereby the EU refuses to budge forcing the UK to a no-deal exit seems fairly likely at this juncture.
quote:It might not technically be "readmission", but the point I keep trying to make is that whatever happens, it will not be "carrying on as before".
Some legal experts say that the A50 notification can then be undone, which presumably would mean that the UK carries on as before
quote:If the EU is dead anyway then the Brexiteers are right and should be organising accordingly. At the moment, however, it just seems to be perpetual dithering for which the EU-27 will somehow be blamed.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think it matters anyway: whether or not the UK eventually leaves, the EU is dead.
quote:That would certainly be better than the legal smoke and mirrors you seemed to be referring to previously.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Well let's have a second referendum now we know the mess we're in - no problem with democratic or parliamentary process then, is there?
quote:I'm not even sure about that. I think there's a trend for "up yours and damn the consequences" votes.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The problem with this, fundamentally, is that a majority of those who voted Leave did not vote for a substantial worsening of their lives.
quote:Agreed. But then it isn't particularly the UK's fault if it wants to continue as before and the EU laws let it. Them's the rules.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This sounds unfortunately like an echo of the "it's all the EU's fault" mantra people are said to be rehearsing. If the UK cocks up the exit process it's adopted, that's hardly the EU-27's fault.
quote:I'm sure there is some truth there, although if Horizon 2020 is anything to go by, then this can be quickly untangled if the UK decides not to leave. All that has happened with H2020 is that British partners are not being accepted in new projects. If the situation changes, then new projects will be able to include British partners as before.
It might not technically be "readmission", but the point I keep trying to make is that whatever happens, it will not be "carrying on as before".
To name but one issue I'm running across this morning in my day job, EU cross-border programmes and the related funding have all shifted away from the UK.
And as I said earlier, much of the trust in the UK as a committed partner to the EU will have been eroded.
quote:Well there are some things that the Brexiteers are right about. The EU needs reform, the Euro isn't working out particularly well and a small number of countries are contributing a lot to help a good number of countries who only benefit.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If the EU is dead anyway then the Brexiteers are right and should be organising accordingly. At the moment, however, it just seems to be perpetual dithering for which the EU-27 will somehow be blamed.
quote:This is not directly related to what you've written above, but I've noticed some splintering of pro-European lefty support because of the Catalonian vote. I've seen some vocal supporters of Remain who say that Catalonia has shown them how messed up the whole project is.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I'm not even sure about that. I think there's a trend for "up yours and damn the consequences" votes.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The problem with this, fundamentally, is that a majority of those who voted Leave did not vote for a substantial worsening of their lives.
I've spoken to more than one person who has expressed their intention to vote for an extreme party on the basis that "I know it will make things worse for everyone (me included), but that way all those other people get to suffer too" (yes, really).
My feeling is that this perverse sense of justice played a big part of the far-right and far-left votes in France's presidential election, as well as the Trump vote and the Brexit vote; it certainly seems to be the thinking in the blogpost Chris Stiles referred to.
quote:The government has received legal advice on this question. But, along with a large number of other impact studies, are locked away and we don't know what that advice is. All these studies and advice were funded by tax revenue, but the government has refused to release them - either to MPs or in response to freedom of information requests - and there is a case pending in the High Court.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Some legal experts say that the A50 notification can then be undone, which presumably would mean that the UK carries on as before.
quote:I imagine that at this point the UK is considered to be a less reliable partner by *every* country considering making a trade agreement with it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And as I said earlier, much of the trust in the UK as a committed partner to the EU will have been eroded.
quote:Either:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It will be interesting to see how political parties react, if we end up on the cliff-edge, that is, about to crash out of the EU, with no agreement on regulations and trade.
I suppose the Ultras will opine, this is the will of the British people, even if you can't drive a lorry to France, and planes can't take off. So be it. This of course, is a lie, but there you are, just one more.
But probably others will be more pragmatic and devise some emergency means of avoiding this.
I suppose some of the Ultras believe that by going up to the cliff-edge, the EU will be forced to concede more. I wouldn't count on it.
code:So one can imagine that it is possible that Downing Street is aware of the unimaginable difficulties of going it alone for a hard no-deal Brexit but is prepared to risk it because they believe that the problems created for the EU would be massive.EU
No Compromise Compromise
NC very bad UK win, EU
for all lose
UK
C Politically Everyone wins
impossible
quote:Get a large glass house and grow my own?
Originally posted by simontoad:
I had a really nice mango yesterday, juicy and sweet. I understand that you won't have mangoes after you leave the EU. Sad.
quote:No, I don't think it is correct. Even if they have accidentally stumbled on the right strategy from a game theory point of view, their execution is off.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been refreshing my memory on the basics of game theory. If it is correct that the Tories are trying to manipulate game theory to get the result that they want, their strategy might make sense.
quote:Very clear article. I can't remember if someone has told the old joke on this thread - during a negotiation, one man takes his gun out, puts it to his head, and says, 'if you don't agree to my terms, I'll shoot.'
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:No, I don't think it is correct. Even if they have accidentally stumbled on the right strategy from a game theory point of view, their execution is off.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been refreshing my memory on the basics of game theory. If it is correct that the Tories are trying to manipulate game theory to get the result that they want, their strategy might make sense.
Going back to Greece, iff you assumed the same premises Varoufakis did (and he overestimated his internal and external hands) then what he tried to do was logical from a game theory perspective. The Tories have started off with an incorrect set of premises and don't have any idea how to execute on that. They have a number of misconceptions on what the EU is trying to do, and because they are fighting internally their only position is that of Violet Elizabeth Bott ("I shall thcream and thcream until I'm thick")
http://howshouldyouvote.co.uk/collapse/ is clear description of the current stage of the talks.
quote:I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that they really ARE that stupid. They say they're planning to make the UK more like Singapore, but really we're going to end up as Europe's answer to North Korea.
Bollocks, I really hope this isn't how their negotiation strategy looks.
quote:The problem for the Tories is that it is a) perfectly transparent that this is what they're doing, and therefore only creates resentment on the other side; b) while the EU does not want a no oompromise situation, nevertheless the EU has less to lose than the UK does from a no compromise situation, and therefore they are in a position to adopt exactly the same strategy.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been refreshing my memory on the basics of game theory. If it is correct that the Tories are trying to manipulate game theory to get the result that they want, their strategy might make sense. They refuse to co-operate with the way that the other side wants to negotiate, they are generally unhelpful, they state that the no-deal wouldn't be a big deal.
quote:On the latter, we agree. If the UK turns around and says "actually, wait, we're staying" then it will have no credibility in the EU for a generation.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In the extremely unlikely event of the withdrawal process not being completed, the terms on which the UK remains in the EU will be very, very different to what it had before the referendum.
Not least because of its hugely damaged credibility.
quote:I notice that at the end of that article, he says, 'the mandate is gone', meaning that nobody voted for hard Brexit, and therefore we can revoke the referendum. It's a disputatious point, but I think it's a credible one.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:No, I don't think it is correct. Even if they have accidentally stumbled on the right strategy from a game theory point of view, their execution is off.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I've been refreshing my memory on the basics of game theory. If it is correct that the Tories are trying to manipulate game theory to get the result that they want, their strategy might make sense.
Going back to Greece, iff you assumed the same premises Varoufakis did (and he overestimated his internal and external hands) then what he tried to do was logical from a game theory perspective. The Tories have started off with an incorrect set of premises and don't have any idea how to execute on that. They have a number of misconceptions on what the EU is trying to do, and because they are fighting internally their only position is that of Violet Elizabeth Bott ("I shall thcream and thcream until I'm thick")
http://howshouldyouvote.co.uk/collapse/ is clear description of the current stage of the talks.
quote:Something like this?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I can't remember if someone has told the old joke on this thread - during a negotiation, one man takes his gun out, puts it to his head, and says, 'if you don't agree to my terms, I'll shoot.'
quote:Brexiteers love to talk about how Europe (or possibly the World and even the Universe) needs us more than we need them, which is, of course, bollocks. However, I do think whilst Britain would need to show a bit of humility and would need to work hard to restore trust, but I don't think if Britain did revoke A50 there would be major problems. Certainly compared to the cliff-edge scenario.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
On the latter, we agree. If the UK turns around and says "actually, wait, we're staying" then it will have no credibility in the EU for a generation.
On the former, we do not. Yes, invoking article 50 starts the withdrawal process - that's exactly what it says on the tin. If the UK revokes this declaration (and although much of the advice is secret, my understanding at the time was that there was some reasonable consensus that A50 was unilaterally revokable) then in legal terms, it is a nullity, and the UK remains an EU member on the same legal terms as before.
But I agree with you also that some of the reallocations of funding, relocations of EU bodies and so on will have long-term effects. It wouldn't just be waking up after a bad dream.
quote:Which is unrelated to its membership of otherwise of the EU, isn't it?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Geopolitically the UK is the biggest European player in NATO
quote:Technically yes. But I cannot believe that Brexit, especially a bad-tempered process with resentment all round, will do other than weaken NATO.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Which is unrelated to its membership of otherwise of the EU, isn't it?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Geopolitically the UK is the biggest European player in NATO
quote:Also, the EU is trying to negotiate (or has just negotiated) trade deals with other big nations. (From memory, I think one with Canada has just concluded and one with Japan is in the pipeline.) I don't understand why the EU (if it were acting rationally) would not want to conclude a good agreement with the world's fifth-largest economy while trying to conclude these other deals. It would send a terrible signal, wouldn't it?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
My reasoning here (and I may be wrong but...) is that from a self-image point of view, the EU will want to be seen to be magnanimous. More importantly is cash and geopolitics. The UK is a BIG contributor to the EU pot and the EU would be keen to keep that. Geopolitically the UK is the biggest European player in NATO and whilst our military is shrinking, it remains of notable size by European standards.
quote:They may well wish to have a trading agreement with the UK - however there are limited numbers of trade negotiators, and they'll want to be seen as a stable partner by continuing progress on the trade deals they already have in flight in preference to putting these on pause to get a trade deal with the UK.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't understand why the EU (if it were acting rationally) would not want to conclude a good agreement with the world's fifth-largest economy while trying to conclude these other deals. It would send a terrible signal, wouldn't it?
quote:Well I think we need each other. We both gain by thrashing out a satisfactory deal and we both possibly lose without one.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are assuming again the position of 'they need us more than we need them'
quote:You are assuming all countries in the EU are in a state of stasis, where the only decision that have to make is whether or not to make a deal with the UK.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Well I think we need each other. We both gain by thrashing out a satisfactory deal and we both possibly lose without one.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are assuming again the position of 'they need us more than we need them'
quote:You're assuming a lot of assumptions here. Governments presumably make lots of decisions about lots of things all of the time (some more important than others). Brexit is one of the issues that the EU has to deal with at the moment.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are assuming all countries in the EU are in a state of stasis, where the only decision that have to make is whether or not to make a deal with the UK.
quote:Well it could do that, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it would benefit from it.
In the case where the UK crashes out without a deal, the EU has a choice of how to deploy it's resources to minimize economic impact and maximize future economic benefits. If the UK has - at that point - proved to be a completely intransigent negotiating party (as it has done to date) then the EU may well decide that their resources are better occupied elsewhere doing other things.
quote:I think outside Brexit La-La Land everyone is well aware that the EU-27 are acting rationally. They have their negotiating strategy worked out. They have published position papers on what they want from the negotiations. The three key issues they identified for the initial negotiations are things that need to be agreed on urgently, and agreement on them is in both our interests.
I don't understand why the EU (if it were acting rationally) would not want to conclude a good agreement with the world's fifth-largest economy while trying to conclude these other deals. It would send a terrible signal, wouldn't it?
quote:It has been a net effect. The UK government has not made a long-lasting and serious proposal on any of the three items that the EU proposed for the initial negotiations. Their proposals - rarely put across formally - have either been vague, or swiftly undercut by multiple - often contradictory - caveats they make outside the formal negotiating process. That's not the way to negotiate if you are actually serious about achieving anything.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How, out of curiosity, do you think the UK has been 'completely intransigent'?
quote:When May appointed Fox, Davis and Johnson I'm sure she intended that they would fall on their swords before she had to. Now, I'm not so sure. She has taken a personal lead in the negotiations, is at odds with some of the "specialist" ministers, and as you suggest, the Ultras are lining up to push her over the cliff.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I assume that May/Davis dare not move on the money question. They have stuck on £20 billion, but if they were to increase this, the Mail/Telegraph coalition would get pretty wrathful, ditto the Ultras in parliament, and she might not survive.
quote:Faisal Islam on Twitter commented the average of hard brexiters is 70+ and reported that May was told in the Brexit Cabinet that Brexit was unsustainable unless young people buy into it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I assume that May/Davis dare not move on the money question. They have stuck on £20 billion, but if they were to increase this, the Mail/Telegraph coalition would get pretty wrathful, ditto the Ultras in parliament, and she might not survive.
quote:But if Brexit is achieved before the next election, that's the new political reality, isn't it? It's sort of done (except perhaps for some tinkering or refinement). It's unlikely that one of the major parties is going to go to the people with a pledge to rejoin the EU by that point. It'd be too late, surely?
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Faisal Islam on Twitter commented the average of hard brexiters is 70+ and reported that May was told in the Brexit Cabinet that Brexit was unsustainable unless young people buy into it.
Depending on who was doing the telling, reality may be dawning that they need to start thinking beyond that particular coalition in the longer term. If Brexit goes wrong, it won't matter who the leader is or what policies they're touting.
Tubbs
quote:When they say no deal they don't actually mean that. They mean some fudge that keeps the aeroplanes flying, cancer treatments available and imports / exports flowing. Unfortunately, that may not mean what anyone else means when they say no deal. (It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I challenged a Brexit acquaintance, who goes around triumphantly saying, of course we should cut all ties with Europe, I suppose a kind of no-deal on steroids.
I asked him how planes could fly over European airspace, or how food could be exported or imported, and of course, he backtracked, and said, well, there will have to be some arrangement or other.
So this no deal turns out to be a big deal, in fact. Am I mad, or is he mad, or are we both mad?
quote:It's a greater shame that those who were supportng the "Remain" campaign (including the current PM) didn't point out the unfavourable consequences of leaving.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
(It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).
Tubbs
quote:Brexit is one of the issues for the EU, and it isn't even the most important. Problems with the Euro, including the stresses in the system from problems in Greece, will be larger in their minds. As are the problems of dealing with a million plus refugees, and more arriving every day. The EU doesn't gain much by dropping those just to deal with British idiocy. Though, of course, they don't have to ... they've already set out their list of things that need to be sorted first and appointed a small, able team to handle the negotiations with the UK while the rest of the EU gets on with the business of sorting the more important issues. Going behind the negotiators and bothering individual governments with their own problems isn't going to be appreciated.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Governments presumably make lots of decisions about lots of things all of the time (some more important than others). Brexit is one of the issues that the EU has to deal with at the moment.
quote:Why too late? It would seem perfectly reasonable for a political party (or, several parties) to include an intention to rejoin the EU within their manifesto. If they get enough support and form a government then they get to enact the will of the people and start the process of rejoining the EU. Which will require some extensive negotiations with the EU, probably through several Parliaments ... so, maybe 10 years between election of a re-join EU government and it actually happening.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But if Brexit is achieved before the next election, that's the new political reality, isn't it? It's sort of done (except perhaps for some tinkering or refinement). It's unlikely that one of the major parties is going to go to the people with a pledge to rejoin the EU by that point. It'd be too late, surely?
quote:But that was just propaganda by the Remain side. (Actual quote from a Brexit voter I know and love). The Remain campaign was very focused on the economic consequences of leaving, which isn't going to resonate with everyone. They didn't focus so much on on the benefits of membership.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It's a greater shame that those who were supportng the "Remain" campaign (including the current PM) didn't point out the unfavourable consequences of leaving.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
(It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).
Tubbs
Oh yes, I remember. They did, and it got dubbed "Project Fear".
quote:There is no rationale about Brexit on any side. Sadly. That what's got the UK into this mess in the first place. Having spent 30 plus years rubbishing the EU and blaming them for all our problems, we've reaped what we've sowed.
Originally posted by Martin60:
Alan, stop trying to do rational. It doesn't work. Not in Tory party politics. This is ALL right wing chaos, there is no way out, the May good cop Davis bad cop farce will play out and the hard or soft Brexit burghers of Harwich will roam the streets eating each other in victory.
quote:The papers in South Wales didn't do much, but many politicians pointed out that a lot of South Wales is classed EU Objective 1 and 2 indicating that they are way behind London and the South-East economically and socially, so there are a lot of EU-funded social projects down here. Cornwall is in the same situation and within minutes of voting for Brexit successfully these areas, and others were squealing for Westminster to replace loss of EU funding. It was just one of those weird features, that the areas voting to leave were often those in receipt of substantial EU funding.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:But that was just propaganda by the Remain side. (Actual quote from a Brexit voter I know and love). The Remain campaign was very focused on the economic consequences of leaving, which isn't going to resonate with everyone. They didn't focus so much on on the benefits of membership.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:It's a greater shame that those who were supportng the "Remain" campaign (including the current PM) didn't point out the unfavourable consequences of leaving.
Originally posted by Tubbs:
(It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).
Tubbs
Oh yes, I remember. They did, and it got dubbed "Project Fear".
The Liverpool papers did some great stories about local buildings that had been restored using EU grants and encouraged people to go see the tangible benefits that the EU had given their communities ... And think about that when they voted. That probably helped the high Remain vote there. (And the fact that no one reads the Sun or any other Murdoch paper).
Tubbs
quote:I'm hoping, possibly against hope, that access to these accounts is conditional on membership of the EU/EEA + Swiss trading bloc.
Originally posted by Jane R:
Good grief. There goes another half a trillion pounds in foreign investment... doesn't this clown realise that businesses don't *like* uncertainty? Or does he just not care?
Just as well all the Brexiters have numbered Swiss bank accounts, isn't it.
quote:Some of the more 'moderate' leavers have written on this topic:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know how many Ultras are fans of disaster capitalism, but there might be some who would benefit from an economic collapse post-Brexit, and the consequent shrinking of the state, and the welfare state, and a reduction in wages and taxes. Presumably, they would be able to make big profits as happened in Russia. Deregulate above all else.
quote:Not strictly apropos this comment, but more generally, is it me or does there appear to be a bit of an overlap between those who shrug off any concerns about the possible consequences of a Corbyn-led government (run on the pound, flight of capital, etc.) and those who are very concerned about the worst possible consequences of Brexit?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know how many Ultras are fans of disaster capitalism...
quote:Yes of course it is possible amongst the minor parties as a minority interest, but I was thinking more in terms of the major parties. If there is a smooth-ish Brexit I suspect they (and much of the public) will be fed up of several years Euro-talk and want to move onto other things. Already I suspect a lot of soft Remainers would like us to just get on with the thing now we've voted the way we have.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Why too late? It would seem perfectly reasonable for a political party (or, several parties) to include an intention to rejoin the EU within their manifesto. If they get enough support and form a government then they get to enact the will of the people and start the process of rejoining the EU. Which will require some extensive negotiations with the EU, probably through several Parliaments ... so, maybe 10 years between election of a re-join EU government and it actually happening.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But if Brexit is achieved before the next election, that's the new political reality, isn't it? It's sort of done (except perhaps for some tinkering or refinement). It's unlikely that one of the major parties is going to go to the people with a pledge to rejoin the EU by that point. It'd be too late, surely?
Of course, the Tories are unlikely to say anything about EU membership in their manifesto for decades - it would just split the party into factions again. Labour under Corbyn don't look keen on rejoining the EU, and would probably face their own internal conflicts over the EU so would only propose rejoining once the disaster of Brexit is clear for all to see. Which of the current parties leaves the LibDems and Greens (and SNP/PC in Scotland/Wales) likely to be in favour of rejoining the EU. Who, to be honest, are not going to form a government in the immediate future. I see the potential for new political parties specifically to campaign for re-joining the EU (as UKIP formed to campaign to leave), though they will take time to gain momentum - and will need to do a UKIP and scare one of the larger parties into adopting their policies, since actually getting elected under FPTP is unlikely.
quote:The second is a set of fairly sober predictions of the real effects of the end of various trade and other agreements (views now endorsed by the more sober leave elements). The first is a set of fevered speculations from the pages of the Mail and Spectator, who seem to believe that mild european-style social democracy is the coming of Bolshevism itself. [You can tell they don't actually believe their arguments - as adoption of similar policies by the Tories doesn't provoke such panic].
Originally posted by Anglican't:
is it me or does there appear to be a bit of an overlap between those who shrug off any concerns about the possible consequences of a Corbyn-led government (run on the pound, flight of capital, etc.) and those who are very concerned about the worst possible consequences of Brexit?
quote:Please, I beg of you and all the other Brexiteers, do that! Actually show us how, when almost every credible economist in the world tells us that Brexit is the stupidest thing we have ever done as a country, a catastrophic act of self-harm, that somehow we are going to make a success of it. Show me how with a negotiating team that seem to think it is an enormous joke, where no-deal becomes increasingly more likely with each passing day we are going to have a future that is not bleak. Please, please, prove me wrong. I honestly want nothing more than to be wrong about Brexit.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
...Already I suspect a lot of soft Remainers would like us to just get on with the thing now we've voted the way we have.
quote:Well, possibly on this thread, but since you ask I would identify as one who is both very concerned about the worst possible consequences of Brexit and also very concerned about the worst possible consequences of a Corbyn-led government, perhaps even enough to vote for (say) BoJo despite my considerable contempt for him.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Not strictly apropos this comment, but more generally, is it me or does there appear to be a bit of an overlap between those who shrug off any concerns about the possible consequences of a Corbyn-led government (run on the pound, flight of capital, etc.) and those who are very concerned about the worst possible consequences of Brexit?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know how many Ultras are fans of disaster capitalism...
quote:And that they are being hounded by the lunatic right wing. Where are we going?
Originally posted by Jane R:
Nice to know our universities are staffed by rational people, isn't it. Who'd have thought...
quote:May's place in history will be as the second female PM and probably hated at least as much by the majority for allowing this stupid, harmful divisive Brexit (and loved by a minority) as the first - MT.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point on Richard North's blog - that we are being railroaded, so that for example, the EEA is not being considered as an option. Why not? Partly because for the Ultras, it is still too close to the EU. But Mrs May has pre-empted any discussion on it, and has simply ruled it out.
Then you get the chicanery over 'no-deal', which in fact, turns out not be no deal (which is impossible), and WTO terms, which are being misrepresented, as if they only involved tariffs.
So much deceit.
quote:ie, a choice between no-deal (while giving Davis free rein to achieve sod all)and no-deal (on the basis of disbanding Davis's department and leaving on WTO terms.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Haha, I've just realised that the MPs have a choice of Deal or No Deal.
Take a gamble and take a (hypothetical) deal or take a bigger gamble and don't.
quote:Unless Irish bureaucracy, business and engineering operate at an efficiency and speed unheard of in modern history, it has to have been in planning for years.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It would probably make sense even without Brexit, which is presumably why it's been planned for years.
quote:Kinda like Brexit then? That didn't happen overnight as far as I remember.
it has to have been in planning for years.
quote:To address some of the more general underlying points made here. Why would they give a 'cake and eat it deal' to the UK and not to the 3 largest economies in the world? The problem is the Brexiteers seem to think all trade deals done with anyone other than the EU are easy win-win deals, but the EU are irrational because they look to protect their interests. All the other countries will want deals that maximise their access to our markets and minimise damage to their embryonic industries.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Also, the EU is trying to negotiate (or has just negotiated) trade deals with other big nations. (From memory, I think one with Canada has just concluded and one with Japan is in the pipeline.) I don't understand why the EU (if it were acting rationally) would not want to conclude a good agreement with the world's fifth-largest economy while trying to conclude these other deals. It would send a terrible signal, wouldn't it?
quote:Because the problem child of the EU for the last three decades is clearly more important than the other 27 members and has kept the whole thing afloat and it will all collapse when the UK leaves. That's the thinking. Looks idiotic when you put it in black and white.
Why would they give a 'cake and eat it deal' to the UK and not to the 3 largest economies in the world?
quote:It does, doesn't it!
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Luigi:
quote:Because the problem child of the EU for the last three decades is clearly more important than the other 27 members and has kept the whole thing afloat and it will all collapse when the UK leaves. That's the thinking. Looks idiotic when you put it in black and white.
Why would they give a 'cake and eat it deal' to the UK and not to the 3 largest economies in the world?
quote:They're still working on the first two: one marked "Arse" and the other "Elbow".
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Very comical incident really, when the so-called 'impact assessments' on Brexit, are described as not being in the form that one might expect.
They are supposed to be 58 in number, but it looks as if they don't actually exist. Well, maybe there are 58 fag packets somewhere in the Brexit bureaucracy. Or maybe they are writing them now.
quote:On the contrary, they are exactly as the Remain campaigners suggested. Not convincingly enough though, which says nothing complementary about the British.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Very comical incident really, when the so-called 'impact assessments' on Brexit, are described as not being in the form that one might expect.
quote:I thought very much the same recently. The irony of course is that apart from "Back To Basics" (which Major himself said the other day had got hijacked), what really screwed Major with his small majority was Eurosceptic Tories agitating at a time when he had a small majority.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
This government now reminds me of John Major's around 1994 - stumbling along with no well-defined aims, lurching from crisis to fiasco, desperate to be put out of its misery. If May can pull them out of the dumper, she must possess qualities of leadership that she hasn't shown so far, to put it mildly.
quote:Possibly one for the unpopular opinions thread, but I've always rated John Major. There was a general level of competence there (almost entirely lacking now) which meant the whole thing didn't fall apart in the 1990s. He'd have soared with a supportive party.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
It was hard to see at the time that anyone would ever make Major look good. But now May carried on with Cameron's taste for gambling and she and Cameron both make Major look like one of the best we've had...
quote:True - I'd argue the crash was the final kiss of death on an inevitability though. The British public were in one of their "time for a change" moods and just didn't take to him as PM (after he'd spent most of the preceding decade polling as the most popular politician in the Labour party with the public).
Originally posted by Rocinante:
It was Brown's misfortune that the banking crisis happened on his watch. He bears some responsibility for that, but it was mostly caused by lax U.S. regulation over which he had no control.
quote:The cynical part of me can't help wondering if, given the dysfunctional Blair-Brown relationship, that's why Blair left it so long to stand down in favour of Brown - because he knew the project was running out of steam and he'd rather Brown, not him, had to deal with that.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
that's not party political btw - I've often thought Brown would have done better had he not become PM right at the fag end when everyone was losing patience and much of the New Labour project had been carried out.
quote:How accurate do Irish and UK Shipmates think that is?
“The argument today is the EU have come to the conclusion that after 12 months of looking at this that they believe to stay in the Single Market and to stay in the Customs Union is the only way you can avoid a border.
“Of course, the difficulty for that is the British Government don’t agree with that, the DUP don’t agree with that and the Irish Government do.”
quote:For completeness you do have
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bertie Ahern spells it out.
quote:I'm rather thrilled (in a morbid way) by the cold-war feel of a wall being built to keep the UK out of the EU, rather than the EU out of the UK. I can only imagine the Daily Wail headlines...
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
4. The EU agrees to establish a hard border between Eire and the rest of the UK.
quote:I don't understand this option.
5. All 27 countries of the EU follow the UK
quote:I chose Texas in my illustration precisely because I know it has occasional aspirations to secede and I think (hazily) that there are some issues about which parts might have once been Mexico or vice versa.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Well, Texas talking about secession is a long-running thing
quote:This pretty much echoes the popular thinking behind Brexit*, I would say.
TBH, when Texas does something that many of the rest of us find absurd or wrong, we're in favor of its secession (at least half-seriously). We'd keep Austin and Marfa, and anyone else that wants to stay.
quote:For further completeness.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:For completeness you do have
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bertie Ahern spells it out.
quote:I read that as the end of the EU. No single market, no customs union. Then the UK and Ireland are free to negotiate an open border deal between themselves.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I don't understand this option.
5. All 27 countries of the EU follow the UK
quote:I think that's basically accurate. Except I'd add that the British Government can't seem to agree to what colour the sky is, let alone agree on any particular policy position.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The article, linked a couple of posts up, included:
quote:How accurate do Irish and UK Shipmates think that is?
“The argument today is the EU have come to the conclusion that after 12 months of looking at this that they believe to stay in the Single Market and to stay in the Customs Union is the only way you can avoid a border.
“Of course, the difficulty for that is the British Government don’t agree with that, the DUP don’t agree with that and the Irish Government do.”
quote:Only if you wanted to screw up the Good Friday Agreement.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Weird question: Should the ethnic Irish in NI have a weighted vote, compared to the English Irish? (Just popped into my head.)
quote:The Good Friday Agreement binds the UK government to neutrality as far as Irish reunification is concerned. That is, if the people of Northern Ireland seem likely to support reunification, the British government is bound to support this as well.
Ok. If Ireland and NI decided to reunite, would the British/UK gov't send in the military to stop it?
quote:I don't think this is possible in one go.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
6. Northern Ireland becomes an independent nation state within the EU, or at least the single market and customs union.
quote:It would be by referendum. SF are making noises about it but I don't think they are serious yet. I think they know to wait and bide their time. The DUP have taken a huge risk, banking on a hard Brexit to further shackle NI to the UK in the hope of a hard border. I know many of you will cite that the DUP don't want a hard border. Don't be fooled; it is entirely in their interests to have one. For many years they have been quietly chipping away at the GFA. This is just another nail in its coffin for them; albeit a big nail.
I am not sure by what mechanism the people of Northern Ireland are supposed to express their desire for reunification
quote:It was another option to complete the list. I don't think it's any less possible than the other options. Which is basically to say that anything that doesn't include the UK as a whole remaining a full EU member or within the single market & customs union will result an unsolvable knot along the Irish border.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I don't think this is possible in one go.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
6. Northern Ireland becomes an independent nation state within the EU, or at least the single market and customs union.
quote:What would trigger a referendum though? If republicans got a majority in the Assembly the unionists would still have to be part of the executive, and so even if a Sinn Féin First Minister proposed a referendum, wouldn't the DUP just block it, given that they seem to think the use of the Irish language in court will bring society collapsing around their ears.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Richardus:
quote:It would be by referendum.
I am not sure by what mechanism the people of Northern Ireland are supposed to express their desire for reunification
quote:I meant it as the EU having to roll back and accept whatever Britain did, whatever we send to Ireland-Ireland takes, whatever Ireland sends to Germany, Germany takes. Technically there would still be a single market but with Britain having a dictatorial control of it, it wouldn't be the EU single market.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:I read that as the end of the EU. No single market, no customs union. Then the UK and Ireland are free to negotiate an open border deal between themselves.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I don't understand this option.
5. All 27 countries of the EU follow the UK
quote:In other words, the best solution is for the UK to remain in the EU.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Practically the ideal option would be if Britain, France, Germany, ... had proportionate say through some common supra-national democratic organization.
quote:The NI Ass. is made up of many parties, not just two. If you had a swing to a referendum it would likely come when SF form the majority of the chamber (which they aren;t far off doing currently) and would have support from the SDLP and some members of the Alliance party. You may even have some UUP members vote to allow it under democratic principal. The DUP would in all likelihood use the block of petition of concern, which would be a misuse of the act. However, they have precedence of misusing the act for aspects of the RHI scandal, marriage equality, the Irish language act etc, etc, etc. To use the petition of concern in the instance of a request for a referendum would be a very grave misuse of the act far more serious and threatening to the democratic process and effectively crippling the power of the assembly to function (a moot point in these days), so I'm not sure they would be legally enabled to pull that stunt, but the UK parliament could make any legal case regarding it spin out for years, effectively dampening any feeling of a move towards a united Ireland. That assumes the UK will actually want a dysfunctional failed province that is an ever increasing economic drain on its doorstep and part of its ongoing concern it what will likely be a very considerable crisis.
What would trigger a referendum though? If republicans got a majority in the Assembly the unionists would still have to be part of the executive, and so even if a Sinn Féin First Minister proposed a referendum, wouldn't the DUP just block it, given that they seem to think the use of the Irish language in court will bring society collapsing around their ears.
quote:For 'complete completeness' you also have the proposal from a number of different hardline Brexiters (including 'Lawyers for Britain'), that Ireland leaves the EU (the so called Irexit).
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
For completeness you do have
4. The EU agrees to establish a hard border between Eire and the rest of the UK. Eire agrees to put up with whatever the UK dumps/takes on it.
5. All 27 countries of the EU follow the UK (basically the mirror image of 1, except without the checks and balances)
quote:Though, as we've been reminded again this week, Article 50 can be revoked. It would be politically difficult for the UK government to do so (possibly the understatement of the year), that doesn't mean the boat has sailed yet. Though the UKs legal position in the EU wouldn't be changed there would need to be a lot of work to rebuild political relations, and that would be a different position.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I know it's hard to come to terms with, but that ship sailed long ago.
quote:What UK government would do so? I can't see anybody close to power advocating that. It's fiendishly hard to know what Labour's position is, but Corbyn appears to be committed to leaving.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
as we've been reminded again this week, Article 50 can be revoked. It would be politically difficult for the UK government to do so (possibly the understatement of the year)
quote:Well, Lord Kerr has said this (though he didn't make this clear when drafting it). But he's not really the arbiter on such matters really, is he? That's presumably the role of the European Court of Justice? (Though I can quite imagine that the ECJ would be very well disposed to such an argument.)
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, as we've been reminded again this week, Article 50 can be revoked.
quote:I'm increasingly sure that his plan is to bat out time on the negotiation, then blame the EU for its failure and the resulting chaos.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wonder what on earth David Davies is actually saying in negotiations about this issue. I simply can't see a tenable negotiating position. No wonder the EU are talking about the need for greater coherence.
quote:Having recently met someone who has been on the other side of the table from David Davies, what I've heard about him would suggest that planning ahead that far would be out of character. Too much like hard work for someone who is too lazy to read briefing notes in advance of a meeting.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:I'm increasingly sure that his plan is to bat out time on the negotiation, then blame the EU for its failure and the resulting chaos.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wonder what on earth David Davies is actually saying in negotiations about this issue. I simply can't see a tenable negotiating position. No wonder the EU are talking about the need for greater coherence.
quote:Whether any UK government would is different from whether the government could.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:What UK government would do so? I can't see anybody close to power advocating that. It's fiendishly hard to know what Labour's position is, but Corbyn appears to be committed to leaving.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
as we've been reminded again this week, Article 50 can be revoked. It would be politically difficult for the UK government to do so (possibly the understatement of the year)
quote:I'm not sure there can be much dithering. If democratic principles are followed and the UK population, either directly through another referendum or through their representatives in Parliament, reject the plan that the UK government proposes then that kills that plan. The government can produce another plan for leaving the EU, or decide not to leave. But, the people will have had a chance to have their say and that generally concludes things for a generation.
Besides, once again you seem to be forgetting the other side of the negotiating table - you're assuming the EU-27 will take a similar view about the possibility of Article 50 being revoked. That possibility looks politically unworkable to me too.
The UK leaving the EU is certainly damaging to the latter, but sending a message (by allowing Article 50 to be revoked) that Member States can dither indefinitely about whether they have decided to leave or not strikes me as even more damaging. The EU-27 have taken the UK's decision as definitive pretty much since the referendum result.
quote:As far as I can see, the reasons for envisaging the (remote) prospect of Article 50 being revoked are multiple. Some people seem to think that doing so would effectively annul Brexit, others think it simply means more time to negotiate what sort of Brexit will happen.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure there can be much dithering.
quote:I think that already happened. I know you don't think people had a properly informed opportunity to have their say, but what makes you think things would be any different on another occasion?
But, the people will have had a chance to have their say and that generally concludes things for a generation.
quote:No, but I note you used the word rejoin. Contrary to your previous posts, that implies acceptance of the fact of leaving.
Does it count as dithering if there is a strong movement within the UK to rejoin?
quote:In fact the hardline Brexiters can - in their day jobs - see this as a fact, even as they push for disaster capitalism for the rest of us:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Again, it's like Catalonia where so many companies have lost no time in relocating their headquarters outside the region since the "declaration of independence". The longer you wait, the more instability it creates.
quote:Davies should know, better than any of us, that Brexit is unmanageable and hard Brexit is inevitable, so he won't waste energy on actually trying to get a deal. The only thing up for grabs is who to blame for the inevitable mess, and he'll be lining up plausible reasons (plausible to Mail readers, anyway) as to why it's not him.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Having recently met someone who has been on the other side of the table from David Davies, what I've heard about him would suggest that planning ahead that far would be out of character. Too much like hard work for someone who is too lazy to read briefing notes in advance of a meeting.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:I'm increasingly sure that his plan is to bat out time on the negotiation, then blame the EU for its failure and the resulting chaos.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I wonder what on earth David Davies is actually saying in negotiations about this issue. I simply can't see a tenable negotiating position. No wonder the EU are talking about the need for greater coherence.
Though, it's quite possible someone else could plan ahead like that, and rely on the ineptitude of Davies to manage to avoid getting anything done in negotiations.
quote:as he revealed a binding vote on the final deal
the agreement will only hold if Parliament approves it.
quote:What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My best bet would be that a deal on EU nationals, "divorce bill" and the Irish border needs to be bashed out very soon - that could be put to a vote and passed quite easily
quote:I know this isn't really answering the question that you asked - but David Davis indicated yesterday that he thought it would be achieved with some kind of preferential-importer, electronic tagging and small business wavers.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?
quote:I've no idea. But, if the UK and EU negotiators come up with a solution that both sides are reasonably OK with (and that the Irish don't reject outright) then I can't see Parliament voting it down. Alternatively, if there is no such agreement then there won't be anything to vote on.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My best bet would be that a deal on EU nationals, "divorce bill" and the Irish border needs to be bashed out very soon - that could be put to a vote and passed quite easily
quote:Don't you think his age would count against him? He's nearly 69. We're not talking about the leader of the :LibDems or the PotUS here!
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, he's a lazy, vacuous, egotistical chancer, but he probably considers himself a likely successor to May when she eventually resigns/ is forced out.
quote:Hard border with the mainland, soft border on the island itself - fudge on the customs union for N.I. Some kind of special status.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
My best bet would be that a deal on EU nationals, "divorce bill" and the Irish border needs to be bashed out very soon - that could be put to a vote and passed quite easily
quote:My observation is that the DUP - and by extension the Tories, because the latter need the former - believe two equal-and-opposite things. They're dead against anything which erodes the status of NI as part of the UK. Which means they'll not stand for passport controls across the sea, they'll not have customs controls at the Irish sea ports etc.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I suggested that upthread: a kind of Hong Kong SAR. But the DUP appear to be dead against it, don't they? It can't pass "easily".
quote:If the deal gets the support of a significant number of Labour MPs it'll pass, and I expect most Labour MPs will recognise that a deal on the Irish border is far preferable to no deal and vote accordingly.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I suggested that upthread: a kind of Hong Kong SAR. But the DUP appear to be dead against it, don't they? It can't pass "easily".
quote:I'm not totally familiar with the HK-China customs and passport situation, but I assume that there are some controls there.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was just wondering whether an SAR NI might not have some attractions, a bit like HK or Macao. If NI were to play its cards right it could be the least bad place to be: a better arrangement with the EU than rUK plus privileged access to the UK market. The EU/NI border might start being the new Calais, though.
quote:Right. But what happens then? Do you think the EU-27 will put the clock on hold while a general election is held? I somehow doubt it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's after that vote that the loss of DUP support will be felt by the government, and I can see the situation where the government collapses shortly afterwards as the DUP votes against them.
quote:No, no, no. It would be "a key nexus for optimising the UK's trade links with the EU as we move forward with Brexit, and a valuable, transparent means of channeling the external investment our economy needs"
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I can see that it might look workable on paper, but in practice it'd surely be an irregular source of imports into the EU (as per private jet imports into the UK via the Isle of Man).
quote:I wouldn't expect the clock to stop. The impact on negotiations with the EU is going to depend on timing. If that vote on the deal happens early in 2019 then the government will probably stumble past Brexit day before collapsing. If we get a vote early in 2018 on the first part of the deal (divorce bill, EU nationals, Irish border) then the government may be able to keep going for another 18 months, it depends on how soon the DUP want to take for their revenge. It's the sort of mess that's almost inevitable when the government attempts to enact a major constitutional change without the support of the majority of MPs and the electorate.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Right. But what happens then? Do you think the EU-27 will put the clock on hold while a general election is held? I somehow doubt it.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's after that vote that the loss of DUP support will be felt by the government, and I can see the situation where the government collapses shortly afterwards as the DUP votes against them.
quote:I saw an article on/interview with David Davies around the time of his latest appointment (can't remember where, may have been the i) where he said his age wasn't an issue for him. He's an ex-SAS reservist and very physically fit.
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:Don't you think his age would count against him? He's nearly 69. We're not talking about the leader of the :LibDems or the PotUS here!
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, he's a lazy, vacuous, egotistical chancer, but he probably considers himself a likely successor to May when she eventually resigns/ is forced out.
quote:I don't think Davis is going to stop anything for anyone. He's not interested in the economic effects, the political effects in NI, the whys or even the wherefores. He has a glint in his eye and he is determined to ram through an exit from the EU and damn any other consequences or considerations. If the bloody EU won't give us what we want, then we'll give them the ol' two fingered salute and slam the door behind us.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So I suppose the clock might get stopped out of mutual fear of consequences
quote:From this side of the channel, stopping the clock looks as bad if not worse in terms of the prospects for the EU-27 as not having the divorce bill settled.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So I suppose the clock might get stopped out of mutual fear of consequences
quote:I suppose the problem here is that none of us really have all the information to weigh the pros and cons to both sides (never mind the perception of the negotiating parties of the pros and cons).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
From this side of the channel, stopping the clock looks as bad if not worse in terms of the prospects for the EU-27 as not having the divorce bill settled.
quote:His actual answer - when examined closely - was considerably vaguer.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I know this isn't really answering the question that you asked - but David Davis indicated yesterday that he thought it would be achieved with some kind of preferential-importer, electronic tagging and small business wavers.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?
quote:From what we've seen since the referendum, I'm guessing they haven't.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if MPs and ministers have got a grip of this?
quote:That's what happens when people live in cloud cuckoo land. They push everyone out of the nest before they can fly, then add a rather bizarre lemming twist by jumping themselves before they fledge.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Britain is being pushed over a cliff by fools who think we'll somehow sprout wings during the long plummet to follow.
quote:Some people speculate that May and Davis are deliberately taking their time, as they think that the EU will panic at the last minute, and give them their 'frictionless deal'.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:From what we've seen since the referendum, I'm guessing they haven't.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if MPs and ministers have got a grip of this?
It seems that something like this comes out of the woodwork every few days, and the government response is always "they need us more than we need them, no deal is better than a bad deal, it's the will of the people, I can't hear you nanananana". no attempt is made to address specific issues, there is no grasp, or even acknowledgment of, detail.
Britain is being pushed over a cliff by fools who think we'll somehow sprout wings during the long plummet to follow.
quote:When Cameron went to Brussels in December 2015 he was effectively saying to the rest of the EU: "you have to give me some concessions because otherwise it's likely we'll vote to leave."
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Unfortunately, it represents about the same level of cynicism displayed by Cameron. And while a week is a long time in politics, at the moment I absolutely can't see the EU-27 caving in.
quote:Whether or not this is true of every person and on every issue - I think it is nonetheless true to say that this is the end effect.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some people speculate that May and Davis are deliberately taking their time, as they think that the EU will panic at the last minute, and give them their 'frictionless deal'.
quote:That insight ties in with my long-held conviction that as a Member State, the UK has never really understood, let alone signed up to, the ideological 'ever closer union' aspirations of the EU, or the reasons underpinning it.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
the EU doesn't consider continuing British membership or participation in the single market to be more important than the four freedoms.
quote:Absolutely. As someone remarked in the referendum: people on the continent see the EU as a church, the British see it as a supermarket.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That insight ties in with my long-held conviction that as a Member State, the UK has never really understood, let alone signed up to, the ideological 'ever closer union' aspirations of the EU, or the reasons underpinning it.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
the EU doesn't consider continuing British membership or participation in the single market to be more important than the four freedoms.
It's never got beyond seeing it as essentially a trading partnership - the "Common Market". So much misunderstanding stems from that.
quote:I don't agree that this is the only reading of things - while there have always been aspirations for 'ever closer union' in some parts, this has been far from unanimous. It's far more true to say that the EU is a rule based organisation and as such has long ago decided (rightly in my opinion) that the Single Market as it is depends on the four freedoms being observed.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That insight ties in with my long-held conviction that as a Member State, the UK has never really understood, let alone signed up to, the ideological 'ever closer union' aspirations of the EU, or the reasons underpinning it.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
the EU doesn't consider continuing British membership or participation in the single market to be more important than the four freedoms.
quote:Tell the people of Coventry, for example, that the UK hadn't been scarred by WW2.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The original impetus for the EU was "never again" to have a war in Europe. The signatory countries to the Treaty of Rome were all badly scarred either psychologically and/or physically by WW2 in a way that the UK - an island, never occupied - was not.
quote:If they thought it was 1945 then they'd be fully behind EU membership, even pushing for greater European integration. The first moves towards what became the EU was the 1948 convention, leading to the formation of the European Movement the following year, under the chairmanship of none other than Winston Churchill. With the express purpose of moving towards European unity to prevent another war. Though, having taken that lead the appetite for European union cooled in the UK quite quickly for whatever reasons, otherwise I'd have expected us to have been a signatory to the Treaty of Rome rather than joining in later.
They don't realise this isn't 1945 any more.
quote:There were still plenty of visible bomb sites in London when I was growing up. I didn't say "hadn't been scarred", I said "were scarred in a way that the UK - an island, never occupied - was not".
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Tell the people of Coventry, for example, that the UK hadn't been scarred by WW2.
quote:Agreed; I actually considered putting the 1950s.
So your final statement needs to shift by about a decade. "They don't realise this isn't 1955 anymore"
quote:Yes, the EU has formed relatively quickly. And, any nation (or, in this case treaty organisation) will have tensions and disagreements between regions. Witness what's happening in Catalonia which has only been part of Spain for a 300 years or so, or similarly Scotland as part of the UK. The US didn't take a very long time before disagreements between northern and southern states broke out into civil war. At least Brexit is only one part of the whole shooting itself in the foot rather than an outbreak of war.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's just that, from over here, the Common Market and the EU have formed comparatively quickly.
quote:So far. It really doesn't look good with the resurgence of extreme nationalism and racism.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Yes, the EU has formed relatively quickly. And, any nation (or, in this case treaty organisation) will have tensions and disagreements between regions. Witness what's happening in Catalonia which has only been part of Spain for a 300 years or so, or similarly Scotland as part of the UK. The US didn't take a very long time before disagreements between northern and southern states broke out into civil war. At least Brexit is only one part of the whole shooting itself in the foot rather than an outbreak of war.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's just that, from over here, the Common Market and the EU have formed comparatively quickly.
quote:Leaving aside the underlying psychology, it's possible that the UK government thinks it can have its own way with Brexit because that's been the past experience when trying to advance British objectives within the EU. (Don't want to join the Euro? Sure you can keep the pound!)
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I am convinced that the sense of entitlement that goes with the "we won" assumption explains a lot of why the UK government thinks the EU-27 will eventually cave in. They don't realise this isn't 1945 any more.
quote:I think there is a different dynamic, but not necessarily exactly the one you suggest. The EU is a rules based organisation - the horse trading goes on before the rules are set - once they are, they are then open to an acceptable variety of interpretation (Euro opt out - on which the UK was not alone).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Leaving aside the underlying psychology, it's possible that the UK government thinks it can have its own way with Brexit because that's been the past experience when trying to advance British objectives within the EU. (Don't want to join the Euro? Sure you can keep the pound!)
quote:The longer the negotiations go on, the more this seems like his good luck in stumbling across a set of principled positions.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
I wonder about Davis. He takes principled stands on some issues (civil liberties and the use of torture), but seems to be pragmatic about other stuff.
quote:Anyone with any sense can see through this. During a "transition period", the British will restrict EU immigration and no court will be able to stop it.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The prospect of a "transition period" for an indefinite duration after Brexit day during which nothing much changes is an intriguing one.
quote:Only one country has to. It would potentially be incredibly embarrassing - but imagine if Davis managed to come to an agreement with Romania that they could continue sending people to work in the fields without visas or other problems. Perhaps the UK could even offer structural payments or sweeteners in return.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well yes, it sounded to me like "having your cake and eating it", indefinitely prolonged. I don't think the EU-27 is going to fall for that.
quote:Run this by me a bit more slowly.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Covney aimed his scud missile and announced that if the border issue is not given clarity and proper discussion in the first talks phase Ireland will exercise its veto. Wiped the stupid grin right off Boris' face.
quote:Doesn't that just point to the lunacy of the whole thing though? You *can't* sort out the border before sorting out trade. It was ridiculous to sign up to (from Britain's pov) or to set out (from the EU's) a consecutive approach.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The news here today is full of the Covney/Boris meeting/debacle over the border issues. Boris made stupid jokes immediately after dropping the bombshell that the border issue will not be discussed in any form until after the first talks phase. Covney aimed his scud missile and announced that if the border issue is not given clarity and proper discussion in the first talks phase Ireland will exercise its veto. Wiped the stupid grin right off Boris' face.
quote:Quite, and which EU economy is going to be hit hardest by that? (Leaving to one side the potential implications for the peace process) Is he wanting to be re-elected?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Run this by me a bit more slowly.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Covney aimed his scud missile and announced that if the border issue is not given clarity and proper discussion in the first talks phase Ireland will exercise its veto. Wiped the stupid grin right off Boris' face.
So you're saying that Ireland vetoes what? Any interim transition deal??
Surely that'd precipitate exactly what he doesn't want: an immediate hard border with NI.
quote:I don't think anyone is suggesting it wasn't signed up to. It's just that it's only now sinking in to some heads in HMG that it shouldn't have been. In fairness, the mood music out of Brussels in recent months does at least seem to have shifted from blunt slapping down to more "we understand why the British would want it not to be consecutive."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But Boris is contradicting the agreed timetable, isn't he? I thought it was agreed that the triple agenda - the money, Ireland, EU citizens - take priority. How can the UK then start to say that they are abrogating this?
quote:Now I'm confused. Is it in the gift of the UK to say that there will be "no hard border" between NI and the Republic in a no-deal scenario?
Ireland has issued a stark warning that it will block progress of the Brexit negotiations in December unless the UK gives a formal written guarantee there will be no hard border with Northern Ireland.
In sharp remarks before a breakfast meeting with Theresa May, the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, said Brexit-backing politicians had not “thought all this through” in the years they had been pushing for the UK to leave the EU.
Outside the Gothenburg social summit in Sweden, Varadkar suggested he would block any progress to negotiations about the future relationship with the EU unless the UK was prepared to take a hard border, in any form, off the table between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
quote:This is sort of the point. Ireland's threatening to exercise a veto if the UK doesn't guarantee something not in its gift. We're truly through the looking glass here.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this, the Guardian reports the following:
quote:Now I'm confused. Is it in the gift of the UK to say that there will be "no hard border" between NI and the Republic in a no-deal scenario?
Ireland has issued a stark warning that it will block progress of the Brexit negotiations in December unless the UK gives a formal written guarantee there will be no hard border with Northern Ireland.
In sharp remarks before a breakfast meeting with Theresa May, the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, said Brexit-backing politicians had not “thought all this through” in the years they had been pushing for the UK to leave the EU.
Outside the Gothenburg social summit in Sweden, Varadkar suggested he would block any progress to negotiations about the future relationship with the EU unless the UK was prepared to take a hard border, in any form, off the table between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
One would think that the pressure for a border might be at least as strongly from the EU side.
Where has the EU got a completely soft border with third states?
quote:I'm not sure where I've read it, but probably at least 6 months ago there was a report somewhere on WTO rules in regard to transition periods which quite clearly stated that they could not be indefinite, I think a maximum of 10 years was mentioned. Though quite who would take who in front of the WTO in the event of the transition period dragging on is unclear.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The prospect of a "transition period" for an indefinite duration after Brexit day during which nothing much changes is an intriguing one.
quote:As I read it the threat is that Ireland will veto the deal even before it's worked through if the UK doesn't commit to seeking an arrangement where there is no hard border. Though, of course, the UK may seek something that doesn't then happen. But, the intention from the UK side is something that is in the power of the UK government. It will restrict the relationship with the EU that they will be able to ask for, but the UK at this stage can make such a commitment to allow Ireland to stay on board with the negotiations.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:This is sort of the point. Ireland's threatening to exercise a veto if the UK doesn't guarantee something not in its gift.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this, the Guardian reports the following:
quote:Now I'm confused. Is it in the gift of the UK to say that there will be "no hard border" between NI and the Republic in a no-deal scenario?
Ireland has issued a stark warning that it will block progress of the Brexit negotiations in December unless the UK gives a formal written guarantee there will be no hard border with Northern Ireland.
In sharp remarks before a breakfast meeting with Theresa May, the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, said Brexit-backing politicians had not “thought all this through” in the years they had been pushing for the UK to leave the EU.
Outside the Gothenburg social summit in Sweden, Varadkar suggested he would block any progress to negotiations about the future relationship with the EU unless the UK was prepared to take a hard border, in any form, off the table between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
One would think that the pressure for a border might be at least as strongly from the EU side.
Where has the EU got a completely soft border with third states?
quote:Not really - see all the possibilities above, the requirement for a soft border does circumscribe the set of possibilities that are acceptable to Ireland (Soft Brexit of some kind, Soft Brexit for NI alone, Remain).
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
This is sort of the point. Ireland's threatening to exercise a veto if the UK doesn't guarantee something not in its gift. We're truly through the looking glass here.
quote:Ultimately, it's a recognition of the fact that the EU is approaching the situation as one of damage-limitation. There is no scenario where the EU as a whole, or parts thereof, "win" as a result of Brexit (of course, IMO, the same is true of the UK where every option except voting Remain in June last year was a "lose"). For most of the EU the damage from a hard Brexit isn't all that great - some lost income, so a readjustment of the budget, a small loss in market but also a gain in loss of competition from UK business and also a gain in investment from UK business relocating to the rest of the EU. Most of the EU will be able to handle the problems caused by Brexit fairly well. But, for Ireland the damage from Brexit could be very significant - trade with the UK, NI in particular, is a substantial portion of their economy, the GFA depends on EU membership and jurisdiction of ECJ. It is only right and proper that in entering negotiations the EU put the interests of the most affected nation in the EU front and centre.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The Eu has been consistent since the passing of the Brexit referendum : the UK must come up with a workable solution to the NI border question that does not damage the GFA or the peace process. It was one way in which the EU could point out the stupidity of Brexit and the fact that for the UK government it hadn't even crossed their pretty little minds.
quote:There doesn't seem to be much worry about the economic effects here. They mention it from time to time, but most of the fiscal folks seem to suggest that as long as the pound stays low enough it's all a matter of cheques and balances and Ireland's exports opening up bigger markets, albeit a little further away, can be established long before the pound makes any kind of significant recovery. The main quandary here seems to be over the GFA and it's associated cross-border agreements and joint funded projects, and I completely understand that. Ireland doesn't want the 'troubles' on its doorstep again - this is a very significant and real concern and the one aspect where everyone truly loses but so far only Ireland and the EU appear to have any sense of urgency about it.
But, for Ireland the damage from Brexit could be very significant - trade with the UK, NI in particular, is a substantial portion of their economy, the GFA depends on EU membership and jurisdiction of ECJ.
quote:My head hurts.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Not really - see all the possibilities above, the requirement for a soft border does circumscribe the set of possibilities that are acceptable to Ireland (Soft Brexit of some kind, Soft Brexit for NI alone, Remain).
Now you could argue that the EU would still have to agree to any of these - which would be correct, but at the moment the sort of exit the UK is heading for won't even make a soft border a possibility (discount Davis' diarrhoea about IoT and electronic border checks).
quote:That's not a 'no deal' though. 'no deal' is a hard border - just as the EU would have with any other country that showed up on its boundaries with which it had no agreements.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Therefore the UK would be quite happy to accept a no-deal which meant that the border was open in Ireland. And it is the EU which would want to make restrictions in the other direction.
quote:
These members are far more anti-European than the party’s MPs or its current Prime Minister. The threat the Brexiters have, which Remain MPs fear and which has governed so many of the Prime Minister’s actions, is that they will force a leadership election. In any election a Brexiter is almost certain to be on the ballot that goes to party members, and given that electorate (and the influence the Tory press have on them) a Brexiter will almost certainly win. They will then go for a clean break from the EU, or what is commonly known as No Deal.
What else could explain a Prime Minister putting forward legislation involving a fixed date to leave that might make her own life more difficult, just because it was suggested (one might guess) by the editor of a right wing tabloid at his birthday party? Why else does she tolerate almost open insubordination by her foreign secretary that would in any other situation have led to him losing his job. Why is she so concerned about keeping her Brexiter ministers happy and as a result ignores the rest of her MPs and by now the majority of the country? She has focused all her energy on preventing a rebellion from her right and as a result has completely neglected the discussions with the EU.
quote:Well this is the point I was trying to question.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
That's not a 'no deal' though. 'no deal' is a hard border - just as the EU would have with any other country that showed up on its boundaries with which it had no agreements.
quote:
These suggestions clearly demonstrate that any bilateral agreement between the UK and Ireland is likely to impinge upon areas of EU competence, and will thus depend upon on the attitude of the other 26 Member States. Ruth
Taillon warned that, although the UK could give certain guarantees to Irish and other EU citizens in the UK, the Irish Government would not have the same flexibility. Patricia King agreed that “the interests of the other 26 …
will not be the same as Ireland’s … The issue is how Ireland will be placed in the order of importance in these negotiations.” Pamela Arthurs referred to conversations in Brussels, “where it was made fairly clear to us that it is not within the gift of Ireland or the UK to decide what the border will look like—the other 26 member states will decide”
quote:Yes, the problem is that the UK government has so-far ruled out this option - and I presume (wrt the link above) that the far right of the Tory party which currently sets the tone, would see such a thing as a symbolic capitulation to 'the terrorists'.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Let us not forget that it is not the job of the EU to manage Britain's borders on its behalf. It has however proffered what I believe to be the only workable solution; to have the border at the Irish Sea.
quote:Yes, it is certainly not without its problems and would likely be a political gift to one of the more unsavoury sides of NI politics. If they had seriously considered this at the time when it was first mooted then they may have been able to organise themselves enough to counter any negative backlash in terms of NI, but the current situation of refusing to discuss anything in regards to the NI border will undoubtedly have even worse implications. Britain does not currently seem capable of seeing that. Once Britain does finally leave the EU how is actually going to pay the millions required to enforce peace and stability in NI if we see a return to the chaos of the 1970's? The current stratagem of 'do nothing, say nothing' is a much greater gift to the terrorists than the alternative that has already been proffered.
Yes, the problem is that the UK government has so-far ruled out this option - and I presume (wrt the link above) that the far right of the Tory party which currently sets the tone, would see such a thing as a symbolic capitulation to 'the terrorists'.
quote:To wit there is absolutely no political capital to be made by coming up with a solution.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, it's a mess. I still can't help thinking it is deliberate.
quote:Which seems to ignore the capitulation to Unionist terrorists by giving them influence in the UK government. When you've already capitulated to one set of terrorists, what is so difficult about making a symbolic capitulation to another?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Yes, the problem is that the UK government has so-far ruled out this option - and I presume (wrt the link above) that the far right of the Tory party which currently sets the tone, would see such a thing as a symbolic capitulation to 'the terrorists'.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Let us not forget that it is not the job of the EU to manage Britain's borders on its behalf. It has however proffered what I believe to be the only workable solution; to have the border at the Irish Sea.
quote:I don't think Angela Merkel's absence from the scene is insignificant. I'm not really sure why SPD refused to re-enter the coalition after the election - but I guess a fuller discussion of the situation in Germany would be for a separate thread.
The ensuing uncertainty has consequences beyond Germany. Mrs Merkel - who did not attend a summit of EU leaders in Sweden last week - will remain preoccupied with domestic affairs for some time yet. This was, she said last night, a time for deep reflection.
quote:Well, as I said upthread - read the Gove document on the Good Friday Agreement - that gives you an insight into how some parties of the Tory party view the situation in NI.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which seems to ignore the capitulation to Unionist terrorists by giving them influence in the UK government. When you've already capitulated to one set of terrorists, what is so difficult about making a symbolic capitulation to another?
quote:It does, however, underlie a fact easily forgotten in the UK. Brexit is not the only thing happening in Europe. In a lot of other nations there are domestic issues of far greater importance. For the EU as a whole, Brexit will be down the list of most important issues - the strains on the Euro caused by difficulties in Greece, the vast numbers of refugees and other migrants entering the EU, aggressive political manoeuvring by Putin and probably other issues are more important.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't think Angela Merkel's absence from the scene is insignificant.
quote:Many of those are perceived to be very closely associated with her personally though - certainly Greece and mass immigration, the latter being the reason for AFD getting a foothold. I agree, it certainly puts our issue into perspective.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:It does, however, underlie a fact easily forgotten in the UK. Brexit is not the only thing happening in Europe. In a lot of other nations there are domestic issues of far greater importance. For the EU as a whole, Brexit will be down the list of most important issues - the strains on the Euro caused by difficulties in Greece, the vast numbers of refugees and other migrants entering the EU, aggressive political manoeuvring by Putin and probably other issues are more important.
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't think Angela Merkel's absence from the scene is insignificant.
In our little corner of Europe, Brexit may be dominating everything politically. But, that isn't true of the rest of Europe.
quote:A small thought, from across the Pond:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Yes, the EU has formed relatively quickly. And, any nation (or, in this case treaty organisation) will have tensions and disagreements between regions. Witness what's happening in Catalonia which has only been part of Spain for a 300 years or so, or similarly Scotland as part of the UK. The US didn't take a very long time before disagreements between northern and southern states broke out into civil war. At least Brexit is only one part of the whole shooting itself in the foot rather than an outbreak of war.
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's just that, from over here, the Common Market and the EU have formed comparatively quickly.
quote:Technically, we're not "off a major continent", we're part of a major continent. Though in terms of trade with the rest of the continent being on the north western edge does put us in something of a backwater.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Geographically we're in a bit of a backwater, off a major continent.
quote:Geologically we're on the continental rock. But in all other ways - given that we're an island - we can't help but be "off a major continent". There is a simple truth that most of the other states in Europe are connected together whereas a small number of island states are not.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Technically, we're not "off a major continent", we're part of a major continent. Though in terms of trade with the rest of the continent being on the north western edge does put us in something of a backwater.
quote:Mmm. I think the truth is that we developed these trading links when we had something tangible to sell. So much of the Empire was using materials from the UK.
I think the biggest example of the rose-tinted spectacles is the whole "great trading nation" thing. We currently have one big advantage in relation to trade - Atlantic ports that provide a convenient route for goods heading into the rest of the EU, coupled with a lot of international business conducted in English. Put a hard border between the UK and the EU and we will lose that benefit - that trade will move in part to Ireland, but mostly to ports elsewhere in Europe. Historically, our trade was built upon a manufacturing base coupled to Empire - colonies shipping raw materials to mills here to be turned into finished goods that were then shipped back to the colonies and elsewhere. We no longer have a manufacturing base to make things to sell elsewhere, and we no longer have colonies to send us raw materials even if we had factories to do anything with them.
quote:Something to sell, and some way of skewing the market be it gunboat diplomacy or trade tariffs in the early colonial era, or various forms of preferential trading in the latter part of that era.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Mmm. I think the truth is that we developed these trading links when we had something tangible to sell. So much of the Empire was using materials from the UK.
quote:The high value imports to the EU from the UK tend to be fairly low volume items - typically some kind of intermediate high-tech/sci component that is used as part of a more complex product. These are exactly the kinds of things that are most affected by leaving the EU, because typically these supply lines are run using JIT principles.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is a point about imports of things which continue on the EU, but I'm not sure how much of the rEU's imports really come from the UK. I suspect not an awful lot given that the EU has it's own massive container ports.
quote:That's the Rotterdam effect - it skews 2 things (and I say that without prejudice to a Remain/Leave viewpoint:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Apparently the Netherlands looks like it receives a lot of British exports - because quite a lot of British stuff is exported via the massive Dutch ports, and the ultimate destination is not always properly accounted for.
quote:Well it's more that the FO (who admittedly have other things to worry about right now) mishandled the approach to the hustings such that they didn't prevent for the first time there being more candidates than the available seats.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I see the British judge is to lose his position on the International Court of Justice. This is a UN body, not EU, but it's another sign that Great Britain is not quite so Great these days as the Mail and Express would have us believe.
quote:Which is stupid. The best defence is to avoid conflict, which is the purpose of the UN and being on the security council.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
IME some of the harder core Brexiters don't want the UK to be on the Security Council, or to get involved in overseas adventures, or anything. They tend to be pro NATO membership, but only so far as mutual defence.
quote:Maybe, but they actually *want* to abdicate responsibility or leadership.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Which is stupid. The best defence is to avoid conflict, which is the purpose of the UN and being on the security council.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
IME some of the harder core Brexiters don't want the UK to be on the Security Council, or to get involved in overseas adventures, or anything. They tend to be pro NATO membership, but only so far as mutual defence.
quote:
"The prime minister has been clear that while we are leaving the EU, we are not leaving Europe and this has been welcomed by EU leaders."
quote:Does being the European Capital of Culture actually offer any tangible benefits to the winning city - increased tourism, extra EU money, or anything like that? I mean actual hard numbers yes it does, not the spurious claims that often surround Olympic bids.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, them's the rules. The rules state that hosting the European City of Culture is only open to states who are members of the EU, EEA or EFTA.
quote:I can't claim to have read all 236 pages, but on the face of it this seems to suggest the answer is "yes".
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Does being the European Capital of Culture actually offer any tangible benefits to the winning city - increased tourism, extra EU money, or anything like that?
quote:AIUI, the idea is not to identify cities which are already recognised as "places with lots of culture", but cities which with the right investment could become such places. And, in particular the European City of Culture is supposed to be a place where that culture can be developed in a pan-European manner, celebrating not just local culture but the richness of culture brought about by increasing cultural ties to the rest of Europe.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
And let's face it, Milton Keynes is unlikely to come top of anyone's list when they're thinking of places with lots of culture.
quote:The UK has had two European Capitals of Culture - Glasgow in 1990 and Liverpool in 2008. I'm not sure that either has seen any lasting tangible benefit from the designation, but people who live in them may know better than I.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Does being the European Capital of Culture actually offer any tangible benefits to the winning city - increased tourism, extra EU money, or anything like that? I mean actual hard numbers yes it does, not the spurious claims that often surround Olympic bids.
quote:Get ready for a lot of this over the next year or so. Who needs frictionless trade with 450 million of the world's most affluent people? It isn't worth all those pesky regulations and having to weigh potatoes in Kilos.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I am assuming that the Brexit-at-any-cost fanatics will make like the fox in Aesop's fable and say it's not worth taking part anyway. See Marvin's post, above.
quote:Not by Aesop's ox, nor by ours,, who is the minister with the job of setting up trade deals to replace membership of the EU.
Originally posted by Jane R:
<sarcasm> No, no, the grapes are definitely sour. Not worth jumping for... <\sarcasm>
quote:Although Mrs May claims to be desperate for deep and frictionless relations. Can anyone tell what the balance now is between the Ultras, who want a no-deal, or hard Brexit, and more moderate people?
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:Get ready for a lot of this over the next year or so. Who needs frictionless trade with 450 million of the world's most affluent people? It isn't worth all those pesky regulations and having to weigh potatoes in Kilos.
Originally posted by Jane R:
I am assuming that the Brexit-at-any-cost fanatics will make like the fox in Aesop's fable and say it's not worth taking part anyway. See Marvin's post, above.
quote:The "ultras" who are in favour of no deal are of that mind because it is too damn difficult to conceive of a deal. They are Bears of Very Little Brain.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Although Mrs May claims to be desperate for deep and frictionless relations. Can anyone tell what the balance now is between the Ultras, who want a no-deal, or hard Brexit, and more moderate people?
quote:I thought it was Hull (which was definitely having a lot of work done for it). But apparently it's a UK copy [though with the only other one being Derry I don't feel too bad for making the mistake.]
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Incidentally, can anyone here name the current European Capital of Culture without looking it up? I know I couldn't. Personally I don't think it's something UK cities will particularly miss, and as an added bonus it means they won't waste so much money bidding for it. [/QB]
quote:You know, I didn't realise that a reference to 'The Fox and the Grapes' was also a riff on Liam Fox's name until you said that...
Not by Aesop's fox, nor by ours,, who is the minister with the job of setting up trade deals to replace membership of the EU.
quote:I suppose the most plausible reason is that if the government collapsed, there would be a leadership contest. In such a contest the views of the Tory Party membership (100K people, average age 68 and rising) would be very influential and they tend to be much more euro-sceptic than the population as a whole.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Curious though, how the Ultras seem to be the tail wagging the dog.
quote:I assume the perception is that if she didn't get a 'good deal' the government would fold and/or there would be a leadership election.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
This doesn't explain May's behaviour though. She can afford to ignore the assembled elderly pub bores of Britain and do the right thing.
quote:I would echo what Alan said: that it made a huge difference to Glasgow, which had a "hard man" heavy industry image. Being City of Culture let Glasgow showcase its cultural side and I would say it has gone from strength to strength since.
The UK has had two European Capitals of Culture - Glasgow in 1990 and Liverpool in 2008. I'm not sure that either has seen any lasting tangible benefit from the designation, but people who live in them may know better than I.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
So, it looks like the cost of leaving is going to be £50 billion - unquantifiable because a fair proportion of it is for pensions for eurocrats.
I do hope we pay this out of the correct bank account - that of the DfID - to properly reflect that our hard-earned pounds will be going to prop up those poor people in France, the Netherlands, etc, etc, etc.
To be clear, the UK has now committed (for now - it may change in the next moment) to pay for liabilities already incurred and agreed.quote:That would be the sensible route, a set of annual payments similar to the current contributions to the EU for a few years post-Brexit. That would need no big effort to re-arrange budgets or the like. And, it doesn't shake the magic money tree too much.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So it should go out via the same route as existing payments to the EU.
quote:Surely it should come out of the NHS budget. Then when we feed in however many multiples of £350 million it is the Leavers can say they kept their promise.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I do hope we pay this out of the correct bank account - that of the DfID - to properly reflect that our hard-earned pounds will be going to prop up those poor people in France, the Netherlands, etc, etc, etc.
quote:Hate to burst your bubble but Netherlands and France are net contributors to the EU budget. The main beneficiaries are Eastern European countries. And in fact we probably get at least as much benefit from their education and training spending when we import skilled workers from those countries. As for the suggestion that we deprive the poorest people in the world of help to pay for the Brexiteer's vanity exercise...
Originally posted by L'organist:
So, it looks like the cost of leaving is going to be £50 billion - unquantifiable because a fair proportion of it is for pensions for eurocrats.
I do hope we pay this out of the correct bank account - that of the DfID - to properly reflect that our hard-earned pounds will be going to prop up those poor people in France, the Netherlands, etc, etc, etc.
quote:Some of the pensions it will be paying belong to UK citizens, including Farage.
Originally posted by L'organist:
I do hope we pay this out of the correct bank account - that of the DfID - to properly reflect that our hard-earned pounds will be going to prop up those poor people in France, the Netherlands, etc, etc, etc.
quote:Simple answer for the Scots is "because you haven't got a land border with the EU"
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Many reports of acceptance of 'regulatory alignment' between NI and Ireland by the UK. If this is correct, this suggests that the UK team have blinked first.
It is being spun in many different ways, as half way to a united Ireland, and as half accepting the single market.
It's too early to say what it means, but you would think that the Ultras have to be appeased somehow. And the Scottish govt are bound to say, why not us too?
quote:I'd have said 'accepted reality' rather than 'blinked first'. 'Blinked first' suggests that they've given way out of failure of resolve when they needn't. As the UK negotiating position was in polite terms unrealistic and unworkable, it's in no way blameworthy to abandon it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Many reports of acceptance of 'regulatory alignment' between NI and Ireland by the UK. If this is correct, this suggests that the UK team have blinked first.
quote:The knuckledraggers in the Tory party won't see it as anything other than a cowardly abandonment of principles.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'd have said 'accepted reality' rather than 'blinked first'. 'Blinked first' suggests that they've given way out of failure of resolve when they needn't. As the UK negotiating position was in polite terms unrealistic and unworkable, it's in no way blameworthy to abandon it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Many reports of acceptance of 'regulatory alignment' between NI and Ireland by the UK. If this is correct, this suggests that the UK team have blinked first.
quote:
"Foster told Theresa May that she would not be able to support such a deal. It's been suggested too that there are 20 or so Conservative MPs who had serious misgivings about the compromises that were understood to be on the table."
quote:They are thinking that they don't want to put up walls between NI and the rest of the UK. That shouldn't be a surprising position for a Unionist, surely?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I know I shouldn't be surprised that the Tories pet snake finally delivered it's poisonous bite, but good God Almighty, what in the name of fuck are they thinking?
quote:It doesn't make sense, so if you are trying to look at it from an sensible economic and social point of view, you will be confused. Back on the 22nd June I posted this:
Can someone explain the DUP position to me?
quote:Do not be fooled, the DUP want the complete destruction and dismantling of the GFA. They want direct rule as long as they hold power. They will aim for these two goals even if it means plunging NI into a complete social and economic crash (if there is no border deal EU money will not enter NI and much of the UK investment is also tied up in cross border projects, which will all likely cease). They are effectively holding court as if they were elected representatives of the people - they are not. The NI government had collapsed and the Tories brought them in to central government for their own means. I am amazed that people cannot see the danger of eroding democracy in this way. The DUP's recent past is sordid and rotten; it's power is propped up by paramilitary thuggery, intimidation, guns and the blood of the innocent and the not so innocent. This is the blunt reality for many in NI; living in fear no matter what community they sit in and being told who to vote for and when. This is who you have in government holding the reigns, directing the head of the horse. What a sorry, sorry day.
The DUP want a Carson-esque state that they imagine is what Britain is, once was and should be today. Of course, it was never really any of these things. They will do anything to cement the idea of the Union in the minds of the people and most especially their voters and they have a terrible paranoid fear of things like border polls.......
What they really want is a pro pan-Protestant state. I suspect they want nationalists to be considered second class citizens, if not in actual fact second class citizens. They live in a land littered with a strongly Celtic past, but have a desire to be 'British' in terms of how they see and understand it, which does not match up to what Britain is today, or perhaps what it ever was. Ian Paisley attempted to take the DUP in a different direction. He had spent much of his heyday in stirring up political fever and courting the UVF along with other equally unpleasant groups. He did appear to be genuinely ashamed and sorry towards the end of his career at having done this and did say on a number of occasions that he could now see how his actions and speeches did lead to the death of many entirely innocent people. For this turn-about he paid a deeply personal cost. He was deeply criticised by many in the DUP at the time, but being such a 'big' character he was able to keep them in line. Eventually he would even be expelled from the church he founded. Once he was out the way the fields were ripe for a new reaping and the current flotilla of DUP politicians don;t have the same moral qualms as Paisley turned out to have. Just look at how they deliberately incited violence only a few years ago with the flag protests......
quote:That "possibility" has been raised several times here but I have yet to see a realistic scenario for Brexit not to happen. Your link doesn't even mention Jeremy Hunt.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find it interesting that Jeremy Hunt has raised the possibility that Brexit might not happen at all
quote:My grandfather, a protestant who farmed near Belfast and died in the 1980s, was of the opinion that ultimately there would be a reunited Ireland. Given the overwhelming Remain vote in NI, could this yet be the beginning of that?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
They want direct rule as long as they hold power.
quote:I've been wondering about this. Surely Scotland and Wales are also set to lose disproportionate amounts of money from ERDF? What if any guarantees do they get of receiving similar development funding once Brexit has happened?
if there is no border deal EU money will not enter NI and much of the UK investment is also tied up in cross border projects, which will all likely cease.
quote:There is a very definite swing to that in NI currently. Hard to say just how large it is though and how much is just 'talk'. Oddly enough, the stunt the DUP have just pulled will almost certainly feed into that feeling even more, especially of a hard border looms on the horizon. The DUP are like the blind leading the blind, believing with all their heart (or perhaps imagination) that a hard border will strengthen and firm up ties to the Union. I believe it would have quite the opposite effect, especially if the hard line nationalists control themselves and keep terrorism out of it.
My grandfather, a protestant who farmed near Belfast and died in the 1980s, was of the opinion that ultimately there would be a reunited Ireland. Given the overwhelming Remain vote in NI, could this yet be the beginning of that?
quote:Which assumes she's the kind of person who had a strongly held and principled stand on relations with the EU generally, and was willing to put her political career on the line to hold to it
Originally posted by Callan:
she would have smashed it out of the park and with a mandate for soft Brexit, she would have marginalised the ultras.
quote:Perhaps I'm mis-reading something. But, that link suggests that the DUP accepted money for their own Brexit campaign from a source that didn't comply with Electoral Commission rules, and that other organisation has been fined for that. The DUP were not, IIRC, part of the official Leave campaign, and were operating in parallel to the official campaign. And, they didn't pass any of that £435,000 to the Leave campaign.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
WRT the previous posts, the fact that the DUP funnelled money to the Leave campaign should have been an indication that they were going to act in exactly this manner ( https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay-peter-geoghegan/did-dups-controversial-brexit-donors-break-law-by-refu sing- )
quote:Oh, I agree it would have taken reserves of political courage that she doesn't possess. But it's hard to see how it would have gone worse for her had she gone down that road, as opposed to how things have gone for her given the choices she has subsequently made.
Which assumes she's the kind of person who had a strongly held and principled stand on relations with the EU generally, and was willing to put her political career on the line to hold to it
quote:Mmm. Well make of this whatever you like.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, there are ongoing official investigations about the spending of the official Leave campaign, with some of that spending potentially having exceeded campaign spending limits. But, that's not related to the DUP.
quote:They've changed the article the link points to. How annoying.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:That "possibility" has been raised several times here but I have yet to see a realistic scenario for Brexit not to happen. Your link doesn't even mention Jeremy Hunt.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find it interesting that Jeremy Hunt has raised the possibility that Brexit might not happen at all
quote:They did not. They did however run a campaign with very similar branding which included things such as a full page advert in the London Metro (at the estimated cost of around 200K).
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The DUP were not, IIRC, part of the official Leave campaign, and were operating in parallel to the official campaign. And, they didn't pass any of that £435,000 to the Leave campaign.
quote:I've just read the take in the "i" which reckons that this might just be theatre - the DUP get to go back with whatever comes up next week saying it's better than it could have been, May gets to say ditto, and Juncker gets to say, as he did last night, that she's a "tough negotiator."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Still the question, why didn't May's team realize that they would be DUPed? I suppose Alan Cresswell's point is well made - they are stupid and incompetent. You would think that there would be a civil servant who might spot the traps. But there is a story that the DUP were told of the deal, and agreed to it, then panicked when they saw the Irish celebrations. If the taig are for it, we are agin.
quote:I've avoided this thread. The subject makes me irate enough as it is.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Or, maybe it's as simple as the UK government and the Breshitters are clueless incompetents. They're running around making headless chickens look coordinated.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Basically, Hunt was quoted as saying that unless Parliament rallies round May there might be "no Brexit". I know that possibility has been mentioned here a few times, but I think it's the first time a Conservative MP has suggested it could happen.
How can this possibly work? There's been no sign at all of rallying round. The government would collapse. quote:I am absolutely sure I don't believe it - the UK government (and the DUP) do not show the kind of competence necessary to run a successful conspiracy of this sort.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
I'm not sure I believe it
quote:A few weeks ago I saw reports of similar payments from the official Vote Leave campaign to other organisations (or even individuals) to support parallel (but supposedly disconnected) campaigns in a manner that appears to be side-stepping campaign funding rules. The DUP weren't named in the reports I'd seen, but if that £435,000 is Vote Leave money then it's another sum to add to the total that could be investigated.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:Mmm. Well make of this whatever you like.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, there are ongoing official investigations about the spending of the official Leave campaign, with some of that spending potentially having exceeded campaign spending limits. But, that's not related to the DUP.
quote:The 435K came from the "Constitutional Research Council". Other money came from Vote Leave, possibly including the 33K they spent with AggregrateIQ.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The DUP weren't named in the reports I'd seen, but if that £435,000 is Vote Leave money then it's another sum to add to the total that could be investigated.
quote:A possible answer is buried here:
I don't know what would happen if the Electoral Commission do find significant fraud in relation to campaign expenses.
quote:I'm all for calling out errors, but in what way is Bernard Jenkin sitting around the negotiating table?
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Meanwhile, MP Bernard Jenkin - who sits around the negotiating table currently
quote:Even idiots deserve representation. I seem to remember the then Irish PM Brian Cowen gave an excellent interview 2-3 years ago to Morning Ireland (Jay Leno subsequently called him a "drunken moron") - and he got a lot further than Jenkin ever has...
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well that's a relief that he's only an MP then.
quote:But, there's no reason they need to be represented by idiots.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Even idiots deserve representation.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well that's a relief that he's only an MP then.
quote:Indeed. Although I suppose to be scrupulously fair he's long been a big supporter of armed forces mental health so he's not a complete waste of space.*
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:But, there's no reason they need to be represented by idiots.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Even idiots deserve representation.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well that's a relief that he's only an MP then.
quote:Do they make fire extinguishers for pants?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The government has not carried out an impact assessment of leaving the EU on the UK economy, Brexit Secretary David Davis has told MPs.
Mind boggled.
quote:I can understand Cameron's government not doing an impact assessment as there was no possibility of a vote to leave, but given the leave vote I can only conclude that Mrs May's government doesn't after all intend to leave the EU.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The government has not carried out an impact assessment of leaving the EU on the UK economy, Brexit Secretary David Davis has told MPs.
Mind boggled.
quote:I don't think anything I wrote suggested otherwise. We certainly did have a drunken buffoon in Cowan, but as far as I recall he never announced himself Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and I think he was still able to name the Prime Minister of Britain at the time. But this isn't the first idiotic statement by British politicians over the last year - not by a long shot. Not being capable of drawing the border on your own country and some not even realising that Ireland has been a separate, independent state since 1948 demonstrates spectacular idiocy on a scale even unparalleled in Ireland - which believe me, is really, really saying something.
I also believe that the UK doesn't have the monopoly on such people.
quote:True, but then I'm not defending them either.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:I don't think anything I wrote suggested otherwise. We certainly did have a drunken buffoon in Cowan, but as far as I recall he never announced himself Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and I think he was still able to name the Prime Minister of Britain at the time. But this isn't the first idiotic statement by British politicians over the last year - not by a long shot. Not being capable of drawing the border on your own country and some not even realising that Ireland has been a separate, independent state since 1948 demonstrates spectacular idiocy on a scale even unparalleled in Ireland - which believe me, is really, really saying something.
I also believe that the UK doesn't have the monopoly on such people.
quote:I think this is to fatally misunderstand the character of Northern Irish unionism. It is based on the principle of “No Surrender” and its Calvinistic Presbyterianism which believes in dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ’t’ s. Agreements, or rather Covenants, like the Ten Commandments, need to be set in stone and unambiguously clear. It is not characterised by the theological fudge and mudge of the English Anglicanism so dear to Mrs May’s heart. The Ulster Unionists lost out to the Democratic Unionists precisely because its leaders got far too friendly with South, in their protestant electorate’s eyes a sign of impending treachery and betrayal. The DUP are not in a position to be other than implacable regarding the current proposals because to do otherwise would mortally wound their unionist credentials. A border down the Irish Sea cannot be countenanced.
I've just read the take in the "i" which reckons that this might just be theatre - the DUP get to go back with whatever comes up next week saying it's better than it could have been.
quote:I reckon the DUP went into the deal with lots of ££££ signs in their eyes. To all intents and purposes they now have the cash (goodness knows where it has come from: some other disadvantaged part of the UK) and they can continue to turn the screw on the government, in the certain knowledge that their supporters think they are the bees knees.
Originally posted by Stetson:
Why were the DUP against the Ulster deal? I thought the deal kept alive the open border, and that the DUP(along with almost everyone else in NI) wanted that?
quote:That will go down well with their supporters too.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it also a big fuck you to the republic?
quote:They don't like it because it detaches Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK and subjects it to the European Union with respect to its single market and customs union, while at the same time keeping it apart from a hard-brexited UK with a border dividing the Irish Sea. It starts a process of detaching Northern Ireland from the UK. What they would find less unacceptable would be for the whole of the UK to remain in the single market and customs union, which is not currently the policy of Mrs May's administration.
Why were the DUP against the Ulster deal? I thought the deal kept alive the open border, and that the DUP(along with almost everyone else in NI) wanted that?
quote:The policy of May's administration means the policy of May's administration.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You make it sound as though there is some sort of policy of Mrs Mays administration.
quote:and that is a completely predictable result of the policy in the letter from Stormont that Foster signed:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
They don't like it because it detaches Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK and subjects it to the European Union with respect to its single market and customs union
quote:and absent a soft Brexit, there is no way of squaring the letter Foster signed above with the Hard Brexit preferred by parts of her own party.
while at the same time keeping it apart from a hard-brexited UK with a border dividing the Irish Sea.
quote:But, they're talking about changing the constitutional status. And, Ulster Unionism has too strong a Presbyterian influence to countenance change.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
The whole affair is triple-decked nonsense. Northern Ireland has a different constitutional status from the rest of the UK, and this has been so since 1922.
quote:AFZ
House of Lords, European Union Committee: Brexit: Deal or No Deal:
The overwhelming view of witnesses was that ‘no deal’ would be deeply damaging for the UK. It would not just be economically disruptive, but would bring UK-EU cooperation on issues such as counter-terrorism, nuclear safeguards, data exchange and aviation to a sudden halt. It would necessitate the imposition of controls on the Irish land border, and would also leave open the critical question of citizens’ rights.
quote:Especially as he's been touted as PM within weeks. Apparently the hard-line Brexitteers want someone who will drive the country over the cliff edge with confidence that someone who's blatantly lied to Parliament is acceptable. Though, only as a sacrificial lamb to be got rid of once the UK is out of the EU and before the next election.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
It is obscene that there is even a question: Davis has lied to Parliament, he should resign. It's as simple as that.
I am not holding my breath.
quote:If you bluff that badly at a card table you will lose so badly that no one will play with you again: always provided you ever have the funds to play again.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incredible really that Davis's various pronouncements on impact assessments and the like are described as 'bluffing'. In plain English, this is lying, but I suppose the days are long gone when this might be answerable, even in parliament. Brexit seems to have a degrading effect generally.
quote:Oh, I'd have thought someone that inept, with funds, would be very welcome at a card table. What gambler wouldn't want easy money from some sucker?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you bluff that badly at a card table you will lose so badly that no one will play with you again: always provided you ever have the funds to play again.
quote:There's bluffing, there's bluffing badly, then there's bluffing as badly as David Davis has done. You wouldn't play because a) you wouldn't believe how badly he was playing and b) the miniscule chance that he might, and probably without knowing it, actually win a hand.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Oh, I'd have thought someone that inept, with funds, would be very welcome at a card table. What gambler wouldn't want easy money from some sucker?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you bluff that badly at a card table you will lose so badly that no one will play with you again: always provided you ever have the funds to play again.
quote:None of them have had their heads chopped off, which puts them ahead of Charles I, and none of them have been killed by an intimate act using a red hot poker which puts them ahead of Edward II.
Originally posted by Eirenist:
My apologies if I am not the first to have remarked on the fact, but this bunch of clowns must surely be the most incompetent government this country has had since the days of Ethelred the Unready.
quote:The thing with playing against someone that bad is that you can never have any idea if they've got a good hand or not. That in turn reduces you to betting purely based on what's in your own hand, which removes most of the point of the game. You might as well just deal everyone a single card and say winner takes all.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In any game of cards there's always the chance that a really bad player actually gets dealt an unbeatable hand. But, usually no one has such a hand and the game is to turn what you have to your advantage. A good player wins more than loses, and a single hand won by a bad player doesn't change that.
quote:But, as Alan points out, it's also rather profitable.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I hate playing cards with people like that. It's so unsatisfying, even if you do win.
quote:Sometimes. But you never know what they've got, so you can never really go big unless you have an unbeatable hand yourself.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:But, as Alan points out, it's also rather profitable.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I hate playing cards with people like that. It's so unsatisfying, even if you do win.
quote:You have a point there, I once lost a hand of poker to my brother because he didn't know what he was doing.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Sometimes. But you never know what they've got,
so you can never really go big unless you have an unbeatable hand yourself.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:You'll lose sometimes playing against Mr. Random, because sometimes he gets lucky. But on a statistical basis you take his shirt.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]Sometimes. But you never know what they've got, so you can never really go big unless you have an unbeatable hand yourself.
quote:So... um..
Complete Capitulation - UK-EU joint report: "In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain FULL ALIGNMENT with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation."
quote:Yes, I didn't think they'd like that, but notice there is plenty of wiggle room to decide just which rules of the Internal Market etc. "support North-South cooperation", and that is a last-ditch option.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This from Leave.EU on twitter:
quote:So... um..
Complete Capitulation - UK-EU joint report: "In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain FULL ALIGNMENT with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation."
quote:Well yyyyeess, although I suppose one can think of a few things that would be necessary if the current situation in Ireland was to continue.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, I didn't think they'd like that, but notice there is plenty of wiggle room to decide just which rules of the Internal Market etc. "support North-South cooperation", and that is a last-ditch option.
quote:Having the single market without freedom of movement is pretty much what the majority of Leavers wanted from the start. If it ends up happening that will be a massive win for them.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nicola Sturgeon seems to agree it looks more like staying in the Single Market and Customs Union than anything that has emerged to date.
I notice some very careful wording in those two articles that seems to exclude the freedom of movement for workers.
quote:It seems that the DUP has insisted that any deal that applies to NI also applies to the rest of the UK.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Well I suspect that NI would have freedom of movement as well.
It's easy enough to restrict the Single Market for the rest of the UK other than NI, not so much between NI and Ireland. Restricting the movement of people between NI and the rest of the UK is of course easy though.
Which is why I still think there's an outside chance of this delivering a massive best-of-all-worlds win for the province. The DUP have certainly proved they have plenty of leverage in the whole deal.
quote:What makes you say that?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It seems that the DUP has insisted that any deal that applies to NI also applies to the rest of the UK.
quote:That seems to allow room for a special status to emerge for NI.
the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.
quote:Well this seems to be what the British press is reporting is the position of the DUP.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What makes you say that?
quote:This tweet sets out what those points are, including:
“We said that politically, economically and constitutionally as well it was vitally important that the integrity of the United Kingdom was kept in place and that’s why we had concerns on Monday and we’ve been working throughout the week in relation to those matters.”
Speaking to Sky she added: “There have been changes made throughout the text and indeed we believe there have been six substantial changes.
“We’re pleased to see those changes because for me it means there’s no red line down the Irish sea and we have the very clear confirmation that the entirety of the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union, leaving the single market, leaving the customs union and I think that’s a very important statement to have.”
quote:
There will be no so-called 'special status' for Northern Ireland
quote:I think she is spinning the text of the joint statement.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Arlene Foster quoted in the Express:
quote:
we have the very clear confirmation that the entirety of the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union, leaving the single market, leaving the customs union and I think that’s a very important statement to have.
quote:The only way this can be avoided, AIUI, is if Stormont comes to a special agreement with Ireland.
the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation...
quote:This appears to fly in the face of at least one option in the agreed text:
This tweet sets out what those points are, including:
quote:
There will be no so-called 'special status' for Northern Ireland
quote:
the United Kingdom [must, if it doesn't reach an overall deal with the EU for the UK as a whole] propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland [ie not Scotland, sorry Nicola]...the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly [may] agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.
quote:I'm not sure if you're looking at the same version of the text as I am, but para 50 of mine also has this sentence, which seems important and germane.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Article 50 says:quote:That seems to allow room for a special status to emerge for NI.
the United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 Agreement, the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.
quote:
In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.
quote:True - but that (IMO) argues strongly for off-the-shelf-with-a-bit-of-fiddling.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Although as Tusk said, there is less time for the harder bits remaining than it took to get to this point.
quote:
. Both Parties recognise that the United Kingdom and Ireland may continue to make arrangements between themselves relating to the movement of persons between their territories (Common Travel Area), while fully respecting the rights of natural persons conferred by Union law. The United Kingdom confirms and accepts that the Common Travel Area and associated rights and privileges can continue to operate without affecting Ireland’s obligations under Union law, in particular with respect to free movement for EU citizens.
quote:Gosh, that takes some parsing - might also be where Barnier got his sad on from, given that earlier this week that wasn't going to happen. It's also the sight of a can flying down the road....
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, it looks like para 54 leaves the door open to freedom of movement with the EU
quote:
. Both Parties recognise that the United Kingdom and Ireland may continue to make arrangements between themselves relating to the movement of persons between their territories (Common Travel Area), while fully respecting the rights of natural persons conferred by Union law. The United Kingdom confirms and accepts that the Common Travel Area and associated rights and privileges can continue to operate without affecting Ireland’s obligations under Union law, in particular with respect to free movement for EU citizens.
quote:I'm not sure what your point is. That doesn't rule out special privileged status of NI with respect to Ireland, ie NI getting a better deal than anywhere else.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure if you're looking at the same version of the text as I am, but para 50 of mine also has this sentence, which seems important and germane.
quote:
In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland's businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.
quote:I think to some extent the EU has capitulated and has now offered as a minimum a third country to have full CM access to an EU country - and via it to the rest of the EU without it actually being in the EU.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Gosh, that takes some parsing - might also be where Barnier got his sad on from, given that earlier this week that wasn't going to happen. It's also the sight of a can flying down the road....
quote:Not sure how you get this point. If there is no barrier between the UK and NI, then it is basically free trade between the UK and the EU - providing it is via the RoI. Any "privilege" given to NI (wrt trade, for example), is by definition also going to apply to the rest of the UK.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm not sure what your point is. That doesn't rule out special privileged status of NI with respect to Ireland, ie NI getting a better deal than anywhere else.
quote:Genuine question (have to write that otherwise it's going to look like I'm dismissing all that out of hand, when I'm in fact *really* not),
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:I think to some extent the EU has capitulated and has now offered as a minimum a third country to have full CM access to an EU country - and via it to the rest of the EU without it actually being in the EU.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Gosh, that takes some parsing - might also be where Barnier got his sad on from, given that earlier this week that wasn't going to happen. It's also the sight of a can flying down the road....
The only available ways forward seem to me to be bad for the EU. If the UK gets a good trade deal, the EU is basically toast. If there is no trade deal, then Ireland is probably toast wrt the rest of the EU.
The UK is free to have trade deals with other places, will continue accessing Ireland and by extension presumably the rest of the EU. Ireland can see the advantage, because think of all that stuff that is going to be flowing through Ireland.
Quite what happens to the WTO rules and tariffs, I have no idea. If the EU imposes them, presumably they're now aware that they'd be screwing the RoI.
quote:Again, I'm basically concluding it is a holding position. The problem is going to be if the UK now shrug, give up on a trade deal and accept this backstop deal.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
That can't possibly be what it means though? Can it?
quote:So far we don't know what 'regulatory alignment' will actually look like, and we don't know the details of what sectors this will cover.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, I'm basically concluding it is a holding position. The problem is going to be if the UK now shrug, give up on a trade deal and accept this backstop deal.
As far as I can see, this is a lot, lot better than a hard brexit. And it isn't good for the EU as far as I can see.
quote:well we could, because it appears to be anything in the Good Friday Agreement. Which is by no means everything, but is quite a lot.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
we don't know the details of what sectors this will cover.
quote:... because the alternative is utter chaos in Ireland?
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
You would think it must be at least OK for the EU - otherwise why would they have agreed to it?
quote:I'm struggling to see how this is good for the EU.
In which case the outcome seems really rather surprisingly good for everyone? On first impressions?
quote:Do you know, I actually (and cautiously) think it might be.
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
You would think it must be at least OK for the EU - otherwise why would they have agreed to it?
In which case the outcome seems really rather surprisingly good for everyone? On first impressions?
quote:Being entirely honest, if the choice were Norway or Canada then even as a (reluctant/pragmatic) remainer, I would take Canada.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If as betjemaniac and I hope the result is Norway-like, I don't think the EU can be seen to have lost out that much. By leaving, the UK loses decision-making power.
Where this is likely to go down badly in the UK is with the "take back control" brigade. Even if Norway isn't bound by ECJ decisions, this article seems to think the EFTA court is subservient to it.
quote:"All I want for Christmas is EU". I've been thinking of getting one of those. Because it's still an undoubted fact that the UK electorate has been duped by a load of porky pies into believing that it's better to leave the EU than stay in. So, I'm all for exercising the democratic right to campaign against a stupid policy decision, and to do all we can to rectify as far as possible the mess created by the idiots who sold a very small majority of the people a pile of codswallop. There's nothing IMO idiotic about exercising democratic rights by any and all legal means (so, I'm going to rule out acts of violence and intimidation - even though some Brexit supporters have gone down that route), even if that means wearing stupid jumpers.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The headbangers wrapped in the Union Jack can go and boil their heads, as can those idiots on the other side who've cracked out the EU Christmas jumpers (2 seen this morning alone)
quote:Scrolling back, here's what I had to say about that in August. I see this was apparently Theresa May's preference all along, but I don't imagine it to be very likely.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Being entirely honest, if the choice were Norway or Canada then even as a (reluctant/pragmatic) remainer, I would take Canada.
quote:well absolutely - but as I said my preference would be for both fringes to do it quietly, and preferably somewhere else!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:"All I want for Christmas is EU". I've been thinking of getting one of those. Because it's still an undoubted fact that the UK electorate has been duped by a load of porky pies into believing that it's better to leave the EU than stay in. So, I'm all for exercising the democratic right to campaign against a stupid policy decision, and to do all we can to rectify as far as possible the mess created by the idiots who sold a very small majority of the people a pile of codswallop. There's nothing IMO idiotic about exercising democratic rights by any and all legal means (so, I'm going to rule out acts of violence and intimidation - even though some Brexit supporters have gone down that route), even if that means wearing stupid jumpers.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The headbangers wrapped in the Union Jack can go and boil their heads, as can those idiots on the other side who've cracked out the EU Christmas jumpers (2 seen this morning alone)
quote:But Canada doesn't have a land border with the EU. That, the GFA and Britain's "special relationship" with Ireland (whether one means the Republic or the geographical entity) put us in a very different category.
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:Being entirely honest, if the choice were Norway or Canada then even as a (reluctant/pragmatic) remainer, I would take Canada.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If as betjemaniac and I hope the result is Norway-like, I don't think the EU can be seen to have lost out that much. By leaving, the UK loses decision-making power.
Where this is likely to go down badly in the UK is with the "take back control" brigade. Even if Norway isn't bound by ECJ decisions, this article seems to think the EFTA court is subservient to it.
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
This is like watching Omar steal a shed load of heroin from Prop Joe and Cheese and sell it back to them.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:I agree. It seems to have been accepted by all but the headbangers (who forced us into this sorry state) that are going to get either sweet FA or a deal that, when the eyes are crossed and the tees dotted, will be damn near indistinguishable from membership. Just no seats in the European parliament, no commissioners, no Brits in Brussels of the ECJ, etc, etc.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's either a climb-down or clever presentational politics. We are leaving the single market (but we'll follow its regs).
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, it looks very much like LINO (Leaving In Name Only), if it really happens I'll be happy with that as the least worst outcome (other than actually staying in).
quote:Why should we not bleat? What have you got against people who really care for their country airing their views?
Originally posted by Boogie:
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!
quote:We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, it looks very much like LINO (Leaving In Name Only), if it really happens I'll be happy with that as the least worst outcome (other than actually staying in).
It may even be the best outcome?
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!
quote:True. I hope it keeps the nutbars happy, but I strongly suspect it won't be enough.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, it looks very much like LINO (Leaving In Name Only), if it really happens I'll be happy with that as the least worst outcome (other than actually staying in).
It may even be the best outcome?
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!
quote:If we want the benefits of being able to trade within the single market (which is what the EU is all about) we won't be able to ignore the ECJ.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, it looks very much like LINO (Leaving In Name Only), if it really happens I'll be happy with that as the least worst outcome (other than actually staying in).
It may even be the best outcome?
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!
quote:People who really care for their country don't advocate sabotaging its economy just to prove that we have the power to do so. [This is why "taking back control" is a nonsense: as we have the ability to withdraw from the EU whenever we choose we have all the control we could want. That doesn't make it a good idea to exercise that control because actions have consequences]
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:Why should we not bleat? What have you got against people who really care for their country airing their views?
Originally posted by Boogie:
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!
quote:Nothing - provided nobody takes it to be anything more than hot-air. So long as Nigel Cabbage never appears on a BBC programme again.
Originally posted by balaam:
Why should we not bleat? What have you got against people who really care for their country airing their views?
quote:You're older than me Mr Cheesy (I think) - surely by now you've learned not to expect *anything* about Northern Ireland (and especially it's politics) to make sense?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, here's another thing I'd love to have out with the DUP. They keep saying that they don't want any separation between NI and the rUK, whilst at the same time supporting a system that is separate in various ways from the rUK.
They legal system in NI is different to that in Scotland and EnglandandWales. The Police service is different than anything in the rUK. The school system is different.
You don't go from Holyhead to NI and think that it is a completely different country, but it clearly isn't as similar as crossing the bridge from Bristol to Newport.
So all this bleating about NI having a "special status" as if this would somehow reduce its Britishness seems to me to be absolute baloney. NI already has a different, arguably a special, status. And one which the DUP actively support.
quote:Well, might it be a case of their old-fashioned Britishness itself being what makes them so different from the rest of the UK?
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, here's another thing I'd love to have out with the DUP. They keep saying that they don't want any separation between NI and the rUK, whilst at the same time supporting a system that is separate in various ways from the rUK.
They legal system in NI is different to that in Scotland and EnglandandWales. The Police service is different than anything in the rUK. The school system is different.
You don't go from Holyhead to NI and think that it is a completely different country, but it clearly isn't as similar as crossing the bridge from Bristol to Newport.
So all this bleating about NI having a "special status" as if this would somehow reduce its Britishness seems to me to be absolute baloney. NI already has a different, arguably a special, status. And one which the DUP actively support.
quote:I don't think that means what you think it means.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
quote:What do you think I think it means and what do you think it actually means (if different)?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:I don't think that means what you think it means.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
quote:I suppose one's view of who is and who isn't a 'nutbar' might vary, but mainstream pro-Brexit opinion seems very much on board with current developments. Nigel Farage isn't happy, but then again he's all about boarding the outrage bus so I'm not particularly surprised.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:True. I hope it keeps the nutbars happy, but I strongly suspect it won't be enough.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, it looks very much like LINO (Leaving In Name Only), if it really happens I'll be happy with that as the least worst outcome (other than actually staying in).
It may even be the best outcome?
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!
quote:Apart from the fact that you, and your kind, have undermined the economy, the western alliance, race relations and the Northern Irish Peace Process, nothing at all. To paraphrase the Blessed Clement Attlee (PBUH):
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:Why should we not bleat? What have you got against people who really care for their country airing their views?
Originally posted by Boogie:
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!
quote:
I can assure you there is widespread resentment at your activities and a period of silence on your part would be welcome.
quote:Yes, just heard Farago on Radio 4 being predictably outraged, apparently still being subject to the ECJ for nearly a decade!!! is NOT WHAT PEOPLE VOTED FOR (as if he has any idea what anyone voted for.) People I know, pro- and anti-Brexit, are heartily sick of the whole sorry farce and just want it all put to bed. "Brexit is just so 2016", as one colleague put it. If this deal (or proto-deal, whatever it is, the hard bits are still to do,) allows us to pay lipservice to Brexit and then get on with our lives, it looks like that will be acceptable to most normal people.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:I suppose one's view of who is and who isn't a 'nutbar' might vary, but mainstream pro-Brexit opinion seems very much on board with current developments. Nigel Farage isn't happy, but then again he's all about boarding the outrage bus so I'm not particularly surprised.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:True. I hope it keeps the nutbars happy, but I strongly suspect it won't be enough.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, it looks very much like LINO (Leaving In Name Only), if it really happens I'll be happy with that as the least worst outcome (other than actually staying in).
It may even be the best outcome?
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!
quote:As much I'd like to be shot of the ECJ yesterday, and certainly by the withdrawal date, this is a negotiation and you're never going to get quite what you want. I think most people, on either side of the argument, get this and just want a resolution, as you say.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yes, just heard Farago on Radio 4 being predictably outraged, apparently still being subject to the ECJ for nearly a decade!!! is NOT WHAT PEOPLE VOTED FOR (as if he has any idea what anyone voted for.) People I know, pro- and anti-Brexit, are heartily sick of the whole sorry farce and just want it all put to bed. "Brexit is just so 2016", as one colleague put it. If this deal (or proto-deal, whatever it is, the hard bits are still to do,) allows us to pay lipservice to Brexit and then get on with our lives, it looks like that will be acceptable to most normal people.
quote:This is the bit that I found curious. When I admit to not having read all the EU's and UK government's negotiation position papers, I'm sure I'm not the only one on this board who hasn't, but my understanding was that the EU's position was that the Stage 1 issues (EU citizens' rights, the financial settlement, Irish issues, etc.) had to be agreed before proceeding to Stage 2 and by 'agreed' I thought this meant agreed in some binding way.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
If this deal (or proto-deal, whatever it is, the hard bits are still to do)
quote:See Sioni's answer up thread. The CJEU would be involved as soon as the UK has a trade deal with the EU.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What do you think I think it means and what do you think it actually means (if different)?
quote:Right, but quite possibly only to the extent that any other country in the world does? (Unless we negotiate differently, of course.) Canada and Japan have trade deals with the EU. I don't think anyone claims that those countries are subject to the ECJ, do they?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:See Sioni's answer up thread. The CJEU would be involved as soon as the UK has a trade deal with the EU.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What do you think I think it means and what do you think it actually means (if different)?
quote:Canada and Japan don't have land borders with the EU, which members of the EEA have (as well as some "candidate countries" like Turkey and some Eastern European countries. That land border with the Republic of Ireland makes one hell of a lot of difference, to those on both sides of it.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Right, but quite possibly only to the extent that any other country in the world does? (Unless we negotiate differently, of course.) Canada and Japan have trade deals with the EU. I don't think anyone claims that those countries are subject to the ECJ, do they?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:See Sioni's answer up thread. The CJEU would be involved as soon as the UK has a trade deal with the EU.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What do you think I think it means and what do you think it actually means (if different)?
quote:To the extent that the ECJ ultimately rules on EU standards and they wish to trade with the EU, yes they are, and given that even Brexiters like Johnson/Gove claim the UK can do 'better than a canadian deal' yes it will.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Right, but quite possibly only to the extent that any other country in the world does? (Unless we negotiate differently, of course.) Canada and Japan have trade deals with the EU. I don't think anyone claims that those countries are subject to the ECJ, do they?
quote:But I don't see how that differs from the supreme court of any other country in the world with which another country wishes to do business, say.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:To the extent that the ECJ ultimately rules on EU standards and they wish to trade with the EU, yes they are
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Right, but quite possibly only to the extent that any other country in the world does? (Unless we negotiate differently, of course.) Canada and Japan have trade deals with the EU. I don't think anyone claims that those countries are subject to the ECJ, do they?
quote:As long as it's good for Britain I couldn't care less how it is for the EU.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm struggling to see how this is good for the EU.
quote:Martin Schulz has proposed that there be a United States of Europe by 2025 and that any EU member state that doesn't want to sign up to it should leave the EU. If his idea came to pass, I wonder how much of the EU would be left?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:As long as it's good for Britain I couldn't care less how it is for the EU.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm struggling to see how this is good for the EU.
quote:Not much, probably.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Martin Schulz has proposed that there be a United States of Europe by 2025 and that any EU member state that doesn't want to sign up to it should leave the EU. If his idea came to pass, I wonder how much of the EU would be left?
quote:The Grauniad the other day was suggesting that the DUP are actually almost as split as the Tories on the issue, with Arlene Foster being relatively soft and Sammy Wilson being someone who makes Mr Farage look sane. Don't know enough about them to know if that's true. It's probably true, though, that unionism is more fundamental to their identity than Euroscepticism.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The DUP, who appear to be the most Brexity of Brexiteers
quote:True but I suspect that even Uber carries out basic right-to-work checks before setting people on their glorious path to freedom from employment legislation.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Freedom of movement will in theory no longer be allowed, but will be impossible to stop in practice. Anyone from the EU who wants to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by our wonderful gig economy just needs to get on a plane to Dublin and take a bus to Belfast.
quote:Because - contrary to what HM Government seems to think - the UK is in a very weak negotiating position. The EU wanted the two-stage process: the UK had to agree or the EU would have waited with the clock ticking until the UK agreed. The inescapable fact is this: No Deal™ is bad for the EU (but not that bad) and VERY bad for the UK.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm still perplexed as to why HMG agreed to the two-stage process in the first place, but I suppose that's a different issue altogether.
quote:Been thinking about this. I think the reason why nothing is said about freedom of movement is that freedom of movement wasn't identified as a Phase I issue (except with regard to EU citizens who have already exercised that freedom).
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Reading various articles about the deal, it really does sound like the UK is getting access to the single market without having to accept freedom of movement (other than any EU nationals already here having the right to stay).
quote:A wise government would have done that before calling a referendum on whether or not to leave the EU. Wisdom is something that has been in remarkably short supply in UK governments of late.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
A wise government would have done as much work as possible before invoking A50. You know, things like impact assessments, negotiating strategy, a clear idea of what we wanted as an end-point (not just wishful thinking), bilateral talks with Ireland about NI... that sort of thing...
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:A wise government would have done that before calling a referendum on whether or not to leave the EU. Wisdom is something that has been in remarkably short supply in UK governments of late.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
A wise government would have done as much work as possible before invoking A50. You know, things like impact assessments, negotiating strategy, a clear idea of what we wanted as an end-point (not just wishful thinking), bilateral talks with Ireland about NI... that sort of thing...
quote:In which case it is arguable that it is not the ECJ itself that you object. If the UK wishes to go 'beyond' a Canadian deal - specifically to craft a deal on services - then there are plenty of bits of legislation involved that will pull in the involvement of the ECJ (GDPR for instance has all sorts of knock on impacts).
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The ECJ would be in no different position to, say, the High Court of Australia if that court had given a judgment on standards that affected British exporters to Australia.
quote:Except they will no longer automatically have right of residence or the right to work. So there wouldn't be any point in them doing so.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Freedom of movement will in theory no longer be allowed, but will be impossible to stop in practice. Anyone from the EU who wants to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by our wonderful gig economy just needs to get on a plane to Dublin and take a bus to Belfast.
quote:Not *automatically* but the devil will be in the detail and it will be subject to the exact terms of "the deal" and what the ECJ will do when it has to deal with a case which I am sure will happen, although we don't know when.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Except they will no longer automatically have right of residence or the right to work. So there wouldn't be any point in them doing so.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Freedom of movement will in theory no longer be allowed, but will be impossible to stop in practice. Anyone from the EU who wants to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by our wonderful gig economy just needs to get on a plane to Dublin and take a bus to Belfast.
quote:There was a case recently where a certain up-market burger chain arranged for the immigration officials to swoop in and round up all the workers who weren't in the country legally.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
True but I suspect that even Uber carries out basic right-to-work checks before setting people on their glorious path to freedom from employment legislation.
quote:Having spent much time in my student years in Northern Ireland and with many of my friends from there, I would never make the mistake of associating it with British identity. It is part of the UK, but I would not go much further than that. YKMV
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Also, here's another thing I'd love to have out with the DUP. They keep saying that they don't want any separation between NI and the rUK, whilst at the same time supporting a system that is separate in various ways from the rUK.
They legal system in NI is different to that in Scotland and EnglandandWales. The Police service is different than anything in the rUK. The school system is different.
You don't go from Holyhead to NI and think that it is a completely different country, but it clearly isn't as similar as crossing the bridge from Bristol to Newport.
So all this bleating about NI having a "special status" as if this would somehow reduce its Britishness seems to me to be absolute baloney. NI already has a different, arguably a special, status. And one which the DUP actively support.
quote:I know what you're saying, but make no mistake that most of the ordinary Protestants in NI consider themselves, quite correctly, if that's their choice, completely and utterly British. It may not be a fellow Brit's idea of British, but that's not Ulster's problem, or it shouldn't be.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Having spent much time in my student years in Northern Ireland and with many of my friends from there, I would never make the mistake of associating it with British identity. It is part of the UK, but I would not go much further than that. YKMV
quote:And today's Heil has got a rogues' gallery of Tories who voted against the government with a "Jones will come back!" threat. It reads like incitement, frankly.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
The papers aren't trying to even appear un-biased, yesterdays express had "Thank God the conservatives are in the lead" (or something like that, it might have been stars or something).
Today MP's threaten Brexit chaos, And personally I'd like them to not just threaten but actively stop the Brexit chaos. But to the papers Brexit chaos is a good.
quote:Or earlier. Afterall, if the government lose the vote on the Brexit deal (presumably sometime at the end of 2018, or the very start of 2019) one thing is absolutely certain - Mrs May will be ousted as Tory leader. And, a General Election will be very likely. Lose that vote, and we a) don't have a Brexit deal and b) we'll have a GE in spring 2019.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Corbyn can only play the waiting game. Question is, will the wind be sufficiently ill by then to blow him into No.10 come 2022?
quote:I'm not sure the vote in parliament will make any difference, nor an election. We have given Notice to Quit under Article 50. I wouldn't be at all surprised for the powers that be at the EU to tell us that we wanted out so out you will be, hard Brexit, soft Brexit or whatever.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Or earlier. Afterall, if the government lose the vote on the Brexit deal (presumably sometime at the end of 2018, or the very start of 2019) one thing is absolutely certain - Mrs May will be ousted as Tory leader. And, a General Election will be very likely. Lose that vote, and we a) don't have a Brexit deal and b) we'll have a GE in spring 2019.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Corbyn can only play the waiting game. Question is, will the wind be sufficiently ill by then to blow him into No.10 come 2022?
quote:There is, of course, talk that an article 50 notice is unilaterally rescindable at any point within the two-year period. And if that's true, then a new government could theoretically just say "we're not doing Brexit" at any point within the two year window.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
We have given Notice to Quit under Article 50. I wouldn't be at all surprised for the powers that be at the EU to tell us that we wanted out so out you will be, hard Brexit, soft Brexit or whatever.
quote:I fear you're right, a lost vote in Parliament isn't going to stop Brexit - and the further we go in pursuing madness the less likely that becomes anyway.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I'm not sure the vote in parliament will make any difference, nor an election. We have given Notice to Quit under Article 50. I wouldn't be at all surprised for the powers that be at the EU to tell us that we wanted out so out you will be, hard Brexit, soft Brexit or whatever.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Or earlier. Afterall, if the government lose the vote on the Brexit deal (presumably sometime at the end of 2018, or the very start of 2019) one thing is absolutely certain - Mrs May will be ousted as Tory leader. And, a General Election will be very likely. Lose that vote, and we a) don't have a Brexit deal and b) we'll have a GE in spring 2019.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Corbyn can only play the waiting game. Question is, will the wind be sufficiently ill by then to blow him into No.10 come 2022?
quote:The EU don't need to do anything to make sure we'll regret leaving the EU. The UK government has already managed that all by itself. Helped by a small majority of the UK population who voted for it.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Jean Claude J. has said that Britain will come to 'regret' leaving the EU. For the cynical and nervous among us an under-his-breath appendage to that statement might well have been We'll make sure of that
quote:Some of the impacts are obvious, and have been since before the start of the campaign. Reduced service from the NHS and other services - less doctors, nurses and other workers (because they've been told they aren't welcome here), reduced tax income from European employees who leave, reduced employment and staff quality (again because of reductions on immigration and a deliberate policy to make the UK an unattractive place to work). Increased red tape to maintain UK production in line with EU regulations, so that UK products can be sold to the EU - even if there aren't any tariffs etc. That will increase costs to business, compensated for by reducing staff costs (less people, or less pay).
Cards are currently being held so close to the chest it is impossible to speculate what the actual difference for the average UK Joe will be cometh the day.
quote:52% of the electorate voted for Brexit, there was a 72.2% turnout, which means 37.4% of the population voted for Brexit. Although the turnout was larger where there was greater Brexit vote.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
<snip>
But, 52% of the population voted for it. Which makes it OK to take the "Great" out of our national identity, and become simply Britain - or, more accurately Little England.
quote:Factions are developing and heretics being denounced. Faith and belief are all that matters. Reality doesn’t exist.
I’m sure this has been said many times already, but Brexit has now become a quasi-religion with its associated language of “doubters”, “mutineers” and “traitors”. Facts and reason are the enemies of the true believers, with their high priests Rees-Mogg, Jenkin, Gove and Johnson.
quote:Must dig out my copy of "The Crucible".
Originally posted by Boogie:
An good comment in the Guardian today.
quote:Factions are developing and heretics being denounced. Faith and belief are all that matters. Reality doesn’t exist.
I’m sure this has been said many times already, but Brexit has now become a quasi-religion with its associated language of “doubters”, “mutineers” and “traitors”. Facts and reason are the enemies of the true believers, with their high priests Rees-Mogg, Jenkin, Gove and Johnson.
quote:It’s like someone is writing a really crap reboot of Yes’s, Prime Minister, with ever-increasingly wildly unlikely plots and characters and a sad lack of actual humour.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"Theresa May is due to meet her "Brexit cabinet" to discuss for the first time what the UK's future relationship with the EU should be."
I thought I misheard that on the TV this morning, but it's there in print as well. The FIRST TIME?l.
quote:A TV drama, complete with an "it was all a dream" plot twist plagiarised from Dallas
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
It’s like someone is writing a really crap reboot of Yes’s, Prime Minister, with ever-increasingly wildly unlikely plots and characters and a sad lack of actual humour.
quote:With proper bread shops, unions with teeth ...
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
If Bonaparte had won the Battle of Waterloo, we wouldn't be in this mess.
A different mess, yes, probably, but perhaps a more edifying one...and with decent frites instead of the soggy monstrosities served up in most UK chippies...
IJ
quote:Would be bloody lovely if we woke up and the “it was all a dream” trope reset us to our previous level of mediocrity.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:A TV drama, complete with an "it was all a dream" plot twist plagiarised from Dallas
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
It’s like someone is writing a really crap reboot of Yes’s, Prime Minister, with ever-increasingly wildly unlikely plots and characters and a sad lack of actual humour.
quote:I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now. The cabinet appears as split as the Tory party was before the referendum but and it is drifting under the captaincy of Theresa May, who has confused "static" for "stable".
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:Would be bloody lovely if we woke up and the “it was all a dream” trope reset us to our previous level of mediocrity.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:A TV drama, complete with an "it was all a dream" plot twist plagiarised from Dallas
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
It’s like someone is writing a really crap reboot of Yes’s, Prime Minister, with ever-increasingly wildly unlikely plots and characters and a sad lack of actual humour.
quote:In some ways this is a very dangerous state of affairs - more so as the transitional arrangement seemed 'reasonable' and thus people (Remainers and soft Leavers) are lulled into a false sense of security.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I think she's confusing "stable" with making sure all the horses in her party are corralled together. And, ignoring the fact that stabling horses creates a lot of muck to be cleaned out.
quote:Is it awful that there’s a bit of me that almost hopes that happens* just because we've make such a fuckadoodle of it that we kinda deserve it?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The end destination could differ radically from the transition - and in the worst case the UK will just fall out of a transition period without any agreement.
quote:According to this, it's even more ironic than that.
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
it’ll not be the rich powerful players who created the Brexit mess who suffer, it’ll be the poorest and most vulnerable people who take th biggest hit.
quote:
Figure 2 depicts the GDP exposure to Brexit of European regions. The highest levels are found for many of the UK's non-core regions in the Midlands and the North of England, many of which voted for Brexit
quote:I take it from this that you accept a "Brexit" in which the UK accepts the four freedoms, is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, pays into the EU budget, accepts all regulations emanating from Brussels and is unable to have an independent trade policy, but without having any representation in the decision making bodies of the EU? Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now.
quote:Doesn't really have salience, and wasn't on the ballot paper.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?
quote:Nobody seriously thinks that the UK could stay in the SM without accepting regulation from Brussels. But aren't those who advocate staying in the SM and CU worried about the democratic deficit that will cause? I've worried for many years about lack of democracy in the EU, especially as successive British governments have signed up to treaties which seriously changed our relationship with Europe, without ever giving us a vote, which was given in many other countries.
Originally posted by chris styles:
ISTR you asserting up thread that it would be trivial for the UK to stay in the SM without accepting any regulation from the EU. How's that working out for you?
quote:[emphasis added] And the government is taking advantage of the Brexit chaos to award itself a lot of extra powers. That's the same government which is quite happy with the excessively gerrymandered and highly centralized British political system.
I've worried for many years about lack of democracy in the EU, especially as successive British governments have signed up to treaties which seriously changed our relationship with Europe, without ever giving us a vote, which was given in many other countries.
quote:I think this gets to the heart of the disingenuousness of the Brexiteers.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Nobody seriously thinks that the UK could stay in the SM without accepting regulation from Brussels. But aren't those who advocate staying in the SM and CU worried about the democratic deficit that will cause?
quote:With this and subsequent posts, we seem to be moving onto the subject of democracy itself. I no longer agree with the FPTP system of UK elections, but when the Lib Dems, in coalition, forced a referendum on a modest change in the electoral system, it was completely rebuffed. Nor do I relish the headbanging DUP holding the balance of power, but coalitions, even in countries which have PR, often result in small parties having a disproportionate leverage on power. I also agree with Alan that power in the UK is much too centralised.
Originally posted by Jane R:
That's the same government which is quite happy with the excessively gerrymandered and highly centralized British political system.
Seems to me that the democratic deficit is going to get worse instead of better. Right now the balance of power in Parliament is being held by ten MPs from Northern Ireland. Does that sound democratic to you? Voting for their party isn't even an option in mainland Britain - although to be fair, we have batshit crazy politicians over here, too.
quote:You don't have the right. You are entitled to seek one. But a larger market does not make a deal easier.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the British economy is several times over more important than Norway and Canada combined as a market for the EU, so we have the right to seek a bespoke deal.
quote:I don't know about the "exact opposite", but that is indeed what was stupid about a Leave vote in my view. It is simply unrealistic to think you can be so close to such a huge and regulated market and not feel some of its rules are being "imposed" on you if you want to trade with it. Being in the EU allowed the UK to have a voice in all that.
What I could never accept, and I think many Britons would agree, although I don't know how many, is that we should be subject to all the rules and constraints of the SM and CU, without a voice in the decision making process. That is the exact opposite of what the Brexit vote was about, however we may feel about it.
quote:You are right. I meant we have the right to seek a bespoke deal, not necessarily to have one. It goes without saying that any country which sells to the EU has to meet its regulatory standards, as does any country which sells to Japan or the US. That's up to the exporters. I don't see why it means that we must align our whole export market permanently with the EU.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You don't have the right. You are entitled to seek one.
quote:This.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't know about the "exact opposite", but that is indeed what was stupid about a Leave vote in my view. It is simply unrealistic to think you can be so close to such a huge and regulated market and not feel some of its rules are being "imposed" on you if you want to trade with it. Being in the EU allowed the UK to have a voice in all that.
quote:Nobody except you upthread
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:Nobody seriously thinks that the UK could stay in the SM without accepting regulation from Brussels.
Originally posted by chris styles:
ISTR you asserting up thread that it would be trivial for the UK to stay in the SM without accepting any regulation from the EU. How's that working out for you?
quote:Short of having a referendum over ever trade deal how do you propose to fix that ? (at various points in this thread you seem to consider anything that isn't subject to direct vote undemocratic - see your comments about leaving the EHCR).
But aren't those who advocate staying in the SM and CU worried about the democratic deficit that will cause?
quote:It's not the EU's fault we voted for no representation.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I take it from this that you accept a "Brexit" in which the UK accepts the four freedoms, is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, pays into the EU budget, accepts all regulations emanating from Brussels and is unable to have an independent trade policy, but without having any representation in the decision making bodies of the EU? Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now.
quote:Firstly I completely agree that this is unbelievably irrelevant.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, now the news is of a different non-issue. The colour of UK passports will be changed to blue. Which is a) one of those "who cares?" things and b) if it was important that could have been changed anyway without leaving the EU (there was no need to change the colour to the burgandy we currently have, and no one has ever, to my knowledge, said the colour couldn't be changed back).
quote:At first glance, they provide overviews of the current state of play, not impact assessments or suggestions for moving forward. It would have been nice to have these before the referendum.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
These are critical documents and I suspect it will take some time for meaningful analysis, but I thought I'd share in case anyone else (like me) wants to have a look.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:Yep, I scanned through the aerospace one (coz I think this is an area where we really are in trouble if not in the customs union and coz Britain is currently a world-leader, for now).
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:At first glance, they provide overviews of the current state of play, not impact assessments or suggestions for moving forward. It would have been nice to have these before the referendum.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
These are critical documents and I suspect it will take some time for meaningful analysis, but I thought I'd share in case anyone else (like me) wants to have a look.
quote:The Channel Islands governments basically have to twiddle their thumbs until the UK manages to actually negotiate something on their behalf that will determine their own standing with respect to the EU. They are currently part of the EEA.
Because Jersey is not part of the EU, the UK will be responsible for representing our interests in their negotiations with the EU.
quote:Excellent Twitter thread. It would all be hilarous if it wasn't so tragic...
Originally posted by Stejjie:
To give you a start, here's a Twitter thread pointing out some of the, er, in-depth analysis that has gone into the making of these...
(I suspect this may well be grossly unfair and the sort of thing you should put in a sector analysis, but on face value it seems to fit with the general incompetence that has surrounded Brexit thus far).
Edit: x-posted with Eutychus, this was in response to alienfromzog.
quote:The "sexed-up dossier" that got us into Gulf War II looks a sound and reasonable analysis now.
Originally posted by Stejjie:
And apparently some of it's copy and pasted from Wikipedia.
quote:I'll confess to not having read them, but I suspect this:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Just wanted to say, I was completely wrong.
It took no time at all for meaningful analysis.
quote:is all the analysis required...
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I've read through a few of them; if I was presented with them in any professional capacity, I'd assume that their jejune quality was intended to hide a much more serious set of issues. Consider:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At first glance, they provide overviews of the current state of play, not impact assessments or suggestions for moving forward. It would have been nice to have these before the referendum.
quote:They look like Year 10 essays to me. Not very good ones either. They would fail A level by a distance.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Those extracts sound like A-level essays. Maybe they are.
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:They look like Year 10 essays to me. Not very good ones either. They would fail A level by a distance.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Those extracts sound like A-level essays. Maybe they are.
(and here's one for you: a large part of the shellfish catch in the South-west of England is bought by the French then shipped across the channel).
quote:They do have competence in one area: misdirection. Of course, it does help if the gutter press are willing to cooperate with you. Making an elephant disappear is a lot easier if you have a stooge in the audience yelling 'Look over there!' when you want everyone's attention directed elsewhere.
HOW, HOW, how is this not front page news? This is astounding incompetence. From a government that we know is incompetent, this is still surprising...
But the S*n front page (and a group on FB that I look at to see what Leave are saying) focuses on passport colour...
quote:Yep, I know.
Originally posted by Jane R:
alienfromzog:quote:They do have competence in one area: misdirection. Of course, it does help if the gutter press are willing to cooperate with you. Making an elephant disappear is a lot easier if you have a stooge in the audience yelling 'Look over there!' when you want everyone's attention directed elsewhere.
HOW, HOW, how is this not front page news? This is astounding incompetence. From a government that we know is incompetent, this is still surprising...
But the S*n front page (and a group on FB that I look at to see what Leave are saying) focuses on passport colour...
seriously? quote:They have competence in another related area, one we see all to often in organised religion namely self deception. They have fooled themselves (deliberately or not I neither know nor care) but having done it, it becomes a damn sight easier to deceive others.
Originally posted by Jane R:
alienfromzog:quote:They do have competence in one area: misdirection. Of course, it does help if the gutter press are willing to cooperate with you. Making an elephant disappear is a lot easier if you have a stooge in the audience yelling 'Look over there!' when you want everyone's attention directed elsewhere.
HOW, HOW, how is this not front page news? This is astounding incompetence. From a government that we know is incompetent, this is still surprising...
But the S*n front page (and a group on FB that I look at to see what Leave are saying) focuses on passport colour...
quote:While agreeing that Brexit might well leave the UK with all of the characteristics of membership without any of the political participation, I would note that "No taxation without representation":
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:I take it from this that you accept a "Brexit" in which the UK accepts the four freedoms, is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, pays into the EU budget, accepts all regulations emanating from Brussels and is unable to have an independent trade policy, but without having any representation in the decision making bodies of the EU? Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now.
quote:Don't rush to blame Mr Davis.
I wasn't expecting clear evidence of Davis' incompetence but I was thinking there would be some meaningful data in here that would help to build a proper picture.
As you say the level of these is incredible - in the most literal sense of the word.
quote:There is much, much more on the MPA on the civil service website but the bottom line is it comes down to our wonderful public servants to provide information on this type of thing - they themselves claim it as an area where they have the expertise above and beyond that of the other departments.
The Major Projects Authority (MPA) works with HM Treasury and other government departments to provide independent assurance on major projects. It also supports colleagues across departments to build skills and improve the way we manage and deliver projects. The MPA is part of the Efficiency and Reform Group in the Cabinet Office.
Major projects are defined as those which:[LIST][*]require spending over and above departmental expenditure limits[*]require primary legislation[*]are innovative or contentious
quote:I'm sorry, but that doesn't wash. I am aware of how the government works, although not the fine detail. However, the point is that ministers remain accountable for their departments. That's how democracy works. And if this is what was put across his desk, then he's HAS to send the mandarins away to do better. As hinted above, a pre-GCSE student would be sent away to do better if handing this in.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't rush to blame Mr Davis.
quote:Indeed?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You are supposing that Mr Davis would have read them at all. I've heard from people who have had the privilege* of being at meetings with him that he will read the briefing notes circulated weeks in advance of the meeting during the meeting. Which is both lazy and disrespectful of the others who have spent the time preparing to do serious business at the meeting.
* if that's the appropriate word.
quote:People like to focus on passport colours because it's symbolic, and their Brexit vote was largely based on symbolism rather than substance. They want "independence from Europe" and "not to be told what to do by Brussels" but don't really know what any of that means. But a blue passport is something they can touch.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think people like to focus on passport colours because the sheer magnitude and complexity of the alternative is just too scary to contemplate.
quote:Re bib: It's worse than that! He's charged with overseeing negotiations on behalf of this country. If he disregards the background work, the assessments and the guidance of the army of civil servants who advise him, preferring to fly by the seat of his pants and use his limited personal expertise and judgement, then he's negligent of his duties. The feelings of civil servants are rather less important than their professional efforts ( which we've all paid for) not being allowed to carry their full weight. Imagine a judge ignoring witnesses, forensics or psychiatric reports to make a judgement!
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You are supposing that Mr Davis would have read them at all. I've heard from people who have had the privilege* of being at meetings with him that he will read the briefing notes circulated weeks in advance of the meeting during the meeting. Which is both lazy and disrespectful of the others who have spent the time preparing to do serious business at the meeting.
* if that's the appropriate word.
quote:Funny no one asks about the two French phrases written thereon.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think people like to focus on passport colours because the sheer magnitude and complexity of the alternative is just too scary to contemplate.
quote:But this is really all about the impending disappearance of the two English words at the top of the passport, isn't it? The change of colour is a nice Brexmas present, but secondary.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Funny no one asks about the two French phrases written thereon.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think people like to focus on passport colours because the sheer magnitude and complexity of the alternative is just too scary to contemplate.
quote:But we did not have to take the burgundy colour, that was a British, not EU, decision, Croatia is a EC countries with blue passports, we could have had blue passports without leaving the EC.
Tweeted by Theresa May
The UK passport is an expression of our independence and sovereignty – symbolising our citizenship of a proud, great nation. That's why we have announced that the iconic #bluepassport will return after we leave the European Union in 2019.
quote:Very droll. Interesting that the writer says 'to wind up the Brexit bunch'. I've seen (positive) reaction from the Conservative, some Tory MPs, the Sun and (inevitably) Nigel Farage, but I've seen far more (negative) reaction from Remain supporters. Didn't realise they were so tetchy. Quite surprised by the amount of fake news surrounding this too.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we need to change the passport appearance, then this would be my choice.
quote:I'm afraid I don't quite understand this bit. The only French that's on the cover, so far as I understand, are the French words in the coat of arms and that's traditional, hardly imposed by an outside body? And this blue/black example pre-dates the United Nations by over twenty years.
Originally posted by balaam:
The old blue/black passports, however, together with the French on the cover, were imposed by the UN.
quote:It’s a visible marker of a sad reality, that’s why remainers like me found our hearts sinking a little further when we saw it.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Very droll. Interesting that the writer says 'to wind up the Brexit bunch'. I've seen (positive) reaction from the Conservative, some Tory MPs, the Sun and (inevitably) Nigel Farage, but I've seen far more (negative) reaction from Remain supporters. Didn't realise they were so tetchy. Quite surprised by the amount of fake news surrounding this too.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we need to change the passport appearance, then this would be my choice.
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:If he can deliver that without turning us into a Venezuela-esque economic basket case, then I'm game. Full steam ahead!
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I've just worked out how Mr Corbyn can win overwhelming support for his manifesto!
Renationalisation of the railways, with a return to the maroon coaches and the logo with the lion on it.
Renationalisation of utilities, returning wrought-iron Victorian drinking fountains to public use.
£500bn infrastructure investment, to be spent rebuilding the Euston Arch and the Liverpool Overhead Railway, among other projects.
quote:Or, much more recently, in Glasgow.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
No, no! Blood-and-custard coaches, if you please!
As seen here...
quote:Perhaps the people who voted Leave are actually quite different from the grotesques that exist in the minds of some of those who voted Remain?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm surprised that the "leave" supporters are worried about the colour of the passport. Why would they want to travel abroad
quote:I think British people visited the continent before 1973...
(assuming we would be allowed in?).
quote:Firstly, I'm going by the statements made by the
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Perhaps the people who voted Leave are actually quite different from the grotesques that exist in the minds of some of those who voted Remain?
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm surprised that the "leave" supporters are worried about the colour of the passport. Why would they want to travel abroad
quote:I think British people visited the continent before 1973...
(assuming we would be allowed in?).
quote:Seems a rather harsh way to describe Gisela Stuart.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Firstly, I'm going by the statements made by the
leading political proponents of leaving the EU: they seem a particularly nasty, selfish, clueless and opportunistic bunch.
quote:Perhaps I'm late to this part of the thread, but in the early 1980s I was in a cabinet minister's private office and I assure you that officials' papers were sent back a number of times and, in the case of major documents (and these would have been major documents), there were long briefing sessions where he challenged lines of thinking, numbers, and communications strategies. In later years, officials told me that they really liked this sort of thing, partly for the intellectual exercise, and partly because it cleared out a lot of nonsense which looked good at the time it was written. In a few ministers' offices, senior political staff helped do this.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:I'm sorry, but that doesn't wash. I am aware of how the government works, although not the fine detail. However, the point is that ministers remain accountable for their departments. That's how democracy works. And if this is what was put across his desk, then he's HAS to send the mandarins away to do better. As hinted above, a pre-GCSE student would be sent away to do better if handing this in.
Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't rush to blame Mr Davis.
So there are a few possibilities - either these were produced overnight to cover Mr Davis' gaffe the other day or these, he has been sitting on for a while. Either way, he clearly is not leading the department at all.
AFZ
quote:Sounds perfect to me; not all of them have the traits in the same mix, but the same applies to Hoey, Hannan, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Gove, and so on.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:Seems a rather harsh way to describe Gisela Stuart.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Firstly, I'm going by the statements made by the
leading political proponents of leaving the EU: they seem a particularly nasty, selfish, clueless and opportunistic bunch.
quote:Your occasional reminder that thanks to the Brexiteers our government is cosying up to this malicious and dangerous moron for a trade deal.
Tweeted by Donald Trump:
North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!
quote:That's interesting. If that continues, it will be a question of how much of a deal outside the EU the UK can get for its money.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's an interesting point of terminology which is going on. The EU describe the period after Brexit as a transition, during which EU rules will still operate, and a trade deal is negotiated. As the vernacular has it, this is pay-no-say.
However, the govt describe it as an implementation period, presumably suggesting that there is something to be implemented. What this is is carefully left in the shadows.
I don't think you can negotiate a trade deal until you are a third country, so there is nothing to implement right now.
quote:OTOH on a political level it may not be a terrible strategy if you adopt their presuppositions.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
2) This is not what Farmers were promised. The Leave Campaign specifically promised to match EU subsidies (which is just one of the ways that you know the £350m claim is ridiculous given that the Common Agricultural Policy accounts for around half of EU funding and a huge chunk of the money that comes back to the UK from Europe). Then again, no-one else is going to get what they were promised so why should Farmers (and Landowners) be any different…
quote:My prediction is this; when the wealthy landowners (including many who are in no way actually farmers - such as Paul Dacre, Daily Mail editor) realise how much they will lose, they will complain and the government will quietly change the plans...
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:OTOH on a political level it may not be a terrible strategy if you adopt their presuppositions.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
2) This is not what Farmers were promised. The Leave Campaign specifically promised to match EU subsidies (which is just one of the ways that you know the £350m claim is ridiculous given that the Common Agricultural Policy accounts for around half of EU funding and a huge chunk of the money that comes back to the UK from Europe). Then again, no-one else is going to get what they were promised so why should Farmers (and Landowners) be any different…
The Tory calculus appears to be that the only strategy open to them is to push a culture war and buy off the business end of their base with low taxes - seen in recent announcements from the PM.
In that world there will have to be (painful) cuts - and shoring up the votes of former Lib Dems by pushing the green angle may be seen to be worth the relatively small cost of pissing off farmers.
quote:
In a briefing sent to MPs, the British Retail Consortium, which represents 70% of the UK retail industry, said: “If the bill becomes law without any commitment to inclusion within the EU VAT area, UK businesses will become liable to pay upfront import VAT on goods being imported from the EU-27 for the first time.”
quote:is at best misleading reporting or at worst, bollocks.
Labour and Tory MPs and peers said that the only way to avoid the VAT Brexit penalty would be to stay in the customs union or negotiate to remain in the EU-VAT area.
quote:That's not exactly saying that. It's saying that some companies plans for coping with Brexit are becoming irreversible.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Goldman Sachs says what I've been saying for some time: Brexit is now (or fast becoming) irreversible.
quote:Yes, that's certainly true as Alan points out above. Though there is also news coverage of this kind of thing happening - it's just that the news media is polarised, and so the more Brexit end of the market (Express, Mail, Telegraph) only ever print stories like that in order to rubbish them. Which in itself is a problem.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes. But it points up the fact that the rest of the world, be it public or private sector, is not simply sitting on its hands waiting for whatever the UK government finally decides before taking any action, which is the impression you get from some UK coverage of Brexit.
quote:I can't help thinking that all this "rubbish" will come home to roost and so many of those who fell for the lies of the Leave campaign find themselves materially poorer and that the government doesn't have the "border control" that was the main selling point of Brexit.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Yes, that's certainly true as Alan points out above. Though there is also news coverage of this kind of thing happening - it's just that the news media is polarised, and so the more Brexit end of the market (Express, Mail, Telegraph) only ever print stories like that in order to rubbish them. Which in itself is a problem.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes. But it points up the fact that the rest of the world, be it public or private sector, is not simply sitting on its hands waiting for whatever the UK government finally decides before taking any action, which is the impression you get from some UK coverage of Brexit.
quote:They will blame everyone but themselves and demand an even more extreme set of policies to fix the problems both imagined and real.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Once we are out of the EU, who or what is going to get the blame for Britain's problems? I don't see us ever owning up to the fact that they are of our own making.
quote:Oh, I'm sure the Wail will find someone. For a start the EU for negotiating for the best Brexit for the EU rather than Britain. Then, all those other obstructive foreign governments who won't just roll over an give the UK a trade deal that's good for the UK and insist on spending several years on negotiation. And, once we get serious about Independence then they can blame the Scots for looking out for our own best interests rather than be a dutiful lapdog for our English masters.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Once we are out of the EU, who or what is going to get the blame for Britain's problems? I don't see us ever owning up to the fact that they are of our own making.
quote:For what it's worth, Philip Hammond was in the Remain camp, as was Theresa May. If Rees-Mogg and his pals had any guts they would have stood up for the top job, but no, they want to remain in the peanut gallery.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Many stories now about Tory discontent with May, that she is being too soft about Brexit, and about the EU, and her leadership is going to be challenged.
I don't know how many factions there are, but obviously a soft Brexit group (e.g. Hammond), who seem to want a kind of virtual single market, sticking closely to EU regulations.
At the other end, a hard Brexit faction (e.g. Rees-Mogg), who seem to vary between just walking out, and/or not submitting to EU requirements in the transition period.
It is quite farcical, and as before, there is a distinct lack of information. Does anybody have a clue as to what follows the transition period, or as May puts it, the implementation phase? What are we implementing?
quote:I do not think that they allow things like ideological consistency to freight them. http://archive.is/gEDda
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
An embarrassing link.
Note the totally predictable reaction of the Tory pro-Brexiteers.
Reality only bites if you're not wearing thick, self-delusion, armour. But the bite of reality does look as though it will fracture the Tory Party.
quote:I question this reasoning for a number of reasons. It's backed by the same pundits who believed that Labour were going to lose by 20% in the last election. Additionally, there was already a party who ran on this ticket (the Lib Dems) and it did them no good.
If Jeremy Corbyn backs a second, better worded, referendum, I think he'll get into government.
quote:And come December 26th they won't be able to vote
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
chris
Turkeys may vote for Christmas in the Autumn, but not on December 24.
quote:I agree entirely that a referendum by itself is a bad way of deciding constitutional reform. The way our system works is that we elect representatives who form a Government. That Government proposes policies that it considers the best for the country, which if Parliament agrees become law. There is a good argument IMO that in the case of major constitutional reform (changes to voting method, break up of the UK, major reform of the Lords, joining or leaving the EU) that a referendum would confirm that the will of the people aligns with the policy of Government agreed by Parliament. The two recent UK referenda fail to do follow that pattern - the AV one was sort-of Government policy but only there to keep the LibDems on board within the Government, but Brexit was never Government policy and would not have gained approval of Parliament if it was.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I think in the context of the UK, referendums have proved to be a particularly bad way of solving issues of this sort and am wary of the precedence established by repeating referendums
quote:They may not. Except that there is very little evidence that people are changing their mind. [The economic impacts were always likely to be seen over the long term and the current global spurt of growth is ameliorating - for now - the immediate economic impact, and a an ideological level most people appear to have stuck with 'their side'.] As I said above - any referendum would have to yield a fairly significant victory for it not to result in a large constituency who felt cheated.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
chris
Turkeys may vote for Christmas in the Autumn, but not on December 24.
quote:You need that shift to get a result with the same margin but the opposite sign. If there's one thing more absurd than betting the future of the country on a 52-48 choice in a referendum where nobody understands the question, it's re-running the question, getting a 48-52 answer, and then claiming that that's the real answer.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You need a shift of 3 or 4 in 100.
quote:My point was approximately what LC said above - you'd need a significant shift.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You need a shift of 3 or 4 in 100. Activating the young voters looks entirely possible.
Add to that UKIP's zero credibility.
Looks eminently possible.
quote:Yep and I think that's what Corbyn's playing for.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Better still would be for the current government to collapse. The hard-line Brexiteers would then *have* to form a government, but I bet a guinea to a gooseberry that they couldn't agree amongst themselves on just how hard a hard Brexit they want, and certainly not negotiate with the EU.
Shades of repeated denominational splits, cf the old joke about the island on which Mr Anderson and Mr Patterson have built five churches for the two of them.
quote:Either way you'd would be left with a huge political mess to clean up afterwards.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If the vote were 50.1 to 49.9, I really don't see that would affect a particular referendum result. If a government wanted to ditch referendum 1, a majority of1 is good enough.
quote:What if you have an ordinary election, and 1 candidate gets 50.1% of the vote? Or, if in the flawed voting system in the UK, there are 3 candidates, getting 33.1%. 33% and 32,9% - who wins the seat? In either case, it's the one with votes.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If the vote were 50.1 to 49.9, I really don't see that would affect a particular referendum result. If a government wanted to ditch referendum 1, a majority of1 is good enough. The divisions will be there any way. I'm talking about getting off a stupid hook here.
quote:Corbyn didn't get where he is today by avoiding slating by the pro-Brexit press. As far as I'm aware, if there were anything more they could do to slate him they would have done it already, Brexit or no Brexit.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Come out fully against Brexit now (when 2/3 of Labour seats voted for Brexit) and the electoral maths and the slating fo the pro-Brexit-(evil lying bastards)-press would destroy him and possibly the Labour party.
quote:I think you are right. I think the following analysis is probably more correct than wrong:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
While it's true that many Labour seats voted for Brexit it's equally true that most Labour voters in those seats voted against Brexit.
quote:Absolutely.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Being against damaging the UK economy looks like pretty responsible opposition to me. Asking strongly to see the full analysis is well within his rights as leader of the opposition, particularly in view of the leak. This is serious stuff.
quote:I think you are right. At this point no high profile Tory will take a hardline anti-Brexit and so the issue would disappear into the realms of party politics, with the hardline Brexiters able to spread lies in the interests of 'balance'.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
If Labour took a hardline anti-Brexit position at this point, I don't think it would work. Politics being the art of the possible.
quote:I do not believe it is possible to win (by the margin necessary) purely by stressing economic arguments, a set of positive and uplifting reasons for staying has to be articulated - this against the background of whiny bigotry from the usual suspects in the press.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Then maybe the line is to hammer away at the economic impact, give that as much publicity as possible? And see if there is a groundswell of public opinion. You don't need that many turkeys to get cold feet if they now fear the coming of a lethal Christmas.
quote:Like Chris, I don't think it's going to sell. We have plenty of evidence, hammered on again and again, about the economic impact of the Tory austerity policies. Yet both Cameron and May were able to lead the Tories into government (by the narrowest of margins). If the "bad for the economy" line didn't result in the Tories being trampled into the dust of history in 2015 and 2017, I don't see it happening any time soon.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Then maybe the line is to hammer away at the economic impact, give that as much publicity as possible? And see if there is a groundswell of public opinion. You don't need that many turkeys to get cold feet if they now fear the coming of a lethal Christmas.
quote:It would be a huge uphill struggle to overcome years of the press treating EU migrants as purely supply when it came to competing for jobs, and purely demand when it came to consuming services.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For all ages much more can be made about the positive economic value provided by the free movement of labour into caring professions, the tourist trade, short term agricultural work.
quote:I would really like to be wrong, but at this point I don't think the answer is going to lie in another referendum.
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Fair enough. I guess I'm just frustrated by the seeming irrevocability of this stupid course.
quote:I can't see this happening, because I can't see a scenario in which the EU-27 would be willing to allow that without requiring the UK to submit to the ECJ in the meantime, and my perception is that that is as unacceptable politically for the UK as fully unwinding Brexit is unrealisable.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The best the UK can hope for is to kick the transition can down the road to the point where the default becomes a soft Brexit/EFTA style arrangement and/or hopes for a wildcard that throws everything into play
quote:This is true but.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:I can't see this happening, because I can't see a scenario in which the EU-27 would be willing to allow that without requiring the UK to submit to the ECJ in the meantime, and my perception is that that is as unacceptable politically for the UK as fully unwinding Brexit is unrealisable.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The best the UK can hope for is to kick the transition can down the road to the point where the default becomes a soft Brexit/EFTA style arrangement and/or hopes for a wildcard that throws everything into play
quote:Yes they will. The question is - when?
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I think a soft, soft Brexit is likely. I think the headbangers will thus collapse the government...
quote:Possibly, though I suspect not. Most of the largest businesses are fairly mobile, and many of the ones that aren't are running bits of the state for the government - and are probably resigned to keeping a Tory government for as long as possible.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I assume that business leaders and others have been absolutely shouting at the government (behind closed doors), that a hard Brexit, or a no deal Brexit, would be catastrophic for various companies, and could lead to bankruptcies, loss of jobs, and so on.
quote:Well, quite. As a member of the Benn-ite left who doesn't appear to have changed his political views on anything in the last 40 years, it's unclear to me why he would come to the Remain cause's rescue now. And if he did passionately believe in EU membership, why did his office do so much to sabotage the Labour Remain campaign during the referendum?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Mr Corbyn isn't exactly known as an enthusiastic supporter of the EU, though.
My impression is that he supports the EU insofar as it helps achieve the things he finds important (e.g. workers' rights), and is sceptical towards the EU insofar as it impedes them (e.g. state aid rules). Which is IMV a perfectly respectable position to hold - but not one that would encourage you to play some secret Machiavellian long game to keep Britain in the EU.
quote:Like what? Outside the imaginations of the pages of the Spectator, that is.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And if he did passionately believe in EU membership, why did his office do so much to sabotage the Labour Remain campaign during the referendum?
quote:There's a whole chapter about Corbyn in Tim Shipman's excellent All Out War which I'm afraid I don't have immediately to hand. From memory there was a bizarre refusal to properly work with the Labour Remain campaign, co-ordinate with them, or even give more than half-hearted endorsement of EU membership. (The book itself is well worth a read.)
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Like what? Outside the imaginations of the pages of the Spectator, that is.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And if he did passionately believe in EU membership, why did his office do so much to sabotage the Labour Remain campaign during the referendum?
quote:While the government's position was for Remain, the Conservative Party's position was technically neutral. Arguably a minor pedantic point, but in terms of campaigning it meant that Remain didn't have automatic access to all of the governing party's resources.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
the official policy of the Tory Party and the Labour Party (and Parliament as a whole) was to stay, the Remain campaign was a shambles.
quote:You mean the specific accusation that he refused to put in a particular line that they wanted to dictate ? (which it turned out he had used - including in his speech the day before the referendum). Shipman is an amusing writer - but his books are rather like the Pravda. To find the truth you have to read through the interalia - and in this case this tells you less about Corbyn and rather more about the party members who saw the referendum as a chance to dislodging him.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
From memory there was a bizarre refusal to properly work with the Labour Remain campaign, co-ordinate with them, or even give more than half-hearted endorsement of EU membership. (The book itself is well worth a read.)
quote:I thought that some companies, in car-making, pharma, aviation, are worried about non-tariff barriers, and under a hard Brexit, these would be worse.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:Possibly, though I suspect not. Most of the largest businesses are fairly mobile, and many of the ones that aren't are running bits of the state for the government - and are probably resigned to keeping a Tory government for as long as possible.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I assume that business leaders and others have been absolutely shouting at the government (behind closed doors), that a hard Brexit, or a no deal Brexit, would be catastrophic for various companies, and could lead to bankruptcies, loss of jobs, and so on.
quote:Sure, I wasn't suggesting companies aren't going to be affected. The thing is this is a bit of a moving target. Certainly there are some companies where mobility isn't an option (airlines with flights between the rEU and the UK) - OTOH some businesses have already sunk time and money in planning to move abroad and/or accelerated plans to move abroad. The companies most worried about non-tariff barriers are less mobile, but they tend to be in the minority.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that some companies, in car-making, pharma, aviation, are worried about non-tariff barriers, and under a hard Brexit, these would be worse.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/no-deal-brexit-uk-car-industry-ford-vehicles-eu-leave-european-union-a8082321 .html
quote:But, the BoJos of the Tory Party are talking about trade deals which are good for Britain. So, those deals would need to emphasise export from the UK to China and protecting UK business against Chinese competition. Exactly the same concerns EU negotiators would have, except the EU negotiators would be backed up by offering access to a very large market, whereas the UK could only offer an impoverished little bit of land off the NW coast of a large market.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am not a political economist, but presumably a UK-China deal would be easier if it was more about one-way traffic for goods into the UK and if the British government wasn't bothered about protecting most sectors of the economy from the imports.
quote:I'm genuinely not sure that Johnson and the others are talking about British exports to China. I'm not even totally sure they're talking about British exports to the EU. They seem to me to believe that EU producers want an open border into the UK and that it doesn't really matter if the border is open in the other direction.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, the BoJos of the Tory Party are talking about trade deals which are good for Britain. So, those deals would need to emphasise export from the UK to China and protecting UK business against Chinese competition. Exactly the same concerns EU negotiators would have, except the EU negotiators would be backed up by offering access to a very large market, whereas the UK could only offer an impoverished little bit of land off the NW coast of a large market.
quote:You have been reading Liam Fox's in tray. These wonderful trade deals are pipe dreams. They will have to be negotiated separately and sequentially because no country will want its deal undercut by another deal that is being negotiated at the same time. It will therefore take a lifetime to get as many trade deals as we have through the EU.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There is no plan. The government is making it up as they go along.
I terms of trade there are unsubstantiated claims that the UK can negotiate better trade deals on our own than can be negotiated by the EU. The best I can see is that the UK can prioritise trade deals with nations that are lower down the list of the EU as a whole ... though (almost by definition) larger markets would be high on the list of nations the EU would like to improve trade with that would need the UK to focus on trade deals with small nations under the EU radar. The EU will soon enough need to try and get trade deals with India and China, just because those are such large markets.
There is also talk of "frictionless trade" with the EU. Which, of course, we already have within the customs union. I can't see how that would be possible without establishing something that is effectively identical to the customs union and single market with all that entails - common standards and role of ECJ in resolving disputes.
quote:.. and driven by a very strong system of Imperial preference.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The thing that seems to be forgotten is that the whole of British trade 100 years ago was based on cheap imports of raw materials, feeding an industrial base making products for domestic use and export. Mostly relying on the Empire for exploitation of raw materials and buying manufactured goods.
quote:We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hence, if there are negative predictions about Brexit, they have to be ignored or denied. We are now at war with Eastasia.
quote:There may however be EU directives specifying refunds and replacements for faulty goods, so you might lose that instead.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There aren't EU regulations governing everything. General regs re: safety and environmental protection - but, probably no regulations governing door-nob quality.
quote:AIUI, Corbyn's attitude to the EU was basically "meh". Most of his life he was against it. Varoufakis, persuaded him to be for it, but without much enthusiasm and allowing him to be reconciled to the result. I suspect that if public opinion turns Corbyn will turn but he won't do anything to make that happen.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
FWIW neither of the major two parties' 'Remain' campaigns were conducted with much enthusiasm, and that's why we are in the mess we are now. UKIP was passionately for leaving, the LibDems for staying but while the official policy of the Tory Party and the Labour Party (and Parliament as a whole) was to stay, the Remain campaign was a shambles.
quote:
The central promise of those who wanted Britain to leave the European Union was to return full economic, political and legal sovereignty: a dubious premise in a post-European Union Britain whose employees and managers, public and private alike, are delivered to their jobs by RATP and Deutsche Bahn.
quote:Boris' whole schtick seemed to be a call to Remainers to consider the benefits of leaving the EU.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: Rather pathetic speech by Boris yesterday, with the usual tricks, a bit of Latin, a few rude bits, some long words, and loads of Panglossian cheer-leading. But as many are commenting, very short on detail about Brexit. It's like some honeymoons, it's going to be wonderful, but I'm not sure what's going to happen yet.
quote:Played to a carefully selected audience of about 20. It was reminiscent of the various times I heard someone over-educated and superficially bright, who has no idea how to address the issue, reinterpret the issue to be the one they actually want to talk about.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Rather pathetic speech by Boris yesterday, with the usual tricks, a bit of Latin, a few rude bits, some long words, and loads of Panglossian cheer-leading.
quote:I know that, and the consolation is that no UKIP members will receive a penny/cent from the European Parliament.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
When are nostalgic Remainer/second referendum/undo Brexit types going to notice that the UK won't have any MEPs after 2019?
quote:Have those advocating Brexit ever been anywhere other than unicorn territory?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree Davis is well into unicorn territory.
quote:It depends on what is meant by "rolled back". Depending on timing, MEPs would be one of the easier things to sort out - if we manage to get the government to act sensibly and democratically and decide not to leave the EU by the end of 2018 I can't see any enormous problems with running election campaigns for May 2019 to elect UK MEPs. Obviously if the roll-back happens during the post March 2019 transition period then there would either need to be an election for additional MEPs for the UK or a period without UK MEPs until the next election (to be honest, the time it'll take to negotiate a roll-back at that point it'll nearly be time for the next election by the time we're full EU member again anyway).
But do you speak for all Remoaners in your admission that Brexit cannot be rolled back?
quote:See, I think, regretfully, that this is as far into unicorn territory as Davis.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
if we manage to get the government to act sensibly and democratically and decide not to leave the EU by the end of 2018
quote:Yes, it's a very big 'if'. But, not quite in the realms of referencing a Mad-Max dystopia that not even the biggest doom-mongers of Project Fear was forecasting. If we can let a party drag the country through an anti-democratic process to (fail to) fix internal political squabbles then there should be a mechanism for the people of the UK to reverse that and stand up for democracy. Still a big 'if' though, because we have such an idiotic, blinkered and self-serving bunch of ass-hats in government at the moment that something like common sense and democracy has to fight hard to be heard.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:See, I think, regretfully, that this is as far into unicorn territory as Davis.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
if we manage to get the government to act sensibly and democratically and decide not to leave the EU by the end of 2018
quote:I only used 'roll-back' because it was the term you used. But, you're right, realistically a fresh start as the UK rejoins the EU is more likely. I hope that's sooner rather than later. I'd want it to happen in time for my children to enjoy the benefits of EU membership - so within the next 10 years. We might manage that here by throwing off the shackles of English government and gaining Independence, though that leaves friends and family in the rest of the UK stuck in the mess of Tory folly and UKIP facism.
I don't think there's any hope of a roll-back - in IT terms at least, that implies going back to exactly how things were before.
Anything short of that is a fresh start, not a roll-back, and as Rocinante says, I don't think it's going to happen for a long time, if at all.
quote:I don't really want Scottish independence but purely because I believe in the United Kingdom and it's essentially an emotional opinion. If I was Scottish that would have been my position pre-2016. Now I think there is a good case for Scottish independence if they can get EU membership. Economically, all that I have read supported the position that Scotland would be a lot worse off outside the UK. Now that the UK is leaving the EU (unless, by the grace of God we find an end to this madness...) that changes, and there is a distinct economic advantage to Scotland being in the EU and outside the UK.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I only used 'roll-back' because it was the term you used. But, you're right, realistically a fresh start as the UK rejoins the EU is more likely. I hope that's sooner rather than later. I'd want it to happen in time for my children to enjoy the benefits of EU membership - so within the next 10 years. We might manage that here by throwing off the shackles of English government and gaining Independence, though that leaves friends and family in the rest of the UK stuck in the mess of Tory folly and UKIP facism.
quote:Depends on what you mean by 'rolled back'. At this point I think staying in the EU is very unlikely - though some kind of EFTA deal after the transition is still possible.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But do you speak for all Remoaners in your admission that Brexit cannot be rolled back? I'm not so sure.
quote:Sorry, you're right. I was borrowing the term from Rocinante's post immediately before mine for convenience, no slight intended, but I shall try harder to practice what I preach.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... and "Remoaner" is un-necessary, ISTR you don't like political nick names generally.
quote:I mean it in the IT sense:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Depends on what you mean by 'rolled back'
quote:I think that is impossible, but some people still seem to imagine it is. That is la la land as far as I can see.
an operation which returns the database to some previous state
quote:I really don't see this either. I have trouble imagining the political viability of a transition period of a couple of years, let alone remaining "in transition" semi-permanently. Consider the loss of representation involved in not even having MEPs, doubtless remaining under the sovreignty of the ECJ, and doubtless still paying some form of contribution.
The transition could well be extended at this rate
quote:Yes, I'd agree that's impossible - if only because all parties have changed in the interim.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think that is impossible, but some people still seem to imagine it is. That is la la land as far as I can see.
quote:Sure but politically viable for whom? The government can fall and a transition can continue - and was the last year or so proves that things can be fudged in the spinning even as they are implemented somewhat differently. As it is the existing transition period will stretch through the period where the UK has no MEPs etc. etc.
quote:I really don't see this either. I have trouble imagining the political viability of a transition period of a couple of years, let alone remaining "in transition" semi-permanently. Consider the loss of representation involved in not even having MEPs, doubtless remaining under the sovreignty of the ECJ, and doubtless still paying some form of contribution.
The transition could well be extended at this rate
quote:Absolutely, but these paths are even more remote and even less viable.
That's not having your cake and eating it, it's having your cake eaten for you. It might work for Norway, but it is light-years from all those free trade arrangements enthusiastic Brexiteers keep going on about.
quote:I suppose what I'm saying is the longer any such transition period persists, the more sympathy I have with those protesting about a loss of sovreignty.
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Sure but politically viable for whom? The government can fall and a transition can continue - and was the last year or so proves that things can be fudged in the spinning even as they are implemented somewhat differently.
quote:In my (limited) understanding, this turns the UK into Singapore: a free trade zone.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is it possible to have a one-sided arrangement? Say if the UK unilaterally stated that it wasn't going to have a tariff regime for all products from the EU and that no customs duty checks would be made on incoming produce no matter what the EU did in return. Would that scenario mean that the UK was breaking WTO rules?
quote:Again in my limited understanding, it is wrong. The EU has an agreement with third parties as a united trading bloc. One of the conditions of being in the trading bloc is: no side deals with trading partners involved.
The part that I don't understand about the way the EU agrees things is that I thought it was a union of states, and that therefore any agreement between the EU and other countries might be agreed centrally but is actually bilateral trade agreements between sovereign states of the EU and other countries. Is that wrong?
quote:There are some good videos on the web, I'll see if I can find one but basically it's not about tariffs, it's about regulatory harmonization.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I appreciate this is ignorant, but my searching doesn't reveal the answer.
It is said that countries who don't have a trade deal revert to WTO rules. But what's a trade deal?
quote:or, both.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
is either a fool or a liar.
quote:Problem is, that was said by many at all points of the political spectrum (and none) before June 2016 and it made no difference then. We can hardly expect any better now that the foxes are running the henhouse.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:or, both.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
is either a fool or a liar.
quote:I don't think there is a strict definition beyond it having to involve multiple parties, i.e you can't unilaterally lower tariffs/non-tariff barriers to one set of trading partners without also extending it to everyone else in the WTO (MFN) (leaving aside that the UK is not currently a member of the WTO directly)
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I appreciate this is ignorant, but my searching doesn't reveal the answer.
It is said that countries who don't have a trade deal revert to WTO rules. But what's a trade deal?
quote:Yes it's wrong. The EU negotiates as an entire block - the legal entities that are signatories to any agreement are the EU and the other trade bloc/country.
The part that I don't understand about the way the EU agrees things is that I thought it was a union of states, and that therefore any agreement between the EU and other countries might be agreed centrally but is actually bilateral trade agreements between sovereign states of the EU and other countries. Is that wrong?
quote:And yet this appears at this point to be the published position of the UK government:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I really don't see this either. I have trouble imagining the political viability of a transition period of a couple of years, let alone remaining "in transition" semi-permanently.
quote:AIUI, a lot of EU regulations have been adopted because they were adopted first by the WTO. So even if the UK wanted regulatory divergence from the EU it would be stymied because it would still need to comply with WTO rules. The UK could rule in favour of flammable children's toys and furniture but the manufacturers thereof would still end up making inflammable toys and sofas because they needed to flog them to foreign countries. If you tolerate this, then your children will be next, to coin a phrase, but not their children who will be protected by the relevant EU and WTO rules.
The EU, for all its faults (and there are many) is basically a set of trading regulations agreed on by 28 countries. It is the ultimate in trade deals.
quote:I'm pretty sure the WTO itself doesn't have anything like product safety standards.
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:AIUI, a lot of EU regulations have been adopted because they were adopted first by the WTO. So even if the UK wanted regulatory divergence from the EU it would be stymied because it would still need to comply with WTO rules. The UK could rule in favour of flammable children's toys and furniture but the manufacturers thereof would still end up making inflammable toys and sofas because they needed to flog them to foreign countries. If you tolerate this, then your children will be next, to coin a phrase, but not their children who will be protected by the relevant EU and WTO rules.
The EU, for all its faults (and there are many) is basically a set of trading regulations agreed on by 28 countries. It is the ultimate in trade deals.
quote:It's not about setting the specific content of (e.g.) product safety standards, but ensuring that any such standards aren't used as an unfair trade barrier. A WTO member country may adopt high or low safety standards for products sold within its borders, as long as they apply equally to domestic and imported goods.
The Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT) tries to ensure that regulations, standards, testing and certification procedures do not create unnecessary obstacles.
However, the agreement also recognizes countries’ rights to adopt the standards they consider appropriate — for example, for human, animal or plant life or health, for the protection of the environment or to meet other consumer interests. Moreover, members are not prevented from taking measures necessary to ensure their standards are met. But that is counterbalanced with disciplines.
quote:I don't think that word means what you think it means
Originally posted by Callan:
The UK could rule in favour of flammable children's toys and furniture but the manufacturers thereof would still end up making inflammable toys and sofas because they needed to flog them to foreign countries.
quote:I have to disagree. Many of them are very intelligent and well-informed. They know exactly what they are doing, but they are greedy and downright nasty.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I have to admit that while the economic cock-ups being recommended by various pro-Brexit politicians didn't surprise me all that much, since a lot of them are not very bright and not very well informed,
quote:My impression is that the DUP at present is quite comfortable with the possibility of a hard border (which in the worst case they'll blame on the intransigence of the EU) and direct rule (which they'll blame on the intransigence of Sinn Fein).
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
At least the DUP saw this whole charade for what it was: those who aren't white, protestant, loyalist and favouring an insular nationalism can just get lost or go elsewhere.
quote:I strongly suspect that Rees-Mogg's principle motivation is to end pesky EU meddling in the tax havens used by his "wealth management" (air quotes) company.
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:I have to disagree. Many of them are very intelligent and well-informed. They know exactly what they are doing, but they are greedy and downright nasty.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I have to admit that while the economic cock-ups being recommended by various pro-Brexit politicians didn't surprise me all that much, since a lot of them are not very bright and not very well informed,
quote:As Rocinante has said, the majority of the work has been done by the exporter and shipping agent. Customs will simply check that the paperwork is in order. Customs will regularly hold goods until the paperwork is cleared up.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
1. Surely, for most items that are subject to technical regulatory restrictions, the border agency itself wouldn't be able to check whether the widget was in alignment with the rules?
quote:The point being that if you have a cross Channel ferry of trucks and cars, 2-3 minutes per vehicle x number of vehicles = hours. Unless you invest in customs facilities to provide capacity to process multiple vehicles at once. It's a lot easier on a land border than a ferry terminal where work comes in batches with pressure to get everyone through in minutes. The Netherlands has started recruiting and training almost 1000 more customs officers they anticipate needing. The number of extra border officials the UK will need is greater, but I haven't seen any recruitment campaign here.
checks on the US-Canada border take a matter of minutes.
quote:I guess it's possible that there still needs to be that confirmation that things comply. The EU institutions that regulate standards won't operate outside the EU even if other national regulations are the same. At present UK agencies are EU agencies, and have to be treated as such - post Brexit there will be a need for EU agencies to also confirm compliance.
2. There are customs checks across the Norway-Sweden border. But since Norway is subject to EU rules, surely anything coming into the EU from Norway is already OK from a regulatory perspective?
quote:Sweden is a member of the EU Customs Unions, whereas Norway (and other members of the EFTA aren't). The CU members have a common set of tariffs for good entering from outside the union.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
2. There are customs checks across the Norway-Sweden border. But since Norway is subject to EU rules, surely anything coming into the EU from Norway is already OK from a regulatory perspective?
quote:They will generally provide paperwork certifying this is the case from a regulatory agency that is recognised under the terms of the FTA. In the case of the EU the the ultimate arbiter and court of appeal for these agencies if the ECJ [Which May has made a totemistic part of regaining control].
Originally posted by Ricardus:
1. Surely, for most items that are subject to technical regulatory restrictions, the border agency itself wouldn't be able to check whether the widget was in alignment with the rules? According to Mr Davies, checks on the US-Canada border take a matter of minutes. That's not enough time to check that the Neighbourland widget crossing the border can withstand 400kPa pressure.
quote:According to this article from Politico, Norway's higher tariffs on alcohol (possible because Norway isn't a member of the EU customs union) make smuggling from Sweden attractive:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
2. There are customs checks across the Norway-Sweden border. But since Norway is subject to EU rules, surely anything coming into the EU from Norway is already OK from a regulatory perspective?
quote:
Norway has the closest possible trading relationship with the EU without actually being part of the bloc, but its border with Sweden is still a haven for smugglers that requires an alert and nimble border force. And there were 229,286 checks on vehicles crossing in 2016, up slightly on the previous two years.
That suggests, among other things, that the U.K.’s vision of a frictionless (and invisible) Northern Irish border will be difficult to achieve.
[...]
“The drivers don’t usually spend long in the customs office itself,” Nilsson said. “But on busy afternoons they can be parked in queues on the road for hours waiting for their turn,” he said.
quote:Most trade between Canada and its Southern Neighbour happens within the context of NAFTA (as well as previous agreements, such as the FTA and the Autopact). With rare exceptions, standards have been agreed through decades of bureaucrat-years. Companies have divisions preparing the paperwork and their shipments do take a few minutes, no more.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
*snip*
I thought it worked like this:
Widgets in Ricardusland have to be able to withstand pressures of up to 400kPa, whereas in Neighbourland the regulations only require 300kPa. The border checks are required to make sure that substandard Neighbourland widgets don't enter Ricardusland. But:
1. Surely, for most items that are subject to technical regulatory restrictions, the border agency itself wouldn't be able to check whether the widget was in alignment with the rules? According to Mr Davies, checks on the US-Canada border take a matter of minutes. That's not enough time to check that the Neighbourland widget crossing the border can withstand 400kPa pressure.
*snip*
quote:I think at this point it is clear that they'll claim whatever they like and won't be freighted with things like mere facts.
Originally posted by Gee D:
That enables the Brexiteers to claim that leaving the EC has created jobs, just as they said it would!
quote:Presumably you would technically speaking only need them on the UK side if British standards became higher after Brexit?
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
We will need those people in a year, since any form of transition that is not full membership of the customs union and single market will require more staff. We won't have them, because the UK hasn't started doing anything to my knowledge. But, I'm sure the Brexiteers will find some way to blame the EU for lorry parks at the ports because there are insufficient UK staff to manage the customs clearances.
quote:Sure, as long as either set perfectly overlaps the other.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Presumably you would technically speaking only need them on the UK side if British standards became higher after Brexit?
If Britain relaxes its standards, then by definition anything that meets EU standards will meet UK standards as well, so there would be no need to check them on entry to the UK.
quote:Here are the "menu options" as I understood them last July. Turkey is option 4:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, it's not impossible to have a customs union with EU, I think Turkey does, details unknown.
quote:
in a customs union with the EU (...); no single market or 'four freedoms', no ECJ, but no third-party free trade deals allowed
quote:From that:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Brexit and Montenegro
quote:That's why I posted earlier that if I had to live in the UK, from a Brexit point of view Northern Ireland is where I would move to.
This week, Brussels will publish its draft withdrawal agreement, a legally binding text under which the UK will, in effect, commit itself to keeping Northern Ireland in the single market and customs union, unless a future free trade deal or a magical technological solution manages somehow to avoid a hard border.
quote:The right wing are saying that it's a betrayal, not quite sure of who. Some journalists are pointing out that it's not all that different from Mrs May's 'customs arrangement'; of course, the devil is in the detail. It's not really clear what either means, unless it is spelled out, for example, on immigration. And non-tariff barriers - but again, we need more detail, although Corbyn was talking about the Mini whose parts travel back and forth, requiring no barriers.
Originally posted by roybart:
Any responses so far to Corbyn's speech on Brexit and the common market? I'm from the US but follow British news and culture closely. The speech seemed well thought-out, quite pragmatic, and politically astute. I wish Britain well with all my heart. Would love to hear thoughts from British Shipmates
quote:#CorbynnSpeech is trending on Twitter but it's not very informative. Some Extreme mud-slinging.
Originally posted by roybart:
Any responses so far to Corbyn's speech on Brexit and the common market? I'm from the US but follow British news and culture closely. The speech seemed well thought-out, quite pragmatic, and politically astute. I wish Britain well with all my heart. Would love to hear thoughts from British Shipmates
quote:Yes, I think that's exactly right, 6 months ago the idea of a 'customs union' wouldn't have any political salience at all, and now it has enough that his speech has has shifted the terms of the debate somewhat.
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
If Corbyn said we would stay in the customs union 6 months ago, I would have supported the policy but I'm not sure it would be good tactics.
quote:Indeed, and I can understand the caution with which Labour moves. The commentariat who castigates them for bottling it now would be foaming at the mouth about 'betrayal' had he made firmer steps in a remain direction.
This is a political high-wire act with no guarantee of anything...
quote:But am I right in thinking that, under Corbyn's proposal, Britain wouldn't be able to object to an TTIP-like deal concluded between the EU and US (and which would then impact Britain)?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[W]ith Rees Mogg raising the spectre of a TTIP like deal with the US that threatens the NHS.
quote:I was thinking (if I've understood this correctly) that it's a little odd to raise the spectre of a horrible policy being negotiated by your own side if one's own policy is to allow some other people to negotiate your trade policy for you. Because then you don't know what you'll get.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because you think the UK without the EU will be able to negotiate a better one?
quote:The UK, alone, could presumably refuse to sign a hypothetical TTIP-style deal with the US, if it so choose. But if the UK left the EU but was still bound to some kind of external customs union, then a similar deal could be imposed on us. (If I've understood this right.) That's the general sort of point I was trying to make.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, believing that, given the relative size of their economies, the UK will somehow have more bargaining power with the US than it would have as part of a bloc of 28 countries is, I fear, bordering on the delusional.
quote:By being part of larger trade blocs and being resource rich.
Originally posted by Anglican't:
To follow your thinking, how on earth do Canada and Australia survive in the modern world?
quote:That would depend entirely on the deal. However, if you are against TTIP, it was the EU objections which stopped it last time, it was the UK government that was most keen on it, and Rees-Mogg's 'drop all barriers' position is considerably worse than anything TTIP would impose.
But am I right in thinking that, under Corbyn's proposal, Britain wouldn't be able to object to an TTIP-like deal concluded between the EU and US
quote:How long should it take to learn whether or not to put Davis, Fox, and Johnson on the case?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think you have to be some kind of neo-Imperialist to think that the world's fifth-largest economy might be able to negotiate a trade deal or two. It's admittedly something we haven't done for a while, but I'm sure we can be quick learners if we set our minds to it.
quote:There's a uniquely British cult of the amateur that believes that most things can be breezed through and that actual expertise is both unnecessary and something a gentleman shouldn't sully himself with.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:How long should it take to learn whether or not to put Davis, Fox, and Johnson on the case?
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think you have to be some kind of neo-Imperialist to think that the world's fifth-largest economy might be able to negotiate a trade deal or two. It's admittedly something we haven't done for a while, but I'm sure we can be quick learners if we set our minds to it.
quote:Um, isn't that option called "membership of the EU"?
Originally posted by chris stiles:
On another note, I see there's an interesting out contained in Corbyns speech:
"Labour would seek a final deal that gives full access to European markets and maintains the benefits of the single market and the customs union as the Brexit Secretary, David Davis promised in the House of Commons, with no new impediments to trade and no reduction in rights, standards and protections."
quote:Or EFTA or something, but still, you don't understand. David Davis 'gave them his word'.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Um, isn't that option called "membership of the EU"?
Or is it called "membership of the EU without paying?"
quote:Absolutely, but politically it's useful to keep the promises of the Leavers in prominence as a means of holding their feet to the fire.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The word of a politician. Yeah, worth as much as the three pound note in my pocket.
quote:Frankly, I would rather a politician betraying a promise rather than have them betray their constituents.
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The word of a politician. Yeah, worth as much as the three pound note in my pocket.
quote:OK, who at the European Commission is reading the Ship?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
While it could end up suffering the most, Northern Ireland could conceivably have the closest thing to EU membership likely after Brexit.
quote:Matt has it, I think.
Originally posted by roybart:
Any responses so far to Corbyn's speech on Brexit and the common market? I'm from the US but follow British news and culture closely. The speech seemed well thought-out, quite pragmatic, and politically astute. I wish Britain well with all my heart. Would love to hear thoughts from British Shipmates
quote:Obviously not Theresa May
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:OK, who at the European Commission is reading the Ship?
Originally posted by Eutychus:
While it could end up suffering the most, Northern Ireland could conceivably have the closest thing to EU membership likely after Brexit.
quote:And it has.
Originally posted by Barnabas62 on 1st February:
The Irish Border will re-emerge as an insoluble problem.
quote:It's a very old government policy, going right back to William the Bastard.
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Before the referendum I asked a leave-voting friend "what about Ireland? the peace agreement pretty much requires that there be no border between Ulster and the republic".
He looked at me as if I was mad and said "Who gives a shit about Ireland?"
Looks like this is now government policy.
