Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=019952

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Theresa May's announcement of a "Great Repeal Bill" to feature in the next Queen's Speech seems like a good time to lay the long-running EU Referendum thread "in, out, in out" to rest and start a new one on the implementation of Brexit.

The article quoted above says
quote:
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.
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?
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
... Am I right, and if I am, isn't this likely to be fraught with difficulties?

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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It looks like a preliminary technical move. So far as I can see, once passed, it will incorporate into UK law all E.U. legislation which has legal effect up to that point in time. So it will change no prior legal impact of the European Communities Act 1972. Presumably that enables the rescinding of any parts of that incorporation which the government wants to rescind. Presumably, this way, it will avoid what I can only imagine would be an endless series of legal cases coming before the European Court about the legality of such changes.

So I think it is more about process than principle at this stage. It does demonstrate just how complex the process of Brexiting may become. The detailed messiness of this divorce is now emerging.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Two years after calling Article 50 and the Brexit will be done, and at that point the 1972 Act does become meaningless and I doubt many people would object - we can continue to campaign for a new Act to lead us back into the EU, but we'll have put the 1972 one to rest.

Meanwhile, here's what's really happening
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Meanwhile, here's what's really happening

[Killing me]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I suppose that hard Brexit is making the running, and presumably, this is a concession to them. At any rate, the right wing tabloids are crowing, that the EU has had a stake through its heart.

It's confusing though. EU law is being absorbed into UK law (or is that English law?), so that the bad bits can be sifted out later. That sounds a pretty big job.

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.

The trouble is, there is now so much spin and counter-spin, who can really say?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Just sign the bloomin fing and then Europe becomes our friend without benefits and we can set sail in our wooden ships and rediscover the West Indies.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
You could always reopen the coal mines.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Meanwhile, here's what's really happening

Unfortunately that's a joke too near the truth not to leave a nasty taste in the mouth.


Both the two large parties demonstrate over and over again that they put their own survival above both the national interest and any sort of integrity.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... Meanwhile, here's what's really happening

Unfortunately that's a joke too near the truth not to leave a nasty taste in the mouth.

As for the three stooges, the only word that can describe them isn't just unfit to be uttered on a Sunday. It's not allowed on weekdays either.


Both the two large parties demonstrate over and over again that they put their own survival above both the national interest and any sort of integrity.


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?

[ 02. October 2016, 13:58: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The point by Enoch about their own survival rings true. The referendum itself was designed as a sticking plaster for the Tory party, and all the guff about 'in the national interest' is for the birds.

Labour are now all over the place (what's new), since the MPs from Leave areas are doing a plausible imitation of Enoch Powell on immigration, while Corybn does the opposite.

Brexit seems like a huge wedge driven into the body politic, with unpredictable and largely alarming consequences.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
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.

Probably the case, as many people were arguing before the vote.

Leaving the EU will cost us a huge amount of money.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

As a general rule we only remove posts that are exact duplicates or made redundant by the removal of a duplicate post. That is no longer the case here.

Cod, as far as I can see your post on this thread is more out of place here than Enoch's.

If you have a complaint about hosting then take it to the Styx.

/hosting
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You could always reopen the coal mines.

[note I'm not suggesting that fc was being serious in the above]

The odd thing about the so-called "Hard Brexit" is that there is very little sensible discussion about the reverse ramifications. Yes, ok, so if the UK went back to WTO rules we can opt out of the law courts in Strasbourg (but can we really..?), we can set our own import tariffs and control our own borders.

But we'd also be treated as outsiders by the rest of Europe. How many Brits working in Europe would suddenly/eventually find that they need visas to continue working? What would happen to the large numbers of retired Brits in Spain and elsewhere?

And yes, we could row back on commitments made by the EU on climate change (but then can we really..?) and we could choose to reopen the coal mines.

Which of course is a jokey slogan and is basically impossible for all but a tiny minority of relatively recently mothballed mines. There are none in South Wales which retain the necessary infrastructure.

This whole thing is a trainwreck. It isn't too late to realise that this whole Brexit bollocks is only going to make things worse for the UK.

[ 03. October 2016, 07:36: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The valleys were filthy for 200 years. For the last 40 they've been relatively clean, not to mention that the mine sites have been built on and the railway tracks taken up. There is no appetite to put it all back.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Mr Cheesy, it isn't too late. It isn't too late until the government serves an Article 50 notice.

And it is stupidly, crassly and unmitigatedly stupid. As stupid as choosing Corbyn.

But we have a government which puts the future of the conservative party, the opportunity to stuff UKIP and the prospect of mopping up some dissatisfied Labour voters ahead of the national interest. And, so much for something that used to call itself the unionist party, its leader is deluding herself that this won't break the union.

[ 03. October 2016, 07:59: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Nothing's impossible. It is possible to recreate the infrastructure to reopen coal mines in South Wales, ...

Also, the coal in them has been dug out. It isn't there any more.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Also, the coal in them has been dug out. It isn't there any more.

Not sure that's entirely true, it just wasn't economic to dig any more out at the time they closed.

But this amounts to the same thing; if it wasn't economic to send Welsh miners to dig out coal from small coalseams in the 1960s, it surely isn't now.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There is no appetite to put it all back.

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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?

I don't think things are totally impossible, but we need a lot more imagination and investment to find something to offer to the rest of the world.

We don't have anything much left to dig out of the ground, we can't just rely on other countries wanting to continue servicing us as consumers - because if we're not producing anything then we have nothing to spend.

One would think that increasing spending on science and tech research would be a good way forward for the economy, but unfortunately the Tory vision seems to be one of wishful thinking - where they can cut budgets on everything without it having any impact on the nation's competitiveness.

I fear that we are facing a deep recession.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... and do we expect them to just pretend it never happened to sign a deal with a small island?

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A small island that also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world.

What percentage of that is financial services, and how much of that would suffer in the event of no "financial passport" being agreed?

(ETA: the issue is not the Euro, the issue is whether there is free movement of currency).

[ 03. October 2016, 09:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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?
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.

[ 03. October 2016, 09:53: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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?

... not to the extent that we've kicked ourselves in the goolies.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I also have enormous fears for the future. Not so much for myself, but the next generation in this country, who have already born the brunt of austerity, have just been dealt another huge blow to their prospects.

At the moment the brexiteers' answer to our legitimate concerns appears to be "All is well, all is well...fifth largest economy in the world, we are a great nation lalalala".

I've passed through the "denial" stage on Brexit, I'm now clutching at straws trying to convince myself that it might not be so bad. What do shipmates think of the hoary old brexiteer mantra that Europe sells more stuff to us than we do to them, so they'll want to carry on trading freely with us whether it's hard or soft brexit?

Apart from instinctively feeling that our current horrendous balance of payments deficit is not something to put on the positive side of the equation, I don't know enough about how international trade works to critique this belief. 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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... and do we expect them to just pretend it never happened to sign a deal with a small island?

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.
No one is comparing us to Tuvalu or Kiribati.

But, how long will the UK be in the top ten largest economies? I don't think anyone is expecting anything other than a contraction in the economy over the next few years, the question being how much the economy contracts. Coupled to other economies expanding, that will inevitably shift us below the position the UK currently holds. We already know that a sizable proportion of international investment in the UK is on the basis of free access to the EU market (both to sell goods produced here, and to access goods produced there), any barriers to free movement of goods, services, finance and labour will reduce the attractiveness of the UK to international investment. The currency markets post June have made UK exports cheaper, but at the same time raised the costs of imports - including the materials and components needed for those exported goods.

It still comes down to if the EU has limited resources to negotiate trade deals, why would they spend that on the UK when there are deals to be made with the US and China? Same with Australia and other Commonwealth nations that the Leave campaign were very keen on (without, ISTM, actually asking whether trade deals with the UK were of benefit to them - and, ignoring the existing trade deals through the EU).
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

[note I'm not suggesting that fc was being serious in the above]

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Rocinante:
quote:
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.
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.

The tabloid rhetoric about 'arrogant' EU negotiators is not helping. 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. Our interests and theirs no longer coincide; the Electorate Has Spoken.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A small island that also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world.

What percentage of that is financial services, and how much of that would suffer in the event of no "financial passport" being agreed?

(ETA: the issue is not the Euro, the issue is whether there is free movement of currency).

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.

Clearing, or the free movement of currency, is different. (This Bloomberg article talks about the issues with clearing).

Passporting isn't a great benchmark as there are almost as many UK firms passporting into the EU as there are passporting out of the EU into the UK. There's been a lot of talk about UK based firms needing the passports to access EU markets, but not so much the other way round. Some of the EU entities passporting into London will be trying to access business that only comes to London.

Unless the UK and the EU agree to keep passporting or equivalency, then the EU specific business will move to the EU. (As I'm in insurance, wish me luck!) But other business will either stay in London or move to NY.

At the moment, none of the European hubs currently have the right infrastructure or access to capital that London or NY has. Creating that takes time. Longer than two years. And Europe's banks are wobbling.

I’m just hoping for the best, kind of expecting the worst and getting on with life. There has to be some middle ground between us all getting a unicorn and it all ending in fire. A lot can happen in two and a bit years.

Tubbs

[ 03. October 2016, 11:29: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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 .

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.

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"; although other traditional products (e.g. ship-building) have indeed virtually vanished we also have a market in precision high-tech engineering products and the like.

Brexit has put this all in doubt.

[ 03. October 2016, 11:14: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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"

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.

Second, another side of manufacturing is the design of the product. Of course, for cars, the UK has virtually no presence in the design of cars - the big manufacturers are non-UK owned and will do most of their design work elsewhere. There are, of course, some smaller UK companies that design and manufacture in the UK for niche markets. There is the potential for a big return on a successful design, but very few inventors, innovators and designers hit gold everytime they start sketching out a new idea.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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?
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.

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
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Additionally, to the point upthread, Britain could move from fifth to seventh largest economy without much of an impact to the living standards in the rest of the world - whose own exporters may well be better off - the consequences for Britain itself would be a lot more serious though.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
Incidentally, I think the X largest economy mantra is a silly argument. China has the world's 2nd largest economy, but that still doesn't mean they get to do trade deals at the drop of a hat, does it?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
No doubt I will be corrected if I am wrong, but common sense tells me that, hard Brexit or soft, a higher proportion of people in the UK will still want to buy EU goods than the proportion of EU folk who will want to buy British,

To me, the truth seems to be that without realising it the Great British Public has voted for natonal castration.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
A small island that also happens to be the fifth largest economy in the world.

What percentage of that is financial services,
Approximately 4%, according to Wikipedia

quote:
and how much of that would suffer in the event of no "financial passport" being agreed?
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Marvin, you're not persuading me.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
I'm not really trying to. That battle has already been fought.

I'm just trying to point out that the result of June's referendum doesn't necessarily mean Britain is going to turn into Somalia. Though I get the distinct impression that there are some who would quite like that to happen, just so they could say they were right.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Somalia?

Nothing of the sort. But, for the UK economy to decline relative to other nations, certainly - we're already seeing that with the pound losing value against other major currencies, impact on science already documented (mostly uncertainty about EU funding and residence status of EU research staff) and an impact on all sectors through increased xenophobia detering qualified staff from taking up positions in the UK or deciding to quit their jobs to work in other nations who value skilled workers.

How far will the UK economy decline? Difficult to say, but to fall out of the top seven economies is certainly plausible.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
What strikes me is that nobody knows. Brexiteers are naturally enough inclined to give rosy forecasts, and some Remainers are being gloomy. However, this is probably all guesswork. I suppose most of economics and politics is guesswork in any case, but now we seem to be making a fetish of it. Possibly, there is a new industry here which the UK could specialize in.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, this is probably all guesswork. I suppose most of economics and politics is guesswork in any case

Forecasting of economic trends (as opposed to specific economic occurrences) is generally on more solid ground.

I don't see why there is any need to pretend otherwise, other than to give succour to those who believe their decision has no consequences.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, if someone makes a guess, it doesn't mean that their decision has no consequences. Example: Suez. Didn't Eden guess that he would succeed in his mad enterprise?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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.

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.
Two problems with this from a British point of view.

Firstly, the Trump scenario relies heavily on the competence and goodwill of Mr Trump. This is not reassuring.

The Clinton scenario is based on the idea that Trade Deals can be sorted out over tea and crumpets. This is rather akin to the idea that the Large Hadron Collider can be replicated with a ten year old's Lego Science Kit. It also implies that a lack of enthusiasm for a US-UK trade deal is related to the need to punish the Brits for leaving the EU, whereas it is more to do with giving larger markets primacy. Do you prioritise a trade deal with the UK or with the much larger EU? 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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Hard to believe she follows through on punishing the UK for leaving the EU.

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.

The US has a limited amount of trade negotiators. Trade deals - even when both countries are keen on them - take time and effort to strike, partly because the politicians involved in them are subject to being lobbied.

Furthermore both HC and Trump would have a limited amount of legislative time, and a limited amount of goodwill to spend to pass everything they want passed.

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.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
It's not controlled by Germany? Would the Greeks agree with that? Besides, the truth doesn't actually matter when constructing a narrative. One could build a case that Germany controls the EU using just sources sympathetic to Clinton. All it will take is to convince a majority of the US people that Germany is trying to punish the UK and deprive it of its sovereignty. The Clintons conduct foreign policy by opinion poll. Now, with the right social media campaign, the UK could get the US to form a trade alliance and piggyback off of every trade deal the US makes. You should get something for Afghanistan and Iraq.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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?
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.

But while we're on the subject of examples from 20th century history, may I remind you that the USA did not enter World War II until December 1941, as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor and a direct threat to American territory? Going by past experience, I find it difficult to believe that the USA would leap in to defend Britain against the machinations of the evil EU negotiators; certainly not without expecting something in return. Those Lend-Lease ships were not supplied free of charge.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
You all seem to think this has to be totally rational. I think you underestimate just how popular Boris Johnson will be once the American people discover he exists. One, in the US, World War II remains fresh in our memory. We still don't entirely trust the Germans. For that matter, we still don't take the French all that seriously. Two, we will get a trade deal that won't devastate more Midwestern and Mid-Atlantic cities. That's not nothing. Turn those Northern industrial areas from Democratic to Republican and Clinton serves one term.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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).

So will I.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose that hard Brexit is making the running

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.

Yet as in so many cases, this is politics winning over economics. 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. Jobs could be lost in the UK, but even more so in the EU. If we are forced into WTO rules, the competitive edge given by the lower value of the pound will more than absorb the tariffs the EU can impose if they deal fairly and only impose WTO MFN tariffs. But things like German cars, French wine and cheese etc, which are already more expensive due to sterling's depreciation, would then be subject to tariffs as well. Everybody loses.

Should the UK go into negotiations saying, which it will, that we have no wish to change the status quo, and that we want to continue to trade freely, it,s up to them if they choose to wreak havoc on all our job markets with petty minded retaliation. I voted to stay in, but I'm no more impressed now than I ever was with the Brussels juggernaut.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by PaulTH:

quote:
The federalist bureaucrats of the EU can't accept that an electorate can reject their very one sided vision.
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".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The whole process was deeply flawed, since the Leave campaign were not required to specify what they were going to attempt to enact should they win. About the closest we got to a Leave manifesto was a slogan on the side of a bus - which (if not exempt as political) would have fallen foul of advertising standards legislation.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Beeswax Altar:
quote:
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?
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.
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.

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.

[ 03. October 2016, 21:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The war has largely been relegated to history classes. The feeling of animosity towards the Germans was already a minority position that was just something to make fun of when Basil Fawlty said "don't mention the war", the German people were victims of Hitler and national socialism, and certainly the current leadership bears no blame (most weren't even born until after the end of the war).
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:

I think you underestimate just how popular Boris Johnson will be once the American people discover he exists.

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 have no time for Boris whatsoever and I have no idea why a frankly racist and xenophobic buffoon has been given a post that involves international relations. It is almost as tragic as appointing Nigel Farage to Europe. But even though I have so little time for him, even I felt uncomfortable as he blundered his way through a barrage of press heckles and the fact that he blubbered and flustered like a schoolboy who'd been scolded made it even worse. The whole thing was pathetic.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I don't think the government has any authority to bargain over free movement. The Swiss rejected that issue in a referendum, so the Brussels machine has shut down any meaningful talks unless they vote again to overturn it. It's far more an issue of the sovereignty of an elected body over the dictates of glorified civil servants on fat cat salaries and pensions. As the only potential benefit I can see from Brexit long term is the ability to trade freely outside the customs union, it's these factors that are driving a hard Brexit. We'd all like to retain preferential access to the Single Market, but not at the price of betraying our democratic choice. Also any "trouble" in our trading relationship with the EU is coming from them, not from us.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
but what precisely the majority voted for is irrelevant.

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.

quote:
Not liking the referendum result is one thing. Ignoring it or attempting to overturn it is another. It's contempt for democracy.
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.
 
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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.

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?
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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.)

There are strong arguments against freedom of trade without freedom of movement. 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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:

Also any "trouble" in our trading relationship with the EU is coming from them, not from us.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm not sure if this is actually true.

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.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

I'm not sure if this is actually true.

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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
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?

If there's a difference in pay levels across an economic area with freedom of movement of labour and freedom of movement of capital, both workers and capital can take advantage of that by moving to lower prices, or alternatively to cut the amount they're willing to work for, or raising the amount they're willing to pay. If freedom of movement is restricted then workers can't take advantage but capital can move then the only options available are for workers to cut pay or for capital to move. There's no advantage to capital to raising wages, since they're not going to attract any more people than they're already getting.

[ 04. October 2016, 11:21: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Gee D:
quote:
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.

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.

But I agree with you about the irrationality of the Brexit campaign. Depressing, isn't it.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by PaulTH:

quote:
Also any "trouble" in our trading relationship with the EU is coming from them, not from us.
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?
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
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?
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".

quote:
There's no advantage to capital to raising wages, since they're not going to attract any more people than they're already getting.
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.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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?

Well there is this old Mystery Worshipper report which might offer a few clues.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
It was the Treaty of Rome which established the European Economic Community - clearly this was centred on the evil Papacy.

Wasn't there something too about numerology and the number of nations in the EU corresponding to something in Revelation n (now there are far more states than that!)

[But then, Anwar Sadat was 'definitely' the Antichrist (this in a book I read shortly after his death!)]
 
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :
 
quote:
originally posted by TurquoiseTastic
Well there is this old Mystery Worshipper report which might offer a few clues.

Thanks so much for that. The image really gave me the giggles!
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
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?

Rev 18:4?
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
quote:
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?

Probably this

Related to that is my favorite Christian urban legend about a supercomputer in Brussels affectionately called the Beast
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

If they have to work for you in order to earn money, then you have the opportunity to use that situation to your advantage. That applies to the business side just as much to the worker side. The side with the fewer restrictions on what it can do has the opportunity and the advantage.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

I'm not sure if this is actually true.

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.

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.

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.

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 ...

Tubbs
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
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?

Well there is this old Mystery Worshipper report which might offer a few clues.
Is it just me or does that church look like Albert Speer was on the design committee?
 
Posted by shadeson (# 17132) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant
Rev 18:4

I just looked at the 'bible hub' Study Bible quote.
It is wonderfully appropriate. Who says the Daily Rail exaggerates [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

Broadly, a person who claims that they "voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons' " has either knowingly handed over their moral responsibility to someone else, or found an indefensible excuse to do something they want to do, but know that all the rational arguments are against.


Returning to the subject of the thread, though, remaining or leaving isn't just about economics. It's also about whether we play a part in the world around us, get on with our neighbours and try to co-operate with them, or pull up the drawbridge and hide ourselves away in an obscurantist little foxhole of our own.

The argument that we shouldn't have anything to do with the EU because it is flawed and imperfect could only be excused if our own constitution, politics and politicians were not.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

To give one of the most simple illustrations, the rules around limiting state aid to industries help the cause of free trade within the common market, otherwise you end up with subsidy fueled trade wars, and dumping.

The EU/EEA regulations are the 'platform' within which free trade within the common market occurs. In general it's easier to join an existing platform than to create your own from scratch - which takes years of negotiation.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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?

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.
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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

(There is a certain dark irony in hearing Viktor Orbán and Miloš Zeman complaining about British attitudes towards immigrants ...)
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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?
 
Posted by Uriel (# 2248) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
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.

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?
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
[aside]
The phrase he wanted was dog's breakfast
[/aside]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

[ 04. October 2016, 21:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Help me get my head around this red herring then.

At present the UK is inside the single market and as such anything produced here is controlled by EU-wide standards. Which means (providing all the checks are being conducted properly and consistently), I can make Welshcakes in Caerphilly and then put them in the back of a van and take them to Inverness or Portsmouth or Seville or Warsaw to sell without further compliance checks.

If the UK is not deemed to be producing everything to the EU standards* then I'm going to have my Welshcakes checked to the EU standards on a case-by-case basis rather than assuming that they're already produced to the standard - 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.

* of course Norway shows that it is possible to continue outside of the EU but to work to the EU standards in order to sell to the market. But the flipside is accepting freedom of movement.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Going back to the Tory conference for a second, it looks like Liam Fox is playing some kind of linguistic game regarding EU citizens in the UK.

Yet again, the Tories seem to think that the UK can have all the things it wants from the EU but none of the things we don't want.

I don't understand what is so hard to understand here; EU citizens primarily are working and paying tax in the UK. UK citizens in places like Spain are primarily retired.

Do you really want to replace tax-paying workers with disgruntled retirees forced to leave their lives in the Sun? Why would other EU states allow British citizens to continue living there if the UK forced their workers to leave?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

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."

If the UK goes into talks with a desperation to remain, you can be sure that some or all of those privileges will be withdrawn. I can virtually guarantee that, in that case, there would be a much larger No vote next time. Perhaps it will be possible to do a trade off between limited access to the Single Market and an immigration policy which gives unlimited access to EU workers who already have jobs to come to and claim no benefits for at least five years. But that's unlikely to satisfy the Visegrad countries. Hungary, with it's vote last week has proved that it's a good neighbour when it comes to receiving handouts and exporting its unemployment, but not so good when it comes to participating in a grand humanitarian scheme.

While there are some Brexit hard cases in the Tory Party, hard Brexit will come from the inability and unwillingness to spend 20 years negotiating something which can never satisfy all 27 EU countries. No one has a crystal ball, but I would predict that the UK economy will contract substantially in the next five years, and it may cause some pain with lost employment etc. But it will find its own level. We are a major trading nation with a long history of entrepreneurial and innovative skills, and we will continue to be a great trading nation. If we adopt radical free trade as an economic way of life, the economy will recover. In the meanwhile the EU has many problems of its own. Nationalism is on the rise in many countries. The Euro will continue to founder as long as the rich north keeps having to send all it money south. Only a political and economic union can save it long term. Europe in ten years from now may be a very different place and the UK may be a member of a looser federation of states.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, there's a difference between access to a Single Market and being in a Single Market.

Access simply means goods and services can be sold in the market. It could, for example, mean that to do so an import duty needs to be paid to get across the border to that market. Indeed, to maintain balance across the market that would often be necessary - if, for example, working hours and minimum wages within the market are such that someone outside the market can undercut costs by paying staff less and forcing them to work longer hours they would undercut the market unless some import barrier was present to prevent it.

Being in the market is very different. Obviously, for a start, there are no import duties paid. But, as part of that there would also need to be no significant variation in labour legislation, environmental codes etc that would unbalance the market. So, being in a Single Market also requires working within the regulations of the market. 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.

No one is doubting that the UK will continue to have access to the Single Market, the question is the cost of that access. Will it be born by tarriffs, or by adhering to regulations the UK has no control over? And, if tariffs what will they be? Since the UK is not (presently) a member of the WTO there's no reason to assume that any tariffs will be WTO levels, that's something to be negotiated between the UK and the 27 nations of the EU. And, then there will also need to be parallel negotiations between the UK and everyone else. Or, the UK will need to seek admission to the WTO to enable global trade without needing to negotiate terms with everyone individually - I don't think there will be any substantive difficulty with the UK joining the WTO, it will just take some time to get into place.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Sorry, I meant until the UK invokes Article 50.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

If we don't want the free movement of labour, we don't get full and unimpeded access to the market.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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."

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.

This is easily defensible as being obviously prudent.

If the Commission stick with the opposite absolute position that they will not discuss anything without Article 50 being invoked first, then negotiations never start, and Article 50 doesn't happen. It remains permanently in limbo.

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.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Unfortunately Mrs May has indicated, in a context which makes it politically suicidal to back down, that she is not going to do that.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr.cheesy:
If we want to benefit from the free trading market, we must accept the free movement of labour.

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.

quote:
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.

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."

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the expressed will of the British people.

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.

Since the question hasn't been asked of the British people, how can you state that that is the expressed will of the people?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Hammond will no doubt advise on the short and long term costs of Hard Brexit. Along the lines of "avoid like the plague". I suppose Theresa might play the "we have no choice card" but I reckon that, when push comes to shove, Boris, Liam and David are more expendable than Philip. A third way will be found if the Treasury say what I guess is true. That Hard Brexit may be courageous in some eyes, but the cost is just too high to bear.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I disagree.

48% of the population believe that freedom of movement is either a positive good or a price worth paying for the benefits of the EU.

The leavers are presumably split between hard and soft brexiteers. Unless more than 94% of brexiteers are hard brexiteers, that puts a majority of the population either in favour of or prepared to accept freedom of movement.

(If 6% of leavers are soft brexiteers, this translates to 3% soft brexiteers among the general population, which gives 51% overall in favour of freedom of movement.)
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

OK well we can't hold a referendum on all individual aspects of our relationship with the EU.
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.

quote:
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.
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

and b) a gross misrepresentation of the way EU regulations come into being - a collaboration of different nations including the UK to come to a mutually acceptable position. But, that's an old argument.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
It'll be interesting to see if the "great repeal" bill will lead to us behaving as if we've already left even though we haven't.

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. It also plans to end the primacy of the European Court of Justice.

Are we just going to start doing what we want and ignoring judgements and new laws from now on? That could further antagonise negotiators...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Any new proposed European law would need to be debated and approved by Westminster before it can be enacted anyway. So, I suppose the UK Parliament can simply refuse to do that, or vote against accepting it, should such proposals come before them in the period between now and enacting Article 50 +2 years. I wonder if that means the UK can in that period still veto EU legislation even though it may never be directly enforced in the UK? (may, because depending on the legislation and the hard-ness of Brexit there may be EU laws and regulations that the UK would still need to accept).
 
Posted by Odds Bodkin (# 18663) on :
 
"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?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

You couldn't just have a house of commons vote on each bit because it would take forever.
 
Posted by Graham J (# 505) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The mandate is bugger all. But, we do have a system that allows governments to be formed on similarly flimsy mandates, so it has precedent.

At least two cases currently before the courts still have the potential to throw a spanner in the works. One on behalf of people who were denied a vote, if it goes in their favour means that potential several million people (predominantly Remain) should have voted. Another is testing the legality of some of the advertising and campaign literature; the Electoral Commission has the power to call a bye-election if it is found that deliberate falsehoods and slander in election material could have had sufficient impact to affect the result - and, it wouldn't take a lot of impact in favour of Leave for the result to have been different. If either of those can be demonstrated then the only possible outcome (IMO) is for the courts to declare the result void and force a re-run of the referendum (to include any people who should have been able to vote but were not allowed to, and/or for campaign material to adhere to common standards of legality).

I can't help but think about a conversation I had two years ago with a friend from the Ukraine on the subject of referenda, contrasting the Scottish independence vote with the Crimea. At the time (despite disappointment in the result) I was quite proud of how the Scottish referendum was conducted - there was a lot of intelligent discussion building on decades of debate, though maybe a bit too much of "project fear", the question was clearly framed without any doubt about what the Scottish Government would seek if the vote went in their favour (the debate was about the feasibility of those aims), there was a lot of passion on both sides but it didn't break out into violence (excepting a few minor instances - and the largest were after the vote and instigated by unionists). The biggest problem was the sudden shift of goal posts just before the vote with Better Together suddenly offering a load of extra powers to Holyrood - including a promise that the future of Scotland within the EU was safest within the UK (oh, the irony).

I hold no such feeling of pride in the Brexit referendum. It was a disgraceful shambles, barely any better than the Crimea one.
 
Posted by Odds Bodkin (# 18663) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
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?

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.

You couldn't just have a house of commons vote on each bit because it would take forever.

That sounds like a pension plan for lawyers. [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The realpolitik of it is a little more complcated, however, because if there really isn't a lot of support among the public(voting or otherwise) for Leaving, then the stay-at-home Remainers might show up in the general election to punish a government viewed as being too gung-ho in its pursuit of Brexit. The non-voters may have no right to complain, as the saying goes, but they still maintain the right to vote.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
The above "realpolitik" assumes, of course, that among the stay-at-homes, was a signficant number of Remainers.

Which may or may not be a correct assumption. One of the traps partisans sometimes fall into is assuming that, in low-turnout elections, everyone who satayed home would have voted the way the partisans wanted them to.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And Brexit means whatever you want it to mean, from very soft to very hard.

It's true that Mrs May can choose her own interpretation, and I suppose she will be trying to balance between different factions in her own party and in the country.

Interesting, for example, that the kite being flown for lists of foreigners in companies has met with a less than ecstatic welcome from business and industry. I guess they don't want to end up on a hit list of hard right targets, for harbouring nasty brown people, well, and nasty white people from Lithuania et. al.

But those Brexit people who are saying to opponents, you have to shut up now as the vote has been won, are talking twaddle. They argued for 40 years against the EU!

[ 07. October 2016, 13:33: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
David Davis, the Brexit minister, appears to be contemplating the failure of Brexit, and reckons the whole government will go down with him. I disagree: Theresa May is hard and cunning and she will push Davis, Fox and Johnson out of the plane (in that order) and there will be no parachutes.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
No Prime Minister lasts forever. May will fall in time and the consequences of Brexit will taint her reputation. Getting rid of Fox, Davis and Johnson will no more save her than ditching Norman Lamont saved John Major.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Some interesting reports that currency markets are nervous because Brexit is being kept so private, or as Mrs May says, no running commentary.

Traders (and algorithms) don't seem to like all this privacy, and it encourages rumours and negative publicity.

You know when politicians 'urge calm', that the ordure is hitting the extractor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37587085
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Between Brexit and TTIP (remember that?) everything of any importance is being kept under wraps. It's like the Star Chamber of old.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Which is somewhat ironic, as one of the themes Leave were running with was the secrecy of TTIP.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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!

(Can't find it online).
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
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!


Poorer, but purer.

Tighter, but whiter.

Slashing the pension chest, but passing the cricket test.

Starving on crud, but no rivers of blood.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Also hints that the Tories are withdrawing the 'name a foreigner' stunt. So much vitriolic criticism, especially from business. Steve Hilton, former Cameron aide, asked, why not tattoo foreigners' wrists with their number?

There is a basic contradiction here, surely? We are open for business world-wide, but fuck off foreigners. Well, rich ones are OK.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There were quite a few on the Leave campaign who had said before the referendum that Brexit would be costly in relation to international trade, and at least in the first decade or so would result in a reduction in GDP. But, so they claimed, it was a price worth paying to regain sovereignty and control of immigration. So, basically nothing new.

It was a bollocks argument six months ago, and it's bollocks now. But, at least it was an honest argument unlike claims that there would be no economic impact, or even that we'd enter a golden age of trading with nations who weren't showing any indication of wanting to trade with the UK, or that we'd have £350 million per week extra to spend on the NHS. I think I prefer honest bollocks to dishonest bollocks.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Getting a distinct feeling that UK farmers are in for a culture shock when the final strands of this Gordian knot come to be severed.
I always had grave doubts that any British Government would match the CAP payments without laying down it's own conditions. Our farmers could well discover that it will require a sustained, post Brexit price increase to offset the absence of an EU envelope packed with lolly.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Ah, expensive food. The last political party to die in that particular ditch was the Tory faction which opposed the repeal of the Corn Laws. Remind me how that worked out for them?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
The "poker game" analogy most lately used by Priti Patel (though I'm sure she's neither first nor the last to use it) annoys and depresses me. We shouldn't be trying to conceal our objectives in order to "beat" our opponents - on the contrary, we should be as open and transparent as possible, in order to maximise trust with our negotiating partners. The more trust, the more chance of minimising damage.

On the other hand, perhaps the real reason for the lack of debate is that no-one actually has any idea what our main objectives are. All the more reason to take some time to discuss them then!
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Far from maximising the trust of our negotiating partners, the toxic xenophobic tosh spouted by the brexiteers at the Tory conference has alienated them completely. Now Donald Tusk, who was one of the more sympathetic Eurocrats, is telling us we face a choice between hard Brexit and no Brexit. His recent evisceration of Boris Johnson was hilarious and dismaying in equal measure.

They've also managed to spook the markets and cause foreign business leaders to put new investment on hold pending resolution of this mess.

The Brexiteers meanwhile seem to be blaming the remainers (sorry the Bremoaners) for not talking up the wide cornucopia of opportunities open to a country with a collapsing currency which is rapidly running out of friends. This is classic displacement activity, trying to deny to themselves that everyone else knows - that they don't have a clue what they're doing.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Graham J:
We cannot change the vote

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.

Not happy with the vote, the 70% of MP's who opposed it are now trying to scupper the deal in any way they can. The Prime Minister cannot tell them of a negotiating strategy which will only unfold in the negotiations which follow. Their aim is to push to find a way to stay in the Single Market. Nick Clegg said, as Ed Milliband did the other day, that he doesn't seek to negate the vote. The vote was to leave, with the implication, as Cameron said, that we would leave the Single Market. In fact the only way to remain within it would be to get a EEA type deal. It's explained

here why this would almost certainly be a non starter. If taking back control was the motivation for the Leave vote, we would have far less control in the EEA than we have now. We would still be subject to free movement, to paying in to the budget, and to the control of the ECJ, but without having any say in how the rules are made. For example, the EU could admit more countries and we would be bound by the free movement of their citizens without any say over their entry. I simply don't believe that the Brexit vote allows this. Last week Donald Tusk said it's Hard Brexit or No Brexit. No Brexit violates the democratic will of the British people. Hard Brexit is an economic and political shambles. That all this was brought on by David Cameron's incompetence is no consolation. We can't change the vote.

So does anyone have any practical and realistic advice for the government. Personally I'd advise them to call a general election to seek a mandate for a negotiating position. The SNP will campaign on a ticket to stay in. The Lib Dems likewise. The Tories and Labour can campaign on their own vision of the implications of the referendum vote.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Paul TH, the very real problem that the UK has to face up to is that it will go into the negotiations from a very weak position. The EU leaders have made it clear that there will be no negotiations until the s.50 notice has been given and that the EU's terms will not be foreshadowed. So the UK will be giving a notice which apparently is irrevocable but instead inevitably leads to exit from the EU without knowing the terms which the EU will accept. A far from comfortable position. That is the position for which a majority of the voters at the referendum cast their ballot. The EU leaders can simply say that they accept that result, and simply negotiate the date for the excision; from there, they can turn to talking on an item-by-item basis, setting the terms and the timing.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Cameron created an almighty mess that it's still very unclear how the UK gets out of.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

I disagree with 3 because most politicians, including Jeremy Corbyn in his recent leadership contest have ruled out trying to gainsay the result we already have. That leaves option 2. I don't imagine that the SNP will lose any seats, and we know their view. UKIP will want a hard Brexit. The Lib Dems will campaign to reverse the vote. If Corbyn is true to his word, he'll have to tell us if he favours the EEA or whatever. And the Tories will have to sort out among themselves whether they go in to the election on Ken Clarke and Anna Soubury's terms, or those of Theresa May. In any event we will know what we are voting for.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I think 3 is a terrible idea. It undermines further the idea of representative democracy. And how would one phrase the options? They'd all still be liable to interpretation after the event. And if there were more than two of them, would one, for example, allow second preference votes?

1 would be reasonable, had the referendum not already been held.

2 is probably the way to go.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

This seems to be based on the very dubious assumption that the UK gets to dictate the terms on which it leaves the EU.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
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.

This seems to be based on the very dubious assumption that the UK gets to dictate the terms on which it leaves the EU.
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

That is kinda what people mean when they comment that a question is not simple.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The question was simplistic, it took a very complex issue and gave a yes/no question. That sort of question is only appropriate after considerable discussion of the options, culminating in a substantive manifesto for leave.

I've got no particular objection to putting such a question to the British public (my support for a Scottish independence referendum at the right time reflects that). But, it has to be the right question at the right time. The right time is after considerable discussion within the public sphere - years of discussion if not decades, with regular gauges of public opinion with political parties standing for (and gaining) seats in the Commons on a Brexit platform. 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). The right question is one that has been clearly defined - that means a manifesto agreed by the campaign to change the status quo detailing what they would attempt to accomplish if the vote goes their way, and for that campaign to be in a position to actually attempt that (ie: the proposal to be coming from government, or from a group sufficiently well represented in government to carry it through anyway). What we got in June was the wrong question, at the wrong time, proposed by the wrong group.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I'd imagine the government will be trying to pull a rabbit from the hat to keep all the "good" foreigners whilst excluding all the "bad" ones, which might be a crumb of comfort to the universities and others who employ skilled workers. But I'm just not sure how many EU workers will want to continue in the UK when xenophobia has become official government policy.

The nightmare scenario is that May bodges things so badly by focussing on the EU workers in the UK that the EU replies "bugger it, you can have all your pensioners back then", and the sudden influx of sick, angry and poverty-stricken formerly lazing in the sun pensioners adds to the pressure on the NHS and local services.

If the British pensioners are to stay in the EU, I think the British government are going to be expected to pay for the divorce for many years to come into EU coffers. To the extent that the value of leaving the EU will become much smaller than some of the idiot Brexiteers suggest.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
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.

Spot on. I think Donald Tusk has a very clear grasp of the real choice the UK government now faces.

Trouble is, Theresa May has now nailed her colours to triggering Article 50 even if her own Chancellor advises that Hard Brexit is unaffordable. Article 50 is so set up as to weaken the negotiating position of the Leaver, and there is a very strong political argument in favour of doing the UK no favours.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
I'm late to this thread, so apologies if I repeat things.

I think it is interesting to look back to when leaving the (then) EEC actually was part of a political manifesto, viz the 1983 Labour manifesto:

quote:
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.

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).

This, to me, is the weakness of Alan C's, third point. The (one?) good thing about the refeyendum (as I believe we now have to call it) was that it asked about something that the UK Government could achieve. We don't need EU permission to leave. What's the point of putting a referendum question when we don't know if it can be achieved? And how complicated would it have to be? That just won't work.

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.

Even so, I would feel better taking option 2.

Full disclosure: Typical Tory marginal remainer.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
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).
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.

I think the real problem was that most people thought there was nothing to discuss. I said to one of my neighbours when the campaigns kicked off that holding the referendum was a waste of money because it was a no-brainer. He agreed with me.

I didn't realise he was planning to vote for Brexit until referendum day...
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
PaulTh:
Totally agree. But the sense I get from the media is that it is quite doable given that she would get cooperation from Labour.

But she has to wait for it to be impossible for her to govern, I think. Were it me, I would be unwilling to do anything that implied that I secretly agreed that the referendum was not a sufficient mandate.

Long term the legislation needs changing or scrapping, and that could be started now. Changing it is a bit tricky. I've tried a number of changes that would allow an earlier election, but none are convincing.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Alan:
quote:
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).
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.
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".

I've contrasted the EU referendum with the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum before. I'll do so again. Independence has been a big political question in Scotland for 50 years. For decades the SNP has had members elected to Parliament, with Independence a constant element of discussion around election time, and between elections. The strength of that movement was enough to bring about devolution, and within the Scottish Parliament, and the wider public, the debate continued, the arguments were made, disputed, refined in a cycle over many, many elections. And, when the Scottish government finally got the go ahead from Westminster for a referendum the first thing they did was to distill those refined arguments into a white paper describing what the Scottish Government would attempt to obtain if given the opportunity by a Yes vote in the referendum, and then campaigned on that very solid platform. And, the Better Together campaign also knew what they were arguing against, which resulted in some very good discussions at all levels of society (despite a certain amount of "Project Fear" which basically attempted to paint aspects of the white paper as unachievable).

I've said before, I was out of the country in September 2014. But, I took the opportunity to organise a wee party, open some whisky with colleagues, and celebrate a well-managed exercise in democracy - even though the result wasn't what I wanted. In June this year I just wanted to drown my sorrows over the farcical, mismanaged exercise in mob rule and, frankly, un-democratic nonsense we had endured. And, it wasn't just the result (awful though it was), the last few weeks of the campaign had left me despairing over the lack of any serious debate of the issues - partly because Leave couldn't agree on what the issues were, partly because Remain had little better than "Project Fear: The Return". At least in Scotland we had the SNP running a positive "this is what is good about being in the EU" campaign - which is the only campaign they could run, since they were never going to hit the ever moving target of the latest position of the Leave campaign, and they were trying to distance themselves from the Project Fear approach coming up from down south.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I remember watching the 'big debate' live on tv. While the remain side made good and solid arguments (and to my mind actually won the debate) the leave side made all manner of both weird and wonderful claims, many of which are downright lies. The problem was that the chair of the debate should have called them out on that and pressed them. That would have made for a balanced debate. A debate is not in any way balanced if one side can drone out lies in order to win. Equally the leave side didn't really pick up on much of them. Now I know there was a whole fog of notions, so tackling even one was an almost titanic struggle. But I do think if they had even drilled down on one of them they would have revealed a side that could not be trusted. Ultimately something of democracy died in that debate and Britain is far the worse off for it.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

That is kinda what people mean when they comment that a question is not simple.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

It would be easy. Well, relatively. A few simple steps:

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The current idea being floated to leave the City in the single market is quite strange really, as you seem to end up with a Brexit, that is partly soft, and partly hard. Curate's egg comes to mind.

There are also suggestions that other sectors might be protected from the hard Brexit, whether by paying their tariffs or not, I don't know.

It is becoming more and more peculiar.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

It would be easy. Well, relatively. A few simple steps:

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.

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.

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.

If the UK reverted to the position it was in before the 1973 Referendum, it would just re-join ETFA, remain part of the EEA and the Customs Union. It would accept the 4 freedoms, contribute to the budget, have access to the Single Market but go its own way in other areas. That doesn’t seem very likely unfortunately.

Tubbs
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

As it is; that would have required a politician of considerably greater skill and wiliness than Cameron, who was able to manipulate the press as opposed to the other way around. As it is, the Leavers are going to fight with each other - but after the vote rather than before.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I think this analysis misses the whole point of nationalism. The whole point of nationalism is to get rid of the foreigners and then worry about the precise details later. If your problems are complicated and intractable like the British economy after 2008 this sort of thing becomes strangely plausible.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Or, if you want to take the data from Lord Ashcroft Polls:

White voters voted to leave the EU by 53% to 47%. Two thirds (67%) of those describing themselves as Asian voted to remain. as did three quarters (73%) of black voters. Just under half of white voters voted remain whilst one third of Asian voters and one quarter of black voters voted Leave.

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.

Tubbs

[ 17. October 2016, 18:37: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Now that is a useful stat, that nearly half of white voters, voted Remain.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The likes of Hannan et al would find it harder to claim that the essence of the vote had been misunderstood.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I know it isn't a very fashionable thing to say, but I agree with Nick Clegg in his new paper on threats to British food production.

Indeed, he's looking a lot more forward thinking about a lot of things that we've all given him credit for - not least the impact on the Tories of having Lib Dems in coalition.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Also, some of the Brexit people seem to be getting very steamed up that there should be any debate about what kind of Brexit; as the Mail said, this is unpatriotic. Brexit means exactly what the editor of the Mail says it does, but maybe he isn't all that clear either.

Some UKIP people are definitely saying that the vote was for hard Brexit, which it obviously wasn't. They are just pushing for no brown people, I guess.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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".

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:

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.

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).
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by chris stiles:

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.
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".

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.

People who think we should have had a grown up Referendum which involved Leave having a plan are really saying that issues of this nature should not be decided by Referenda which, as Margaret Thatcher and Clement Attlee were quite correct in describing as the preferred method of demagogues and dictators. I think that the demerits of Mr Blair's administration are somewhat overstated by his detractors but his "Hey fellow kids! Let's have a Referendum!" attitude to devolution and peace in Northern Ireland has served us poorly. He should have just said: "Hey Tories! If you don't like my plans, you can beat me in the next General Election!" And, whilst Nick Clegg is also in my pantheon of people who I, rather unfashionably, have a lot of time for he should have told Cameron that he had a choice between STV and confidence and supply and let himself be negotiated down to AV.

The only people who should support referenda are Celtic Nationalists who, for understandable reasons, are unlikely to command a majority in the House of Commons and Fascist Dictators who want an imprimatur for their enabling act. Which, not entirely coincidentally IMO, appears to be how Mrs May is treating the Brexit vote.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

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.
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".

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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

There is no reason at all why the question couldn't have been defined prior to the campaign, that a manifesto for how the Leavers wanted to leave be written, except for the lack of time that would have been needed to do that. That is how it was done in Scotland in 2014, and I can't see how the difficulty of getting others to agree to the wish list of the Scottish Government would be fundamentally different to getting others to agree to the wish list of the Leave campaign - had they ever written something more substantial than a slogan on the side of a bus.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
IIRC, the 'Yes' camp held that there would be a common currency between RUK despite the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that the wouldn't happen and that Scotland would be automatically introduced to the EU despite the EU saying that wouldn't happen. Based on that I'm going to say that the SNP position wasn't a great improvement on the Brexit position.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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".

I am not sure I really know, but then it doesn't appear that anyone really tried.

And yes, calling a referendum was a stupid thing to do under the circumstances, because even if Leave lost, unless it was an absolutely crushing defeat they would go on making mischief till the end of time, fortified by a sense of victim-hood.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The white paper said that if there was a "Yes" vote the Scottish Government would seek to retain the pound as our currency and continue our membership of the EU. But, like any manifesto, I don't think anyone expected that everything the Scottish Government would seek would be achieved.

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. Besides, we all know the value of the promise of Better Together that remaining in the UK would be the only way of ensuring that Scotland remain in the EU.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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. 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. Indeed, probably the most common was the perception that "Brussels", or for the more intellectual the EU, had too much say in day to day British life; indeed if something were not done and done soon, steps would be taken to ban real ale. Lastly of course, your approach is too cerebral, or did I say that.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

"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"?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The UK was daft to vote to leave the EU, the Scots are mad if they think voting to leave the UK will make their situation easier.

Cast out of the EU and then facing import duties from England? That'd be like cutting of their ear to spite their face.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Just because many, if not most, electors don't bother to read the manifesto and find the details of fiscal policy (and all the rest of the stuff there) too cerebral doesn't mean that parties and candidates shouldn't produce a manifesto.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
But given the disparate views on the reason to Leave, who would prepare the paperwork? There was no equivalent to a proper political party (I exclude UKIP) to do that.

An example where what you suggest did work was the vote in the 6 Aust colonies on Federation. A series of conferences, discussions and so forth had led to the writing of a draft constitution. I don't think you could put the Leave movement in the same position.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The Leave movement, as it currently stands, is not in that position. But, there had been no single organisation until one was formed by Cameron when he called the referendum. There has been plenty of time over the last decade or two, as Eurosceptics gained influence in the Conservative party and other political parties, for cross-party groups to be formed where the work of defining both the vision for Brexit. And, for that group (or alliance of groups) to engage people beyond the political parties.

If that had happened then we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are. It also says a fair bit about the Brexit movement that that hadn't happened. It suggests that the actual support for Brexit wasn't sufficient for people to get organised, to talk about the various options, to consider the costs and benefits of different approaches, to begin the processes of producing a manifesto for Brexit, etc.

As I've said before, the referendum was at the wrong time, it was called too early and hadn't allowed the Leave campaign the time needed to get organised. Beyond a faction within the Tories and UKIP, there hadn't even been an obvious movement for Brexit to justify a referendum.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Alan, given the multitude of explanations (many of them not reasons) given for voting Leave, how could the process you urge have been followed?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.

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:

"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"?

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.

As the UK is discovering and Scotland could discover, not everything bad is “Project Fear".

It would be far more honest to tell people that you can have X but it’ll cost Y. You can’t have both and you have to decide what you want more.

At the moment people think they’ll be getting everything they want at no cost. The moon on a stick. Either a British one or a Scottish one depending on what version of nationalism you’re selling.

Tubbs

[ 18. October 2016, 11:43: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?

The ideal is for the electorate to turn up at the polling station and make an informed decision about how they will vote. Therefore, the information needs to be available for them to make that decision - what will each candidate seek to do if elected, or in this case what the two options on a referendum mean. Without the due process of the candidate/party/campaign producing a manifesto there is a sigificantly reduced basis for making an informed decision.

Of course, at the end of the day people have a variety of reasons why they vote the way they do. Many will vote on the basis of matching their priorities to the manifestoes (none of which are likely to be exactly what they would like to see). Some will vote for the person they recognise. Some will vote out of party loyalty, regardless of the candidate. Some will put in a protest vote. But, I don't see why the fact that some people, even if that's a majority, vote regardless of the content of a manifesto that it follows that there should not be a manifesto.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Sorry to spoil your fun - but, by section 36 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the maximum punishment for high treason was changed from execution to life imprisonment.
 
Posted by Ann (# 94) on :
 
quote:
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.

I think he's being shown that there are other points of view .
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It's another sign that Brexit is unravelling and the Brexiteers becoming desperate.

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.

Actually, I'm increasingly (as someone in business and in their 30s) of the opinion that we need to get on with it now. All the faffing about, legal challenges, etc are just making it worse.

I'm now fully committed to doing everything I can to make as much of a success as possible of Brexit - because I've got a pension, a mortgage, and (hopefully) a lot of life left to run. I can't afford to hang back and watch from the sidelines.

I'd far rather we all hanged together than separately, and I think we've got a better chance of avoiding hanging at all if we work together.

FWIW that (in a straw poll of my strongly remain office) now seems to be the majority view of people I know my age - love anecdata! Inherited Blitz spirit back with a vengeance.

My mind has also been slightly focused recently by spending some time in the Black Country, with friends and relatives (aged 25-40 and Brexiters to a (wo)man), and touring the less salubrious pubs of the West Midlands. I really think if there's any attempt not to go through with this then parts of the country might become ungovernable.

Genuinely.

Perhaps that makes me the Vicar of Bray, but so be it. I was, am, a Remainer, but I've got no choice now (as I see it) to work hard for as good a Brexit as we can get.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
Sioni you might remember that I once described my worldview as Baldwin meets Scruton with a dash of Pushful Joe? Let's just say that I was Baldwin before the vote and am now favouring the Chamberlain-Scruton nexus since.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some UKIP people are definitely saying that the vote was for hard Brexit, which it obviously wasn't

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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.

To take another example from here, where there have so far been 44 or 45 referendums, of which only 8 have been carried. In 1946, the Labour govt put a question to give the Commonwealth Govt power to legislate on social security. Until then that had been the power of individual states, save for old age and invalid pensions. In seeking the power, the Govt did not set out how it would utilise it, what the particular benefits would be and the eligibility to receive them. It simply sought the power to enable it to legislate in the future.

By analogy, a question of similar simplicity was put to the UK electorate. The steps to be taken afterwards were for the government to take, those steps including the negotiations with the EU as well as preparing the legislation necessary to cover the enormous number of statutory provisions which had been introduced as a part of the UK's membership. These post-referendum steps could be envisaged by voters, but quite how each was to be tackled would be a matter for the government.

[ 18. October 2016, 21:14: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I still don't see why any question put to the electorate, whether that's a question about who to represent us or a referendum question, shouldn't include a manifesto. If we don't know what the options are how are people to make an informed decision?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Alan, I think we shall have to disagree on that. Elections are to determine who is to govern the country/state/local council for the next term. A referendum is to determine a single question. Although I was too young to vote at the landmark referendum in 1967 concerning the counting of aboriginal people in the census, and giving the Commonwealth Govt express power to legislate for them, I remember it clearly and like so many others campaigned in support. There have been a dozen or more referendum questions put since and I've voted at all of them. While there has been campaigning for and against on each, none has had the sort of preparation you endorse.

Let's look back at the social services referendum of 1946 to which I referred above. If your proposal had been followed, one would have expected papers detailing the sums to be provided for all the new benefits (new to the Federal Govt, that is) how those funds were to be raised and so forth. That was not done. The real question - apart from providing support for a power which had in fact been exercised for some time - was whether such a power should be given to the Federal Govt with consequent national uniformity of eligibility and benefit, or whether it should remain with the States.

Agreed that a referendum is an election of sorts, a voter elects whether to vote Yes or No, Leave or Remain. Despite that, I can see real differences between this sort of process and the regular election of members of parliament/presidents/congress members etc.

[ 19. October 2016, 02:44: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The level of detail required to make an informed decision will, naturally, depend on the question.

When electing members for Parliament (or other body) we require a reasonably detailed plan of what they intend to do over the term of office (and, personally, some indication that that is part of a longer term plan), that does require a manifesto - and one of sufficient size to accommodate plans for several year in office.

When the question is one of a matter of policy, again the detail needed will depend on the question. "Should aboriginal people be included on the census?" is pretty much self-explanatory, and all that's required is a campaign to explain why they should. "Should welfare be a Federal or State power?" is also quite simple, all that's needed are the few sentences to say that initially there would be a programme of producing a uniform scheme across the country, and all subsequent changes would be made by the Federal government - the only potential hiccup would be to work out what would happen if one State voted to retain those powers and all the others voted to transfer them to the Federal government. "Should we retain FPTP or adopt an AV voting system?" needs nothing more than a clear description of AV. In all these cases, there would be very little in the way of problems with implementing the changes if the vote went that way.

However, when the question is one where the implementation of the change would be very complex and involve negotiations with multiple other parties over multiple issues then, IMO, an informed decision can only be made when a prefered route through those complex issues has been pencilled in - recognising that unless those complex negotiations are done in advance of the vote (and, they won't be) then that can only ever be an intention rather than a path that will be followed no matter what. So, Scottish Independence had questions about currency, membership of EU and NATO, the status of the border, the place of Scotland within the UK defense system (with rUK troops and facilities currently in Scotland, and Scottish troops based in UK facilities around the world), etc to be addressed. The Scottish Government produced an extensive white paper to describe what they wanted to achieve, and the vote was informed by that document (even if most people only read the summaries and key points produced by the media). Brexit has a similar collection of issues that have multiple options available - in or out of the common market, the status of the border, the status of EU citizens currently in the UK, the availability of non-UK workers to fill our skills gaps, availability of opportunities for young people to study abroad, participation in European science and technology projects, farm subsidies, will we need to abide by EU standards and regulations, etc. We were denied the option of making an informed decision since the prefered option of the Leave campaign on these issues was not spelled out, and indeed in several cases different people were giving different answers.

Fundamentally, it comes down to a requirement for a free and fair election is that the people need to be able to make an informed decision. That can't happen if key information is not available.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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. The first was one largely (it seems) answered on an emotional response - I agree with your assessment of that, but that does not alter the conclusion. BTW, your latest post suggests that the rational case include setting out the likely position of the EU in the event of a Leave vote. 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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Some UKIP people are definitely saying that the vote was for hard Brexit, which it obviously wasn't

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.
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.

Most were proposing some sort of deal that would give the UK Single Market access, but not on as good terms as before. The EU's recent record on getting Trade Deals done isn't that great. The US deal has fallen apart and the Canadian one seems to be going the same way.

Others were hoping for a return to EETA / ETA which would put us back on the same footing as we were in 1973.

Others expected that the EU would still give us All The Things after we’d left and nothing would change. But I’ve never believed a man whose biggest achievement was putting bike racks all over London.

And therein lies the problem. There is no “correct” answer to what happens after we Leave. But whatever happens, it will be seen as a betrayal by everyone.

And I can say that I didn't vote to Leave the Single Market [Razz]

Tubbs

[ 19. October 2016, 12:06: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
The problem is that the Leavers offered a variety of frankly incompatible things. Someone was always going to get let down. What is interesting is that the Tories have decided to privilege the opinions of angry nativists from Sunderland and embittered pensioners from the shires over the opinions of the City of London and the young and the educated. In the short term, of course, they can do what the hell they want but in the longer term that is going to cause them problems. There isn't going to be a Jeremy Corbyn shaped hole where the opposition used to be indefinitely.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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).
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I don't really understand the point of a referendum on a Brexit deal when one is reached. What happens if the general public votes No? Do we just leave the EU without a deal, or do we hope the other 27 countries take pity on us and give our beloved representatives more time to think of a better deal for us (which is quite likely to imply a worse deal for them)?

[ 19. October 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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? 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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Next they were talking about the implications of the UK having to fall back on WTO rules.

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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:
1) Stay.
2) Leave but keep free movement and access to the free market.
3) Leave and reject free movement and no access to the free market.
It is not at all obvious that everyone voted for either 2 or 3 has 3 or 2 as their second choice. It may well be that some of them have 1 as their second choice.
If only 1 in 20 Leave voters (2.6% of all who voted) have 1 has the second choice, that would make Remain the Condorcet winner. It would require 19 out of 20 Leave voters to agree on either 2 or 3 as the first preference for Remain not to be the First Past the Post winner.

[ 19. October 2016, 21:30: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Alan Cresswell, you seem to be moving towards acceptance of my point, if not all the way. I doubt that you can come any further.

You note the possibility of a further referendum on the deal reached. That seems to me full of problems. What if you like half the provisions but could not live with the balance. How do you vote? More importantly, by the time any deal is reached, Art 50 will have been invoked and the clock will be ticking. The electorate says No to the deal, by a substantial majority; the EU says that that's the deal that's on offer, and there's a month left of your time. Where's the UK then?

That's not to say that there should not be very public scrutiny of the deal. Parliament is the place for that, preferably in stages, regular reports to it from the negotiating team and so on.

[ 20. October 2016, 02:35: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Wait, the UK isn't a member of the WTO? According to the WTO the UK has been a member since 1995.

The only question seem to be whether the UK is a member only as a member state of the EU.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Trade negotiations with anyone can't start until the UK has left the EU. Hopefully the Government is contacting holders of existing agreements to see if they're willing to allow the UK to trade with them on the same terms and sounding out other WTO members to see how the land lies. (But it's Liam Fox so who knows!)

Credit where credit is due. I knew sod all about trade before Brexit!

Tubbs

[ 20. October 2016, 09:20: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

Trade agreements are handled by the EU who negotiates on everyone’s behalf. An EU member can’t negotiate separate agreements.

Normally trade quotas and tariff etc are negotiated as part of a country’s ascension to the WTO. The UK is in an odd position. As it was a founder member of the WTO, it is already an individual member. But because it’s part of the EU the UK doesn’t have any agreements or quotas etc of its own. It's blooming convoluted!

Tubbs
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by PaulTH:

quote:
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.

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.

The EU has its faults but the UK's decision to unilaterally dispense with its existing FTAs and to seek new ones without a clear strategy for achieving them is rather more to blame for the current situation than the EU, Ireland or the WTO.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

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.

There is simply no basis for how and why an open border would continue to operate and what and who would be allowed over it.

It's the case that Ricardus outlined so well earlier in the thread:

http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_profile;u=00008757
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

And the idea that someone is "making more" out of the tariffs than the other seems rather odd. Tariffs are not designed to create revenue but to control imports. If we need their imports more than we need theirs, then if we both impose duties, we're screwed. If they impose duties and we don't, we're screwed.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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:
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.
It was clearly stated prior to the referendum that Article 50 would need to be invoked prior to any negotiations.
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.

quote:
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?

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.

quote:
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.

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.

And from a "game theory" point of view its fairly easy to anticipate that the EU will hold a relatively hard line on the terms of Brexit. What the UK is essentially asking for is a system which gives them all the bits of EU membership that they like (free movement of goods) while opting out of the EU stuff they don't like (free movement of people, uniform product and safety standards, etc.). This is a classic free rider problem, and the big risk for the EU is not the diminishment of trade with the UK, but that the whole system will collapse if it becomes apparent to other countries that they could lobby for a similar "all of the benefits and none of the costs" arrangement like the UK seems to expect to be able to negotiate. This is likely to be even more the case given that while it was in the EU the UK was already allowed to opt out of certain EU projects (like the Euro).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.

You are viewing things too simplistically. I'll quote Ricardus' excellent example again:

quote:
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."

.. 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.

As you can see this would soon generate a bunch of knock on effects in terms of legislation Britain would have to accept without having any future direction over how it was it evolved.

As you add more and more products to this kind of regime it would start to approximate EFTA, but a very expensive and bespoke EFTA that would take years to negotiate with the trade negotiators the UK doesn't have.

.. and the stickler would be things like services, the export of which is of great interest to the UK. The UK is unlikely to be able to get an agreement on 'free trade' for services, unless it agrees to the free movement of people - because the EU is understandably wary of a kind of race to the bottom where jobs are offshored without any mechanism that allows people to follow those jobs.

.. 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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
chris styles:
quote:
.. 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.
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.

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:
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.

Do you see merit in this, or only bullshit?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
chris styles:
quote:
.. 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.
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.

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:
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.

Do you see merit in this, or only bullshit?

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
chris styles:
quote:
.. 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.
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.

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:

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.

That said, the rules governing a single market (even of the EEA variety) go far beyond those coming from the WTO (especially when it comes to services, and the kinds of complex multi-national supply lines that the majority of british manufacturing is involved in).

Going back to my previous post - part of which appears to have been lost; the trend these days is for countries to negotiate 'trade platforms' rather than multiple bilateral agreements, because of the time (often legislative time) and effort involved. When it comes to the EU there are a number of existing platforms the UK could join, of which the EU and EFTA are currently ruled out by the constraints the current government have placed upon themselves.

It is important to realise that trade negotiators are in finite supply, and such departments will have been staffed based on long term projections of the work involved, and will be pre-committed years in advance on various trade talks. Where legislatures are involved, there is similarly a limited amount of time available to hash out trade agreements. In this context it's complete accurate to say that the UK would be 'at the back of the queue' at least initially - and would remain so, unless there was significant reason to drop other trade talks in favour of talks with the UK.

[ 21. October 2016, 09:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
Finally, if you want people to do you favours, like dropping/pausing highly advanced talks with other trade blocs in order to concentrate on trade talks with you, then chest beating might not be the best way of making feel well inclined towards you.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.


I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time

[Paranoid]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Ronald:
quote:

I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time

Well, I guess if the rest of the post was in irish it would read fine. [Biased]

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.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Just to go back to the standards discussion for a bit. I don't know about ISO. Howevever, as CEN (Comite Europeen de Normalisation - European Standardisation Committee) is not an EU organisation, we will remain members of it. I think BSI is the member.

M.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:


I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time

[Paranoid]

Eh?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:


I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time

[Paranoid]

Eh?
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).

I'll leave it to an Irish shipmate to give the chapter and verse but I've always steered clear and do wince when it's used.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
This is one of many hits when googling along the lines of "why don't people like it when Ireland's called Eire."
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Please accept my apols, I was totally and blissfully unaware that this was a thing.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It used to be used by right-wing English newspapers, didn't it? I'm not sure if they were being patronizing, or making some point about partition.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
Or perhaps, like many of us, they thought it was the name of the country.

I only found out a lot of Irish people don't like it a couple of years ago.

M.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by M.
quote:

Or perhaps, like many of us, they thought it was the name of the country.

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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
I wonder what effect the failure of the CETA deal will have if any. Hopefully they'll sort it out but according to politico.eu (which acknowledgement hopefully clears me):
quote:
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.

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.

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.

Like I said, I hope they will sort it out, I have no grudge against the EU. But if they don't, it could have a silver lining, although probably too late, in that it could trigger a move to Qualified Majority Voting for trade deals. Were this now in force, I think it quite likely that May could be persuaded that soft brexit is better. Of course, I would say that because that's what I want and I like May as leader.

But all the signs are negative.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Please accept my apols, I was totally and blissfully unaware that this was a thing.

No bother, its only a minor quibble
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by anteater:

quote:
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.
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.

In any event the choice is stark. Nix the referendum or end up trading with Europe without a trade deal. 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. I suggest we adopt as our national motto the simple and eloquent phrase: "We're So Screwed".
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
"We're So Screwed".

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).
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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]

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.

The other big deal, TTIP, between the EU and the USA is also hitting the buffers. President Hollande has aid he will veto it, and some voices in the US, including Mr Trump have reservations with it. When I voted Remain on 23rd June, it was as a reluctant Remainer, on the basis of better the devil you know. But I've never liked the EU or its institutions. I agree with the premise on which it was founded, that this continent, torn apart by wars for centuries, should at last learn to live and work together in a way which makes future conflicts impossible.

This debacle around CETA proves that when the UK leaves, it will be a hard Brexit. Not because we want it to be, but because the sclerotic bureaucracy will never agree anything. As Mr Trudeau asks, with whom can this institution do business? It's quite possible that Brexit will mean that the UK becomes an insignificant offshore island. That the power of the City of London drains away to Paris, Frankfurt or even Dublin. But it's equally possible that Canada and the US, who can't get agreement from the EU, could from the UK alone. That China, India and the Commonwealth could forge deals and that the entrepreneurial spirit which made Britain a great nation is still with us and will reinvent itself as a beacon of free trade. That's what I hope for this land I love.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

I wouldn't want that. French on the Coat of Arms and indeed on the passport has a long tradition. Why change it?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Ronald:
quote:

I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time

Well, I guess if the rest of the post was in irish it would read fine. [Biased]

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.

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.

Once we leave, we will be a faithful partner in relation to matters of mutual interest. Other things, not so much. Just like the EU and everyone who isn't a part of it.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
If you can steel yourself to click on the link this is very good.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I wonder what effect the failure of the CETA deal will have if any.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For that reason, I'm pleased to see it on the scrap heap.

So you are obviously happy that the regional parliament of Wallonia can hold two continents to ransom. I can't agree with you there!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
For that reason, I'm pleased to see it on the scrap heap.

So you are obviously happy that the regional parliament of Wallonia can hold two continents to ransom. I can't agree with you there!
Rather disproves the claim that the EU indiscriminately imposes its views on its members though.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
As a national motto in English, wouldn't 'We've screwed ourselves' be more accurate?
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Callan:
quote:
(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.
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.

And I am of the opinion that closer integration is needed for the EU, and Euro to succeed and that QMV should apply to trade deals.

Which was part of my dilemma. For UK to make the best of remaining it needs to be much more closely involved, and though we've gone far enough for me to prefer continuing a rather dysfunctional partnership that breaking it, I truly do not believe that the Brits want the sort of closer integration that we need if we are truly to shape Europe along with the other main players, Germany, France and Italy.

I just see us then as partial outsiders, rejecting the institutions needed to make the EU and Euro work, and standing on the sidelines. And I see it as very doubtful that the EU would survive the failure of the Euro.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
The mistake was in creating the euro as a forerunner of political union, when it should have been the other way round. There is no precedent in history for a currency union which wasn't part of an already existing political union. The problem the euro has is in trying to impose a one size fits all economics on countries as diverse as, for example, Germany and Greece. Germans are hard working and work comparatively late in life. Greeks could always retire at 50 and who can blame someone for being pissed off if they've spent their whole working life expecting to retire at 50, and when 47 they're told they must work another 20 years. Also Greece has very much of a black market attitude to work which Germany doesn't in the same way.

The net result of this is that Greece can't stay competitive because it, and Italy as well, have lost their traditional safety valve of currency devaluation to compensate them for their lack of competitiveness when compared to Northern Europe. So money flows south in bail outs that are never likely to be repaid. Only a political union involving tax harmonisation and basically allowing a financially sound regime like Germany to manage the economies of the less competitive countries, which is likely, as well as having big political consequences, to involve permanent stagnation and austerity. But I don't believe that anyone can change Mediterranian culture to make it conform to what the Germans think is the right way to run an economy.

Brexit or not, the UK could never have been part of such a project. 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. Many like myself voted Remain out of fear of the world outside, but I would never have wanted to take the euro of join Schengen. I just felt that Britain had secured enough opt outs, even from ever closer union, as to not seriously fear the power of Brussels. To be part of that "ever closer union" is not in the British character, and any attempt to impose it would have been met with a much larger Leave vote. Mine included.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by PaulTH:

quote:
The mistake was in creating the euro as a forerunner of political union, when it should have been the other way round.
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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
PaulTh:
quote:
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.
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:
Europhile: Believer in closer union, not necessarily full federalist but even that is thinkable. Would prefer to be in Eurozone as and when institutions are in place to make that work. Around 30%?
Europhobe: Never wanted EU and voted for out in the 1973 referendum. So fixated on regaining nation-state status that, to quote Dr. Fox "I've got what I want and am glad of that whatever the outcome of the negotiations. Again around 30%.
Euroskeptic: Doesn't view EU with any enthusiasm, and certainly does not want any further integration or to touch Euro with two barge-polls tied together. Often assume Euro will fail and probably EU as well. Around 40%, and these could have split roughly into Teresa's who just voted Remain (that's me) and Boris's who just voted out (who'd admit to being a Boris). These are the ones mainly driven by which they think is best economically.

The press tend not to distinguish between the phobes and the skeptics.

We also need an adjective for "Citizen of EU". I rather dislike the Ewers (possible?) trying to hijack Europe(TM). Mind you we're no better not having Yuker for UK citizen. Did NI citizens object to the Olympic Team being Team GB? At least with Rugby the term is fair since NI is in with Ireland and British Lions are British.

Mind you , here we're always arguing about Christian(TM).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Tubbs:
quote:

Actually I can see the logic of this.

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.

[ 23. October 2016, 10:04: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
AlanCresswell:
quote:
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
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.
quote:
The "federalist EU" was a boggie man produced by the Brexit campaign to scare people with a vision of a loss of UK sovereignty.
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.
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
AlanCresswell:
quote:
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
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.
quote:
The "federalist EU" was a boggie man produced by the Brexit campaign to scare people with a vision of a loss of UK sovereignty.
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.
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.

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.

Pretty much everyone, including the guy who designed it, believes the Euro won’t work properly unless fiscal policy is centralised and the kind of transnational transfers you’ve mentioned happen. But as none of the member countries will agree to that, it’s not going to happen. It has self-destruction built in.

For all the chat about opt outs and rebates, the only main net contributor who doesn’t get a rebate is France. Italy and Germany have one too. And, the UK has less infringement cases
against it than most of the “good “Europeans - France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Belgium and Germany

I think both sides have got used to blaming the other for stuff they’d want to do but haven’t got round to yet and built a myth around it.

Tubbs

[ 24. October 2016, 13:39: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
So in one of the first significant decisions post Brexit, Nissan have decided to continue investment in their plant in Sunderland in the north east of England.

Neither Nissan nor the government appear to be willing or able to explain explicitly what undertakings have been made on the government's side, which inevitably leads to various reports circulating based on "a letter seen by the paper" etc....
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's fairly typical of Tories to do deals in backrooms.

But, I can't imagine how the deal could be anything other than a promise of tax payer money in the event of Brexit negotiations not securing a deal that allows Nissan to manufacture in the UK without paying tariffs on components imported from elsewhere in the EU and cars exported to the EU. So, it's basically another measure to protect the economy following the June result.

Now, I've no objection to tax payer money being used to support industry and keep people in work (the amount the government may end up paying will almost certainly be less than paying dole for out of work car workers). But, I doubt there will be similar payments to small local businesses hit by the extra costs resulting from Brexit. And, it will be another nail in the coffin of the Chancellors plans to cut borrowing.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
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."

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 there are plenty of other industries....
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There's a campaign for pro-EU parties to unite behind a single candidate for the Richmond Park by-election, since Zac Goldsmith was a Leave campaigner in a constituency that voted heavily in favour of Remain. Though, the by-election will be on a single issue (Heathrow expansion) - but if the pro-EU candidate opposes Heathrow expansion that would be negated. The Tories aren't going to stand, the LibDems are closing the gap but if Labour and Greens also stand the pro-EU vote may be split too much to displace Goldsmith.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Blair's support could fatally damage any pro-EU position.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

If you (not you personally, of course [Smile] ) 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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Yes, it's a slippery slope. But, one that will take a long time for the EU to reach the bottom. My objection to it being raised as a Brexiteers bogey man is precisely because it is a long way in the distance. 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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Despite the revisionist history put about by the Euroskeptics, the 1975 referendum was never "just about a trade treaty" - the language and goals of closer integration were always there. Nevertheless, for a long time the EEC was more or less a glorified trade treaty, and the prospect of free movement between the UK and France didn't bother anyone.

But still, the slope was there. People almost 50 years ago, many of whom are now dead, chose to put the UK on this slope. By a slim majority, people today chose to step onto a different slope. (And if yo think changing slopes at this point is going to be painful, how much more painful would it be for our children to jump ship in a generation if they didn't like the integration? Every choice we make constrains their choices - not just the choices that you don't like.)

It is in nobody's power to step off all the slopes. Slopes are in the nature of the world - it doesn't have flat spots.

[ 28. October 2016, 15:39: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Enoch:
quote:
Why, in the indefinite and distant future, would a federal Europe be such a terrible thing?
Brexiteers don't have to believe it is terrible. One can respect ideas without personally sharing them.

And if the timescale had been much much longer, I would have given it a better chance of success.

But I disagree with your characterisation of the 20th century, as if we are all peaceful people now we're in the EU, as opposed to nasty people who caused all the trouble in the 20th century.

Civilisation develops, sometimes in very painful ways. We need to learn lessons from the past, and if you think that one of the lessons is that large federal states are less aggressive than smaller states, then I simply don't see that at all.

Isn't the argument that the EU brought peace to Europe a version of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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.

A re-imagined UKIP would lead to a better level of public debate?????

What you would get would be a slanging match about the overturned referendum, forever.

And this "re-imagined" (and re-invigorated) UKIP would then be either the main opposition party, or the party of government. It would probably be more malign than the original UKIP - more BNP-ish.

No no no no no. Accept that Brexit is going to happen and try to get a proper centrist party going. There should be a lot of space in the centre at the moment. It needs some grassroots support though, some "momentum" if you will.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Turquoise Tastic:
Accept that Brexit is going to happen and try to get a proper centrist party going

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.

But we do need a centre party. Corbyn's socialism has many zealous followers, but will never win a majority with the British electorate. A one party Tory state is horrendous. Perhaps the Lib Dems are about to expand and fill the vacuum in the centre ground. I don't much like them on their past record, but times, people and problems to be solved change, and something new is essential here.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
We've had centrist parties and only Blairite Labour ever bore fruit. The old Liberal party, under Jo Grimond and Jeremy Thorpe was eccentric but generally centrist, the Social Democrats was a centrist offshoot of a Labour Party that was going nowhere and when that merged with the Liberals, Labour could see a whole chunk of its support disappearing. So could the Tories for that matter, so they were delighted that a centrist Labour party could maintain the two-party status quo, which is caused by the FPTP voting system.

Britain won't get adequate centrist representation without electoral reform.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by PaulTH:
quote:

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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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'.

tangent/

That's interesting. I've heard from a Colombian (but not checked) that the referendum proposal approving the FARC peace deal was rejected by the voters for similar reasons (I was wondering why it had been).

/tangent
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
PaukTh:
quote:
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
. 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.

A lot depends on your view of what is needed to secure legitimacy. So suppose - and I suspect this is true - that a majority of those eligible to vote, and somewhat larger majority of those eligible to pay tax, prefer to remain. It would still be close, but I would take a bet on a majority to remain.

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.

However, even better and more likely, would be an election, and because of this I can understand why the EU leaders want to make Article 50 retractable.

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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

(fletcher christian has made the case that this isn't what happened in Ireland. But let's deal with the idea.)

Polls have a certain amount of uncertainty in them. The purpose of a referendum is to ask the question "what do the electorate think about issue X?" - but on any given day, people's votes are changed based on the weather, whether they got laid last night, whether they had a good week at work this week, and all kinds of irrelevant short-term noise. So if you were to imagine re-running a referendum every week (and assumed that people magically didn't get annoyed with referenda) you'd get a set of answers distributed around the "true" opinion of the electorate.

But when you re-run polls to try to get the "right" answer, you introduce bias. You stop as soon as you get a "yes" vote - you don't find anyone re-running a poll that went their way just in case that was a fluke.

Consider rolling a die. On average, you expect to roll a 3.5. But now roll two dice and pick the highest (that's what you do with a repeated poll), and the average score you expect from your best die is 4.47. The more dice you roll, the higher you expect your best score to be.

The assumption in this discussion is that the true opinion of the electorate hasn't changed. The more reason you have to believe that there has been a significant change in public opinion, the more reasonable it becomes to re-run a referendum. You still have this same bias introduced by taking the best score of repeated samples, but perhaps public opinion has shifted by a greater amount.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
LearningCnight:
Nobody is suggesting having repeated referenda until you get the result you want. But it is not unreasonable to want to be sure that on major constitutional issues, you have got a result that really represents the majority of the U.K. public.

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.

That doesn't mean you'll get the result that is best all round, but it makes it more likely that you'll get a result that truly reflects the will of the citizenry - which I can't see as anti-democratic.

The only argument against is that the vote of those who couldn't be bothered to get their arse to the polling station is worth less, which though elitist does have some validity.

Won't happen, though, as we all know really.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

It is, explicitly, a bias - you're saying that if the will of the country is close to evenly split, it is right to make no change.

(Consider the 1975 referendum on the EEC. In principle, this is the first time the people have an option to express an opinion, so the "status quo" option should be to not join. However, the UK did join the EEC in 1973. So is remaining in the EEC the status quo? It's not obvious that everyone will agree on what the status quo option is - or even that there is a status quo option at all.)

Requiring a change to be confirmed in a second poll does a similar thing - and has the same bias.

I don't know of any examples of two results being required for a change in referenda, although it happens in other contexts (presumably the expense of a referendum tends to disfavour this idea).

If you want to avoid the status quo bias (and the problem of deciding what the status quo is), you could re-run any referendum that was closer than 60/40, and go with the "best of three". But probably you'd find that referendum fatigue would set in and be a bigger bias than the noise you were trying to avoid.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
The best time to vote "out" was 1975, which I did, to the horror of my Tory and Liberal friends at the time.

This time "out" was irreversible. But "in" would have meant that there could be fresh referendums if and when membership of the EU became less popular.

Now, once Article 50 goes in, and the negotiations amount to the single word "goodbye" from the EU, there is no way back. Well, accepting the Euro and Schengen, and getting that past a popular vote, I think not.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

It's not clear whether this refers to some version of the single market or customs union.

It seems ironic that Nissan seem to have been told more than MPs, a point made by Keir Starmer (Labour).

Further questions are bound to come up - will other companies be offered similar deals? If not, why not?

It looks as if hard Brexit is softening, but still behind a shroud of secrecy. We don't talk about these things in front of the children, that is, the voters!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37815864
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
A friend just said to me that Mrs May is worried about the hard Brexiteers, therefore has to conceal any softening, as the Nissan deal might represent. I don't think this will work, as the hard mob will smell a rat.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
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

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?

The article just says the UK "wants" and "would seek" tariff-free access for the motor industry - but this is nothing new. It's hardly within the UK's power to "give" access unilaterally; Nissan's executives must realize this, and it seems unlikely that they'd make major investment decisions on the basis of such flimsy assurances.

I wonder if they've been promised any special concessions by the UK government (tax rebates?) in the event that the UK fails to negotiate such favorable terms.

[ 30. October 2016, 14:45: Message edited by: Dave W. ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
The 1:0 p.m. BBC Radio 4 News today came from Belfast and the discussion was about the border between NI and the republic of Ireland.
It is so infuriating to wonder - did all the outers in much of England give any real thought to the people in NI, also Scotland where the majority was for remaining in. I'm a reasonable, calm sort of person but at times I'd really like to go and shake a few of the exiters, i.e. the ones whose only consideration appeared to have been too many immigrants.

Ah, well .... *a few more deep sighs to add to those already sighed*!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think most English people think about N. Ireland from one year to another, except with annoyance, maybe. The idea that people would actually think about relations with the Republic, and the border between EU and non-EU, seems far-fetched. Keep out the fuzzy-wuzzies is the mantra!
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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?

I'm not sure that any Brexiteers have been of any consistency.

As I understand it, soft Brexit would mean making free trade with the EU a priority even if that meant accepting freedom of movement for EU nationals, and hard Brexit would mean making keeping immigration controls on people from the EU a priority even if that means losing free trade with the EU. It is true that a number of Brexiteers believe that these terms assume that the unpatriotic, moany, and anti-democratic sentiment that we can't have our cake and eat it, and therefore reject them. And of course any term in politics gets used by politicians and journalists to mean what it suits them to mean by it at the moment of use. But I believe the above is the original intention.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Personally I'm not sure I'd believe anything the Tory government says about the post-Brexit future, they seem to be entirely making it up.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's like the Delphic Oracle, everything is shrouded in mystery and ambiguity. Or the Rorschach ink-blot, where you see whatever you want.

I keep coming back to Starmer's point that the Nissan management seem to know more about their 'deal' than MPs do. WTF.

[ 30. October 2016, 15:41: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I get the impression that May is running around telling everyone what they want to hear about Brexit, hoping that something will turn up. She might want to end the farce by calling a general election, which would presumably return a solidly Tory/Brexit House. However, I suspect that pro-European MPs on both sides of the House will do their best to make sure that this parliament lasts the full 5 years, (blocking any attempt to tinker with the fixed term act), and push for the softest Brexit possible.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think most English people think about N. Ireland from one year to another, except with annoyance, maybe.

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.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
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?

I'm not sure that any Brexiteers have been of any consistency.

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.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Would have worked better if we were talking about "thick" vs. "runny" Brexiteers.

Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.

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."

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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I've seen innumerable articles by brexiteers crowing about how much more Brexit will cost them than it will cost us. They all assume that import & export trade will continue at pre-referendum levels, which, after the tanking pound makes imports 30% more expensive and our exports 30% cheaper, is pure fantasy.

The purpose of tariffs is to control levels of trade, not to raise revenue. If we wanted trade to continue at previous levels we would have to find some mechanism for adjusting the tariffs - i.e., a trade agreement.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.

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."

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.

None of that assures me that my everyday life living five miles from the Northern Ireland border will be unaffected. [Mad]
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
PaulTH,

Your optimistic economic predictions discount seriously the wider economic effects of brexit. We certainly do import more from the rest of the EU than we export to it, but you can't take that fact in isolation. We are so well integrated that the disruption to trade will very likely make everyone poorer, and nothing thst either party can do, short of tearing up the results of the referendum, is going to fix that. The non (direct) trade costs, (loss of the benefits of free movement of people, interference with research programmes, etc) almost certainly will dwarf the direct trade costs, whatever tariff agreements to which we do or do not come.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

But one semi-reasonable point is that if Sweden-Norway can manage a much bigger border, why can't we?

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.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

But one semi-reasonable point is that if Sweden-Norway can manage a much bigger border, why can't we?

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.
It isn't communitarian to believe any impeding of a hitherto open border is nothing but a damn nuisance, at best.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

I wasn't casting judgement necessarily; just indicating that solutions adopted elsewhere may not be acceptable in a specifically Irish context.

We are where we are, and some impeding of the border is on the cards - unless we stay within the Single Market or the EU - both of which seem unlikely.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Because having a "status quo" assumes that standing still is an option, and it often isn't.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The Nissan deal, if it is that, continues to spread ripples. Most vivid quote is from Clegg, who has protested that it could cost billions to protect other companies. 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?

I think it will be raised in Parliament today, but we can expect more stone-walling. "We aim to secure the best trade deals for British companies, and we are not going to reveal ongoing negotiations, and we are certainly not going to discuss this with MPs, who the fuck do they think they are, we answer to the British people. "

I've heard that some of the Brexit comment threads in the tabloids are livid with May, seeing it as a betrayal of a pure and virgin and hard Brexit. Cue Mae West, a hard Brexit is good to find and hold on to.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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?

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.
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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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. 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.

This would satisfy the slushy Brexiters because we would be "taking back control", it wouldn't satisfy the Brexit berserkers (Breserkers?), but nothing short of draining the channel and filling it with venomous scorpions would make them happy.

It would have the added attraction of allowing Scotland to effectively remain in the EU, thus taking the momentum out of further moves towards independence.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Finally, I don't think this could be coherent, which region would you see Sunderland falling into? If it is a region that allows free movement then the Brexiters of the North East aren't going to be particularly happy are they?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.)

That seems wrong on a couple of levels.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
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.

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.)

That seems wrong on a couple of levels.

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.

.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The real issue is therefore what exactly Nissan would get if this odd arrangement was not able to be negotiated with the EU. Presumably some kind of compensation. It is highly unlikely that Nissan would have signed up without some kind of guarantee as far as I can see the situation.

The idea that some parts of the British mainland are in the single market and others are not isn't going to happen. Even Scotland seems trapped between a rock and a hard-place if it has to make a choice between a free-trade area with the EU or with the rUK.

I can maybe/possibly see some kind of new arrangement for Northern Ireland, possibly allowing the province to remain officially part of the UK but at more of an arms length so that it can retain links with the Republic. Geographically that seems to make more sense than trying to split up areas of England/Wales.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Greg Clark has himself admitted that any financial compensation paid to Nissan would probably contravene WTO treaties - so having pissed off the EU, we'd piss off everyone else as well.

I don't think Nissan would have been happy without something pretty concrete on the single market. I know my proposal above would require a lot of bureaucracy - essentially, a system of regional work visas. But the apparatus to support it exists in embryonic form. There would have to be rapid devolution of these powers to the remaining English regions.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

To the best of my knowledge the EU is not a body that grants "citizenship", so no.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
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.

To the best of my knowledge the EU is not a body that grants "citizenship", so no.
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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
This is a ridiculous problem that Hameron has left us with. It will require an even more ridiculous solution to square the circle and "leave without leaving". I'd be interested to hear anyone else's ideas.

Of course, hard Brexit may be all that's politically possible or that the EU will give us, in which case any discussion of alternatives is entirely moot. But I do not for a moment believe that we can finesse hard Brexit by bribing companies to stay. That's for the birds.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It will probably require something like this:

S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S( S(S(0)) + S(0) )
= S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )
= S(S(S(S(0))))
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Looks as plausible as anything else I've seen.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Again, I want to challenge the background assumption in your post that the natural state of the world is tariff free trade and the EU is somehow violating some kind of natural law by 'imposing' tariffs and somehow refusing to 'play ball'.

The choices are; join the WTO, play by the rules of the WTO and be subject to the tariffs of the WTO; join a platform such as EFTA, play by the rules of the platform and enjoy the benefits of the platform; spend the time and effort necessary to draw up a trade agreement of your own.

[Again, I refer back to Ricardus' excellent post http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=019952;p=2#000099 ]

[ 31. October 2016, 18:42: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.

Ultimately, of course, it will make no difference - because any vote in Parliament will result in Article 50 being invoked. Too many of our MPs will just tow the "will of the people" line and vote for the government. The SNP may go for trying to get some concessions from the government, and vote against if they don't. Some of the more vocal pro-EU MPs will probably vote against. But, not enough to make any difference.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
If you're right, to my mind this just underscores the detrimental role of the media in over-sensationalising issues, thus fuelling anxiety and drawing contrasts so sharply there is no sensible middle ground.

Scarcely was this news out than the BBC website is awash with articles on sterling jumping, a law drafter saying Article 50 wasn't watertight anyway, speculation about Remainers fighting a grassroots campaign, and so forth; in similar fashion to the treatment of the US election.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And the rabid right wing will now be growing hair on their chest, and saying that the will of the people is being denied. Hang on, I thought they wanted sovereignty - isn't it Parliament that is sovereign?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
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.

To the best of my knowledge the EU is not a body that grants "citizenship", so no.
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.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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....

If they lose the Supreme Court case, they could appeal to Europe. [Snigger]

Brexit will pass, but only with checks and balances and it will have to go through due process. Which could take awhile. I'm not seeing why there's such a big objection ... Surely taking back control means that the House is involved in these kind of decisions and is seen as an asset rather than a liability. We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

Not unduly paranoid at all, IMO.

quote:
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!
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.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
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!

Well - it would either be the most right wing, or if Corbyn's Labour won, the most left wing for donkey's years.

Apparently Ladbrokes have odds of 2/1 that Article 50 doesn't happen before 2021 or at all. You can get the same odds on a 2017 general election.

I'm a Methodist though ;-)
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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?

There'd be so much arguing over what to do that Putin might decide to bring his aircraft carrier back from Syria and sail it down the Thames while the (non) government dither.

OK - the Putin bit it hyperbole, but it could be extremely unstable. At least as it stands we have a modicum of "normal" government with a parliament elected on other positions. Better the devil you know....
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

I can imagine those who passionately support Britain's membership of the EU being jubilant about this.
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.

More interesting will be the courts decisions relating to the actual referendum. If the courts rule that some people were illegally denied a vote then all bets are off, and it would probably need a re-run of the referendum including those who were excluded in June. I predict a re-run would give a Remain result - 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:
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.
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).
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I haven't read the whole decision, but the snippets of the court's reasoning I've seen seem highly questionable.

EDIT: This looks to be the relevant page. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-the-european-union/

[ 03. November 2016, 13:41: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
Nope, wars are voted on. The UK is not officially in Syria is because Cameron couldn't get military action passed.

Just found out a point in my previous post was wrong. The court case won't go to Europe as European law isn't involved.

Tubbs
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
Nope, wars are voted on. The UK is not officially in Syria is because Cameron couldn't get military action passed.


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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.

It's like saying that the UK loses the right to declare war on another country if that other country has a law that has bad consequences for citizens of enemy countries.

As TurquoiseTastic says, declaring war IS a prerogative power. Unless you've somehow done something to get rid of it. Otherwise, getting the blessing of Parliament is just that: a blessing. And a political move rather than a legally necessary one.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
This article is a fairly clear statement that getting Parliamentary approval of fighting is a political convention.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
We don't make other big decisions, like going to war, on the basis of executive powers.

Tubbs

Er... yes, we normally do?
Nope, wars are voted on. The UK is not officially in Syria is because Cameron couldn't get military action passed.


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.
Thank you. Given all the fuss about who voted for Iraq recently, I assumed that it had always been so.

Frankly, it's a good precedent.

We elect people to run the country on our behalf so they should be all over Brexit. The idea that "taking back control" means that things are discussed and decided in secret by a small committee is just ... [brick wall] That's not saying I want a redo, just that I want the form of brexit to go through proper due process.

Tubbs
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Frankly, it's a good precedent.

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.

Whether it would be a good look for Parliament to be involved in triggering Brexit isn't the question right now. It's whether Parliament legally need to be involved.

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.

[ 03. November 2016, 14:13: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

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).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
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?

I'll be happy to see Brexit blocked, I'm already suffering just because of the decision.

K.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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).

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).

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.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
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.

That's not the language of the treaty. Read it first.

K.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
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.

That's not the language of the treaty. Read it first.

K.

Article 50 point 1 says

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...
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
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.

That's not the language of the treaty. Read it first.

K.

Article 50 point 1 says

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...

' 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!

K.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I think the fact that we can argue about this stuff is proof that the British constitution isn't fit for purpose.

Also it's another item to add to the long list of things Mr Cameron should have thought about before he called the referendum.

I think it's essential that this debate happens, though (even if the Supreme Court sides with the Prime Minister). Can you imagine the alternative, in which on Day 1 of Brexit, the first person to lose out takes the Government to court using the arguments that have just been raised?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So I think Orfeo is right - the EU don't specify what our constitutional arrangements should be...

Which is why it went the High Court, to specify what our constitutional arrangements are.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So I think Orfeo is right - the EU don't specify what our constitutional arrangements should be...

Which is why it went the High Court, to specify what our constitutional arrangements are.
Yes, but my concern is that the court was weirdly selective in deciding how those constitutional requirements related to EU law.

It's very strange indeed to say that parliament has control over treaty decisions. Indeed, it seems that it was accepted that the traditional position is that parliament is not.

But they decided that parliament's intention back in 1972 was to say "we are going to be involved in getting in, so we are going to be involved in getting out". But that seems to completely ignore WHY, back in 1972, parliament said anything at all.

It was because they were told they had to. Which immediately throws the whole "parliament is completely sovereign" line of argument into trouble. The judgment seems to me to be written as if parliament made a bunch of decisions it didn't really make.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:
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.

That's not the language of the treaty. Read it first.

K.

Article 50 point 1 says

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...

' 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!

K.

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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I can extract a sentence from this article to neatly illustrate where I think the logic is problematic:

quote:
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.
So which is it? Did the 1972 Act give British citizens rights, or did it implement EU laws that gave rights?

My money is on the latter being the more accurate description of the situation. British citizens don't have the right to work in France simply because of the 1972 Act. They have the right to work in France because the French implemented EU laws, in just the way that the British did. No British Act could create the right to work in France of its own force.

To me, the court is making an argument that treats gravity as something a falling person decides will happen, not a force that acts on a person who decided to jump.

[ 03. November 2016, 20:28: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Sorry, to put it another way briefly:

The accepted fact that triggering Article 50 would (in the long run) remove rights "given by the 1972 Act" without amending the 1972 Act in fact tends to cast doubt on the simplistic assertion that those rights were "given by the 1972 Act" in the first place. They were given by membership of the EU.

If the EU had a mechanism for simply throwing the UK out, then the idea that those rights were "given by the 1972 Act" would quickly be shown to be problematic. The EU would not continue to allow the British to vote in EU Parliamentary elections just because the 1972 Act kept saying that British people had the right to vote in EU Parliamentary elections.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
my concern is that the court was weirdly selective in deciding how those constitutional requirements related to EU law.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

Who's annulling an Act? Confusing the effect of jumping with the consequences of jumping.

It's EU law that says what EU members get. Neither the UK Parliament nor the UK government says it.

Annulling an Act would involve the UK government doing something to erase the rights in the 1972 Act while the factual basis for those rights, EU membership, still existed.

The logic that says this is annulling an Act would be complete nonsense in other situations. Losing UK citizenship does not annul the legislation that outlines the rights of UK citizens. Graduating from school does not annul the rules about school curriculum or school attendance. Selling a house does not annul the legislation about houses. The rules simply stop applying because the factual situation no longer exists.


EDIT: Indeed, the whole argument that "Parliament is sovereign" misconceives the situation of the UK entirely. When it comes to the EU, the UK isn't the one making the rules to apply, it's the one to whom the rules are being applied.

Which is really the whole point of Brexit. Your Parliament is NOT absolutely sovereign, and in my view the High Court is engaging in the fantasy that it still is.

[ 03. November 2016, 21:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
After the Scottish Parliament voted itself out of existence in the early 1700s, who was supposed to approve any move for Scotland to leave the United Kingdom?

Are people arguing that Scotland leaving was constitutionally impossible until a new Scottish Parliament was created? That would be very odd.

I know that the situation is not exactly the same, but I'm illustrating that the simplistic logic of "they were involved in getting in, so they must be involved in getting out" doesn't hold up.

[ 03. November 2016, 21:19: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's EU law that says what EU members get. Neither the UK Parliament nor the UK government says it.

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.

In your poorly-thought out analogy, yes, we get to choose whether gravity applies to us or not.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's EU law that says what EU members get. Neither the UK Parliament nor the UK government says it.

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.

In your poorly-thought out analogy, yes, we get to choose whether gravity applies to us or not.

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.

An Act of Parliament was needed to take you in because the EU said it was. Not because there is an inherent need for legislation when you sign up to treaties. Think of all the other things the UK has signed up to.

And I repeat: if the EU simply threw you out, it would not take an Act of the UK Parliament!

When an Act of the UK Parliament removes the basis for a regulation, the effect of the regulation dies. It's good form to then get rid of the regulation, but I've dealt with situations where the regulation has stayed on the books after that.

When the EU says that you are no longer a member of the EU, the effect of any UK legislation that relies on your membership of the EU will die. Whether your legislation is still on the books or not.

Any argument that relies on asserting that the UK Parliament is completely sovereign is simply false. EU Membership depends on two things: the country that wants membership, and the EU accepting that membership. Claiming the UK Parliament is completely sovereign on things to do with EU membership completely ignores the role of the EU in deciding who is or isn't a member.

[ 04. November 2016, 00:47: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.

[ 04. November 2016, 00:50: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

But it's not illegal for the UK to leave the EU - it just might require Parliament to consent to it.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

UK law was changed to reflect the agreed central regulations of the club - also by the UK Parliament - and the UK courts were instructed to enforce the EU regulations.

The issue with Article 50, as far as I can make out, isn't that the EU holds the keys, it is that the UK entered into binding agreements when it joined which are not simple to unwind now Brexit is on the table. Presumably the UK could just announce the intention to leave by formally informing the EU via the Article 50 clause and then do nothing until the time limit is up. At that point, presumably, the UK would continue being liable to all of the costs it is liable from the ratified agreements but would no longer have a seat at the Council and would be excluded from the EU Parliament.

The UK could then change all the EU focussed legislation and engage in trade agreements etc, but would still be liable to the EU as if it was still a member. Hence the whole thing about negotiating terms to leave.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
In addition to the legal questions (and reading the court decisions last night a) made my head hurt and b) sent me to sleep), there is also one of political expediency.

Assuming that the law/constitution allow the government a free hand to form (and break) international treaties without consent from Parliament. It would still, however, be better for the government to obtain Parliamentary approval even where not necessary. Politically it's sometimes necessary to do more than the minimum that the law requires. The support of the people, expressed through their Parliamentary representative, for a particular action must surely be what any government wants (pushing measures through without that support is the sort of thing that ends up with lack of job security come the next election).

Which, of course, leaves us in this situation where a referendum has shown a slender majority in support of some form of Leave. Does that mean that the government doesn't need to seek the support of Parliament, since the people have given their support for some form of Brexit directly? You'll have all read my arguments that the people didn't vote on any specific question of Brexit, and therefore there is currently a lack of democratic debate on the specific form of Brexit - and, I would say that Parliament is the logical place for that debate to take place (as well as ongoing public debate and discussion).
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

But it's likely to backfire. For once I agree with Nigel Farage that this will provoke outrageous anger from the Leave voters who've been denied their democratic say. It could even harden support for Leave. I voted Remain, but I won't tolerate that scenario quietly. This is why an general election is urgently needed. Mrs May would go into it seeking powers to do things her way. 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.

But the parties need to have it in their manifestos how they will tackle the issue. And if any individuals within any of the parties disagree profoundly with their party line, they shouldn't stand. But there should be a sobering thought for one such as Ed Miliband. Although a general election will always be about much more than a single issue, if the recent referendum had been a parliamentary election for candidates for Leave or Remain, Leave would have won more than 400 seats. An election will force candidates to take seriously the views of the people who elect them. That's the way to bring this process under democratic control, not having the judiciary throw it back into a heavily pro Remain parliament.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.

The problem is that we already have one constitutional crisis (a radical change in our relationship with the EU), with a second looming on the horizon (a potential second independence referendum in Scotland). Does anyone really want a third caused by the Lords delaying Article 50 being invoked (since the consensus is that any Act will go through the Commons relatively quickly)?

Maybe this is time for the government to go by the minimum the law requires - put together an Act that gives the government the authority to invoke Article 50 and form a negotiating platform without further recourse to Parliament. It would be, IMO, a deeply anti-democratic move but should head off the constitutional crisis that would be caused by the Lords frustrating the Commons.

What we really need is the deep and serious discussion on the benefits and costs of different forms of Brexit, so that as a nation we can agree on what that would be. Of course, we should have had that discussion already - it should have preceded the referendum vote (with, of course, before the referendum the option of "no form of Brexit" on the table). The problem, of course, being that such a discussion will last for years, if not decades. The rush to have an early referendum and the requirement therefore to invoke Article 50 has removed the time we need to spend discussing the issues.

quote:
I can't speak for Alan, but with what he wrote above, I think he'd like that idea.
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 ....

quote:
For once I agree with Nigel Farage that this will provoke outrageous anger from the Leave voters who've been denied their democratic say.
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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.

Something about this sentence lends me to believe that you weren't paying attention during the run-up to the referendum.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
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.

Something about this sentence lends me to believe that you weren't paying attention during the run-up to the referendum.
Very droll.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

She might, but as immigration is her thing, I wouldn't bet on that.

I'd be happier if Brexit became a cross-party issue and everyone pitched in. That way, they all get to take responsibility and no one party owns it.

Whilst I agree with the court case, Brexit should go through due process like anything else, I don't agree with the attempts to undermine it. We had a vote and we are where we are.

I agree with Sir Vince Cable: "I don’t think the second referendum is a panacea to anything ... Which side would we be on if there was a soft Brexit, would we support Theresa May or would we be with Nigel Farage voting it down?” He wants the Lib Dems to put “more emphasis on what it is we want from these negotiations rather than arguing about the tactics and the means.”

Tubbs
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
One thing I'm not clear about. Does the court ruling mean that Article 50 can only be invoked following an Act of Parliament, or as Iain Duncan-Smith suggested today on Daily Politics, just a parliamentary vote? That makes a big difference. A vote to trigger it would likely be passed. Unless members want to be seen to thwart the referendum vote. An Act could take forever and get nowhere. It's in the latter case that an election would be the only way to break the impasse.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
AFAICT: the vote in parliament has to be worded in the order papers. Any such worded order can have amendments tabled to it prior to the vote, which are also voted on. So, any final vote will carry the original proposal, plus any amendments. The Lords will also be able to amend the legislation, and pass it back to the Commons.

It's not the vote that terrifies May, but the amendments.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I never received this mythical leaflet from Cameron.

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.

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. It is a serious contempt for democracy if the judiciary or individual members of the Commons or Lords tries to gridlock this process because they disagree with the result.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by PaulTH:

quote:
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.
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 she has to put her cards on the table first, she will probably still win the election but afterwards Corbyn will have to step down and she will be in the position of having to deliver actual outcomes with a vaguely competent Leader of the Opposition giving a running commentary on the state of the pound and the economy, and so forth whilst the electorate wake up to the biggest case of buyers regret since they elected John Major in 1992. We will still be screwed but there will be an opposition which is in a position to benefit from that.

In the interim being thwarted by The Judges, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband and other assorted enemies of the people isn't a problem at all as it delays the British economy getting utterly frelled whilst allowing her to pose as Mother Theresa, The Peoples Friend and generally standing up to the Rootless International Cosmopolitan Conspiracy Against Brexit. She waits, patient and potent, knowing that her hour has come.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Mind you, if we are talking about leaflets sent out during the Referendum Campaign I distinctly recollect stuff about £350 million for the NHS. If Continuity Leave aren't being held to that one, I don't see why Continuity Remain ought to keep Cameron's promises.
 
Posted by Charles Had a Splurge on (# 14140) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

In any case, where was the mechanism for triggering Article 50 mentioned? There was no question asking us if we wanted it by Royal Prerogative or by Parliamentary assent. No clear mandate. What was clear was that the referendum was advisory only. It wasn't meant to override normal representative democratic practice.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Politics has become a nonstop TV reality show. Pity the judiciary, it’s been voted off this week.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Politics has become a charade while Globalisation continues unabated.
Is this necessarily a bad thing? The vagaries of the masses getting it's fill, while the job of maintaining peace and prosperity falls to something resembling a World Government.
So says the optimist.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Oh do catch up people. The referendum was only put in place to silence the Euro-sceptics in the Conservative party, thereby uniting that party, and put UKIP in its place. The faffing around since June 24th shows that the government never had the slightest idea how it was to go about leaving the EU as that was never going to be necessary. It makes the fiasco in post-Saddam Iraq look well-planned and well-executed.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Had a Splurge on:
It wasn't meant to override normal representative democratic practice.

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).
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It doesn't require a parliamentary vote to declare war on another country, ...

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.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
Based on my first reading of the judgment, the court's reasoning seems to be that:-
(1) Triggering Article 50 would remove people's rights under the European Communities Act 1972, since those rights will be lost at the end of the negotiation process;
(2) Triggering Article 50 would involve the government using Royal Prerogative power;
(3) The government cannot use Royal Prerogative powers to take away rights which Parliament gave us in a statute (such as the ECA 1972).

For what it's worth, I think the opposing argument, that prerogative powers cannot remove statutory rights, so triggering Article 50 would not remove statutory rights (therefore the government can lawfully trigger Article 50) is the better view. (I voted remain and would prefer the law to require Parliamentary authorisation for triggering Article 50 - I simply didn't think that the law required that). Mark Elliott's arguments (in his Public Law for Everyone blog) persuaded me. As I see it, the fact that this can be argued either way shows that this is a grey area - something which an alert minister, adviser or MP could have spotted when the European Union Referendum Bill was being written or when it was being enacted.

The court said that, with one exception (EU law), only Parliament can override an Act of Parliament. So I agree with people who are saying that it will take an Act of Parliament to trigger Brexit.

I also agree with people who are saying that blaming the judges for doing their job is unfair. The government (when they wrote the EU Referendum Bill) - and Parliament - could have asked 'what happens if a majority vote leave?' They could have included a clause in the Act, giving the Prime Minister a statutory power to trigger Article 50. Reading Article 50 could have tipped them off that this would have been helpful, since Article 50 says that 'Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements'. As this case shows, the constitutional requirements in the UK were a grey area. Since the government and Parliament did not take the opportunity to decide what those requirements are, they left the grey area for the judges to sort out. The loud accusations by some tabloids against judges for interpreting a grey area of the law puts the blame in the wrong place. The judges were doing their job - because some other people hadn't done their jobs properly.

[ 05. November 2016, 06:52: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
(even though the £350 million per week for the NHS has been withdrawn since the vote).

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.

Unfortunately we have no legal process for nullifying the result, as referenda have no clearly defined status in the UK. As Sioni says, the referendum was a tactical move from an inept Prime Minister, not thought through beyond "this could get me out of a fix".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Unfortunately we have no legal process for nullifying the result, as referenda have no clearly defined status in the UK.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If one side of a discussion can't get the result they want without using outright lies

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The problem is that those 'red lines' don't easily follow party political lines. Which means that a general election prior to Brexit, with the intention of getting popular support for a particular form of Brexit, will result in either parties having to form some form of compromise among their members (and, hence have significant numbers of elected MPs who want something different) or a dissolution of our current political parties to form new "Brexit policy parties" - the "control immigration" party, the "free trade party", the "free movement party", and (I would hope) the "this whole thing is a lot of nonsense and stay in the EU" party. Sticking with current parties makes support for a particular form of Brexit impossible to define, and I don't see new parties happening (even if that didn't then leave us in total limbo on every other issue).

Which basically means if you want another election you're better off with either the government defining what they want, and putting that to the approval of the people in a second referendum, or a multi-choice second referendum.

As has been repeatedly said. A total cock-up by Cameron leaving us in an impossible situation.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If one side of a discussion can't get the result they want without using outright lies

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.
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.

When it comes down to it, the very hard Brexit options would also include a need for a visa to travel outside the UK. Without freedom of movement then there need to be visas to cross borders. There's no requirement for any nation (or the whole EU) to enter into a visa waiver scheme - although if the UK-EU doesn't produce a visa waiver scheme I would be incredibly surprised.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
(I would hope) the "this whole thing is a lot of nonsense and stay in the EU" party

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.

All the parties would need to have a manifesto and candidates would need to stand, as they do in any election, on what the party is offering. I don't see a problem with this, but I do see a problem with the current state of things.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
although if the UK-EU doesn't produce a visa waiver scheme I would be incredibly surprised.

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!
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
although if the UK-EU doesn't produce a visa waiver scheme I would be incredibly surprised.

I would be utterly flabbergasted if anyone in Europe or the UK would sink that low.
I hope your capacity for disappointment is unlimited, as populist demagoguery appears to be trumping common sense at every turn.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Yeah. The way things are going we could end repealing the treaty of Versailles.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
It's the Treaty of Utrecht I'm worried about...
 
Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :
 
It strikes me that the Court has intervened in the most intensely political decision this country has made in 40 years.

It's tempting to have a very high view of the courts and precedents (particularly if you agree with the result), but it's a bit more pragmatic than that. For instance, the importance of whether conservative or liberal judges are appointed to the US Supreme Ct demonstrates that there's a lot of subjectivity in the SC's actual decisions.

Judicial review and so court supervision (of the legality of public authority decisions) has grown over the years. This has to be a very high water mark.

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.

I sense a trajectory of greater judicial intervention. Courts are critical to the 'rule of law'. I don't think it's too melodramatic to say that this may overreach itself and end up going into reverse. We live in times of change.

The Refrendum was carried out under parliamentary authority. It seems odd to me that it can't be given effect to.

The 1972 EC Act simply gave effect to EU treaty law in the UK. The treaties are independent of it.

I anticipate Parliament won't block Brexit but will try to set staying in the Single Market as the prime objective (with consequent free movement of people) limiting Brexit.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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]

It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.

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.

[ 05. November 2016, 14:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
The reason I've come back is because I've suddenly realised at the most fundamental level why I think "Parliament was needed to get in, so Parliament is needed to get out" is wrong.

EU rights are a logical AND circuit. With two elements:

A. UK treaties to be an EU member.
B. UK legislation to give EU rights to UK citizens.

You need A and B to have functional EU rights in the UK, yes?

You needed B.

But it is wrong to say that the only way to turn those rights off is a change in B. Changing A will also turn them off.

And that's where I think the whole argument falls down. The argument is not really "it needed Parliament to get in, so we need Parliament to get out".

The argument is in fact "we needed Parliament to switch on B, so therefore we need Parliament to switch off A".

[ 05. November 2016, 14:07: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.

It's like you never realised I've been married to a lawyer for 25 years.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
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]

It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.

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.

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.

*I got distracted on the internet, but I now know where De Keyser's Royal Hotel used to be.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.

It's like you never realised I've been married to a lawyer for 25 years.
*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.

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.

[ 05. November 2016, 14:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
It is a bit ridiculous the way the judgement has been controversial. This is not judicial activism, it is badly written legislation.

Sovereignty of parliament is the cornerstone of the UK constitution. The problem here lies in the original referendum bill. It could have been a binding referendum. But it wasn't. It could have required a super-majority but it didn't. 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.

None of this is surprisingly. If this had been a genuine attempt to deal with a complicated constitutional and political issues then we wouldn't be here. On the other hand when you play games like this for cheap political reasons, this is the almost inevitable result.

AFZ
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The current dispute isn't court vs government, it's government vs parliament.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

But right now we're not talking about changing UK legislation. We're talking about activating a treaty provision.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
It's like you've never heard of appeal courts.

It's like you never realised I've been married to a lawyer for 25 years.
*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.

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.

You mistake me. I'm well aware that lawyers and judges disagree with each other.

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.

The Supreme Court, with all of the justices sitting, will convene in December. I'm sure they'll take yours, and all counter arguments, into consideration.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
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.

But right now we're not talking about changing UK legislation. We're talking about activating a treaty provision.

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.

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.

AFZ
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
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.

But right now we're not talking about changing UK legislation. We're talking about activating a treaty provision.[...]

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.)

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.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
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.

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".

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Isn't the issue that royal prerogative powers have to be expressly reserved? In other words, if the Queen wants to do something without the consent of Parliament, it's up to her to prove that it's her prerogative, it's not up to Parliament to prove it isn't.

In practice this proof might be precedent or long-standing convention rather than anything written down. So, the fact that EU accession was achieved via an act of Parliament may not show that an Act of Parliament was necessary, but it means that no precedent exists to prove that it wasn't.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Yeah. The way things are going we could end repealing the treaty of Versailles.

We had a politics teacher at school who argued that the European Union was the final resolution of the Treaty of Verdun (AD 843).

The Treaty of Verdun divided Charlemagne's empire among his descendants: Charles got most of what is now France, Louis got most of what is now Germany, and Lothar got a long thin dribbly bit down the middle. According to our politics teacher, most of Western European history can be seen as fighting over the long thin dribbly bit down the middle. The European Union and its antecedents were intended to put an end to such fighting.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
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.

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".

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.

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.**

Maybe it says that elsewhere, not in the particular article you are looking at? To return to my logical AND circuit, are you looking at the bit about turning on A, and does another bit talk about turning on B?

Or is it not specific article, but a whole series of articles? Isn't the whole point of the EU that the member states are required to align their domestic law?

Please note, I'm not necessarily talking about "ratification". I think half the problem here is that two quite different things are being muddled together. "Ratification" is to do with signing up to a treaty. That's switch A. Switch B is about implementing it, doing what you actually promise to do.

**Section 2 of the 1972 Act as originally enacted certainly gives me the impression that this is what it was about.

[ 06. November 2016, 00:38: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I'm perfectly happy for you to say that they have bigger more impressive qualifications than me and so you find them more authoritative. But that's just a disengagement from actually examining my argument. It's a classic case of looking at the man not the ball.

You don't get to talk about my argument being fundamentally flawed on that basis. If you're going to talk about my argument being fundamentally flawed, pick the fundamental flaw in it. Engage with the actual argument.

[ 06. November 2016, 00:44: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
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.

But right now we're not talking about changing UK legislation. We're talking about activating a treaty provision.[...]

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.)

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.

Thank your for this.

I can see where they are coming from as well. What I think they've fundamentally missed is exactly what will cause the loss of those rights. It will be the EU no longer recognising them.

The UK Parliament being completely sovereign means that it can write anything it likes in UK legislation. If the UK Parliament wants to keep running "European elections" and giving UK citizens the right to vote in them, it can.

What it can't do - what it could never do - is force open the doors at Strasbourg and make all the other countries allow the people elected in those "European elections" to sit in the European Parliament.

In my view, the Court has correctly identified that various rights will be lost in practice. But it hasn't properly engaged with where those rights come from in legal terms. Saying that they are rights conferred by Parliament (and so only Parliament can take them away again) is, I think, very woolly thinking.

Parliament has control over those rights to the extent that it conferred them. But not more than that.

The Court seems to have fallen into a line of reasoning that says "Parliament is completely sovereign and so that means legislation can't be made practically useless". But when it comes to legislation that relies on the consent and cooperation of other countries, of course it can.

[ 06. November 2016, 00:58: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
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:
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.

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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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:
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.

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.
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.

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.

But then the referendum act was never about grappling with the issues. It was a cheap political stunt.

AFZ
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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

How so?
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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

How so?
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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Parliamentary sovereignty is a funny thing. Alwyn is much better on this than me (he's the real expert but I listen). It all gets a bit metaphysical in the end by parliament can basically do what it wants and unlike the US constitutional arrangements for example, Acts of Parliament cannot be struck down by the courts.

Let me put it like this. It is case that theft is against the law in the UK. Parliament could pass a bill saying that anyone with red hair could steal apples from Tescos whenever they chose to. Effectively parliament is saying "theft is illegal except in this case"

And parliament remains free to do so about anything. So the Referendum act could have had a clause stating that in the event of a vote to leave the government may trigger article 50 in or even must do so in a specific time frame. As such parliament would have passed a law with lots of potential problems because of the issues with working out what will happen with large sections of UK legislation but it would have the full force of the law and I am certain the courts would have ruled the other way. Given that the referendum was given no legal force by the bill, I think it is not remotely surprising that the courts have taken issue with the actions of the executive.

To step back from the technicalities for a moment, this really matters because how the UK leaves the EU is complicated, has several options and massive implications. 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.

AFZ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Since the government and Parliament left an unresolved grey area, the judges had to resolve it.

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?
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

It's a grey area, because triggering Article 50 will lead to UK citizens losing rights which we have under the European Communities Act 1972 (and other statutory rights) - and because prerogative powers cannot be used to deprive people of statutory rights. The people bringing the case have a decent argument that, when Article 50 is triggered, this will lead to UK citizens losing statutory rights. (If a deal is done, then we will lose our rights under EU treaties; if a deal is not done, then under Article 50 we will lose them automatically after 2 years). However, the government also have a decent argument - that triggering Article 50 cannot deprive people of statutory rights and that the loss of rights will happen at the end of the negotiation process, when they will ask Parliament to pass a Bill to implement the deal they do with the EU.

It is a grey area because highly-regarded constitutional lawyers are divided - for example, Nick Barber, Tim Hickman and Jeff King argued, here, that Parliamentary authorisation is needed to trigger Article 50, while Mark Elliott, here, disagrees.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
It seems that Mrs May is less then keen on the idea of an early general election. She prefers to respect the Fixed Term Parliament Act of 2011, and soldier on until 2020. Yet at the same time, she has assured Jean-Claude Juncker and Angela Merkel, who are already impatient with Britain's lack of progress here, that there will be no slippage on her plan to trigger Article 50 by March. Perhaps she is hoping that the Supreme Court will overturn the judgement made in favour of Gina Miller. Perhaps she hopes that getting the necessary parliamentary approval in light of the court judgement, won't be a long or difficult process. I disagree with her on both those hopes.

One big complaint we've repeatedly heard from politicians, in the media and even on this forum, is that nobody has voted for what type of Brexit they want. It remains my contention that an election would give us exactly that vote. Jeremy Corbyn has now made it clear what his red lines are for supporting Article 50. They include full access to the Single Market. As this requires the four freedoms according to our European partners, he is putting access ahead of control of immigration policy. So we now have every possible future represented.

UKIP are off the radar, but may well pick up a lot of votes still. The Tories under Theresa, are for putting control of borders first and seeing what we can get in the way of access to the SM. Labour are for the reverse position. The Lib Dems and the SNP are for continuing to Remain. 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. As an election isn't on the horizon, I'll stop banging on about it, but if this process becomes gridlocked, I can see the idea becoming more attractive to the Prime Minister.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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. ...

Our electoral system is as good as guaranteed to give no PM a legitimate claim to have an electoral mandate for anything.

Cameron only had a self-delusory one, yet alone May. Likewise Gordon Brown.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

I agree, but it's all we've got in the present moment. And it may be needed to break a constitutional impasse.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Engage with the actual argument.

I did here. You started talking about gravity.

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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
PaulTh:

I disagree that we have the approaches of the parties laid out. Nor do I think that this is all that easy.

Firstly, IMHO membership of the Customs Union is more important that the Single Market, since this allows us develop other trade agreements which is only ruled out by CU membership not SM membership. Is Labour's policy on this clear?

It would be interesting, if Labour went for the Norway option (in the SM but out of the CM).

First, would those who prefer this (which I do) vote Labour to get it? Very few, I think, and not me.

What would The Commission do, if anything? Because an argument against a dogmatic Norway approach is that we may not get it. I agree we stand a good chance if we fully accept free movement (with the emergency brake that Norway has), and are very co-operative on the ECJ (I think Norway has some get out but has only rejected one law in about a year) and contribution (Richard North who is expert on this thinks an increase may well be demanded).

The Tories would argue that this is highly risky, because there will be a lot of opposition to it in Europe, and especially if this is seen as just an interim whilst we get our own trade deals and then leave the SM when we have these in place (North's Flexcit option again). So Jeremy would need to come clean on whether he wants SM membership for good, with its downsides, or only as a pragmatic interim whilst we build up strength to do a hard brexit in, say 7-10 years.

He would then be very vulnerable to any noise out of Brussels that they are not interested in such a deal, and also very vulnerable to voter opposition, because I think North is right that we would have to ask very nicely (aka crawl - Daily Mail) to get the deal.

I agree with Paul Goodman's analysis in here that
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
.
It's an interesting summary of the pros and cons of an election.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

If this ends up going to the Supreme Court then in many ways we're discussing something that is not yet final.

[ 06. November 2016, 18:20: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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

I agree, but it's all we've got in the present moment. And it may be needed to break a constitutional impasse.
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It is, of course, up to May et al to decide whether it's worth to risk another day of terrible headlines, but that's a political decision, not a legal one.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Though, if the highest court in the land says Parliament has to call Article 50, no amount of student essay writing on how it's wrong is going to alter the choices Mrs May has.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Sigh. Do you really want me to pepper the message board with citations of all the legislation and cases?

In any case, the starting proposition that it is the Crown, not the Parliament, that has the power to conduct international relations is uncontroversial. Heck, even the High Court agrees with it.

And I don't disagree with the basic law that says Parliament is sovereign either.

What I disagree with is no more, and no less, than the interpretation of a particular piece of legislation and how it supposedly "gave rights" to UK citizens. I don't think I could be much clearer.

Precious few of you seem interested in engaging with what I'm saying simply because it involves saying that that mean nasty Prime Minister has more power than you'd like, but I don't actually give a shit about the consequences, I give a shit about the reasoning process. It's the reasoning process of the judgement that I'm commenting on. I've provided a link to the judgement. What else would you like?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Having done a quick cost/benefit analysis, I've decided it's not worth putting any more effort into explaining my view further. Consider it, or don't because you don't find the messenger suitably qualified and that's what matters to you.

Either way, I look forward to watching from a distance as the UK completely fucks up this process for the next couple of years, caught between the demands of its domestic audience and the demands of the other EU countries. I won't be at all surprised if the government finds that it can't get approval for triggering Article 50 without progressing a solid exit position, and it can't negotiate a solid exit position without triggering Article 50.

There will be ample opportunity to consume popcorn.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
At this stage, before any negotiations start, a "Brexit position" can only be where the UK government starts the negotiations - it would be incredible if that's where the negotiations end. At the moment the only reason that starting position hasn't been stated, even in outline, seems to be that the government hasn't managed to work out a compromise between different factions within the Conservative leadership (which range from "no Brexit" through to "drag the entire archipelago into the middle of the Atlantic"). Which is a direct consequence of the balls-up of the referendum question where Leave didn't produce such a starting position before the polls opened. If Leave had produced a manifesto setting out a starting position of (for example) "end freedom of movement, maintain tariff-free trade, exit agriculture and fisheries deals, maintain science and technology cooperation" then the government would have already triggered Article 50 and be working on negotiating on the basis of actually having clearly heard the will of the people on the subject (though, the referendum bill probably should have authorised that executive power, just to cover the legal bases).

Enjoy the popcorn. I think I need whisky (I just won't rely on the UK government to organise any sort of booze up at the distillery).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think one interesting outcome over the weekend has been to see Farage (and presumably a large constituency of people who think in similar ways) suggesting that judges are subverting the will of the people. Others have said that the government shouldn't be forced to "show it's hand" because "it isn't a binary".

To me this just gets to the root of the problem: the referendum was binary so saying "Brexit means Brexit" doesn't really cover the whole breadth of opinions on the topic. It seems like a lot of people voted Leave on the basis of immigration, did they also mean they want to leave the Common Market etc and so on?

Whichever way the Supreme Court rules (and I thank those who've tried to explain a contrary legal opinion), I think we're still in a bit of trouble here. If the SC rules that a Parliamentary vote isn't needed, then arguably Parliamentary Sovereignty has been usurped by the courts (if they can say that a vote is needed, then saying that a vote isn't needed must also show that they've got the final say).

May and co could then negotiate a package for Brexit which almost nobody agrees with - or at least it is impossible to know if a majority of people agree without asking them - for example full access to the Common Market, continued payment of fees to the EU for another 10 years without access to EU structural funds and no way to slow or prevent EU migrants.

On the other hand, giving a Parliamentary vote implies discussion of these issues in public, so even if the vote is overwhelmingly in favour of the Article 50 notification, the other EU nations will have gotten a feel for the weight of feeling in Parliament if not the country for different options.

I can't see that is a good thing either way around in terms of the UK Government's negotiating position or use of political capital. In the former, a large number of people are going to be annoyed whatever is agreed. In the latter, the EU leaders could just tell May to piss off with the golden divorce package the UK Parliament desires.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Another thing I was reflecting on is that Scotland must have almost zero chance of (re)joining the EU. The UK is a net contributor, Scotland would be a net beneficiary. The EU would be losing money.

If anything this is where the UK has some advantage in the EU discussions. What shockwaves would there be to the EU if a major contributor left?

Which makes me think that if the EU leaders really are committed to giving as little to the UK as they're saying (leaving a trade deal similar to the one with Canada), they're going to be squeeze as much out of the UK in divorce payments as possible.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I admit I don't understand all this "not showing our hand" stuff - except that it provides a smokescreen to obscure the fact that the government doesn't have a hand to show.

The Scottish government produced a substantial book detailing what they wanted out of independence negotiations prior to the 2014 referendum. No one said it was a stupid idea to have given the details of what they wanted before starting negotiations (or, even getting the go ahead to negotiate through the referendum vote - which, of course, they didn't get).

The first thing that will happen in negotiations is that the UK government will put a package on the table of what they want, what is wrong with first finding out if that's what we, the people, want?
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan Creswell:
quote:
Which is the reason why a general election to solve the Brexit problem is a totally bonkers idea.
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.
quote:
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 . .
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.
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

You invited orfeo to look again at his argument, in the light of the High Court's judgment. Perhaps you heard James O'Brien's comments on LBC (which went viral and can be found online); he made the government's arguments sound foolish. Maybe you thought that orfeo would look through his argument and spot a mistake, like a software programmer looking back over their code after the failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999, discovering that a piece of software used the wrong units of measurement.

Lawyers can make mistakes just as easily as anyone else. (I once made a humdinger of an error: discussing a case with a law professor, I relied on a judge's opinion without realising that the judge was dissenting. Talk about embarrassing!). In cases like this one, there are good arguments on both sides (as I said earlier, providing sources). Legal debates at this level are more like historical or theological arguments than scientific ones. Lawyers can lose a case like this one without making a mistake.

The government's argument can be made to look foolish (as James O'Brien showed) but so can the argument which the judges accepted. (For instance, it can be argued that the claimant's case is self-contradictory: their first submission was that prerogative powers cannot remove statutory rights, their third submission was that, by triggering Article 50, the government would use prerogative powers to remove statutory rights - see para 74 of the judgment). orfeo's view (since prerogative powers cannot remove statutory rights, those rights remain in UK law until removed by Parliament), is a valid interpretation of the law, even if it isn't the one which the court preferred.

[ 07. November 2016, 08:29: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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

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:
1. maintain free trade with the EU
2. continue scientific, technical and security cooperation.
3. end free movement between the UK and EU
4. end participation in EU agriculture and fisheries policies
5. end UK support for EU regional development
etc"
(just an example, it isn't my place to define what Brexit means, that's the job of the Leave campaign)

Trying to put a simple question to the British people was a massive mistake, because it never was a simple question.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan Creswell: From your reply I do not understand why you would consider an election the most-bonkers alternative. But that aside you raise an interesting question, and I suppose it leads me to ask if you were equally against the Referendum for Scottish Independence.

Because in both cases:

1. There was good evidence that a sufficient percentage of the population, greatly desired independence from a larger association which they had ceased to see as beneficial.

2. There was no chance that any General Election would see a party with a significant chance of winning, offering them what they wanted.

So either you say: Tough, we're giving you no opportunity, or you allow a referendum to take place.

And this is bound to reduce complex outcomes to simple questions, leaving a lot up for grabs. And I can't see any less uncertainty on the Independence for Scotland (only if they can stay in the EU? only if a currency union can be agreed etc etc). As you point out, it is simply impossible to frame a referendum that avoids this.

But in both cases you cannot say that the outcome is vacuous. It is also risky, since as you have well pointed out, you cannot know all the details of what you are getting as a deal.

But for some people, independence is sufficiently important that they are willing to accept that risk. Should they not be allowed that option?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The fact that the Government had no real plan for what Brexit would look like was public knowledge before the referendum. This implies one of two things:

1. Leavers didn't care - they thought any alternative was better than remaining. In which case, I'd say the Government has a mandate to adopt whatever form of Brexit it likes.

2. Leavers didn't know - in which case, they are definitely too stupid to be entrusted with a second referendum asking what form of Brexit they'd like (or a general election acting as a surrogate for the same question).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan Creswell: From your reply I do not understand why you would consider an election the most-bonkers alternative.

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.

quote:
I suppose it leads me to ask if you were equally against the Referendum for Scottish Independence.

There were significant differences between the two referenda. First, the Scottish independence referendum was called by a government which wanted independence, if the vote was yes in 2014 there wouldn't be a government led by someone who opposed independence negotiating for independence. Unlike the current situation of a government and Parliament strongly opposed to the end that has been forced on them.

Second, as I have said before, the Scottish vote was based on a very detailed opening negotiating position, a white paper based on decades of campaigning for independence, balancing the desires of the Scottish people (at least the 20-30% strongly in favour of independence) and practicality. Although the wording on the ballot paper was simple, there was no pretence that it was a simple question, and no lack of work in advance to lay out a way through the complexity. Far different from a slogan on the side of a bus, which didn't even get the number right.

I've no particular problem with referenda, but they should be the end of the hard work of the first few parts of a process not the very first step. If Cameron was going to insist on honouring the manifesto commitment, then give Leave 3 years to work out what they were going to campaign for, and hold the referendum towards the end of the Parliament. Assuming that is that doing that wouldn't result in the Leave campaign failing the agree anything and be so beset by infighting that they make Labour look like a model of political unity.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Practically speaking, if the Tories went to a General Election on a platform of delivering a particular kind of Brexit (even if that was "let May get the best deal she can and stop asking questions") she'd likely get an overwhelming and thumping majority. Labour would get a really good kicking, UKIP even in disarray would likely pick up seats.

The Lib Dems might pick up seats in particular areas and might end up being the effective opposition in co-ordination with the SNP. For all the good it'd do - ie essentially nothing at all.

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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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".
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Of course, as the Daily Mash pointed out yesterday, the main reason she doesn't want to do that is that it would be a waste of a perfectly good Jeremy Corbyn from her point of view...
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Mr Cheesy:
quote:
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?
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".

It may be a bit cheeky but it appears to be possible.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Repealing the fixed term act would take us back to all future PMs deciding when to hold an election (until such a time as a new fixed term act is passed, if a future government decides to do that). What's needed is an exception made, without repealing the Act, such that we have a May 2017 election, then the next election in May 2022 sticking to the 5 year cycle.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
quote:
First, the Scottish independence referendum was called by a government which wanted independence
Well, yes. That is a good point.

Which makes one realise how royally the Labour party has screwed up, even though Cameron is the main culprit.

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.

The world's going mad. The Republicans backed about the only person that Hilary could beat, the Labour party elected a muppet followed by more of a muppet.

I'm surprised nobody has launched the conspiracy theory that Len McCluskey is being paid by the Tories!
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

I'm surprised nobody has launched the conspiracy theory that Len McCluskey is being paid by the Tories!

I know people who think (some more genuinely than others) that Jeremy might be...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
By self-destructing in Scotland, they made it into a separatist quasi-Quebec territory, allowed Cameron to win in 2015,

Not quite true. Even if Labour had won every Scottish seat the Tories would still have had the same majority.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

To a point. Though the reason the Tories have a majority is because the Lib Dems went from 57 to 8 seats.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
By self-destructing in Scotland, they made it into a separatist quasi-Quebec territory, allowed Cameron to win in 2015,

Not quite true. Even if Labour had won every Scottish seat the Tories would still have had the same majority.
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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
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.

As to the last election, i think the scare tactic of demonising a Labour/SDP alliance made a significant difference.

I!m also pissed off by the lack still of unbiassed reporting, particularly on Daily Politics which I've always liked. Fot two days running the statement has been made unchallenged that the Norway opion is the same as not leaving, which is plain false.

But I'm rambling. Time for a break.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
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*

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).
*end of Canadian trivia tangent*
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Here's a controversial thought:

Most people voted to remain part of the EU.

Let me explain. As is now becoming evident, despite the on-going disingenuosness of the government there is not just one 'leave' option but several. For the sake of arugment I will be generous and call it two options. Though in reality the Leave campaign came up with so many...

1) Leave the EU and become members of the EEA and thus accept the rules of the single market and make a contribution to the budget.
2) Leave the EU and not join the EEA. Have no formal relationship with the EU.

It is very dangerous to claim anything about why people voted a particular way. Even if there is polling evidence it is never clear cut in the way and election result is.

However, I will stipulate that at least 5% of those who voted to leave the EU wanted some kind of 'Norway-like' relationship whilst some wanted nothing at all to do with the EU. Hence more people voted to remain than for the other choices.

The problem of course is that the referendum was so bungled from start to finish and the only options on the ballot paper were leave or remain.

However it is a statistical inevitability that less than 48% of those who voted wanted to end up with what is being unhelpfully-termed a 'hard brexit'

This matters simply because I am so fed up of the Leavers who ran a fact-free, completely dishonest campaign with mutually exclusive claims of what a post-brexit Britain would look like claiming they have a mandate from the people.

This is simply bollocks. (My apologies for using the technical term).

[Disappointed]

AFZ
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
I think that there is almost certainly a majority in the country for a soft Brexit. If you add remainers (48%) to liberal leavers you are almost certainly over the 50% mark. One of the many, many vexing things about the Referendum result is that the government are going to try to take us out of the EU in a way that is unacceptable to the majority of the electorate and, by the time the deal has been done and dusted, the electoral majority which voted for Leave will be altered by demographics as the Baby Boomers die off and the younger generation take their place on the electoral roll.

You will note that analysis does not include buyers remorse. After the 1992 General Election polling companies noted something interesting. Attempts to get representative cross sections of the public were foundering on the question: "Who did you vote for in the 1992 General Election". A sufficiently significant number of respondents were lying about having not voted for the Conservatives that the joke was that clearly the result on the night had been the result of an administrative error and that Mr Kinnock should be ensconced in Number 10. I rather suspect that YouGov, et. al. will face a similar phenomenon in the not too distant future.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Thanks for the correction, augustine.

Alienfromzog: i think you are right that a majority of the electorate would prefer to stay, and the biggest buyers remorse should be on remainers who couldnt be arsed to vote.

But i dont see the norway opion as equivalent to remaining unless you assume that it would be permanent. I dont know about norway but assume that a big incentive was their fishing industry.

Most soft brexiteers want the same endgame as the hardies, but think doing it quickly is daft, so you end up nearly in, but gradually get out re ECJ which will mean in the endgame out of the single market. EEA also exclude the customs union so it is misleading to equate it with remaining.

I totally agree that going from where we are to EEA in perpetuity is as pointless as melon.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
[T]he biggest buyers remorse should be on remainers who couldnt be arsed to vote.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, we've yet to light the blue touch paper. A 20% reduction in the value of the pound isn't exactly trivial. And, there are already other effects being felt - mostly relating to appointing qualified staff to fill vacancies, since EU citizens are reluctant to come to the UK without guarantees that they'll be here for more than a couple of years.

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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I guess it will be either a higher level of inflation next year, or stagflation as well. Brexit does not have a zero cost. Right now, we're not sure how much.

Just wait and see what happens when Article 50 is eventually signed. The markets will tell the rest of us just how optimistic they are. And eighteen months later, the general public will realise just how big is the pig in the poke they bought. But by then, it will be too late.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
There's a problem in the above posts that has not been addressed. The EU has made it clear that there are to be no negotiations until the Art 50 notice has been given. Inherent in that is that the EU sees that it will then have the upper hand in the negotiations - and it will. Time starts from the moment that notice is given.

Given that, the most which can be done in a parliamentary vote is to approve giving notice. That notice must be absolute, and can't be worded on the basis that Britain will leave on a particular basis.

(As an aside, and I don't want to go down this path again, but that is also a problem with Alan Cresswell's argument that the referendum should have been conducted along the lines he's presented.)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
@ Gee D

I think that very point should have been the subject of serious debate pre-Referendum.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Given that, the most which can be done in a parliamentary vote is to approve giving notice.

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.

[ 08. November 2016, 20:45: Message edited by: Humble Servant ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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:
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.

They could have applied for a postal vote?

[ 08. November 2016, 20:53: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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:
quote:
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.

They could have applied for a postal vote?

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).
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.

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:
quote:
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.

They could have applied for a postal vote?

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).

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.
The only disenfranchised student I came across had gone on a rather stereotypical summer travel experience. Nothing to do with the electoral register. And he could have got his parents to vote by proxy for him.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

Sorry, I failed to notice a new post on this thread.

Over recent years there has been a laudable movement to encourage and help non-voters to register to vote, and (obviously) put their vote in. A large part of that has been targeting students - for obvious reasons that most come to university never having voted (due to age) and a university can get the message across to a lot of people at one go. The people involved in those university centred voter education have been from the local electoral registration office, and hence students have registered to vote in their university town. Most times that's not a problem, because elections outwith term time are very unusual. In this referendum the message that they would need to either re-register at their out of term time address, arrange to be in the university town on polling day, or arrange a postal or proxy vote was, in many cases, not clearly communicated (communication being two way, involving both talking and listening). I've not seen any detailed study of how many people were involved, but there has been a lot of anecdotes circulating around social media and various academic/university newslists. Personally, all the students I've had dealings with since June are either doctoral students and hence fulltime resident (so not affected) or were not eligible to vote at all (common with most UK universities we have a high proportion of non-UK students - so are likely to face tough times with Brexit and other restrictions on students from overseas cutting available funds and making some courses unviable). Probably not enough people to have made a difference, but part of a larger picture of people who were in various ways denied a vote.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

quote:
Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
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.

What is probably true is that there are deep wells of unease within communities of people in similar situations who appear to be attracted by loud-mouth right-wing cartoon anti-politicians to register a protest at the political establishment which doesn't seem to be doing anything about their situation.

But the USA is not the UK, which is not Italy, which is not France. The fact that fascism is on the rise in all these places is a symptom of something very bad in many countries - it isn't a coincidence that these votes are happening close together, but I think it is a stretch to say the one is somehow responsible for another (other than in the domino effect).
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
I think I disagree.

The odious Marine Lepen definitely thinks it helps her cause to be able to point to other countries where xenophobic thuggery is also on the rise.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think it helps her cause above all by legitimising her stance.

The Overton window shifting or something; if it can happen in the US, the plausibility of it happening here increases.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

But I don't think it would have made a difference to Trump's election if Brexit had gone 52-48 the other way.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know others who are overseas for whom even a 1 in 3 voting rate would be considered high).

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 
quote:
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.

I had to read that twice.

K.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, that's Telegraph readers wanting a second referendum.

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.

*not a political point, my contempt for "click here open internet polling on newspaper websites" is universal regardless of subject. If Peter Snow was commentating on that poll he'd be trotting out his election night "remember, this isn't scientific, it's just a bit of fun" line...
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
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?

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.
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.

I can't tell you about the effect on our election, though, as I don't think anybody has convincingly worked out precisely what happened and why. Lots of theories, of course.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, that's Telegraph readers wanting a second referendum.

Except it's not though, is it?
Yes, I know. It's not exclusively Telegraph readers voting, it's not scientific, etc. It's just a bit of fun.

But, it is quite amusing to have something on the Telegraph website in favour of a second referendum, isn't it?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
To go back to basics, the most that could possibly go to a second referendum would be the negotiating position of the UK. It can't be the final agreement - that can't be reached until after the Article 50 notice is given.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Which is what should have been what was on the referendum in June. Except, if it had been put to us in June that position would have been defined by the Leave campaign, whereas now it will be defined by the government and Parliament (the majority of whom campaigned for Remain, and excludes many prominent Leavers).
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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).

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.

[ 16. November 2016, 07:04: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Meanwhile the Dutch finance minister has said that Boris' statements about Brexit are "intellectually impossible".

Which I suppose puts us back into post-truth territory. No doubt Boris, May and the others will try to spin these and other recent statements by EU leaders (some of which said that it would be impossible to agree anything other than a "hard Brexit" for the UK) as playing poker in order to get the best possible deal.

Back in the real world, it doesn't feel like that. Those politicians do not appear to be thinking that all will be aOK after Brexit. Indeed, some have said that they're expecting economic pain. They just seem to have accepted that the UK must pay the price of Brexit otherwise the whole notion of an EU is dead.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I'd always been dismissive of those who rant on the internet about the EU being the next Yugoslavia, but an iron determination to punish anyone that tries to leave, so as to encourage the others to stay, really feels like kicking the can a bit further down the road in the direction of Belgrade.

Scarily, we might be about to see the idiots mishandling the situation in London being matched by idiots mishandling the situation in Brussels.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well, I suppose the problem is that it is hard to see what else they can do, betjemaniac.

If we imagine a scenario where the UK gets a great deal after Brexit, then the far right voices are going to be getting louder in many countries because the advantages of being in the EU are going to be shrinking.

If it is shown to be possible to restrict immigration whilst at the same time enjoying all the benefits of the common market and none of the annoying parts, then the far right will capitalise in many countries.

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.

The whole thing becomes an increasing burden and the benefits to France of remaining can increasingly easily be painted as rapidly decreasing. Add in a dose of xenophobia and economic fallout from Brexit and it isn't hard to see the National Front getting increasing support and taking it out on minorities.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:

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.

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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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).

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.
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:

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.

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.
Who is you in this post? Me?

I voted remain.

Thanks for playing.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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

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?

quote:
Corbyn and McDonnell were never Remainers to start with
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).

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
'You' is Britain.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Fletcher Christian:
quote:
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.
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.

The UK government has to choose - either it wants the benefits of the EU and has to take the things it doesn't want; or it wants out of the EU entirely. The only other choice is to have Brussels dictate what you have to do, accept unlimited freedom of movement from the EU and all the costs and have no seat at the table.

Pretending that there is somehow a middle way where all these things are up for grabs appears to be a simple fantasy.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think it is fairly clear that most of the most avid Brexiteers want immigration control plus full access to the EU market without the Europarliament, Strasbourg, etc.

What exactly the less avid Brexit voter wanted is less clear.

But either way, there is going to be trouble if there is an agreement which doesn't "halt" immigration.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Sure, but what do these principles actually map to in reality?

In terms of the existing EU, most countries realize that it is in their economic interest to stay within the EU, and so will resist moves to weaken the EU.

At the same time, a lot of the freedoms the UK may want (such as financial pass-porting, the single market in goods and services etc) are only possible because of the things that the UK doesn't want (common regulation, a customs union*, freedom of movement).

Then again there is the fact that all governments are dealing in finite resources - they only have a certain time in office, a fixed number of ministers available to negotiate, a fixed number of trade negotiators able to advise and so on. Understandably they want to achieve something, and may walk away from a potential trade partner that doesn't seem to know what it wants, and is determined to dither.

Most will act in their own best interest - and why not, after all the UK believes it has just done the same.

To collapse all of this down to "they are determined to punish Britain" is so much self-centered cant, and frankly fucking embarrassing.


[*] to a point.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Mr Cheesy:
quote:
Norway s not brexit
ok, i think thats bs but you may be able to enlighten me.

Is it your view that Norway is a member of the EU? 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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
ok, i think thats bs but you may be able to enlighten me.

Not a problem, a relative is a Brit who has lived in Norway for more than 20 years, so I'll do my best.

quote:
Is it your view that Norway is a member of the EU?
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.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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.

Norways meets exactly none of the criteria the majority thought they were voting for. The exact opposite.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Norways meets exactly none of the criteria the majority thought they were voting for. The exact opposite.

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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Thought I'd copy this across from the post-truth thread.

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.


 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'd be surprised if those who voted Remain would be happy with a Norway option.

Least worse? Maybe, although the situation is quite different - for a start, Norway is sitting on a big pile of petro cash (wisely invested for the people).

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.

I'm not saying we should pander to their warped ideas, but I don't see that offering a solution which is technically leaving the EU but in practice isn't significantly different is really going to wash.

Personally, as a Remainer, I'd not support a Norway solution. I think it is a bit of a toss-up whether we'd actually be better off.

To me the only choice is in or out. The other talk is just gravy.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Mr Cheesy:
quote:
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
OK and I can see your point, although I would prefer it (having voted to remain anyhow).
First, would you at least admit, that a person can in good conscience, lobby for a Norway option, and still be able to say, honestly, that they fulfilled the mandate?

Second, if we talk flexcit, instead of Norway, it was the official published policy of that wing of Brexiteria bankrolled by Aron Banks, and it is likely that quite a few leavers favoured it.

Third, with flexcit Norway is not intended as a final resting place. The flexciteers believe we can get to the position you described, but in ten or so years, not two or three. So Norway is an interim, and this is why we may find it hard to get agreement on it, since the EU members will see our cunning plot, and so link it with membership of the customs union. And I do agree that Norway + Customs Union would not be on.

Richard North believes he has his bases covered as to what to do to overcome this reluctance, and your support of flexcit does rather depend on how far he would be exposed to trying it, only to get "Non!" at the eleventh hour.

I'm pretty sure that's what Phil Hammond wants and may be what May wants. As I have said previously the Customs Union is the main issue, since once out of that, we can gradually move to a more independent position.

Of course, if we got a LibLab coalition at the next election it would also make it easier to get back in, and easier for the other members states to accept this, just as would accept Norway without much fuss.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
The Norway option would take us back to the position the UK was in before it joined the EU. Which is what the Leavers wanted. [Biased] 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.

One thing that all the Leavers did agree on what they wanted the NHS to have more money. [Big Grin]

Betjemanic:

quote:
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.
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.

I can’t see the EU breaking up in the short term, but I can see it reaching gridlock with some countries wanting more Europe and others wanting less Europe and more emphasis on national governments. But in the long term, break up is inevitable. History shows that alliances aren’t forever.

Tubbs
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I can totally see the EU breaking up in the short-to-medium term. It's in that "unlikely but possible" area that both Brexit and Trump occupied.

France is key. The EU can survive without Britain but loses its original raison d'etre without France. A Le Pen victory next year (again, seems unlikely but possible) would raise the odds of EU break-up hugely.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Then what? Fascism and war? Oh frabjous joy.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Why would you assume that the only alternative to the EU is war?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would you assume that the only alternative to the EU is war?

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

[ETA: The main problem is probably the Euro. To make it work you need full economic integration and nobody is going to agree to that. A lot of the Southern economies simply can't afford it. But, as it was designed to be permanent, there is no mechanism for getting out without significant damage].

Tubbs

[ 16. November 2016, 16:06: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would you assume that the only alternative to the EU is war?

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.

This doesn't mean that war is inevitable. But I do think it - well, let's say "quite possible". I originally wrote "fairly likely" but I don't want to be too pessimistic.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It is highly likely that it would be in the best interests of France to stay in the EU after Brexit, but that does nothing about issues on which the Front National are campaigning.

Incidentally, I think it is highly unlikely that a break-up of the EU would cause war between the members, but those at the edges of Europe would get increasingly squeezed out and possibly become an easy target for Russia.

If the Southern European states, left without funds and assistance from the North, were to feel that they had no choice but to close borders and expel refugees, I can see tensions increasing in North Africa causing a massive humanitarian crisis (and I don't mean the refugees in Europe as at present, I mean Sudan style carpet bombing of displaced refugees by goodness-knows-who), possibly spilling over into Europe.

Many things can be said about the EU and the immigration policy, but one outcome of the current impasse has been that the Southern states have not been left to fend totally for themselves and that the North has done much of the heavy lifting once the refugees land. If the EU folded and that form of solidarity was no longer available, the pressure on Italy, Spain etc is going to be huge.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

The 'punishment' line is bollocks - it can only be arrived at by assuming that anything less than exactly what the UK wants is punishment.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It doesn't make war inevitable, but it's far more likely as a consequence of the UK leaving the EU. If the UK actually gets round to doing that.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why would you assume that the only alternative to the EU is war?

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.
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.
There are other factors: the Cold War was certainly discouraging. But I think it sets a presumption in favour of not breaking anything.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
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 >
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Anteater:
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.

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.

But there will unfortunately and undoubtedly be, the narrative of a continued EU interference, of an EU that desires to punish and make things tough and that won't play ball and won't give us what we want. It has already begun to an extent, but the reality is that nobody wants a failed state or an economic basket case on their doorstep. Even when Britain does leave, the EU will want it to work and continue to be successful.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It is pretty much the cause of World War One

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.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
But governments were only willing and able to follow through on those treaties because they and their populations were nationalistically geared up for confrontation. The German high command, for example, seems to have taken the view that war with Russia was inevitable, and should therefore be encouraged to happen sooner rather than later.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
It is pretty much the cause of World War One

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.
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It is also worth looking at the initial roots of the European Union.

Schuman Declaration

The initial aim of the first moves on unity was 'to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible'. The dangers of nationalism were to be replaced by the benefits of interdependence and sharing.

I think both the neo-nationalists and the aggressive euro-federalists have lost sight of this. Interdependence must proceed at a pace which takes account of the fissiparous tendencies of nationalism. And it is increasingly clear in Europe that it is the pace of growing federalism which is out of step with remaining nationalist tendencies.

I think the whole EU long term mission to replace the historic warfare with peaceful interdependence is in danger of collapse for these reasons. And that is very bad for the future of the EU nation states.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

The 'punishment' line is bollocks - it can only be arrived at by assuming that anything less than exactly what the UK wants is punishment.
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!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well other than that Amazon Prime costs £79 (£59 in some places at the moment) and you can't give money to the NHS..

... perfect analogue!
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
[Big Grin]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Well if you mean that the part about giving money to the NHS was a lie then that really does perfect the analogy.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
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 >

100 year cycles? Those who had learned the lessons of past conflicts have died in the meantime.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The 100 year cycle theory leaves out the Crimean war as well as a host of other wars involving Prussia and Eastern Europe between 1815-1915.

And leaves out World War II following the War to End All Wars. There have been plenty of skirmishes in Eastern Europe and including Turkey and Greece throughout the 20th Century.

Ken would have reeled off paragraphs of prose describing the historical arc of conflict.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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. The list goes on and tragically on. What was posited is a very simplistic approach to some much more complex history.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I had hoped we could move on from bullshit numerology. Apparently not [Disappointed]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
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.

In fairness we were talking about Europe, but your substantive point is nevertheless correct.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

The 'punishment' line is bollocks - it can only be arrived at by assuming that anything less than exactly what the UK wants is punishment.
It's worth pointing out, though, that the rhetoric of punishment isn't confined to Brexiteers:
quote:
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.”

'Threat', to my mind, goes a bit beyond merely not providing services when the customer has ceased to subscribe to those services.

(Granted, François Hollande is a twit.)
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
I may not be skilled at maths, but I make it an extra 33 billion pounds of borrowing over the next two years as a result of Brexit, according to Philip Hammond. Thats, um, 317 million pounds a week. That's not far off the supposed amount the NHS could do with an injection, according to our illustrious foreign secretary...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

It's worth pointing out, though, that the rhetoric of punishment isn't confined to Brexiteers:
quote:
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.”

'Threat', to my mind, goes a bit beyond merely not providing services when the customer has ceased to subscribe to those services.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
It really does look like after six years of meanness, the need for which was laid at on the previous government, we now have more of the same, for which the net result of pro's and con's of Brexit are largely held responsible.

Can this government stop externalising everything that is wrong and just for once put its hand up and admit it hasn't a clue? The only lesson that has been learnt is that Cameron was a smooth operator who, ultimately, put the party before the country.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

It's worth pointing out, though, that the rhetoric of punishment isn't confined to Brexiteers:
quote:
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.”

'Threat', to my mind, goes a bit beyond merely not providing services when the customer has ceased to subscribe to those services.

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.
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.

It also puts the EU in a difficult position with countries that are failing to apply the budgetary rules and cultural values. The EU's rules state there should be sanctions, but there's no way they'll do that in the current climate. Spain and a few others for budget and most of the Eastern Europe for the cultural.

It's a mess ...

Tubbs
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
AIUI the EU has said that we can have continued access to the single market if we allow freedom of movement. That's them doing us a favour, if only people were not too stupid to see it.

We've said we're leaving. They don't have to do anything for us. Contrary to popular belief, we need them more than they need us. 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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Significant economic and cultural problems for the UK will happen. The EU doesn't have to "punish" us for that too happen, all it needs to do is not bend over backwards to do the UK any favours. The whole rose-tinted view presented by the Leave campaign was predicated on basically the whole world bending over backwards to do the UK favours. And, for that to happen very quickly.

The EU isn't going to break it's own rules for our benefit - there's nothing in it for the EU to do that, and indeed a lot of reasons not to do so. So, access to the Common Market without all that entails (including free movement of labour) is simply not going to happen. Letting the UK go without paying contributions towards the costs of projects already agreed is very unlikely to happen (though, quite what recourse the EU might have to stop the UK leaving without paying off outstanding debts I don't know - it's not as though they can send the bailiffs round to seize our assets).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think Marsman was talking about the borrowing cost of Brexit as £33 billion, but I have been reading that the figure is £60 billion.

In any case, these are obviously gloomy figures, no doubt perpetrated by pro-Remain mandarins, lurking in Whitehall, and determined to sabotage our wonderful Brexit.

I prefer those robust figures, such as £350 million a week, to be devoted to the NHS! Now those are real statistics.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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 ?

That's sounds like business as normal. That's only punishment if you thought the UK was going to get special treatment, because $REASONS.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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

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 ?

That's sounds like business as normal. That's only punishment if you thought the UK was going to get special treatment, because $REASONS.

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.

The quote works better with the context. The UK isn't the only country with a Eurosceptic party that's becoming popular with voters. The desire to ensure that none of the other members get any bright ideas is perfectly understandable. (Whether it works or not is another question entirely!)

Tubbs

[ 24. November 2016, 11:55: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tubbs:

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.
[/qb]

Precisely. So the default position would consist of invoking article 50 and then a complete break afterwards. Followed by years of negotiation on a bilateral trade deal between the UK and EU.

Anything else always relied on large amounts of goodwill from the rest of the EU, an ability to compromise on the part of UK politicians, and massive amounts of statement-ship from whoever was appointed to lead the negotiations. In the event, there was no plan, the UKs vacillation and pig-headedness has seen goodwill from the countries most sympathetic to it dry up, and the Foreign Secretary went around crapping all over the place, generating the kind of annoyance seen here:

https://twitter.com/ManfredWeber/status/801468882171019264
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So, exactly *how* are they planning to punish the UK?

Ask Mr Hollande. Although most of what anyone is saying at this stage is posturing.

I have seen negotiation described in terms of boxes. Your goal is to persuade the other party that they would be happier inside the box (i.e., making the deal) than outside the box (i.e., walking away without a deal). Mr Hollande's talk of 'punishment', in my interpretation, is saying that the British must feel that being outside the box is something to be avoided, and Mr Johnson's otherwise inexplicable comments in Hospodářské noviny are, I think, saying that the British have prepared for life outside the box and are unfazed by the prospect.

The EU's problem is that 'free trade is a good thing' is built into its very fabric in a way that it isn't for any other country. Therefore, by its own logic, if the EU is presented with a box containing free trade, it is always better off inside the box than outside of it (regardless of whether the other party would be even worse off outside of it), unless it can be shown that the box also contains nasty things. 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.

(As an aside, while the EU is within its rights to refuse to negotiate before Article 50 is triggered, I don't see how it can then complain that Mr Davis won't discuss Britain's plans with its negotiators.)
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Let us not forget that the French and the Danes rejected the Constitution, that the Germans and the Czechs were the last to sign the Lisbon Treaty, that the French and the Germans have been breaking Eurozone budget rules for yonks, that nobody comes out of the Greek crisis with much credit, that most of south-eastern Europe is merrily putting up border fences, that the National Front won the last European elections in France, that Austria is on course to elect a fascist for its president, that the Hungarian government is dismantling freedom of speech with little protest, that the Slovaks appointed a president who wants to send tanks into Budapest, and that everyone except Britain, Ireland and Sweden restricted free movement from the EU-2004 states when they first joined.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I'm not turning a blind eye to the failings of the other EU states, but I think what is unique about the British attitude to Europe is that we just don't think of ourselves as European, which lead to a fundamental lack of commitment to the EU on the part of most of our politicians, which has lead to our present situation. We are the first and so far only state to leave, which kind of proves the point.

De Gaulle's assessment of Britain as aligned to America rather than Europe, and his consequent obstruction of British EEC membership, has in the end, proved to be correct.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
We are the first and so far only state to leave

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).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
EFTA states do not participate in a completely free market with regard to agricultural products and fish. 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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

So I absolutely do not think that the 'all or nothing' claim is overstated in the context we are operating in - which is one where Brexiters imagine they can take ETFA/Single Market membership off the shelf - whipping out all the bits they object to. Even if such a route was available, the UK can't get to it from where it is currently - and not being able to do so does not amount to 'punishment' by any stretch of imagination.

What is left is a fresh deal; at which point we have 27 different parties considering whether they want to prioritize a deal with the UK above a number of things they could do; given it'll tie up their Foreign Minister for XLARGE% of time, and require Y number of months in discussions, debates etc in their parliament and so on. That's not 'punishment' either, just a reflection of the fact that other countries will have a number of different things they could do to improve their trade situation, and that all their governments will have been voted in for a limited period of time and will have half an eye on their legacies, given re-elections in Z years hence.

[ 27. November 2016, 18:26: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This is an intriguing possibility: arguing, AFAICS, that voting to leave the EU does not automatically entail leaving the EEA.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
There was a suggestion I read somewhere over the weekend that there is zero change of a Brexit agreement being hammered out within 2 years, so the whole process could take up to 10 years. Imagine that.

On the other hand, if it does get tangled up in impossible red tape (which does seem quite likely given - it appears - everyone would have to agree exit terms, including various parliaments in Belgium etc) then 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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This is an intriguing possibility: arguing, AFAICS, that voting to leave the EU does not automatically entail leaving the EEA.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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...

Of course it would be tempting, given the unnecessary crisis that the Brexit decision has thrown into the EU.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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...

That's my whole point. There is no current deal. There is limbo.

As I understand it, UK ministers and officials are not attending EC meetings, or not taking part in decisions. In the meantime, the EU grinds on. Negotiations between Member States are constantly evolving on a whole host of issues and the UK is not at the table.

If the UK were ever to come back, it would not start at the place it left off.

Even if one were to assume it had exactly the same arrangements on paper, the psychological position would be far worse.

If only because the trust in any decision enacted in the UK remaining binding would have gone out the window.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

completely agree - we're leaving, and the above is what I think will happen.

[ 28. November 2016, 09:25: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It still seems absurd that the government seems determined to take us down a route (whatever exit route that is) which the mojority of people in a non-binding referendum did not vote for.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
It sounds like electoral suicide at the moment Alan. I'd love for what you say to be possible, but I think it would open one up to vicious attack from political opponents who wouldn't hesitate to describe it as undemocratic, arrogant and elitist.

If we've learnt anything from voting patterns recently it is that populist mud sticks and complicated explanations don't get it off. (By complicated explanation I mean anything that needs punctuation).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I agree with both mdijon and betjemaniac.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"...therefore since by far the largest vote of the public was to Remain that is what we will do".

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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, 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.

I think there is a high chance that there'll a default exit due to complete inaction and paralysis.

30% of the country think that Boris is doing a good job, that's the constituency she is playing to.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree with both mdijon and betjemaniac.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"...therefore since by far the largest vote of the public was to Remain that is what we will do".

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.
Agreed - "Remain" was no more monolithic than "Leave"; split as it was between at least of the top of my head:

1- I'm a massive Euro-enthusiast, remain and deepen co-operation
2- I like things as they are, remain and keep things as they are (this probably isn't on the table any longer)
3- I think on balance we're better off staying in, remain and work to reform the EU in a direction I want (probably as many different varieties of this one as there are leavers in terms of what a reformed EU looks like)
4- I'm scared of life outside the EU, remain so I don't have to face the unknown
5- I've believed the Remain propaganda rather than the Leave propaganda, remain so we don't face WW3 and an emergency budget
6- I'm sitting on the fence, remain because that's where I am on voting day
7- I don't like the EU, but I don't want the Tories in charge unfettered by EU roadblocks

I'm sure there are others. Essentially 46.5 million people voted 46.5 million ways.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

If you don't know, then stop being so pissy about it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree with both mdijon and betjemaniac.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"...therefore since by far the largest vote of the public was to Remain that is what we will do".

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.
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).

When you're proposing a major constitutional change that proposed new situation will be uncertain, the certainty will always be on the "no change" side. Therefore, it is essential that the proposed changes are clearly spelt out to reduce those uncertainties. With hindsight it was obvious that Cameron didn't understand this simple concept at all, given that he abandoned the "no change" option for Scottish voters at the last minute in 2014.

quote:
And again, "Remain" as the options were when the referendum was held is no longer on the table.
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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).

And *at least* the other 5 options I suggested above. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think even the most ardent Remainers recognise that there are problematic about the EU, £millions that are apparently wasted and so on.

The thing is that those who voted Remain presumably decided that it was better to keep the devil that they're used to rather than to be cast into the Brexit unknown.

If Eutychus is correct and the deal has indeed changed so that the UK would not now be on the same EU footing as it was, then I'm not sure it is possible to say that Remainers have voted for that EU deal either.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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).

And *at least* the other 5 options I suggested above. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of...
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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
If you'll forgive the analogue, it does feel a little like physics - we can guess what a vote to Remain would have resulted in, but as we didn't, we can't know. By setting the experiment we've jinxed the outcome.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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).

And *at least* the other 5 options I suggested above. I'm sure there are others I haven't thought of...
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?
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.

FWIW I think the bulk of opinion lies somewhere on the spectrum of "it can't be reformed, we need to leave" to "we need to work really hard to reform the EU." The philosophical "ourselves-aloners" and outright federalists are minority pastimes. I'd certainly put myself in the "one last try at reform and devolution back down to the nation states" camp.

But I'd recognise that I personally would slide quite quickly into Leave if/when it became clear that that wasn't going to happen. Rightly or wrongly, some (many?) people have already reached the position that it won't.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The EU-27 got a stinging rejection from the UK on June 23. Don't imagine that can simply be erased.

[ 28. November 2016, 11:42: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.

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.

A tangible change with regard to the UK's position within the EU (in the scenario where it decided to stay) would involve treaty change, not just psychological positions. Now, it might be the case that some of the UK's positions with regard to the rebate is now weaker - I don't know how that works. If it was up for renewal and the UK did try to say it should have the same deal, the other EU countries might indeed say no. But that's not a given, at some point in the past there must have been an EU-wide decision that the costs of the rebate was a price worth paying to have the UK a member. The other status changes would need treaty change - unless you can point to something tangible that has already changed.

quote:
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.

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.

I'd agree that the current uncertainty and detachment from all-things EU will certainly make any proposal to Remain somewhat strained and difficult. But to state that the EU has already changed so that the UK would not be "rejoining" on the same deal seems to be an exaggeration.

quote:
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.

The European Parliament is not a direct EU institution, though. These are shite examples.

quote:
The EU-27 got a stinging rejection from the UK on June 23. Don't imagine that can simply be erased.
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.

The federalism and reform options (1&3) do lead to action, but I suspect that the former would be a minority sport at best, and the latter would fall prey to the same dynamics that we have currently, where 'Brexit means Brexit' and any attempt specify what this means ends up falling prey to a mythical best being the enemy of the good (except more so, as in this alternative world Farage would still be leader of UKIP and constantly doing the rounds of the TV stations calling for a second referendum).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

Of course it is. But do you seriously think politics or business is done simply by woodenly and mechanically applying treaty or other rules?

Goodwill has a monetary value in accounting - is that tangible enough for you? - and the UK has lost a ton of it since June 23 in the eyes of the EU-27.

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.

[ 28. November 2016, 12:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.

[Paranoid]

I see. So it is arrogant for the UK to think that it could carry on as before given that no treaties have yet been rewritten, 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.

I guess we'll see (or more likely never know as I think the chance of the UK remaining in the EU is vanishingly small).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.
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.
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.

On less formal levels, the EU project relies on movement of people and cooperation internationally. There have been bus loads of examples of UK universities and research groups getting frozen out of EU funding for research. If you were in charge of research coordination at a British university, would you recommend that someone applies for a 3-5 years funding from one of the European funds in collaboration with other universities across Europe? Would you say the risk of the funding disappearing in two years mid-project, with the probability that the EU staff you want to employ (and, your staff you want to move to work with your collaborators) would need to obtain visas, would be worth it? The same would go for assorted businesses wanting to work with European partners (though the EU money wouldn't usually be part of the equation).

In summary: I agree with Eutychus. International diplomacy is much more than the words of treaties. Whether it's governments dealing with governments, businesses with businesses, academics with academics, or all the other varieties of international relations, there are lots of other factors involved. And, those have all changed, and in some cases there's probably no way to put them back the way they were.

[ 28. November 2016, 12:18: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I see. So it is arrogant for the UK to think that it could carry on as before

Yes it is.

It would be arrogant of the UK to imagine that it could present its treaty partners with an exit referendum billed as binding and then, should it have second thoughts after the fact, believe it could - nay, is positively entitled to - come back to the table, while everyone else simply pretends that none of it ever happened, and extends the same amount of trust and goodwill to the UK as before the exercise.

Transpose this to any situation in which you personally are one of the parties - with a building contractor, for instance - and see if you get my point.

quote:
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.
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.

However, none of these nations (so far) are in the embarrassing position of having conducted a national referendum on EU membership whose result they appear to be clueless about implementing.

(oh, and what Alan said)

[ 28. November 2016, 12:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Chris Styles:
quote:
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

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.

Some have suggested that if this is the case, May could negotiate with this is her back pocket. I hope she doesn't and assume that if a whiff of this got to our EU partners, nothing would be forthcoming.

But if she adopted a two-phase approach, do you really think that the neo-Bastards would try and wreck it if it was made plain that it is only a matter of time. Some undoubtedly would, but those like Hannan and even Boris (who has been quote open to EEA at times) could accept this.

And that's disruption enough. We still have the hassle of proving point of origin, plus CAP and fisheries are out of the agreement.

Much harder without the fig leaf of the legal decision about EEA not stpping with Brexit. Don't knock fig leaves. Remember May was for remaining.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Oh, and also . . .

Whilst I think Labour would vote for triggering Article 50, I'm sure they would vote against triggering EEA exit. So she knows she would very likely lose that vote.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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/
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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/

No change there. In the past the young were sacrificed in war. This time it is, if anything, something even less honourable.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
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/

No change there. In the past the young were sacrificed in war. This time it is, if anything, something even less honourable.
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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
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)

[ 29. November 2016, 08:17: Message edited by: anteater ]
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Well you're not the only one anteater.......( age 67).......
To be honest my generation makes me feel embarrassed - let's be honest we've been very fortunate and young people these days I think are quite hard done by
We seem to be too quick to throw ladders away, sadly
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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)

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.

In triplicate, please.

Quetzalcoatl, aged 82.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Perhaps it would be a good idea to get pensioners to write an essay on what their grandchildren or great grandchildren (or other school age children they may know) think before each election. I think we could all do with a reminder of what our votes mean to others before we walk down to the polling station. Even more so when, like this referendum, the decision is over something that can't be readily corrected in 5 years - and when (if) the UK leaves the EU three years after the vote many of the old timers who voted leave will have died and lots of teenagers who wanted to remain are old enough to vote.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Queztlcoatl, Alan Cresswell:

I don't buy the idea that any group needs to establish it's legitimacy to vote. It is a given.

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.

I see a real danger here, because it is doubtless true that identifiable groups do have overall biasses, so that it is easy to scapegoat groups because they have statistical measurable tendencies. And then one can come to dislike the group as a group and forget about individuals.

I thought of a separate thread to discuss the ethics of this but I have no time for Hell, and since this is very much about one person's post, and think that is where I would have to raise it.

So there my protest rests. And for what little it may be worth I (hand on heart) did take the issue of the greater effect on the young into consideration and I would support the enfranchisement of anybody old enough to pay tax.

But I'm still an old person. And the only way to change this is, indeed, to die.

[ 29. November 2016, 14:57: Message edited by: anteater ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

What I was highlighting was that it would be better if all voters took some time to consider their vote carefully (would be better, not should). Especially when the impact of a vote on us is minimal, but the impact on others could be significant - in the case of the EU referendum the impact of the vote on people who are unlikely to live for a long time after Brexit will be very much smaller than the impact on those who should have a long life ahead of them. I just ran with the essay idea as a way of considering the views of others.

quote:
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.
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 may have been guilty of some disrespect (hopefully only confined to threads in Hell) for older people who voted Leave (that specific subset of older people) - but if so it was probably part of a general disrespect to anyone who voted Leave.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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?

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....
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
quote:
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?

I consider such people be much the same as people who force arranged marriages on their children. The similarities are striking, actually...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

quote:
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....

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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
falling over himself to endorse those numbers in the Observer at the weekend.

We'll know soon enough.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.

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
falling over himself to endorse those numbers in the Observer at the weekend.

We'll know soon enough.

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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.

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
falling over himself to endorse those numbers in the Observer at the weekend.

We'll know soon enough.

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.

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.

Yes, don't disagree with any of that.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
I'd like to open up a slight tangent, not to grind an axe, but because I am interested, and think some on the Ship may have expertise here, mentioning no names!

So the tangent is on drilling down a bit into the effect of Brexit on scientific research projects, where I believe EU funding plays a big role. So my questions are:

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.

2. Are Swiss research institutions (or Norway's) seriously disadvantaged by non-membership?

3. Is there little serious co-ordinated research between, say EU and USA? Is it significant?

4. As regards existing research involving centres of excellence across Europe, co-ordinated by EU, would the UK component be expelled? Could the UK Government make up the funding gap, or is this so complicated as to be implausible?

5. Is the concern that although the UKG could make up the gap, is it more neo-liberal and so less likely to invest government money into research, that the institutionally Centrist EU?

6. How much is up for grabs in the Brexit negotiations?

I know this sounds like a questionnaire but I think answers can be brief. But I'll understand if nobody has the time.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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]

It's reasonable to assume that most of the EU government funding will go away when we leave the EU, though there may still be a few projects run by UK institutions with EU funding - these would presumably be on a similar basis to existing projects funded by non-EU government bodies. I'm reasonably confident that EU-based industries will still fund UK institutions, again on a similar basis to industries based outside the EU.

I think the drop in EU government funding will be felt more in some subject areas than others - politics, international development, languages, etc. will probably feel the pain more than areas such as engineering and medicine where a much higher percentage of research funding comes from private industry.

I don't really know enough to confidently answer the other questions you asked.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I know researchers in Greenland working as a partner on a large EU grant, so it can't be the case that only researchers in EU countries can apply.

Reading between the lines, it seems UK researchers are reported as being "frozen out" from EU grants more because of a perception of what might happen by other academics.

I suspect what might be happening is that UK researchers were often the main partners in EU research grants, and there is some touchiness about awarding the main bulk of research money to a non-EU country.

So I think in the long run, UK researchers might be able to join research groups as a junior partner, but will probably not be awarded the big bucks as they would have before.

Incidentally, did anyone notice that a UKIP Welsh Assembly member asked the Welsh government if it was possible to have the Republic of Ireland apply for EU grants to improve the M4?

[Killing me]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I've worked on several EU funded research projects which included Norway and Switzerland. And, I know people working on a large EU project that also includes Japan.

The situation is that EU research money will not be provided for non-EU participants (there may be opportunities for non-EU participants to access EU money through overseas aid routes - which won't apply to the UK or other developed nations), nor can institutions in non-EU nations manage or lead EU-funded projects (in part because the EU will usually provide some financial support for administration of projects). Non-EU participants in EU funded projects have to be entirely funded from other sources (their own national research budgets, private industrial sources etc), but can participate on an equal basis with other partners thereafter.

What the EU provides is a structure for research prioritisation and funding streams which is very much more efficient than what could be achieved otherwise. Bi-lateral cooperation happens frequently between organisations in different countries, but it takes a lot of work to agree budgets, identify funding sources, put everything into a contract etc. That work becomes more and more difficult as you increase the number of institutions, and particularly as you increase the number of nations those institutions are in. Setting up an ad-hoc collaborative agreement between 20 institutions in 12 countries would be next to impossible - but it happens frequently for EU projects, and it is quite straight forward for non-EU based institutions to slot into the structures.

In addition to the funding of collaborative research projects the EU also has a range of fellowship schemes which make the movement of researchers between institutions in different countries relatively easy (though, with a lot of competition to get those fellowships), and other mobility schemes - all of which is, of course, helped by freedom of movement within the EU. For colloboration, a young researcher from institution A moving to institution B for a few years is by far the most effective.

Collaboration is, and always will be, the best way of improving research output. I can try and find the data, but recently I read a report summary showing that the added benefits of collaboration with other institutions in EU nations is far greater than collaboration with institutions in other nations - and that the UK has done disproportionately well out of that, adding more value to UK research through EU funded work than achieved by most other countries in the EU.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I have been a provider for an EU project and worked on several others and can confirm what Alan's saying.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I should add, though UK institutions would still be able to participate in EU funded research projects if they could obtain equivalent financial support from UK sources (research councils or direct from government departments) that isn't the whole story.

First, of course, they would be participants and the added prestige of leading a research project would go elsewhere.

More importantly, the EU (like everyone else) works with research priorities. The secret of successful EU funding is to have the ear of the people who establish those priorities, and to get them to recognise that there is a need for European-wide research in your research area. Of course, people from outside the EU will find it very difficult to have their voice heard in such quarters, and hence will not be involved in setting the research agenda in Europe. That means that UK institutions outside the EU would be able to follow someone else's research agenda, but won't be setting the European research agenda.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It appears that's not quite true for the Horizon 2020 programme, Alan. There is a list of "Associated Countries" who can apply to receive funds from the programme like an EU country.

It appears that these countries, which include Norway and Iceland, have this status because they're contributing to the EU's science budget as if they were EU countries.

Other countries, including Switzerland, have signed agreements with the EU to access certain parts of the budget (and therefore have contributed to that budget), and there is a longer list of countries who can be partners of H2020 projects providing they find other ways to pay for their part of it.

So it appears that the UK would only have full access to the H2020 funds if it continued to pay in a full contribution to the EU science budget.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
quote:
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.
I did rather think that the situation could be bettered in the negotiations.

But both major parties have a barmy wing (sadly including the leader and shadow chanceller for Labour). Given that Theresa May was a Remainer, and have more hope than you that she will deliver a sensible exit plan.

I am not aware of any Brexiteers who have a principled stance against remaining in programmes set up under the EU umbrella, given that to do so would not violate any aspect of Brexit that I know of.

Sadly, there seem to be few (if any) Brexiteers on this ship who could argue the case for hard brexit.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
According to today's dribble of news from the government, the Brexit Minister is contemplating the option of paying to remain within the EU single market.

Even if this was possible, 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?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I think it's a very positive sign. It may well not be possible, but at least we might be prepared to think about it. That's the sort of pragmatic thinking that's been in short supply recently.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
It's quite courageous (in the Yes Minister sense of the word) for Davis to even admit that such a thing is being contemplated. I expect that at the age of 67 he's planning to step down at the next election anyway.

The Brexit supporters I know won't like it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Strange how these little leaks and disclosures are being done, I suppose to stop the general frustration at the opacity of the process.

I guess that the sticking point is going to be nasty foreigners, or in fact, even nice foreigners. The single market might be OK, but wogs begin at Calais.

Although I wonder if there'll be special exemptions e.g. for agriculture, for those awful 6am shifts in freezing weather, pullng up daffodil bulbs, etc.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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 ?"

[Incidentally the 'pay for access' strategy undermines the reasoning around 'they will fall over themselves to give us a free trade deal because they sell us more than we sell them'].

I suspect that in reality the more like EFTA they want the trade side of the agreement to be like, the more of the structures of EFTA they'll have to take on. Something piecemeal isn't likely to be achievable by this current set of politicians, so the only thing left is EFTA as a package, which wouldn't be acceptable to the Brexit element of the Tory party (and let's face it, this is all about party unity rather than what might be good for the country).
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Mr Cheesy:
quote:
. . . , 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?

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.

Also the fact that both CAP and Fisheries are not included is significant.

Why does anyone see it as equivalent to membership?

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), 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.

The Brexiteers get what they want. In time.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Mmm. Which is coded language for saying that we don't have to allow those jonny foreigners in, I suppose.

Yes, OK, I suppose we'd have the freedom to negotiate trade deals without the rest of the EU. And we'd not have to allow those jonny foreigners in.

quote:
Also the fact that both CAP and Fisheries are not included is significant.
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?

quote:
Why does anyone see it as equivalent to membership?
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?

quote:
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)
Wait.. so the Brexiteer idea is that we should be paying even more to receive less from the EU. How does that work?

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
The Brexiteers get what they want. In time.
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.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

From what imaginary planet do you gather the wisdom you share here?


Vindictivel
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
Gives us added (fair) bureaucratic costs as a downside.
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).

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

Britain ditched its former trading partners when it joined the EU. It was right to join but should have taken more care about the consequences. The NZ economy was very badly battered, as was that of the small Aust state of Tasmania. Each took years to recover and redirect resources. Memories are not that short.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

Sounds good to me.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

Sounds good to me.
But not to any of the people you are trying to make an agreement with.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Looks like the people of Richmond Park dislike Brexit even more than they dislike Heathrow expansion.

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.

quote:
Not sure this means much for national politics, but maybe people will decide the Lib Dems have been punished enough for the Coalition.

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.

In terms of Brexit, it's difficult to say. Both contested by elections since June have resulted in strong votes for a pro-EU candidate. But, as previously noted, both were in areas which voted Remain in June, so it doesn't really put the cat among the pigeons. Also the LibDems are only relatively pro-EU - they've also bought into the fiction that the referendum result compels the UK to leave the EU, and are working for the softest possible Brexit rather than oppose Brexit completely.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
quote:
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.
I think that's just silly.

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.

Which if course, they might, but I don't think they will.

Mr Cheesy:
quote:
Mmm. Which is coded language for saying that we don't have to allow those jonny foreigners in, I suppose.
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.

quote:
Yes, OK, I suppose we'd have the freedom to negotiate trade deals without the rest of the EU.
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).
And so, yes, it is a risk. But my point, which you seek to minimise, is that this is significantly different from staying in.

If we agree that grown-up politics is about dealing with the world as it is, not as we wish it were, I can see these alternatives for remainers:

1. Go all out to reverse the referendum decision.
2. Go all out for a soft brexit.
3. Say whatever the brexiteers do makes no difference so we may as well go for a hard brexit.

Personally, from what I have read, I do not see the attraction of option 3. I really can't decide whether too much has happened to campaign for option 1.

So if the Libs are joining Labour in going for option 2, I think that is worth supporting. Although if I were a Lib I'd stick to my guns and go with 1. It gives them a very powerful electoral USP, given that I consider it beyond reasonable doubt that a majority of the electorate would prefer to stay in the EU, and they've done too many U-turns (like Student grants) that a bit of stubborn "here we stand" stuff would go down quite well.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Anteater: agree 100%.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

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?

From what imaginary planet do you gather the wisdom you share here?


Vindictivel

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C:
quote:
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.
I think that's just silly.

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.

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.

But, just to take free trade. We may all agree that in isolation free trade is a good thing. But, it's not a question in isolation. The EU is losing a net financial contributor. Therefore, either EU programmes will be cut (forcing nations to pick up the slack within their own borders) or contributions from other nations will need to rise - in both cases, all the other 27 nations will see a cost. One way of recouping that cost would be to charge a tariff on goods imported from the UK. Of course, their businesses then pay to export to the UK - the balance of whether that's good or bad will vary by nation (and, by sector within each nation). Can we honestly say that all 27 nations will agree that the free-trade that's good for the UK is also going to be good for them, especially if there isn't some other recompense for the added costs that they will incur because of Brexit? Some nations in the EU will support what the government wants (whatever that will be), others won't. And, that will all be down to different interests in each nation. There won't be agreement that "this is in the best interests of all", because it's impossible to form such a consensus with the number of players at the table - especially in just two years.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The only way of avoiding a loss of tariff advantage will be to pay to get it back. That's if we get an offer to do that, rather than further repetition of the policy that free movement of labour is a non-negotiable part of the deal.

But if we are lucky, and do get an offer, don't be surprised if the financial cost to the UK turns out to be remarkably close to the current annual contributions.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. When it comes to international horse-trading, the Brexit position was, is, and always shall be, trustingly optimistic. If you place yourself, voluntarily, at a negotiating disadvantage, you get screwed. Why should others forego that advantage?

But you don't have to take my word for it. Just watch David Davis wriggle.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
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.

I think at this moment a solemn tribute to Mr Goldsmith is in order.


[Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Wait.. so there are seriously people arguing for a Brexit which includes free trade and free movement? Whaaaat?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There's an argument that this will stop May calling an election, but as you might expect, there is also the reverse argument. Now what was it? Oh yes, that since her majority is shrinking, she might as well reinforce it, and pulverize Labour. Dunno.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
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.

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.
Moreover, David Davis (Brexit minister) appears to be treading on Liam Fox(International Trade minister)'s turf regarding membership of the single market.

Cabinet must be a bundle of fun today.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Wait.. so there are seriously people arguing for a Brexit which includes free trade and free movement? Whaaaat?

[Killing me]

"When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".

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."
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.

I have a horrible feeling that the most likely scenario is: Crash and burn out of the EU. Wait for the Boomers to die. Re-enter under Generation X et. seq. As Theresa May's role model might have said: It's an old wall, Avon, it waits...
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
As evidenced as the pols who pushed Brexit didn't really want it.

[ 02. December 2016, 17:53: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:



"When you've got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow".


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.

Parliament simply cannot validly approve the triggering of article 50. They are elected to act in the best interests of their electorate and ultimately the country, and have effectively been handed a double barreled shotgun aimed at the country's testes (for the purposes of the image, the country is assumed to wear its genitalia on the outside). They have been instructed to pull the trigger, but would still be committing GBH if they were to carry out the instruction.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

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.
As evidenced as the pols who pushed Brexit didn't really want it.

I think discussing Brexit exclusively in terms of what its most stupid proponents believe is probably not terribly helpful.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It's not going to happen though.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Not very likely, Alan. But I think the penny has dropped. The government hasn't the foggiest idea how to make Brexit a success. Probably because there is no way of making it a success and a million and one ways of making it a failure. Shotgun aimed at genitalia indeed.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

I think discussing Brexit exclusively in terms of what its most stupid proponents believe is probably not terribly helpful.

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.

Prior to the vote it was quite common for some figures to drop in mention of EFTA or EFTA like arrangements post Brexit (usually intermixing it with other scenarios depending on the audience), Hannan did it, Farage made numerous references to the positions of Switzerland and Norway as models for the UK to follow, and as examples of countries that did well out of the EU.

Now to a certain extent this wasn't realistic as a platform for them, as would have been seen by the fact that they were alternating between different scenarios depending on the audience. So one wonders whether they were stupid, or assumed the hard core Brexiters - who were their constituency - were stupid.

Over the last few days there have been plenty of people willing to cry betrayal over any whiff of an EFTA or EFTA-lite arrangement - helped by the usual loony tendency like Redwood, Rees-Mogg and so on. Absent a politician who is willing to take them on, the loony tendency will continue to set the tone - because they have the votes of the middle aged pub-bore contingent.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

[ 03. December 2016, 06:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
I suppose even a narrow Remain victory wouldn't have been without it problems for the Tories.

If the the Conservatives are going to tear themselves apart, Labour having already torn itself, the Liberals come 2020 may indeed have to "Prepare for Government [Razz]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.

It's not going to happen though.

No it's not. A few things to watch for though.

Does UKIP's vote share rise appreciably? - this will indicate that Leave voters want their revolution to be carried through and don't trust the government to do it.

Do the Lib Dems do better than expected? A notable swing to them will indicate that they are becoming the party of Remain or, at least, soft Brexit.

How do Labour do? If they are squeezed this might indicate that there isn't a gap in the market for another Leave party. I wouldn't expect Corbyn to change tack on account of this, however. If their vote share holds up or improves it might indicate that left behind voters begin to see Corbyn as the solution to their problems. I think this prospect is vanishingly unlikely but it is a potential outcome, so I felt, in fairness bound to mention it.

Do the Tories lose votes and, who to? If Labour, Theresa is not cutting through with the JAMs, if UKIP, they don't trust her to deliver Brexit, if the Lib Dems, remain voters are deserting the party. On the other hand, if the Tories do better than in the General Election or, given the lower turn out, nearly as well it will mean that, in Sleaford at least, in Theresa we trust. For now.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
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."

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.

I don't think the country's ready yet, though. At the moment I'm feeling despair at what's happening from remainers (myself included), but "la-la-la fingers in the ears/The EU will give us everything we want 'cos we're great" from leavers. Give it another year or so, with brexit negotiations going nowhere (and probably descending into farce), and the time may be right for a remain insurgency.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Rocinante:

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.
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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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."

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.

In any case, I think it's more likely that we will thrash out a deal that isn't as good as the one we've got, but which isn't so bad that it causes a widespread plea for a return to the fold. I think the Brexiteers are correct that it is in the EU's interests to cut a deal.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
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.

Of all the various centres of power within the EU, the Commission have the most to lose, and also the highest value of time to concentrate on making the UK's leaving the EU as painful as possible and power to influence it. The European Parliament has even more time but far less influence.

Anyone who thinks it's in the EU's interests for the UK's departure to be orderly is dreaming. Dangerously so.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I'm fairly sure it's not in anyone's interests for the fifth largest economy in the world to crash and burn. Unless you think the Commission regard loss of face as more serious than economic meltdown - which then comes back to the question of just how vindictive are they?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
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,

I think we can be certain that Iceland will not be out on the next train, or boat.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
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,

I think we can be certain that Iceland will not be out on the next train, or boat.
Granted. I was sure Iceland was a member, but my memory was clearly defective.

Nevertheless, I believe the basic point to be sound. If the UK leaves in reasonable order, the door will be left open, and the whole babel tower is liable to collapse.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

The fact that this post is composed almost entirely in emotional terms kind of makes my point.

If no deal is reached and the British economy collapses, then it's likely that the EU economy will shrink as well, with all the attendant social problems.

Your assumption seems to be that those social problems in Europe would be a price worth paying for the integrity of the European project. My question is: why? What benefits does the European project bring that would outweigh those problems?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
You continue to make my point for me. Neither the EU Commission nor the ECB is a pragmatic institution. The British are pretty much alone in valuing their pragmatism; to the rest of the world, it is pretty contemptible hypocrisy. It is a serious error to expect it to be universally replicated, and to expect others to deride commitment to an ideal after the standard British model.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
What ideal?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What ideal?

The model of European unity to which a flame is kept in the European Commission building in Brussels.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

That's a pretty idiotic statement - the vote was one in a long line of not particularly pragmatic things that was done.

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What ideal?

The model of European unity to which a flame is kept in the European Commission building in Brussels.
I would suggest that the social problems attendant on economic contraction are more likely to dampen that flame than to fan it.

I agree with you to a certain extent; the British have generally seen the benefits of the EU as primarily economic, whereas at least some of our European partners see it as a vehicle for European brotherhood. My point is that something which is bad economically is also likely to be bad from the perspective of promoting European brotherhood. On the most basic level, if you care about European brotherhood, you should presumably care about the welfare of Europeans, which would imply trying to avoid anything that would make them poorer.

[ 03. December 2016, 21:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
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.


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.

The negotiations are being led by the Commission, and they will work hard to ensure that they outcome defends the project which is their goal. The UK is not the prize and not the point of their efforts.

[ 03. December 2016, 21:35: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

On the second point - AIUI that would be risky. Common sense suggests that if British widget production collapsed, that would create a gap on the market for French widgets. AIUI the economics is a bit more complicated - it could happen that way, but equally the collapse of British widgets could send shockwaves through the whole widget economy that ultimately disadvantage French widget makers too.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
To expand a bit on the above; the EU have a number of different set of trade deals that are available off the peg, EEA, EFTA membership, and EU membership. [*]

Ignoring the conditions required for each of those - because we will assume for now that the UK alreadymeets them; there are people in the Brexit camp who have fundamental objections to all of these.

In which case what is left is a custom agreement of sorts. Okay, so let's just assume a free trade deal that covers agricultural products - so we'd then be looking at standardisation of regulations on safety and welfare, an agreement on state subsidies, agreements on dispute resolutions, agreements on trading with third parties, agreements on verification of country of origin and so on.

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?

Of course, this is a gross simplification, nevertheless this is the kind of calculation a lot of the rest of the EU will be making.

[*] a simplification of sorts, but it will be an extension of the options do not fundamentally divert from the point of this post.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Except that subsets of Brexiters can be found who object to each of these.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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)

.. and if you honestly believe the caricature of 'irrational foreigners', then getting out of an existing agreement in the hope that you can make another one is not a pragmatic thing to do
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

2. It will also harm the UK a lot more. Now on the one hand this puts the UK at a severe disadvantage, but on the other hand it does mean the UK is less likely to walk away from the negotiating table - unlike, say, Mr Trump from TTIP.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

Except that subsets of Brexiters can be found who object to each of these.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

1. Decide that whatever you think is the views of the majority - the approach of the government and UKIP, as well as the less savoury groups who have decided that the referendum result supports attacks on immigrants.

2. Find out what the majority actually want - which would need a second referendum with a carefully considered question, either a yes/no to a particular model of Brexit as a starting point for negotiations, or a multi-option ballot (with some form of preferential voting).

I'd also be perfectly happy with an option 3 - that Cameron balls it up, Parliament got it wrong to call a hasty referendum without first defining what Brexit means, and state that the whole farcical thing couldn't possibly determine the will of the people and should be disregarded. But, I don't see that ever being a realistic option.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.


quote:
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.

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].
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Thunderbunk:
quote:
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.
I think I should switch to Brexit, then.

So you admit that the EU is a sort of Warsaw pact, where the peoples of the member states really want freedom from it, and can only be kept on the leash by punishment threats. If so, frankly, let it collapse.

quote:
Just how vindictive are they?
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.

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.

[ 04. December 2016, 08:34: Message edited by: anteater ]
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
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.
So, as I have previously challenged you, please supply a proposed wording? Which I think you admitted was impractical.

Yes, you are against the referendum, which was approved in a ration of 6:1 in favour, by the UK parliament. But to say that an answer to the question: "Should we leave the EU or remain?" does not indicate whether they should leave or remain, is a bit far fetched. Of course, the implications of either choice require crystal balls.

So it is true that the referendum did not spell out the details. But to me it is reasonably held as implicit that the (unnecessary) clarification would have been "on the most favourable commercial terms possible".

I can see clearly the limitations of referenda, but IIRC opinion polls showed about 80% of the population in favour of having one, and when parliament voted 6:1 to have it, it did have the wording in front of it. Of course, most people expected Remain to win, including Boris and Nigel.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
As I've said before, there were two options should a referendum be held:

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. Then you have a simple yes/no on leaving the EU with a defined opening position. In a sensible world Parliament would have written into the Referendum Act a statement on what the actions of government would be - ie: on the Monday morning after the vote send a letter to Brussels formally declaring we're leaving - so as to leave no room for legal challenges over the role of Government and Parliament. Also, ideally, the proposal would have the support of the government so that there wouldn't need to be any faffing about electing a new party leader, appointing a new cabinet etc.

2. A multi-option preferential voting ballot where the electorate get to say how important different options on leave are. It would probably look similar to all those internet quizzes - "on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is unimportant and 10 very important) how important is it to you that the UK has free trade with the EU? How important that we have freedom of movement?" etc. That would also need some careful thinking about - and likely to produce conflicting positions that are mutually incompatible. But, would give the government the data needed to draw up a Brexit package that is as close as possible to the majority position. I would prefer that to be a precursor to the actually yes/no on a defined negotiating position referendum (option 1 above).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-brexit-speech-european-parliament-full-transcript-text-a7107036.ht ml
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.
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.

But the lack of certainty as to the outcome was just as great. Both as regards their status within the EU and the status of any monetary union with the rUK. And all you do by saying: "This is exactly what we want" is loads of people shouting "Not a chance", which is why the main Leave campaign left it open. Oddly the group generally thought as more whacky did officially support Flexcit which gave a blow by blow account, which I thought reasonable.

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.

As to (2), yes it would have been a good idea. But I have never denied that the whole referendum thing was a total balls-up, and DCam should be have been made to where a large hat with his initial upon it.

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. And that is annoying, because a significant national decision has been made on sub-rational grounds.

An interesting sideline is: Do you judge a decision by the process that arrived at it, rather than just by its intrinsic (de)merits?


Chris Styles:
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
Well obviously it's amateur, although I suggest displaced rage is not that controversial an idea.

But who is "they" in your reply. I'm not being thick deliberately. It's natural.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.
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.
My comparison to the Scottish referendum was two fold, and both aspects were vital.

First, as you said, independence was proposed by a major political party, a party that was united in wanting independence. But, much more important, it was championed by the government, the very people who would have to enact the decision of the referendum - in contrast to the current farce where a government that doesn't want Brexit feels they have to deliver Brexit and many in the Leave campaign have no involvement at all.

The second part was that the Scottish government produced a substantial and detailed description of their vision for independence, about what they wanted to achieve. And, the independence campaign were singing from the same hymn sheet. That white paper was the product of decades of political discussion within the SNP and the wider population of Scotland. Of course, it was obvious they were not going to achieve all of it, but we all knew what we were voting for and were hoping that the various negotiations would get us something close to that.

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.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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.
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).

But, I think we both agree that Cameron and Parliament made a colossal cock-up over the whole thing.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

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.

Which gets back to what we have discussed before. The referendum question was whether to Remain or Leave, not how to do 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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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.

But, actually, I think the majority of people had thought about those questions. Certainly the "why". We've got exit poll data that show people voted for greater Parliamentary sovereignty (clearly not an issue for those who subsequently complain about the courts saying Parliament should be involved), against immigration, against agriculture and fisheries policy, against wasting money with an inefficient European political structure (clearly efficiency isn't an issue for a government that will spend as much on running the re-acquired powers as the Commission spends for the entire EU), or as a "f*** you" to politicians. There are going to be a lot of people disappointed that they're not going to get a change that addresses why they voted as they did. And, it would have only taken a few people, if they had known what the plan for Brexit was, to say "that doesn't address the issues I have with the EU" and vote Remain to have swung the vote.

And, approaching 6 months after the referendum we're still waiting to be told what is going to happen. At present the clearest statement we've had is "Brexit means Breakfast".
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This week's Economist describes Brexit as a car without accelerator, brakes or steering. Not exactly road safe.

[ 04. December 2016, 21:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Brexit means dog's breakfast, I think.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.
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?

Because the constant carp of the brexiteers is that the remainers insult the Great British Public by saying that they are incapable of undestanding what is meant by the phrase "leave the EU". It is no more conceptually complex than "remain within the EU", and both options represent futures with a range of possible outcomes, although I do not deny that "leave" is riskier.

It is also held to be a bit insulting to assume that leavers thought it would be no more difficult than leaving a party early. As I have previously said, the Brexiteers I have spoken to assume it will be a long and difficult process, and fully expect to be less well of, at least in the short term - which is all a lot of them have got.

I am really torn about referenda. Probably Matteo Renzi is now. I am reading a good book by Martin Jacques which (amongst other things) is about the fact that trusted administrative elites actually produce better outcomes that populism. And I expect just about all on this ship would agree.

But the danger of disenfranchisement of a major sector of the citizenship is real whenever there is no electable option for a viewpoint that is widely held. And if over 50% of the population of the UK do not want to be the EU, do you not think they should have a voice, and assuming (as I do) that you think they should, then how?

My suspicion is you might say that they should organise around a UK Nationalist Party like the Scots did around the SNP. But I really do not like parties whose basis is national identity, so rather than that, I actually prefer the route that was chosen.

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.

[ 05. December 2016, 09:56: Message edited by: anteater ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?

To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

It is clearly quite bloody hard to understand what they were voting for given that nobody clearly understands what they were voting for other than a bunch of lies which can't be delivered.

[ 05. December 2016, 10:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Brexit means dog's breakfast, I think.

It's going to be one hungry dog.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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?

That is a simple question.
Correction. That should be simplistic question.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan: (You can call me Ant):
quote:
To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.
But at that rate, you never go out of your front door.

I'd be the first to agree that risk taking is over valued (hence so many psychopaths running businesses like Enron). But zero-risk? Not for me. I'm sure this argument was a powerful factor in the loss of the Italian referendum, which I think was a real pity, since Renzi was IMO the best politician they've had - not that that's saying much.

The democratic process does rely on people making some attempt to understand the issues, watch the debates, read the press, discuss. And if after all that, you think the GBP has not the foggiest idea what Brexit would mean, then you must think they are all as thick as two short planks.

We were faced with a range of options, ranging from a really good trading relationship with Europe (best outcome) to having to fall back of WTO rules, which was always accepted as a possibility, and was generally recognised as Not a Good Option. So there was and still is, a risk that it will work out badly, and we will end up, as many eurocrats no doubt hope, coming cap in hand resulting in upheaval, probably the a re-alignment in British politics, which a resurgent centre party and ( . .this is not looking to bad . . ) and a lower standard of living ( . .so not quite so good . .).

No doubt these considerations weighed heavily on the Scots, and I'm glad, because I don't want breakup of the UK. But I'm not as risk averse as you, and though I regret Brexit, it's not because of the uncertainty of the outcome.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

But, again, that wasn't the only process available. I'll point again at the example of Scotland where decades of political debate and campaigning resulted in a detailed description of the reasons for Independence and a vision of what independence would look like, expressed as a lengthy white paper describing how the Scottish Government would enter negotiations for Independence if they got a Yes vote. A white paper approved by the Scottish Parliament. That was a process that lead to a simple questions "Do you want Independence?" with the clear caveat that the Scottish Government would seek to negotiate terms as close as possible to the white paper.

Put simply, if you want to put a simple question on a referendum (and, I don't see any realistic alternative) then the only way to do that is to put in a considerable amount of effort to define the parameters of the question - an effort that the Leave campaign monumentally failed to do. We should have had the decades of work that goes into building a coherent and relatively unified campaign to leave the EU, probably with an electable party championing it. All that work of talking to constituents about their concerns and visions. Parliamentary debates, Parliamentary Committees, building support in Parliament for Brexit with a clear vision of why and how.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.
But at that rate, you never go out of your front door.
Eh? Can you explain that a bit more?

I wasn't trying to say "never go out of your front door", but rather to say "never go out of your front door without an intention for where you are going". And, make some reasonable preparation for the excursion.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Aren't UKIP ultra-right? I notice their new leader saying that the NHS should be dismantled, sounds pretty right wing to me.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

This seems to have been largely a tactic about plausibile deniability and maintaining a certain level of electability.

I expect there are many on the right who feel that post Trump the calculus has changed.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
At last, we can tell the Pakis to go home, and let's smash the NHS, what a relief.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
quote:
Eh? Can you explain that a bit more?
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.

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.

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.

Of course, it you have no clear motivation in doing something risky, like leaving the EU, the issue of risk becomes a bit irrelevant. But to a lot of Brexiteers, this means a lot to them, and they find the degree of risk acceptable to achieve what they want. You don't, neither did I, but that doesn't make them plain daft.

Mind you the biggest risk never happened. Boris.

My reasons for voting remain were in no particular order:

- Countries within the UK especially Ireland, where the fact that the Republic is likely to be badly hit will add to the tensions. That is a large risk, but not primarily or exclusively economic.
- The Donald - and that one came true. That's really shorthand for Geo-political security.
- Boris. Or even worse - Gove. We escaped that.
- Yoof. Although the fact that they could get of their arse to vote tempers that a bit. They should've won it.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C:
quote:
Eh? Can you explain that a bit more?
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.

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.

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".

I do believe that the British people were denied crucial information about where the UK was aiming to position itself post Brexit. Not just the public, the government is flailing around at the moment without a clue for exactly the same reason - they've decided that a purely advisory referendum has compelled them to an action that very few in government want without the basic information of what the Leave campaign wanted in the first place.

Is that just a question of risk? Well, no. Whatever form of Brexit would have had risks - the biggest being that negotiations with the rest of the EU, and other nations, would fail to achieve the desired form of Brexit. The specific risks would be different depending on what the intention was. But, to have no plan whatsoever takes risk to a whole new level.

It's like setting out for a car journey. If I'm going to visit my mum I know I will need to fill the car with petrol, and plan to top up along the way (or, take the petrol can). I will plan to stop at particular places. I will have a clue about how long it will take. But, there are risks. A lot of road, delays which mean I stop at different places and get there late. And, there's always a small risk I won't make it at all. Those are risks, but we take them because visiting mum is a good thing and worth it. Conversely, we could just decide it's time to get the car out of the garage and drive into the wilderness, with no map or sat nav, no plan to go anywhere in particular, and a quarter tank of petrol hoping it will be enough. Add in a car full of back-seat drivers giving conflicting instructions whether to turn left or right at the junction and it's a recipe for disaster, and most would say totally stupid.

quote:
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.
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.

That is only sensible. Of course, we've probably all heard stories of people who feel called by God to missionary service overseas, so take the bus to the airport with the cash in their pocket and get a ticket for the first plane they can get on. Some would call it incredible faith in God, others stupidity. But, that's effectively what this country has done. Got on the first flight out of the EU and trusting that it'll land somewhere nice.

quote:

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.

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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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?

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?

To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.

I don't disagree with that , save for what follows - and this is going to be my last post on this, I promise.

Alan, you're arguing for a rational approach. The Leave side was never rational, but was purely emotional. It started with the appreciation that by and large, the UK has never accepted that it is a part of Europe in any sense. From that starting point, the catchy slogan "Let's Make Britain Great Again" was adopted. While it has absolutely no content it served its purpose of getting the Leave supporters to the polls,.

So those who campaign for Real Ale (similarly romantic and irrational), who worship every nut and bolt of Great Western locos, thought Morgans and HRGs were the only real cars after WW II (while the rest of the world wondered if they were cars at all, rather than the left-overs from a Meccano set), and all the others voted to Leave. No thought but lots of emotion. Indeed, does Boris Johnson have any capacity for thought?

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
AIUI, it is not that the EU can ten force the UK to leave - the 2 years day is reached and the UK then automatically ceases to be a member. It is a consequence of the treaty.

[ 05. December 2016, 19:38: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think there was a precedent set with Greenland. In any case, 'stopping the clock' has been used before in EU negotiations.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

So those who campaign for Real Ale (similarly romantic and irrational)

[Mad]

Among the many, many reasons for loathing Mr Farage, near the top of the list is the fact that real ale will now forever be associated with UKIP.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Aye. I don't understand what's irrational about CAMRA.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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, in the same manner as making Britain Great again in the revival of an imagined 1950s. That totally ignores the fact that economic power had swum the Atlantic by 1914 at the latest; the effect of WW I was to complete the swim and make the US a creditor rather than a debtor nation.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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 [..]

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?

(In fairness, my adopted country makes a considerable range of tasty (and mostly cold and fizzy) beers, not just the mass-market swill. I assume you lot make something better than Fosters and Castlemaine XXXX?)

CAMRA is a campaign for beer with flavour, and character, and individuality. And taking off the rose-tinted spectacles, one of the things about character and individuality is that sometimes it's shit. If you want to drink mass-market lager and eat at MacDonalds, be my guest. Every meal you have will be exactly the same as every other meal, and you can eat it on a plastic seat sculpted to the shape of the average buttock.

I'll pass. I'll take real ale and real food over ersatz and eating-by-numbers every day. And the price I pay for that is that, every now and then, a pint of Old Man's Todger tastes like, well, you see where I'm going.

But it doesn't happen very often.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I knew that I should not have referred to CAMRA - as I had feared, that may well take away from the real substance of my post, namely that the Leave argument was devoid of any substance and fell back into simplistic sloganeering,
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
quote:
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.
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 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)).

If this is true, you either give up the vision or go with it despite a considerable risk. Which is what was done by those who believe UK would be far better off independent of Brussels, within a remaining close relationship with the EU.

I think I may have sort of said this before. I believe that it is better that the EU stay in the EU and Scotland in the UK, but I fully understand those with a different view who are prepared to see it realised despite the inevitable risk.

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

[ 06. December 2016, 08:25: Message edited by: anteater ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C:
quote:
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.
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 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)).

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.

quote:
I believe that it is better that the EU stay in the EU
Yes, that would seem to be a good idea.

quote:

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

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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Ho ho. I corrected my EU in EU slogan, but somehow it didn't get through.

Mind you, would Cameron have won that referendum?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Supreme Court or not, the government is going to have an uphill struggle getting any kind of deal.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
It'll be interesting to see how much energy the government has left once it has surmounted that hill. It still might try and sneak an Election first.
I notice we are still getting the odd Theresa crowd pleaser coming from the radio news. Will the Brexit mob be a soft touch for a Tory victory next Spring she wonders.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Boris for Trump's Secretary of State?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
A by-election in December is a recipe for low turnout.

Remain voters swinging to Lib Dems, albeit not in large enough numbers to have much impact (they were the only party to increase their numbers, although given their abysmal showing in 2015, the only way was up),. otherwise a general verdict of "in Theresa May we trust". A bad night for UKIP, who lost votes and came a poor second and a really bad night for Labour who look likely to shed such swing voters as they retained in 2015 to the Tories, Leave voters to UKIP and Remain voters to the Lib Dems.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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) :

http://twitter.com/ftwestminster/status/807156000394395648

Article is paywalled, but going via the twitter link seems to work.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
But I mustn't say these things because I'm just talking the country down.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
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.

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.
But I mustn't say these things because I'm just talking the country down.

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.

Labour don't have a pro- or anti-Brexit position whereas the LibDem position is resolutely anti-Brexit, so they have a better chance of putting something in place, and can add that to the "Things would have been a damn sight worse between 2010 and 2015 without us" line, which is more apparent as the days go by.

Frankly I don't see Brexit happening. Davis, Fox and Johnson will fall on their swords (I think Boris must have been shown a yellow card by now). The government then comes up against the most serious problem, namely that the talent pool is desperately shallow.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's not a surprising result. This is prime Brexit country - I can look out my window, and the nearest Remain area is Norwich, across acres and acres of red, white and blue English men and women.

Labour are in danger of being squeezed. The Lib Dems could attract Remain voters, and obviously Tories will vote Tory, and UKIP will attract those who think it's not good enough. Labour has a more nuanced, or perhaps confused, position, but this is tricky in a polarized situation.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Labour are the only party without a strong narrative on Brexit - the Tories have "we're getting on with implementing the will of The People", UKIP have "we'll make sure it happens", and the Lib Dems have "it's a terrible mistake".

Labour have to finesse their position to avoid losing the metropolitan lefties if they come out in favour, or the working class core vote if they come out against. "We're going to hold the government to account but then back them anyway" isn't a great vote winner. Until Brexit moves off the top of the agenda (and how many years will that be?) Labour are going to have problems getting heard.

I don't think Sleaford tells us anything much, it's solid Tory country. The Lib Dems will be disappointed not to have scored another big shock, but they can take comfort that their recovery seems to be continuing.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

This is all fine, as far as it goes, but cometh the hour of negotiating Mr Rubber is going to have to make the acquaintance of Mr Road. When the negotiations begin in earnest they will happen against the backdrop of withering commentary as the gulf between aspiration and reality hits home on the one hand, and Mr Farage, and the Tory Leavers on the other, operating as a kind of Greek chorus crying out "Woe! Woe! I See Brexit Betrayed". At which point her commanding lead in the polls will look distinctly less commanding, I should imagine.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
But who will the lead be over, Callan?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, good analysis. If I was her, I would time an election (if she can engineer one), before the heady fumes of coulda woulda shoulda Brexit have dispelled. But I would think that she will win anyway, even if the hard-liners go over to UKIP.

I think Labour could hammer at issues like the cuts and the NHS, and the dangers of hard Brexit, but I don't know if they can withstand the hysteria over Brexit. The shouts of 'traitor' are going to get louder.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Labour may be trying to keep their hands out of the blood as far as being pro or anti Brexit is concerned, then they can be in a position to benefit from any backlash. Seems to be about the only option open to them anyway, also one not open to the Tories. As Callan says, being in the driving seat the Tories will eventually have to decide which road to take.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
It's almost as though Labour members and friends voted for the guy with no leadership skills, without the confidence of his MPs, and without a consistent position on Europe, in place of the guy who wanted Labour to lobby unambiguously for Britain to remain or rejoin the EU.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Also I noticed that the Richmond Labour Party has more members than actually voted for their candidate ...
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also I noticed that the Richmond Labour Party has more members than actually voted for their candidate ...

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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Also I noticed that the Richmond Labour Party has more members than actually voted for their candidate ...

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.
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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Wot? Voting for the triangulating neoliberal Tory-cuts-enablers on the grounds of electability? Surely the Corbynistas are above such ideological compromises ...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
All that Labour can do right now is wait out this period of collective insanity. I think that opposing Brexit would be suicidal, especially in some areas.

If some ex-Labour voters think that voting Tory/UKIP/Brexit will bring them prosperity or whatever, then they have to test that out.

2020 is a long way off, and we don't know what will have happened, to Brexit, to the Tories, or to Labour. I can't see any alternative.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I have just discovered that my speech-to-text software transcribes "Brexit" as "breaks it".

(It often seems to be some sort of Delphic oracle).
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
The latest YouGov poll makes good reading for the LibDems:

CON 42%, LAB 25%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%, GRN 4%

Fieldwork was done shortly after the Richmond Park result, so they probably got a boost from that, but they are trending up. If they can start consistently polling ahead of UKIP, that will be significant IMO - 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.

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, but this surely represents a ceiling for them from which the only way is down.

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. The problems with Brexit will become all too apparent over the next year or so, and then the Tory's aura of all-seeing competence will start to fade.

Conversely if Labour came out for Brexit they'd lose the metropolitan vote and people would doubt their sincerity. Getting out of this hole will take patience and guile, qualities which are in rather short supply in today's Labour party.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

And, the SNP who already have a larger parliamentary presence than the LibDems and Greens combined.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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

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.
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.

Mrs May has managed to make herself quite popular by not being Cameron, by not saying anything about Brexit beyond obscure Delphic slogans, and by deploying the occasional dead cat (see grammar schools). As said in posts passim , once she has to decide what sort of Brexit to pursue, the fragile coalitions that are the Tory party and the Brexit vote will start to fragment.

I think that the Tory lead is soft, consisting largely of a new leader bump assisted by an opposition in disarray. At the moment a plurality of people regards the current government as the least worst option, but it is not well-loved.

I'm sure her inner circle are screaming at her to go for an early election.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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

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.
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.

The only reason the Tories are on 40+ is that UKIP has collapsed, Labour is in the doldrums and the LibDems are still tarred with the Coalition brush. Against that background the Tories should be on 60+.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

How many Labour-held leave constituencies care more about Brexit than an appearance of economic competence and having some solution to their problems?
I can believe that Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells puts Brexit in his top three political issues that determines how he votes. But he's voting Tory or UKIP whatever happens.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
The Tories won't even mention the word Election until well into the New Year. At the moment there is voter fatigue after the referendum and general bewilderment over events in America.

There are though two massive incentives for TM to go to the Country in 2017
1/ No one really knows how ugly the EU pullout will look come 2020
2/ Labour is in depleted condition and the Electorate simply don't know what to make of JC.

Put like that she'd be plain stupid not to pull a quickie. The Omens are way too uncertain for any politician to try and play around.
 
Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :
 
Since the legislation was changed to give fixed term parliaments the PM can't just call an election when it suits their party. Presumably there would need to be a vote of no confidence or similar, which other parties may have the wisdom not to support until they've got themselves in a better position.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.

Labour would make themselves a laughing-stock if they tried to delay an election because of unfavourable polls - it's the opposition's raison d'etre to fight and win a general election as soon as possible.

What might frustrate attempts to call a snappie is a cross-party alliance of remainers worried about the large and very Brexit-ey Tory majority that would probably be returned.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I'd have thought the main objection to calling a snap election is that if Ms May is determined to have a plan in place to trigger Article 50 by the end of March then she simply doesn't have time to abolish the Fixed Term Parliament Act and fight an election campaign as well.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM? Leaving aside the wasted years of the coalition - all those grotesquely unfair cuts and all that economic stagnation for no gain whatsoever - when was the last time a PM resigned so suddenly and in such ignominious circumstances? Even Eden staggered on for a few months after Suez.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
At the very least she was a much more effective Prime Minister than Mr Cameron.

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.

On the other hand, a PM who spends his or her tenure fannying about, fighting pointless battles, and generally pissing away any negotiating points he or she had, whilst not actually accomplishing any significant part of his or her aims is a pretty useless PM. If you are opposed to the PM's politics, perhaps you'd like a useless one.

On these standards, Thatcher scores highly, and Cameron scores pretty low, but the only person to score negative points is probably Deputy PM Nick Clegg.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Nick Clegg was quite effective at moderating many tory policies (eg: welfare reforms) and so IMO scores positive points for effectiveness.

He scores incredibly massive negative points for abysmal PR, because he never told anyone what he was doing so we only became aware of it when he was no longer there to influence government policy. Which, for a politician, is practically unforgivable. And, more than enough to offset all the positives.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.
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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.

But, ultimately no worse an exercise in determining what people think than an un-defined question in a referendum.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.


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.

It's just now a thing.

Frankly, I barely take much notice of proper polling, but this sort of stuff would be laughable if it wasn't actually seriously used as ammunition for one point of view or another.

[ 11. December 2016, 12:41: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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?

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.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.

[ 11. December 2016, 15:12: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.

eta: in May 2020 there should be an election. If it is a straight "in/out" fight, which isn't out of the question if invoking Article 50 is delayed to 2018 then the downsides of Brexit will be more obvious.

[ 11. December 2016, 15:35: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

Sure, but that's not going to happen in a vacuum. There will also presumably be people going in the opposite direction.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I have to say that I do wonder about the tailspin which Brexit has caused the EU and whether it is even possible for the thing to climb out. I honestly don't know if I would vote Remain today, both because the EU looks increasingly irreparably damaged and because the UK should have to face up to the consequences of what we've done.

There maybe little economic British interest in remaining in the union that we've already holed below the waterline.

If that's not totally mindblowing, I don't know what is.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I expect the 2020 election will return a significant number of explicitly pro-EU MPs. I predict more than 20 LibDems, over 50 SNP, probably a Green or two, and some Labour and Conservative pro-EU MPs. That will result in a similar number, if not more, to the number of MPs wanting to Leave elected in 2015. Which, if that number of MPs was enough to pass a bill for an in/out referendum it should be enough for a rejoin referendum - though, I hope that they do it properly and have the extensive Parliamentary discussion, then with Parliamentary approval determine the terms for readmission and all the rest of the work needed before putting it to the people.

Assuming the idiocy of the current government hasn't totally wrecked the EU (though, to be honest, if the EU is that fragile it would have broken in 2008 with the economic crash and the problems faced by Greece and other nations, or over Syrian refugees) I can see a strong movement to rejoin having ascendency by 2030. I hope to live long enough to see the UK back in the EU.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

FWIW my thoughts are similar, although I would probably still vote remain. The things which have struck me are:

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.

2. 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. Since we're told that the EU is about more than economics, ISTM more honest for Britain to be out of it, and better for the EU to be able to pursue its non-economic objectives without being held back by a bunch of moaning Brits.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The benefits of European cooperation in science and technology. The richness of cultures across Europe, and the benefits of sharing those cultures through other EU nationals coming to the UK and UK citizens moving elsewhere in Europe. Cooperation in security and policing. Our common recognition of human rights. That I admire the German government for being open to refugees, and ashamed of our borders closed to people in need. That Scandinavian welfare systems are something we should be emulating, rather than letting more and more people slide into poverty and reliance on food banks.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Conversely, a deal that 10% worse than the current deal would be a good deal, but would still leave the UK severely out of pocket (currently the cost of the deal we have is essentially 100m a week, and 10% of the current deal is a figure quite a bit bigger than that).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

[ 11. December 2016, 22:31: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Ricardus:
quote:
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU...
You think international cooperation is a bad thing? [Disappointed]

Oh, and what Alan said.

[ 12. December 2016, 07:48: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Rocinante:
quote:
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.
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.

This means that the Act really would be saying, the party of the day cannot spring an Election at will without the consent of parliament. Which has some limited use.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Chris Styles:
quote:
the fears of Federalism are overblown and silly.
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.

Now this does not require federalism, but it does require closer integration, and I cannot see it working without a common EU fiscal policy and pooled debts, as a minimum. Stiglitz is well worth reading on this, as he is a strong EU supporter.

So as a minimum you will end up with a closely integrated Eurozone, which will effectively be the "real" EU, with a wider grouping (currently only envisaged as Denmark and UK), as a sort of EEA plus.

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?) if he could have, I do not think it paranoid at all to think that a UK PM, given the right sort of arm-twisting, would also join, so we could well end up in a closer union, even if not formally federal.

So if you say that this is all pie-in-the-sky and that countries like Hungary, Poland et al will never sign up for that, and possible will permanently extend there period of adjusting to the Euro so that it never happens, then you could be right.

But in that case, I think the Euro fails and the EU is changed beyond recognition. And maybe we would then rejoin, and we could be welcomed - whilst va fanculo (if I may quote the logo of the 5 star movement), is also quote possible.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM?

I think he was ultimately unremarkable. Certainly not one of the best, but by no means one of the worst either.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
It depends on what one means by a "good Prime Minister", doesn't it?

Ay, there's the rub!
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Ricardus:
quote:

I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Chris Styles:
quote:
the fears of Federalism are overblown and silly.
I think you may well be right, but if so

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.


quote:
[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.

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).

quote:

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?)

Advocating Brexit to avoid this is a rather extreme over-reaction (I'll avoid falling over by shooting off my leg!)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

On most sensible measures we'd not be in many/any of those positions today, so the power that we have is largely inherited from the empire era.

Anyway, that's all added up to us having a superiority complex. The world needs us to succeed, therefore we can cast off the EU nonsense and rise victorious to our true place as masters of the universe.

If that sounds racist, that's because it is.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I'm of the view that in the history of how empires end none has ever been closed down with quite so little obvious psychological damage to the ex-power (on the surface). Yes, there was massive unpleasantness in various colonies, but the British national nervous breakdown never happened, nor did the final cataclysmic vanquishing battle nor the barbarians arrival within the gates. Unlike the Romans, Greeks, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Byzantium, and pretty well any other empire you care to mention.

For a long time the lack of an outbreak of national hysteria from which we can then all move on has been seen as a good thing, but to be honest I'm not so sure. 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.

[ 12. December 2016, 10:16: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

And the problem with this kind of postponement is that the eventual reckoning occurs when people have a very tenuous connection with the actual facts of Empire.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Ricardus:
quote:
I'm not particularly sold on the non-economic aspects of the EU...
You think international cooperation is a bad thing? [Disappointed]

Oh, and what Alan said.

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.)

Not that I think European peace and brotherhood are bad things, but I think equating them with a particular human institution has unfortunate consequences. Specifically:

1. The euro - there seems to be a widespread view among economists of both the right and the left that it won't work in its current form without creating additional structures. But the politicians went for it anyway because it's a powerful symbol of the aforesaid peace and brotherhood.

2. It replaces French or German nationalism with European nationalism. Evidence: nobody cared particularly about screwing non-European economies by dumping CAP surpluses.

3. It leads to Euroscepticism being treated as immoral instead of just misguided.

4. There is a lot of hypocrisy about it anyway - the Greek crisis and the refugee crisis saw plenty of members acting in a nationalistic way.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

Well, yes. That seems almost tautological to me.

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 [Big Grin] )?

.

*= 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.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM?

I think he was ultimately unremarkable.
But wasn't the EU membership referendum Cameron's own cunning plan? Seems pretty remarkable to me.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

And, individuals within nations often accept higher costs for ethical reasons - fair trade, for example.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

Well, yes. That seems almost tautological to me.

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 [Big Grin] )?

.

*= 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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Lol; the examples just keep coming.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

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.

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

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I'm afraid I don't share your confidence that the EU will reform.

Which pre-supposes that the EU needs to reform. The old maxim is "if it's not broken, don't fix it".

There are some rough edges which could benefit from tinkering - the progress in reducing "throw back" in fisheries has been a good start, but there are still problems there, as an example. There are stresses resulting from external circumstances - the 2008 economic crash and the Syrian refugees and general illegal immigration among them. The EU probably needs to review it's response and identify how to deal with these issues better.

But, what fundamentally needs reforming? Does the three-fold power structure which balances the needs for some central beaurocracy and legislation with the sovereignty of each nation work? I would say it does pretty well - though maybe a small adjustment in the relative power of each leg might be needed (maybe more power to Parliament and Council at the expense of the Commission) but that's tinkering not reform. The common market works quite well providing the freedom of movement is not restricted and the regional development funding to balance different regions in the markets is maintained. The EU funding of science and technology from "blue skies" through to market has been an outstanding success. The Euro was (and is) a logical progression of the common market (preventing currency fluctuations in different regions from skewing the market), but may have been better if implemented more slowly rather than rushing to include nations which hadn't achieved the necessary economic resilience.

But, that's all tinkering rather than outright reform.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Are you trying to argue that Cameron was not a terrible PM?

I think he was ultimately unremarkable. Certainly not one of the best, but by no means one of the worst either.
If Cameron reads that he'll be like "Yeah! Unremarkable! Take that! Get in!!" <<Fist Pump>>

(Stops channelling inner teenager)
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

Or want. It's not all about needs, not by a long chalk.

quote:
Trade needs to be a win-win.
Just one more reason for the EU to give us a good deal, then [Smile] .

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes indeed, take Britain back to the 1890's. 1914 is too late as the US was comfortably the dominant economic power by then, even though (i) no-one outside the US realised that at the time and (ii) the US had no wish to provide any sort of political leadership.

The UK never treated the EU as anything more than a trading bloc, with a marked indifference to any other aspect of it. The Liberals were the only party that saw beyond that, and by the time of EU entry were on one of their downhill slides.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

Or want. It's not all about needs, not by a long chalk.
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.

Or one could also consider it is because the Chinese are rather better at thinking ahead than we are. Whilst they're servicing our appetite for cheap rubbish, they're also developing markets where we wouldn't want to trade by investing in roads and infrastructure. They're developing those markets - in time, perhaps, they might become rather better than we are, so they might not need to continue selling us cheap rubbish. Instead they might use their trading muscle to impose price increases on a "take it or leave it" basis, knowing that they've been quietly developing markets, knowing that all this time they've been strengthening their trade position.

Imagining that we are in a "strong" position because we're rich enough to demand that our "trading partners" supply us with the things we want at highly advantageous terms is something of a misnomer, in my opinion.

quote:
quote:
Trade needs to be a win-win.
Just one more reason for the EU to give us a good deal, then [Smile]
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:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
All of that is still an argument based on economic self-interest, though.

For that matter, so are arguments of the type 'Britain is no longer a great power, so we must learn to get along with people.'
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

This is perfectly consistent with my contention that each country is out to get the best deal it can for itself. China is absolutely following the same "trading and other international relationships only exist to make us, our lives, our economy, better and stuff everyone else" policy that you so despise in the UK.

quote:
quote:
quote:
[qb]Trade needs to be a win-win.

Just one more reason for the EU to give us a good deal, then [Smile]
Again, that rather depends on what it is that everyone wants from the deal.
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.

I don't actually believe that trade needs to be win-win, of course, so I'm not expecting them to do us any major favours unless it's in their own interests to do so.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
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.

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
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Given how little we've invested in trade negotiators

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.

In a post-Brexit world the UK government will need to directly employ trade negotiators. And, those people will need to a) negotiate a trade deal with the EU (and, anyone who thinks the EU isn't going to be our largest trading partner for the foreseeable future is living in some cloud cuckoo land), b) negotiate trade deals with all other nations we want trade deals with (in many cases having just ripped up a trade deal through the EU).

It's probably a good time to be someone with expertise and experience in international trade negotiations. Though whether the UK government wil find the money to pay these thousands of new staff they'll need is another matter. And, of course, they'll probably need to recruit internationally since it's almost certain there aren't enough UK citizens with the relevant qualifications - which will go against the anti-foreigner policies the government is adopting.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
We don't need to be leaving the EU to benefit from trade with the wider world.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

Even though whilst inside this is part of a bigger trading bloc and outside is an isolated island.

No, the EU is not the only place we can trade. But outside we're likely to get a worse trading deal with the countries that already have a deal with the EU - and are likely to get a worse deal with the EU.

[ 13. December 2016, 11:11: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

Why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting we have absolutely nothing to offer them?

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting we have absolutely nothing to offer them?

Why should they? What do you think we've got to offer?

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.
Ok, so whilst we train/recruit those negotiators, what are you thinking we'll be doing in the meantime?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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?

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:
Even though whilst inside this is part of a bigger trading bloc and outside is an isolated island.
The fifth largest economy in the world is "an isolated island". Sure.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Because that's not how trading deals work. In fact that's not how any diplomacy works.

quote:
]The fifth largest economy in the world is "an isolated island". Sure.
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Why wouldn't they? Are you suggesting we have absolutely nothing to offer them?

Why should they? What do you think we've got to offer?
Everything we're currently offering. We're the fifth largest economy in the world - we must be doing something right!

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:
Ok, so whilst we train/recruit those negotiators, what are you thinking we'll be doing in the meantime?
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Delusion reigns.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

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.

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.

At the risk of talking Britain down, I think I may have identified a small flaw in that strategy.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But if you need specifics then financial services

/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.

quote:
[qb]aerospace manufacturing

Which includes a large amount of work on Airbus, a pan-European business, and the Eurofighter (the name speaks for itself)

quote:
education
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.

quote:
and pharmaceuticals
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).

quote:
are all areas in which we are amongst the best in the world.
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?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Marvin:
quote:
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).
Let's see.

Education? Mostly internal, except for higher education. Mostly paid for by public funds (so the budget will go down if the economy shrinks, which every reputable forecaster seems to think it will). It could be argued that higher education is one of our major exports: universities have been encouraging students from outside the EU to study here because they can make a profit on them, which can then be used to plug (some of) the funding gap. Unfortunately, overseas students are waking up to the fact that a large proportion of the British population doesn't want them here and are going elsewhere. As for research - well, apparently British businesses don't believe in it. Pity, that, because 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?

Healthcare? Well, if you're rich enough to pay for it I suppose. However most of the healthcare in this country is provided by the (seriously underfunded) NHS, which also has the delightful task of picking up the pieces after the private healthcare sector screws up. Again, mostly internal and publicly funded.

Real estate? According to this analysis, London's property market is the second most overvalued in the world. It's also driven by foreign investors who like to buy up newly built flats and then leave them sitting empty. Setting aside the question of whether this is a good thing, when there are thousands of British people who need decent housing, what do you think will happen if the foreign investors suddenly decide to move their money somewhere else? They aren't likely to have a sentimental attachment to Britain; they're in the game to make money and they don't like political uncertainty.

Tourism? This accounts for about 10% of the economy, which is good, but some of that will be internal tourism. If you want overseas visitors bringing money into the economy (as opposed to moving it from one British pocket to another) you will have to reconcile yourself to the sight of many more foreigners cluttering up your streets, and shut up all the xenophobic Brexiteers who are gloating over Taking Their Country Back. Most people do not enjoy going on holiday to places where they are not welcome.

You may think I'm being pessimistic. I think I'm being realistic. Hope for the best... prepare for the worst.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
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).

Real value, or asset inflation?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
What nobody seems to mention - perhaps its the elephant in the room - is the haulage industry. The haulage industry in Britain provides huge numbers employment and represents approximately £30 billion. I'm not sure how immediate the effects of article 50 will be felt, but this seems to me to be the cold face of it, which is also why it amazes me that nobody is mentioning it. There is of course the internal haulage in the UK, but the vast majority of it is operative over Europe. How such a business could survive is slightly worrying. It's a great opportunity for the rest of Europe, but there are issues to consider like duty, which will have quite a powerful effect on a business like haulage.

If you were to take haulage as one example of where it all might hit, then a very large proportion of people stand to lose their jobs and a number of companies may not be able to make it in a changed market where everyone else in Europe is suddenly more competitive than them. This of course is but one example and I know there will be some that will say 'Oh but Europe will have to do something about this and give us a great deal in our terms for the exit' but the reality is you can't ask Europe to do you favours as you leave it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I'm guessing Marvin is not old enough to remember the 1970s brain drain, but many of the people who voted for Brexit are. I can only assume they have no idea how important universities are to the economy.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The whole industry, particularly in the UK, is in contraction.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
[on a personal note, universities are quite important to those of us who work in them]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[on a personal note, universities are quite important to those of us who work in them]

All industries are important to those who work in them. Is this supposed to add something to this conversation?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

Presumably that publication thinks they're all experts and the British people are better off without people who know what they're talking about?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

I wouldn't say incapable.

But, I would also question the validity of waving around the UKs current status (whether that's "5th largest economy" or our scientific or financial success) when that has been built on a foundation that has included EU membership. Take away that EU membership and many of our institutions and businesses will need to quite radically change to the new situation - and therefore the current status of the UK will be different. There are difficult times ahead, and I would be surprised if in 20 years time the UK is still leading the world in many of the areas where we currently do - which isn't the same as not surviving.

Of course, if it's considered important enough then the UK can adopt policies which will compensate for the losses following Brexit - eg: exempt relevant areas from immigration controls (eg: students, research staff, medical staff, financial workers ...), invest significant money in infrastructure and research, cut business taxes to compensate for increased expense if there are barriers to trade etc ... but, I don't really see the current government responding in such a sensible way, not least because doing so will show up just how big a bargain our membership of the EU is and therefore what a stupid idea Brexit is.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Years ago when IDS was in charge of the Tories, there was a newspaper column which compared him to the people the columnist had seen in the pubs around Marylebone in the 50s, typically ex-RAF officers, who had all sorts of get rich quick schemes that involved getting into the wine or motor trade, the best of which ended in marrying a heiress. The current trend of trying to make trade policy on the hoof is very reminiscent of this kind of approach. The UK is very unlikely to end up in a better place by winging it.

[ 13. December 2016, 15:33: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Given that plenty of other countries with economies worse than ours are able to make trade deals, the post in question seems to me unnecessarily pessimistic.

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. If we are just going to dismiss every possible outcome as crap because the world hates us or is indifferent to us, then this does nothing to advance the debate and leaves the stage clear to the actual Brexit loonies.

[ 14. December 2016, 05:20: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The other problem the Remain camp has always had is that we don't know what of the options we are campaigning against. A year after that should have been decided, at least in outline, and it's still a black box. And, when we stand up to campaign for what we believe to be the best option (which is to give up on this stupid Brexit idea and stay in the EU) we're blasted by the media, some have received death threats even. Yet, we then get told we're being unreasonably negative.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I am not "from the Remain camp", I think for myself thanks very much.

The rosy Brexit future is based on getting good terms of trade from the EU (which they say isn't happening) and getting better-than-WTO terms from other countries.

The debate then must be around the likelihood of those things happening. I say the EU is unlikely to award good terms to the common market (because to do so would risk the collapse of the whole EU project) and thus it would be more expensive to trade with our nearest neighbours.

The trade deals that the EU has been seeking with the USA and Canada have been opposed by many due to the disproportionate corporate tradeoffs that they insist on having. Even if such deals were available to the UK (not a given) there may well be bitter opposition to those kinds of terms here.

China is interested in accessing large markets, and out of the EU we are part of a much smaller market. This suggests that the terms will be worse, but I suppose it is possible China will offer us a cracking deal without strings.

India might offer a deal. But then their investments in the UK steel industry have not been an unqualified success - so one might wonder at the extent to which Indian inwards investment in the UK would follow especially out with of the EU access.

Outward trade to these places is likely to be more difficult than current trade to the EU. So we'd be left with more expensive and more difficult trade with the EU or difficult trade with the other big players.

Other than woolly claims, I've not seen any reason for thinking that post-Brexit will be a success any time soon and lots to suggest it is going to be tough.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I am not "from the Remain camp", I think for myself thanks very much.

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'.

The rest of your post is entirely true, but is equally true for other non-EU countries that nevertheless manage to cut deals.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

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?

So come on, which countries in particular have trade deals you think are worth emulating?

[ 14. December 2016, 09:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Absolutely, and assuming there was indications of a clearly worked out plan for doing all this then scepticism would be misplaced.

As it is the UK is going to see a short term loss of trading arrangements (due to Brexit) and doesn't seem to have any idea of what to do in the mid-term to replace it (Trumpian pronouncements that include the word 'China' don't count as a plan).
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
quote:
. . it's difficult to see any outcome which doesn't leave the UK economically, socially, culturally and politically worse off
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.

This links very much with the concern of the lack of an EU demos, which is rather essential to democracy.

I am implying that (and I think this is widely accepted) a (mere) aggregate of individuals is not a functioning demos, which is why democracy is so tricky where you have countries divided into mutually suspicious groups, and which can only work as some sort of federal structure.

And one thing that unites a lot of Brexiteers and Europhiles is the belief that for the EU to fulfill its potential it needs to evolve into a federal structure. And for those who value that vision, I can fully understand their frustration at seeing it receding more and more.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The ones that are made between WTO members. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any point in making them.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Right, truth is you don't actually know do you.

Bilateral trade deals are agreed between countries, otherwise trade continues to WTO rules which include tariffs on products we otherwise export to the EU. Which either means our products are more expensive to export, other products are more expensive to import than they were to the EU or likely both.

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we would agree trade deals with individual countries, but they'd likely need to be negotiated individually. Some countries who have tariff free trade agreements with the EU may not want to have the same agreement with us.

And the fact is that outside of the EU, we've got precious little that anyone wants except for a consumer market. So you can't compare us to the USA (large internal market, large amount of raw materials), Australia (raw materials), Canada (petroleum, wood, natural resources plus location), Brazil (large internal market, agriculture, raw materials) Norway (paying for EU trade under EU rules), Russia (petroleum etc).

So, I ask again, who exactly are we thinking we will model our trade deals on and on what basis? It is just hotair, isn't it. You have absolutely no idea.

[ 14. December 2016, 15:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

The UK plans to carry out a trade deal of great advantage, but no one to know what it is.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
[Axe murder] [Axe murder] Merry Christmas to you too mr cheesy. [Axe murder] [Axe murder]

(I'll respond properly later.)
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
In short, affluence has not made us happy, so we have voted for national impoverishment.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
OK, proper response to mr cheesy.

1. Fortunately for those who are full of hot air and have no idea what we are talking about, Wikipedia provides a list of bilateral trade agreements. Pick one where both sides are also WTO members. Is it a wild dream? Probably not, they stopped me editing Wikipedia just to support arguments on the Ship. Is it better than WTO rules alone? Probably, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered signing it. Would it work if 'United Kingdom' were substituted for either of the partners? Probably not, the whole point of a bilateral agreement is that it's bespoke to the signatories; the point is that such agreements are possible. Does each signatory have more to offer than the UK? Well, if one signatory is a country the chances are that the economy is smaller. Jordan is in there with a trade deal with the US. (And before anyone says 'Aha! Oil!' Jordan does not in fact have any oil.)

2. The UK has a bunch of trade agreements with non-EU countries via the EU. Obviously these will lapse once we leave the EU, and the questions are a.) whether we will be allowed to grandfather the EU rules until we make a deal of our own, and b.) whether they will actually be interested in continuing a relationship. Point (a) is discussed in some depth here (conclusion: maybe). On point (b) the major cause for optimism is that unlike most trade deals we would not have to faff about agreeing standards because our standards are already sufficiently harmonised by virtue of the existing agreement within the EU.

3. On the specific question of what I think a post-Brexit trading arrangement should look like: 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 (link and link) and you get single market access. Granted this is not a popular option within our beloved government but I'd still say it has more of a chance of happening than a rerun of the referendum.

* Mr Davis was asked this afternoon if he accepted that joining any kind of trading bloc would imply subjecting Britain to the oversight of whatever body arbitrates disputes within the bloc. He said yes but it would be totally different from EU oversight. I'm not overwhelmingly convinced by the distinction he makes but if it works for him ...

[ 14. December 2016, 23:00: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
The thing is, it's not about Tariffs. Not really. Tariffs are easy. Have them, don't have them. It's a marginal cost on trade but actually a small one.

What it's really about is harmonisation of regulation. And this is hugely complicated. Financial products, food, cars, electronics etc. Etc.

Imagine if Manchester and London had different food safety rules, the farmer raising cattle in Cheshire can't sell it to a London restaurant. Clearly that's crazy. So we have rules about animal husbandry, use of antibiotics, arbortoir, packaging and refrigeration. This is what means I can buy food with a high degree of confidence that I won't get food poisoning.

Or look are car manufacturing, complex supply chains and lots of safety critical parts. Imagine for a moment that a new manufacturer wants to sell cars into the UK from, say Ghana (pick any country you like). They would have to be build to UK legal standards or they wouldn't be allowed to sell.

Trade deals are all about agreeing common rules. So that EU car manufacturers can make cars and sell them to all EU countries without adhering to 28 different standards. There are essentially 2 ways to do this: either you go for the lowest common denominator and have minimal regulation or you have detailed negotiations and agree rules that work for everyone. That's complicated but the EU has spend 40 years doing it.

As the UK leaves the EU, one of two things will happen. Either UK regulation will diverge from the EU and British business will face increasing costs and lower productivity and the bigger cost to the nation of running these regulatorary framework rather than sharing the cost with other EU nations. Or the UK will just copy the EU rules- effectively being governed by the EU whilst having no say in writing the rules! Currently, if you talk to people who actually know what they're talking about, virtually nothing happens in the EU unless the big three (Germany, France and UK) agree. The notion that the UK is dictated to by Europe is just ridiculous.

The UK is the 5th or 6th largest economy in the world and we are still a big manufacturer but leaving the EU will be a big dent on UK productivity. This is why there's a big cost to leaving.

AFZ
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
£34 billion (if that was in any sense accurate) does not seem like a small amount to pay for export/import duties, tax and paperwork.

Of course, if we could find an export partner who would take our exports, not charge tariffs and not have high standards, we'd be in gravy. But, I submit, if that happened we'd almost inevitably have to sell cheap and therefore devalue.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Sorry if I'm being slow, but what is the significance of £34Billion ?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
That was an estimate of the cost to UK business of the extra export tarifs due to brexit.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-could-cost-the-uk-34bn-in-export-tax-and-other-trade-barriers-sajid-ja vid-says-a7068696.html
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Thanks.

Our ambassador to the EU is saying that a new trade deal with the EU might take 10 years to agree, and then will need to be ratified by all the national parliaments.

Ye gods...a decade of hot air and red tape just to get back to not quite where we started. Still, it'll be a nice gravy train for civil servants and lawyers - it's an ill wind and all that.

"Might" is a loaded word - could be 5 years, could be 20. The uncertainty will be very damaging.

I too am starting to favour EFTA as the least worst option. But it won't satisfy May's Brexit headbangers, and so I can't see it happening.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

In further Brexit news, Lloyds of London plan to establish an EU base next year:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/lloyd%e2%80%99s-of-london-to-establish-eu-base-in-the-new-year/ar-AAlAiJA?li=BBx1bGE

Key quote:

"The market will then seek regulatory clearance for the new subsidiary, which will be used to conduct business around the EU using the “passporting” system. This allows financial services businesses to conduct trade across the bloc from a single location."
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Talk of Brexit headbangers pulls me up short - how have we got to a place where they are so dominant, both in the media, and politics? Is it English nationalism, retro nostalgia for the Empire, racism, a shift to the right, a mixture, I suppose.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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

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.


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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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

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.


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.
Hardly any point now, as EFTA is a small club, consisting as it does of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and (up to a point) Switzerland.

Quite how the UK could join EFTA without joining the EEA is a mystery to me, and one which would require the agreement of the other members of EFTA who might feel swamped by the UK.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

Assuming, of course, that the whole thing isn't a fait accompli, at that point.

It would be quite funny, if the Lib Dems swept to power with the sort of majority associated with Mr Blair, or Mrs Thatcher, in their pomp if only to watch various eminent political commentators gibber with outrage but it doesn't seem terribly likely at this stage of the game.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Leave-vs-Remain-podium-rankings.jpg

Yes, it does diminish the second reason somewhat, but on a less cynical note there are some indications that a, a reasonable number of Leave voters were vaguely envisaging something somewhat like EFTA when they voted 'Leave'. b, support for a total-break goes way down if there are severe economic consequences for individuals.

However, in order to go down this road the UK would require good political leadership, a different print media and a different Tory party.

So it is probably all moot.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

(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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
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.

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.

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...

Of course, by 2020 the Lib Dems, who used to be in favour of a EU referendum before they were against it, may have switched back again / seen which way the wind was blowing and also accepted that Britain is going to leave the EU for good.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
48% of the country rejected a concept that is about to seriously impoverish it, and yet you are content that this part of the country should have no representation anywhere? And this is pluralist democracy? Words fail me. We not live in a totalitarian mob rule - or at least not yet.

Brexiteers are behaving like Gollum - possession at all costs.

We are not willing to pay the cost of their infantile, paranoid maunderings and will not go down without far more of a fight.

[ 16. December 2016, 07:18: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
48% of the country rejected a concept that is about to seriously impoverish it

I think around 52% of voters might disagree with that assertion.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Which part? That they knew Leave was going to make us worse off (not sure anyone is seriously arguing no economic impact now) or that they wouldn't have necessarily voted that way I'd they'd known?
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
48% of the country rejected a concept that is about to seriously impoverish it

I think around 52% of voters might disagree with that assertion.
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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.

Labour were strongly in favour of EU membership. "Labour believes that our membership of the European Union is central to our prosperity and security. ... we will re-engage with our European allies ... after five years of Britain being sidelined in Europe ... The economic case for membership of the EU is overwhelming."

The Conservatives, of course, had the daft idea of an in/out referendum. But also "We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbocharging free trade. Yes to working together where we are
stronger together than alone. Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union".

"Liberal Democrats want Britain to remain a member of the EU because we are fighting for a stronger economy and British jobs. Being in Europe allows Britain to project strength in the world when negotiating climate change agreements, in trade talks with global players like the USA and China, and when introducing sanctions against countries like Russia."

SNP "we will oppose a referendum on membership of the EU. Being part of Europe is good for business and it supports jobs in Scotland and across the UK"

With the exception of the single UKIP MP, every single MP who votes in favour of any move away from EU membership or campaigns for leaving the EU does so against the express wishes of the electorate who voted for them under a manifesto commitment to remain in the EU.

If we fast forward to 2020, what are we expecting in the party manifestos? Assuming the most likely course happens and we leave the EU in 2019 the will obviously be no commitment to take the UK out of the EU. There will be a lot of statements about making the best out of the position the UK is in, which for Labour and Conservatives will almost certainly avoid any language which might suggest that this Parliament and government cocked it up big time in taking us out of the EU. I'd hope the LibDems and Greens will retain their positive position towards the EU and put that "making the best" statement within a context of leaving the EU being a mistake, and with a stated long term aim of reversing that and gaining readmission to the EU. The SNP, of course, will focus on Scottish Independence and that an independent Scotland would seek EU membership. UKIP, if they exist by then, will have a manifesto celebrating Brexit and committing to remaining outside the EU.

I'm not sure what can be denied about those likely positions. The exact form of "making the best of the situation" will vary, of course.

So, if as I suggest every LibDem, SNP and Green MP elected in 2020 is elected under a "seek to rejoin the EU" manifesto that will be a significant minority seeking readmission. And, none of the Labour or Conservative MPs will be elected on a specific "stay out" manifesto. Even now with three contested by-elections since the referendum we have had two MPs elected on taking the UK out of the EU and one opposed to that. A sample of four MPs is hardly significant, but if that was carried to 2020 and we get 25% of MPs elected on a rejoin the EU platform I would be delighted.

Of course, I'd be even more delighted if Theresa May went back to reread the manifesto she was elected under. And, stand by the Conservative Party position to be part of a family of nations within the EU.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C: If I can heark back a bit.

quote:
Which pre-supposes that the EU needs to reform. The old maxim is "if it's not broken, don't fix it".
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.

My current main bugbear is secrecy, where key decisions are taken by small groups behind impenetrable walls of secrecy, where the only outsiders who get to know what's going on are lobbyists with big expense accounts.

At least that's how I see the trilogue system as explained here and here, with the catchy headlines: "Where European democracy goes to die" and "Trilogues: the system that undermines EU democracy and transparency". A few selections:

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:
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?
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.

As Politico (q.v. supra) says:
quote:
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.
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.

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:
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.

 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:
52% of those who voted.

"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.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
48% of the country rejected a concept that is about to seriously impoverish it

I think around 52% of voters might disagree with that assertion.
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
48% of the country rejected a concept that is about to seriously impoverish it

I think around 52% of voters might disagree with that assertion.
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.
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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:

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.

OTOH it's far far more prevalent in a Westminster context (due to the centralisation of power/media/industry elites around London) where you often won't even hear that lobbying has occurred and where the Supreme Court are far more likely to go along with the wishes of the powerful than the ECJ (who at least have the corrective of a written rights document to rule against).

To mention two recent events; there is no record of what went on at the meeting between Murdoch and May: https://goo.gl/EQTv2C - of course the Minister in charge of implementing Levenson has a single Senior Advisor - who was formerly senior political correspondent at the Sun.

More germane perhaps to your example of net neutrality; the recent IPBill was drawn up substantially from the input of lobbying by the security services, who never had to put forward specific arguments around specific clauses, or have to justify these. The various Committees pontificated, decided that there were various areas of concern and published their reports, satisfied that procedure had been followed. The Bill itself passed largely unchanged, and still containing numerous passages that seem to have been written in deliberately in as vague a manner as possible.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Chris Styles:
quote:
I'm somewhat bemused with your line of argument
All I was arguing is that aspects of the EU need reforming, taking lack of transparency as a key example.

And I think the perception of the EU Parliament is at the core of the problem. People vary hugely on what they think of the Parliament, from those who believe it is truly makes the EU democratic to those who think it is a fairly useless gravy-train.

Part of this debate is the supposed role of the Parliament in debating and approving legislation. Some people believe that the EUP debates proposals from the Commission just like the UKP debates proposals from the UKGov. The significance of the trilogue process is that it shows this not to be the case.

And the reason for this is that the EUP is largely dysfunctional so that the effect of debate just results in a logjam where nothing gets through, because too many people are there to block it.

And, as the Politico article explains, this is why the EU has set up a device to avoid debate so as to fast track legislation by keeping everything secret and having very small groups of MEPs look at the legislation. And this is why, it will be hard to reform.

According to Chris Bickerton's book (and I did only recently find out that he is a Left Wing Brexiteer) 81% of proposals were passed at first reading by the Triloge method and only 3% ever reached the third reading where texts are debated in a plenary session of the EUP.

As regards your counter example of the IPBill, I will investigate further, internet security being my professional expertise (before I retired), but I would make two points:

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.

2. Any legislation passed in the UK can later be repealed by the same UK parliament, so Corbyn's pledge to repeal any further union-limiting legislation brought in by the Tories is not an empty promise, as he would have that power, once elected. The EUP has no such power at all.

[ 17. December 2016, 16:15: Message edited by: anteater ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Mrs May wants us all to unite after the Brexit vote:

PM's Xmas message

Well, my response to that is, give us something to unite around and I might consider it. So far, we have no plan, no vision, nothing except an increasingly desperate determination to say nothing about Brexit beyond anodyne Delphic platitudes.

Until this vacuum is filled I shall continue to regard Brexit as a national cock-up of the first water, and refuse to co-operate with it. In fact, I'm starting to wonder: if we ignore it, will it just go away?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
In fact, I'm starting to wonder: if we ignore it, will it just go away?

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
In fact, I'm starting to wonder: if we ignore it, will it just go away?

I agree with Alan.

To repeat something I keep saying, but am by no means alone in saying, from this side of the Channel it is quite staggering to see the extent to which the UK is largely behaving as if Brexit is purely a domestic issue which it can pursue at its leisure, while the EU27 sit meekly by to await the result of these ruminations.

This completely ignores the fact that the EU cannot be seen to be indulgent with the UK. To act thus would imperil the EU's future existence by orders of magnitude more than even the UK leaving does, because of the precedent it would set.

The Economist is hardly to be noted for its Europhilia. Last week its Charlemagne column reported that
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.

 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
My point is that we're not even treating it as a domestic issue. We're not doing anything. We're not following any sort of process to decide what we do next.

Mrs May knows that the moment she commits to a specific form of Brexit, she'll attract the wrath of half her party and the majority of voters, so she seems to have decided to wait and see what turns up. I'm sure she'd really like it all to just go away.

Such is the calibre of our politicians these days.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Rocinante: So what would you do if you were in May's position?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Rocinante: So what would you do if you were in May's position?

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.

She would probably lose some MP's/votes to UKIP, but given Labour's travails and the fact that most people will just want this resolved, I think she should win comfortably.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
When she's been fighting allowing Parliament to have a say on Brexit, I can't see her letting the people have a direct say again. But, if she does, at least it will be a proper question on what future the people of the UK want, rather than the farcical non-question we had 6 months ago.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Rocinante:
Well we agree on that. But maybe I'm more prepared to accept this is a difficult goal to get to, so I'm more prepared to cut some slack. Partly, of course, because I want May to succeed.

It's hardly her fault that the EU won't countenance starting even preliminary discussions prior to article 50 triggering, and I think she is not delaying that unreasonably.

Plus she has to get this all through parliament. I can see why she can't trumpet (pun intended) on twitter. She needs, I suspect, to be as wily as Heath was in getting us into the EU.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

She's also been put in the almost impossible position of being the leader of a political party that was elected to power with a manifesto for remaining in the EU, but the recipient of a referendum result that has been interpreted as a clear call for a Brexit. And, to top it off she's expected to define that Brexit when those who actually wanted it couldn't be bothered to do it.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
If May were to stop messing about, trigger article 50 immediately, and adopt a conciliatory tone in negotiations she would, ISTM, have a good chance of getting agreement to the EFTA option fairly quickly. Its in the interests of the rest of the EU for us to remain semi-attached, and it could be argued that this "half in, half out" solution best reflects the very close result of the referendum.

Going to the country with this soft Brexit offer would put the resurgent Lib Dems back in their box, and with Labour in disarray there will never be a better time for her to do it. She would only really have to worry about UKIP, the gutter press and her own right-wingers screaming about betrayal. That would be the time for her to show a bit of steel.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
That leaves another problem, namely that the negotiations following the invoking of Article 50 only cover the political aspects of disengaging from the EU. Trade negotiations are a separate matter and I doubt that they will even be started in any meaningful way until the two-year Article 50 period is over and Britain is out of the EU. There's no way we are going to switch from being an "In the EU" state to an "In EEA via EFTA" state or anything resembling that overnight.

[ 24. December 2016, 20:41: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan: As so often I largely agree, but with two reservations.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

As to the second part, I'm not sure she has any more integrity than anyone else in her party, possibly less. She's out for herself, if she's seeing something positive in Brexit it's positive for her, possibly for her party, but not the country.

quote:

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.

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The delay is Cameron's fault, not May's. Cameron was a moron and thought that as he would win the referendum, there was no need for the civil service to do any kind of impact assessment to study the probable results of Brexit for each department. Consequently, this is what the civil service is now having to do. If one is of the view that trade deals are immensely complicated, I don't see how it's unreasonable for May to want to be as well prepared as possible.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Also, when people call for Ms May to commit to a specific form of Brexit, what are they asking her to do?

E.g. if she commits to something involving single market membership, does that mean she should accept membership at any price whatsoever? Or that if the price is unacceptable we should just crash out without a deal, revert to WTO rules, and not even consider any of the other options?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Chris Styles:
quote:
I'm somewhat bemused with your line of argument
All I was arguing is that aspects of the EU need reforming, taking lack of transparency as a key example.

Of course, and calls to reform any political system are relatively uncontroversial.

We are getting off topic here, but I think that the assumption that the EU is necessarily any less transparent than the UK is analogous to a belief in sympathetic magic.

quote:

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.

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).

[ 26. December 2016, 11:17: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I have some sympathy with May. She has come into office in the most difficult circumstances of any PM since Churchill. She doesn't even seem to get this, though. She appears to think that she can finesse this car crash and get through it with everyone still loving her.

I appreciate that the task is monumnental,but she wanted the job! We desperately need some indication of direction of travel. If this is plausible and if the EU can be convinced we are sincere, I'm sure an agreement in principle could be reached reasonably quickly, details to be worked out later. This is all off-the-map stuff, so we are essentially working out the rules for a nation leaving the EU as we go along. The pre-written ones seem intolerably vague, which is contributing to the problem.

At the moment we're still at the stage of random people saying what we might do post-Brexit, see e.g. Mervyn Kings recent Pollyanna-ish comments along the lines of "Brexit could be great!". This is where we should have been about a year before the referendum happened. But I agree, this is mostly Cameron's fault. Can't say anything about that buffoon without getting hellish.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
The problem is that a competent government and an incompetent government would probably seem to be doing largely the same thing.

If I am trying to sell a second hand car, it wouldn't make much sense to say things like 'Gosh I'll be really screwed if I don't sell this car' and 'Well my plan is to ask for two thousand but I'll accept fifteen hundred', so for similar reasons I think it's sensible for Ms May to keep shtum. On the other hand, she would also keep shtum if she didn't have a clue what she was doing ....
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
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!"
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
But does it make sense to set out an opening position before negotiations have actually opened? Given that the opening position will by its very nature be somewhat optimistic, ISTM to invite six months of pretty much everyone who isn't in the Cabinet complaining about how unrealistic the plan is, while the EU devises its strategy to counter the proposals and the civil service review finds some new reason why the plan won't work.

Of course, if Cameron wasn't such a moron, negotiations would already have started, but that's not May's fault.

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!"

It's more like 'I'm not going to tell you how desperate I am to use the car park ...'
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

Isn't that what the EU was all along? It was nowhere near perfect but I doubt we will get anything half as good.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's more like 'I'm not going to tell you how desperate I am to use the car park ...'

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."
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
But does it make sense to set out an opening position before negotiations have actually opened?

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.

It's a crap analogy. 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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
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.
So were you actually given this information in Scotland, before the vote in 2014?

I get the idea from reading the Referendum Bill PDF (admittedly skim-read) that the assumption was that EU-membership would continue, and I certainly assume it was the preferred option. But of course, it was arguable whether this would happen, over the objections of Spain who would see a dangerous precedent for Catalonia, and they may not have been alone.

Was the next preferred option a currency union with the UK? Probably, so long as the UK didn't insist on so much power as to undermine independence.

Then presumably the the backstop would have been just go it alone, using the Pound (or Euro) but with no say in it's management.

The reason for this excursus is that whatever all that meant, all you voted on is "Should Scotland become an Independent Nation?" There was no stop-limit to cause the decision to be reversed if the outcome was not favourable, and 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.

I believe the SNP sees independence as so important that it would proceed with it even if the final settlement had been something the people in Scotland would have preferred not to have.

So I don't think the Scottish case (also based on a bare majority) was any better.

But then, as you know because I have posted it, by default any party with Nationalist in its title gives me the creeps.

[ 27. December 2016, 12:10: Message edited by: anteater ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
What Anteater said.

The only thing which is actually in the UK's power is to trigger Article 50. Everything else is dependent on the EU.

To campaign for Leave with the promise of an EFTA settlement is a promise the campaign couldn't keep, and to campaign for something like 'We'll pitch for EFTA but may end up with something else' isn't in practical terms much more meaningful than what they actually did. 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.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's more like 'I'm not going to tell you how desperate I am to use the car park ...'

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."

Two problems.

1. We're not even saying what we want, or whether we're prepared to pay, or what features we regard as pluses or minuses. For example, it's not clear whether "membership of the single market" is being regarded as a good thing or a bad thing from Britain's point of view. More extreme Leavers are seeing it as a bad thing.

2. Negotiate using what exactly as a lever? "Give me these benefits otherwise I'll jolly well stay?". No way! "Give me these benefits otherwise I jolly well... won't use them!". That doesn't seem like a very terrible threat.

I suppose this is why May is holding onto threats like "possibility of deporting existing EU residents" - it's the only leverage she's got. But really, this sort of spiteful threat is just going to rub everyone up the wrong way. It hardly seems worth it in order to acquire things that we're not even clear that we want. Like a divorcing spouse saying "If we can't retain joint control of our savings, which I'm not sure I even want to do, I reckon I'll have Buster the dog put to sleep".

It would be much better to go for whatever sort of hard Brexit looks easiest and not attempt any sort of wangling at all. Any special deal that might have been on the cards would not be the result of hard bargaining - it could only have come from residual goodwill, which is, I suspect, in very short supply and getting shorter by the day. Just leave, leave completely, don't attempt to get any special deal about anything and don't annoy anyone any further is my advice.

In particular, we shouldn't try to be "cunning" about the French election, e.g. making nice with Le Pen in order to make the Germans think they have to butter us up to prevent us breaking up the Franco-German alliance. That would be disastrously cynical but I wouldn't put it past us.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
It's all rubbish, Ricardus.
First because, other than Reichsmarschall Farage, none of the Brexiteer politicians wanted it to happen.
Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Dagnabit, article 50 and SNP isn't Ukip by a very long mile.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
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.

Wise words but the boat has sailed already.

quote:
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.

Another great idea, and another boat somewhere between dock and horizon.

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Two problems.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

So in the absence of a clear destination, they painted a picture of multiple destinations to suit the market [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
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

Walk away to where? There is no "away"!
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?

No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.

Alan contrasts the Leave campaign with the Scottish independence campaign, which spelt out, for example, that it wanted Scotland to retain the pound. In reality, though, it's not obvious that Westminster would allow Scotland to keep the pound on terms that would be acceptable. So I am not sure that making specific promises with no guarantee that you'll be in a position to keep them is an improvement on not making specific promises on the terms of departure.

The difference - and where I agree the Leave campaign really was a nonsense - was that at least in the case of the SNP, the politicians making the promises were the ones who would have to be carrying them out, so if voters were sceptical about the promises they could at least judge whether Mr Salmond was the sort of person who would be capable of negotiating a settlement that broadly matched what he had claimed.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan C:
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.
So were you actually given this information in Scotland, before the vote in 2014?

Yes, we were. There was a substantial white paper (which, admittedly most people probably didn't read in detail, relying on the summaries produced by the media hacks who did) detailing what the Scottish government considered desirable and achievable. We then had an extensive national discussion upon that during the referendum campaign - which focussed almost exclusively on the other side pointing out all the bits which may not have been achievable (EU membership, the pound as a currency etc), the "Project Fear".

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. But, those of us who were supporting Independence also trusted the Scottish government to try their hardest to achieve something reasonably close to the white paper (so, if not full EU membership then an arrangement that left Scotland within the free trade and free movement zone, if not the UK pound then a Scottish pound etc). Of course that meant that part of the campaign focussed on whether the Scottish government and the SNP leadership were competent and trustworthy enough to achieve a reasonable deal.

quote:
all you voted on is "Should Scotland become an Independent Nation?"
with "Independence" as described in the White Paper, or as close to that as possible, with the Scottish Government running the process.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't live in Scotland, but I remember the White Paper, which I believe, amounted to 500 pages. Various SNP friends were talking about it; I suppose you could argue that the EU referendum was very different, and could not be addressed in any publication. Yet the UK govt produced a flimsy pamphlet, 16 pages! Still, they probably thought it was in the bag.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
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:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Walk away to where? There is no "away"!

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).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?

No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.

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?)
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Walk away to where? There is no "away"!
...at least, not until my colony ship is fully funded on Kickstarter...
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
quote:
Although, as pointed out by lilBuddha, the SNP are nothing like UKIP, which is where your argument falls flat.
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.

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.

What you may contest is that I draw from that the implication that both parties are ideologically, not just pragmatically committed to independence, so that they would prioritize independence over economic pragmatism.

In the same way that UKIP would prioritize immigration control over economic pragmatism. If you say I am wrong, then I have to retreat from the argument since I have no way of proving it, but it is my genuine belief.

So both referenda are a risk, a leap into the unknown, the difference being that in Scotland you knew what the SNP wanted the outcome to be, even though there were solid bodies of opinion saying that there hope would not be realised and nothing in the referendum question that held them to any specific option.

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. 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. Which would have to be a party similar in origin, development and history to the SNP.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
UKIP don't like foreigners and dark people and blame everything on them. So, yeah, exactly the same.
quote:

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.

You've too much locked up in a name and less in what really is there, IMO.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Now you can read that as saying: this is our starting position, but anyone sensible knows that in reality we might end up with our own currency, or even with the euro if we can't inherit the UK's euro opt-out. But I think that once pronouncements have to be interpreted as 'it says X at face value, but we should really understand that to mean Y', then we are in the same doublespeak territory as the Leave campaign.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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 away

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Walk away to where? There is no "away"!

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).

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!
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
There are some basic points to bear in mind.

1. The EU leaders have said that there will be no negotiations until the UK gives notice under Art 50.

2. The EU treaty arrangements etc contain no provision for a notice once given to be withdrawn.

3. Regardless of the state of negotiations the UK will have left the EU on the second anniversary of the giving of notice.

From these flows:

4. The UK is now and after the notice will continue to be in a very weak position.

5. Whitehall will be working triple time to cover the legislation necessary within the UK to deal with the position after the second anniversary.

6. Whitehall will also be working triple time to get proper advice to the negotiators in relation to all the issues that arise in the course of negotiations.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

Brexit was full of bullshit and hot air, no real plan.
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

Brexit was full of bullshit and hot air, no real plan.
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.

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?

No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.

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?)

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?)
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan C:
I think I will withdraw from arguing that the referendum was justified to avoid the resurgence of a nationalist party in the UK, because although I still have sympathy for this, in the end, I think this is trumped by the effect on the Union.

I have always accepted that fairness in a devolved nation should require a majority in all member nations, and that would make the referendum a complete nonsense since there was a known large and persistent majority against it in Scotland.

I still feel the decision whether to leave was more marginal than you (having flirted with conversion after reading David Owen's rather perceptive book on Restructuring Europe) but if I were a Scottish remainer I would be quite seriously pissed off.

Arguing Brexit can be addictive, so instead of an alcohol free January, I'm going to try a Ship-free January,

Three days to go.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?

No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.

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?)

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?
Never said that everything was perfectly done. Just that there is substance in the issue. Which is something that cannot be said for Brexit.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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:
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?)

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:

"Of course there would be a currency union" the minister told the Guardian

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 )

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. If you don't believe that such things existed, I suggest checking out the Financial Times who asked a range of economists for what they thought about the main ones

Scotland’s currency future: what economists think

Such matters were widely discussed in the run-up to the referendum. The leak from the cabinet indicated that Osborne was bluffing but if he hadn't been and had decided on a kamikazi strategy, then sterlingisation would have been a viable plan B, probably leading eventually to a separate currency as happened with Australia, New Zealand etc.

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? But that's not the case. He's a former president of the European Commission and his opinions are not relevant to the current EU.

The current president of the European Commission is Jean Claude Juncker. ( The President of the European Council is Donald Tusk, and the President of the European Parliament is Martin Schulz, while the Presidency of the Council of the European Union is currently held by Slovakia - even when Barroso was in office he was only one of the presidents)


I don't know what you're characterising as 'automatic membership' as a lot of possibilities have been discussed recently in the light of Brexit but Scotland could almost certainly rejoin the EU, if it became independent - the Spanish position is that they will not veto an independent Scotland rejoining if it leaves the UK according to the UK constitution, and there have already been talks about how transitional arrangements could be made. Scotland is already compliant in terms of EU legislation and meets the entry criteria - there is 'no queue for EU membership and new member states come in as they are ready' (Prof Michael Keating), so while not having to go through that process would be nice, going through a rejoining process is not a deal-breaker.

We're currently in an unprecedented situation, Brexit has utterly stuffed arrangements between Ireland and Northern Ireland and who knows what will come out of trying to sort that mess out and whether it might lead to some unexpected flexibility on parts of the UK staying in the EU - I'm not holding my breath though.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

[ 29. December 2016, 23:07: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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

So when he said 'no plan B' he didn't actually mean it. So posturing (just as Mr Osborne was posturing).

But my wider point is that if the SNP were considering a range of currency options, then they were not being specific about their destination, and if they were insistent on retaining the pound, then they were denying the necessity of negotiation.

Alan I think is arguing that because they put forward a preferred option, this makes them more specific than the Leavers, but I don't think this is true. Presumably Mr Salmond supported currency union because he thought it was Scotland's best option. But if it's also subject to negotiation, he can't know whether it's Scotland's best option until he knows what Westminster is prepared to concede. So in reality he doesn't know it's Scotland's best option. So the precision is false.

(I also think it gave Mr Salmond problems he needn't have had - countries are perfectly capable of becoming independent without currency being an issue, but saying 'We will do X' gave Messrs Osborne and Miliband the chance to say 'No you won't' without the latter actually having to back it up.)
quote:

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.

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:
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?

I will get back to you on the Scotland-EU question as I may be misremembering events.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
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.

[ 30. December 2016, 09:38: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

For which particular Leave scenario should Cameron have been preparing plans for?

In retrospect; timetabling a referendum for after a point where a Leave plan had been agreed might have actually led to a victory. As might a positive campaign for Remain.

But Cameron was infected by the same glib self-confidence possessed by Gove and Johnson and so here we are.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.

Being enthusiastic about which pile of shit to pick is always going to be a bit of a stretch.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
For which particular Leave scenario should Cameron have been preparing plans for?

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.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It wasn't, and still isn't, up to Remainers to do the Leavers' homework for them.

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.

(But I think we are both in agreement that Mr Cameron is a pillock. Among other words.)
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] [Confused] 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.

[ 30. December 2016, 12:34: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

A range of options, as it is in fact doing now.

I'm not aware that they are in fact preparing for a range of options - but leaving that aside.

I think the problem with this approach is seen right now - where certain options are completely anathema to certain political figures backed by certain parts of the media. So to that extent preparing a range of possible options is really only possible for people who are willing to implement them. In fact, perhaps the best way of winning would have been to pre-emptively give a number of euro skeptic ministers the task of drawing up the alternatives - though in the event they only broke cover once the referendum was announced.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
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?
I will get back to you on the Scotland-EU question as I may be misremembering events.
Yes, I am misremembering events and giving Mr Barroso more prominence than he deserves.

When the independence referendum was just a theoretical possibility Ms Sturgeon did indeed suggest that Scotland would automatically remain an EU member, but by the time the referendum became a reality, the SNP said that as there was no legal precedent and no legal framework for part of a member state to separate from that member state, the whole thing would have to be sorted out by negotiation - they suggested this negotiation would take place within the expected eighteen months between the referendum and independence itself. (Take note, all those who think that two years is too little time for the UK's exit negotiations.)

The SNP believed that these negotiations would end with Scotland as an EU member state but retaining the UK's opt-out from Schengen and the euro. As this would depend on the goodwill of the other EU member states, and as there was no indication of what Scotland would concede in exchange for these privileges, this seems to me another example of false precision, not to mention a Johnsonesque belief in pro-eating and pro-having.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

A range of options, as it is in fact doing now.

I'm not aware that they are in fact preparing for a range of options - but leaving that aside.
Mr Davis says they are:
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".


 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Louise posts:
quote:
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 )
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Louise posts:
quote:
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 )
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.
Yes, sorry the other one I was thinking of was South Africa, but somehow typed the wrong country.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Sorry for hit and run itty-bitty posting, Ricardus - festivities and visitors intervene.

You can usually read read a couple of Financial Times articles free if you register. On the Euro - see here - The case for Scottish independence looks stronger post-Brexit - this is a 2016 article but the situation on the Euro hasn't changed - key bit here

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

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.

As for the "Beacon of free trade" line, why has a new department of state, with cabinet minister and permanent secretary plus hundreds of civil servants and dozens of advisors, been set up specifically to devise international trade policy and negotiate trade deals, which are the very antithesis of free trade?
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Maybe the answer to that is that someone somewhere knows that this country will be an ex EU member in name only.

I'm not sure that this Country is any more split over this than it was under decades of seesaw politics between Labour and Tory. One represented the interests of management and the other the interests of workers. Never much meeting of minds there.
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.

This time next year we will no doubt have more travel, more consumerism and more prosperity with the grinding gears of Globalisation continuing unhindered by fake political upheavals here or anywhere else.
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

A range of options, as it is in fact doing now.

I'm not aware that they are in fact preparing for a range of options - but leaving that aside.
Mr Davis says they are:
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".


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.

Once that is cleared up and agreed and paid, we'll be out of the EU. 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 and will be coloured by the result of the Article 50 negotiations. I doubt the UK will be able to negotiate anything resembling tariff-free trade.

There are occasional lapses when the press and/or politicians seem to own up to this version of the path ahead, but I think the last six months have seen mostly wishful thinking, self deception and careful publicity management to try to appear in control.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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."

I've posted on this phenomenon much earlier in this thread, but yet again over Christmas I've had 3 instances of people quite unexpectedly coming out with having voted to Leave (because they've had a few drinks, they think they're safe to admit it, etc). These are people who not only you would assume voted Remain, but also who have been *saying* they voted Remain since the vote.

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.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
That is not an or, but an and. Still a sad comment on society, though.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
And we saw the exact same phenomenon in the US with people not wanting to admit openly they were supporting trump. This was happening early on in the campaign and I imagine the same is true now, as you are finding here, with people reluctant to actually admit to voting for him.

Maybe when our base emotions are activated or touched/legitimised by someone or something there is a degree of inner shame going on, we want to hide it. Possibly similar, in a much lesser way, to a soldier never talking about what they did in a war? Dunno, just guessing at something that is strangely intriguing.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Like mdijon, I don't personally know anyone who voted Leave (some might have, but are ashamed to admit it because it's not what one admits to in the social circles they move in). The means the division between those who voted Leave and Remain falls somewhere outwith my social group (which is middle class, largely university educated, biased towards living in Scotland). Though the divisions between parties also approximately follow social divisions (certainly for the Labour-Conservative one), and there is occasionally the same stigma to someone who's political loyalty crosses those boundaries, it does feel like a different sort of division.

Maybe it's because it's binary. With parties someone in a Labour supporting social group who is dissatisfied with Labour has the option of voting Green or LibDem (or SNP etc where appropriate), or a smaller party or independent without needing to cross all the way over to the Tories. And, each party is itself a broad spectrum of political opinions. The result is that there are always bridges between the parts of society that largely vote differently. The referendum didn't provide for any middle ground, no respectable alternative to voting for "them" (whoever that happens to be in any social group), and no option for people to be bridges between groups who voted differently. It took a broad spectrum of views from "the UK should move into further political union with our EU partners" to "the EU is deeply flawed and in need of major reform but it's still the best for the UK" and pushed it into "Remain". Likewise the spectrum of views from "The EU is a largely beneficial institution and we value the access to markets and labour, but on balance the UK should distance itself from political union" to "we hate all foreigners, Britain is an imperial world power and we should be Great Again on our own and bugger the rest" was pushed together into "Leave".
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Yes, the Leave and Remain votes represented very broad coalitions, just as most political parties do. The difference between the leave win in the referendum and a party winning a general election is that a general election win allows you to implement a range of policies which will hopefully include something for all the people who voted for you (and some who didn't). As soon as a particular form of Brexit is chosen and announced, at least half the leave voters will be disappointed (some will be enraged) and the coalition will break up.

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".
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
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".

Not really.

There are not so many different degrees of, "leave things as they are."
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Perhaps the problem lies more in the fact that there wasn't a 'polite middle class' justification for the vote that they can articulate?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
I'm not sure it's a new division, rather that the division falls along existing boundaries within our society.
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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Betjemaniac:

quote:
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.
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".
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Sorry for hit and run itty-bitty posting, Ricardus - festivities and visitors intervene.

Same here ...

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.

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:
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

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't know anyone who voted brexit (or who admits to it).

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.

The problem, as I see it, is that the campaign literature on both sides was simplified to the point of stupidity. This gives people the illusion that the people in the other camp must be stupid.

For example: the Remain campaign said that three million jobs would be at risk if we left the EU, and this figure was quite explicitly identified as the number of jobs connected to exporting to the EU. Now as it stands this is nonsense, because even the worst projections from the Remain camp don't have EU exports falling to zero. The sensible form of this argument is that anything that hampers our ability to export will cause job losses in the export sector, and anything that causes an economic shock will cause job losses all through the system, and probably in unexpected places*.

Now my guess is that most Remain supporters, because we are already predisposed to accept the Remain campaign's arguments, automatically heard the sensible form of the argument when we saw the stupid form. If so, I think an exercise of charity might allow us to conclude that Leave supporters also saw sensible arguments hidden behind the stupid arguments that their campaign presented.


* One can also argue that there's a difference between three million jobs being at risk and three million jobs being lost, but then we are in the land of weasel words.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't know anyone who voted brexit (or who admits to it).

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.

I know a number of people who voted leave, none of whom are normally stupid, insular or xenophobic.

Nevertheless some of whom posted fairly silly (and often offensive) arguments for Leave in various social media forums (the Turkey poster by the Vote.Leave campaign as an example). A few had fairly well reasoned arguments for why they wanted to leave, one of them abstained in the end as he had always been pro-EFTA and was dismayed at the direction in which the Leave camp was heading. As to the rest I was able to have conversations with - a number blamed 'excessive immigration', and quite a few at the end seemed to jump to a fairly irrational fear of Muslims. A small number of those were second generation migrants themselves (reflecting my particular social circle).

Ironically, one of the most vocal of the 'excessive immigration from the EU' lot has just woken up to the fact that this might mean that his EU partner experiences difficulty staying in the UK in future.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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
"I've got mine, now piss off" is not an uncommon thing. Especially as the strongest vitriol was anti-Muslim.
As chris stiles points out, it'll bite more people in the arse than think it will.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

Perhaps the problem lies more in the fact that there wasn't a 'polite middle class' justification for the vote that they can articulate?
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.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
The UK ambassador to the EU has resigned today .

quote:
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.

I'm quite happy to speculate on his reasons.

1. He thinks the whole thing will be a complete pigs breakfast for ever.
or perhaps
2. He's planning on trousering some truly eye watering consultancy fees and wants to become eligible to do so as soon as possible.

or perhaps both.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
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.

I don't think it's only the government who'll be interested in hiring someone with his background...
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Sioni:
quote:

Britain's "Polite middle-class" is small.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Sioni:
quote:

Britain's "Polite middle-class" is small.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
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.

I don't think it's only the government who'll be interested in hiring someone with his background...
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Absolutely, and equally a veneer of politeness can cover many things - which is one reason I used quotes above.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

Neither campaign had any substance if judged solely by their campaign literature.
quote:
"I've got mine, now piss off" is not an uncommon thing. Especially as the strongest vitriol was anti-Muslim.
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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Apologies, by 'neither campaign' I mean neither the Leave nor the Remain campaign.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
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.

Pretty much nailed it. But clearly it's not just a UK phenomenon.

The Ugly European is on the march.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Barnabas:
quote:

But clearly it's not just a UK phenomenon.

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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
A really good letter.

Particularly these hopes.

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Ian Duncan Smith was on Radio 4 this morning, doing his best to dismiss Rogers' resignation as a little local difficulty. "He was going anyway in 6 months so it doesn't matter", seems to be the party line. I'm sure that if Rogers thought he could do any good he could have been persuaded to stay on, but it's clear that May wants a yes-person in charge.

When your best negotiator resigns before the negotiation starts, you can be pretty sure your position is weak.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It doesn't appear that anyone had approached him about extending his appointment for a further 12-18 months to allow him to be in post throughout the Brexit negotiations. If the government didn't want him in place throughout the process then they presumably have no problem with him stepping down now to allow someone to be in post for the whole of that period, even if that's some one significantly less qualified and experienced.

Though probably most of the team will turn over during the full duration of Brexit and negotiating a new relationship with the EU. Very few people stay in such positions for a decade or more.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Very few people stay in such positions for a decade or more.

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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Shan Morgan was a significant loss as well.

The problem with politically-based policies is that if they really are impossible to achieve, the diplomats and civil servants have no option but to play "appearances and deceptions". In other words, they become complicit in spinning the real state of affairs for public and political-party consumption.

Given the technical complexity of the unpicking processes which will be involved in any version of Brexit, a thick layer of "essential spin" on the top seems likely to add cognitive dissonance to cognitive dissonance for the diplomats and negotiators. In such circumstances, it's going to be hard for anyone to keep a clear head. Fog is disorientating.

But i wouldn't expect IDS to understand that. I'm beginning to wonder if Theresa May understands it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

I think she is someone who is normally extremely risk averse, who has now been forced by circumstances to turn into Mr Micawber.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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

I think she is someone who is normally extremely risk averse, who has now been forced by circumstances to turn into Mr Micawber.
Yes. Classic conservatives are normally averse to anything which looks like a step in the dark. So risk-aversion is indeed the norm.

An appropriate Micawber quote

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.

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Very few people stay in such positions for a decade or more.

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.
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.

But, there's nothing new in acknowledging that the final relationship between the UK and EU will take more than 18 months to sort out. There's an off-chance that if the UK government went into negotiations asking for the same relationship as an existing treaty (eg: to take the treaties between Norway and the EU, and do nothing more than replace "Norway" with "UK") then it might be possible to conclude that within 18 months of triggering A50 - of course, that also includes having no specific treaty with the EU and trading on the same terms as any other country without a specific deal. Anyone who thinks an international treaty covering trade can be cooked up within 18 months knows nothing about international relations - and, if you add in immigration, science and technology collaboration, coordination on trans-border issues such as the environment or fish stocks ... well, not only is 18 months out the window, 18 years could be challenging.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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

I think she is someone who is normally extremely risk averse, who has now been forced by circumstances to turn into Mr Micawber.
Yes. Classic conservatives are normally averse to anything which looks like a step in the dark. So risk-aversion is indeed the norm.


Risk-aversion is only part of the story: if risks can be mitigated by kicking others in the teeth, few can resist the temptation.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think the current government believes it has the mandate to go for Norway Mark 2.

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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sure, given the vagueness of meaning of Brexit, it's a theoretical option.

But Norway Mark 1 includes the free movement of labour. The Tories have to find some way of at least diluting that, else they split and breathe new life into UKIP. That's not just Tory realpolitik.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
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....
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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....

A mandate for nothing, and a mandate for anything.

I would add that they need a plan that they can get through Parliament, which means a plan that they can convince the Tory MPs to vote for - or, at least, keeping the number of rebels low enough for them to get it through the Houses.

Of course, if the people don't like it then even Labour could be electable in 2020. Which won't change a thing since by then the UK would be out of the EU on whatever terms Mrs May can get, and if the people of the UK don't like that deal then tough on us because there will be nothing we can do about it.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
A mandate for nothing, and a mandate for anything.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Exactly. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Brexit "negotiations" consisted of Donald Tusk presenting us with an invoice for outstanding financial commitments, followed by a request to leave the keys under the mat, figuratively speaking.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
That indeed is the main sticking point I foresee. The EU will probably present some sort of financial demand, which the UK government will be politically unable to pay. This could then be a running sore in EU/UK relations for decades. It's difficult to see either side giving way (why would they?) and it could lead to lots of nasty tit-for-tat reprisals.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
The policeman asks Heisenberg "Do you know how fast you were going?"

Heisenberg replies, "No, but we know exactly where we are!"

The police officer says "you were going 108 miles per hour!"

Heisenberg throws his arms up and cries, "Great! Now we're lost!"

The officer looks over the car and asks Schrödinger if the two men have anything in the trunk.

"A cat," Schrödinger replies.

The cop opens the trunk and yells "Hey! This cat is dead."

Schrödinger angrily replies, "Well he is now."

(Another version adds Ohm resisting arrest but that seems really weak).
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
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.


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.

quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
You wouldn't. You would go into negotiations asking for a derogation.

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.
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.

I was aiming for wry self-deprecation of my own lack of objectivity. Evidently I failed so I will rephrase.

The SNP's approach had in my view both strengths and weaknesses. Alan was concentrating on the strengths by contrast with the Leave campaign. To my mind a true comparison requires us to address the weaknesses. However I think it's important to acknowledge that the existence of the weaknesses doesn't mean that the strengths don't exist, and in another context I could well be defending the SNP.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I was just reading some kind of Delphic statement from May, (Sky News), and it just looks to me as if hard Brexit is the only deal available, but Mrs May cannot state that yet, so as to avoid turmoil in the Tory party. So there is lots of obfuscation, and hints and suggestions. But how is soft Brexit possible?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38546820
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But how is soft Brexit possible?


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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I would think that the EU dare not allow the UK to stay in the single market and restrict immigration. And May dare not not restrict immigration.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
The Kinnock/Reynolds proposal on immigration seems sensible:

"Two tier" immigration system proposal

But like everything else to do with Brexit, it's a castle in the air really. It's unlikely that the EU will allow any restrictions to freedom of movement if we are to keep access to the single market. And I agree, the Torys' corporate backers won't want their labour pool reduced.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Labour are being stretched in two directions. The Lib Dems are supporting another referendum, and UKIP of course, are pushing for restrictions on immigration.

The Labour right wing will go for UKIP-lite, to avoid carnage in Leave areas. They may also lose votes though, with this policy.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
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 .
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But how is soft Brexit possible?


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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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 .

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?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Given that, the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit is likely to be poor, to say the least. They won't be inclined to give us anything much in the exit negotiations. I suspect their position will be "first you leave, then we'll talk about trade deals". I agree we'll then be talking for a very long time before we get anything.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Though, to be fair, whatever she manages to arrange Mrs May is going to have to justify it, and there will be a sizeable number of people who will be vocally opposed to it. 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, but admit that she would have marked herself out as an outstanding politician and would have my respect (though, still not my vote).
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
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.

Sounds backwards to me.

The important thing is to agree the principles of what sort of relationship happens after. What it means for Britain to be a good neighbour to and continued trading partner for the EU.

Then once we know where we're trying to get to we talk about the transitional arrangements of how to get there (and yes it may be that these involve a temporary deal for a 5 to 10 year period whilst the full details of the new arrangement are worked out).

I'd expect the default position to be that Britain becomes an ineligible recipient for any EU spending on Independence Day but not before, and stops contributing to the EU budget on Independence Day but not before, with the one being conditional on the other. So that any winding-down of EU spending in the UK in anticipation is matched by a winding-down in the UK contribution...

On trade the starting point would be that any tariffs or restrictions that the EU places on imports from the UK will be matched by UK tariffs and restrictions on goods from the EU.

Such a trade war benefits neither side, so there should be plenty of incentive to agree something better...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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:
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.

Who's standing in her way?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
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]

I guess there's stuff that could be done.

We could keep paying, explicitly, but some of it might be environmental or good for Britain and that wouldn't be popular with certain papers.

We could possibly firmly promise to take full responsibility for something the right size for the right length, in exchange for losing our part responsibility. Although it wouldn't make much difference to the budget (and having already breached one commitment, not exactly having the best reputation) it might appease enough.

France and Germany, etc... might be persuaded to cough up a bit more, on the basis that it will go to employing a few more of their engineers and technicians, etc... That their factories will get a slightly higher proportion of the benefits of any improvements. That their universities will be leading more potential Nobel prize projects.

Alternatively, according to some Tory MP's, France, Ireland and Germany may pay for us to have new roads if we put on an Irish accent at the dole office.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
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.

Who's standing in her way?
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.

But part of the reason for this is because the Tory party is divided on exactly what the outcome should be. Up to a few months before the referendum even harder line figures like Hannan were using Switzerland and Norway as possible post-EU examples for the UK to follow, until Gove torpedoed that and Farage and the newspapers ran with it.

So we have the current situation where ministers from all sides try to control debate by briefing against any indications of policy that they are not happy with.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
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.

Who's standing in her way?
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.
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.

I think that whatever happens with Brexit there will be enough disatisfaction with the outcome that the Tories would lose votes, and I also expect that there won't be any significant economic improvement (even without the referendum I wouldn't have expected much with ill-advised austerity policies). Where those votes go would depend on exactly what Brexit deal is cooked up - a soft Brexit would be a gift to UKIP, a hard Brexit would alienate a large portion of the Tories potentially defecting to the Lib Dems, even Labour if they can get their act together. Worst case scenario for the Tories, and the end of Mrs May's political career, would be a complete split in the Tories with a new "soft Brexit" party.

Much though I like the policies of Corbyn, I think Labour are not going to challenge the Tories by 2020. So, I expect that the Tories would be the largest party in the 2020 Parliament. However, I also expect a LibDem resurgence, ongoing SNP dominance in Scotland (especially in Sturgeon manages to force May into significant concessions, or at least be seen to have fought hard for Scottish interests), some additional gains by smaller parties (UKIP in event of a soft Brexit, the Greens, PC). All in all, enough to stop the Tories having an outright majority - and no clear options for a coalition.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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'.

Owen Jones has been doing a pastiche of it: 'Have you done the dishes?'. 'It's important that dishes are clean and that we have the right washing up liquid'.

Or it's curiously like Sovietspeak, 'today tractor production reached new heights, and we anticipate a new kind of tractor coming out, which will be the best possible one for the needs of all the people'.

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/818051488706686976

[ 09. January 2017, 14:30: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Something I always forget: the EEA has an emergency brake allowed on immigration (article 112), which gives a kind of illusion of 'taking back control'. I think Cameron had mentioned this, but May of course, in her Delphic manner, has not. Maybe it would provoke fury among Tory MPs, UKIP, and so on, but it might permit a kind of soft/hard Brexit.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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'.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

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
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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'.

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.
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.

I suppose the government will invoke Art.50 in March, and enter the leaving procedure, but as has been said, that has nothing to do with trade and associated relations after we leave the EU.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
.... And in other news the labour party has dedicated itself to the xenophobic fuckwit vote. What are internationalist voters on the left to do????
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What are internationalist voters on the left to do????

Vote Green?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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."


 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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:

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

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).

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.

They don't seem to compute the idea that the EU (and/or countries within the EU) are only going to agree to conditions that are equal in both directions. If there are no EU workers in the UK, there will be no UK workers in the EU. If we want UK pensioners to continue living in Spain, Cyprus and elsewhere, then we have to allow EU pensioners to move to the UK - although I've no idea why they'd want to move to this unblessed isle.

The reality is, in my opinion, that there will be increasing pressures on British pensioners abroad. For a start, outside of the EU they'd not get inflationary increases. Outside of the EU they'd not get transfered healthcare payments. And at present sterling is dipping against the Euro.

That's even before decisions are made by the Spaniards etc about British pensioners. As they're not working, they have no right to abode within the EU anyway, so any assurances they have about continuing to live there are likely dust.

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 - and replace them with angry, miserable OAPs who are flooding back from apartments in the sun and have complex health and social needs.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
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'.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.


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)
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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)

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.

In contrast, the vast majority of British OAPs in the EU are not working and do not have residency.

There really isn't anything to negotiate.

May tells the EU that we want to continue being allowed to retire to the sun. The EU tells May that's fine, but there must be recipical arrangements. These would essentially mean that freedom to live in the UK by EU migrants would have to be retained.

May says no that's not possible, the EU says fine, British passport holders have no right to live in the EU.

May can't have it both ways. And given that the British migrants are largely not working, is holding a weak hand.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

Back in 2004 the North East voted against devolution; in 2016 they voted for Brexit.

One - fairly uncharitable - way of narrating the two votes would be to say that they wanted the fiscal transfers to continue, but didn't want to have immigrants generating the surplus those came from.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In contrast, the vast majority of British OAPs in the EU are not working and do not have residency.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

There is absolutely no right to retire anywhere you like in the EU if you are not working.

Whilst it is true that British retirees in Spain and elsewhere have been given to understand that they can stay for an extended period despite not working. This is not possible in all EU states, for example the UK.

And residency is only given if (a) you apply for it and (b) you meet the criteria set by the government of the country you are in. Some EU workers in the UK have applied for residency but have been rejected even though they've been here legally far longer than 5 years.

Whether the 5 years thing is even relevant when your country is no longer in the EU is obviously an open question.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.
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).

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.
The difference is that freedom of movement within the EU for work is a fundamental right. Freedom to move and retire somewhere isn't.

Hence some countries, like the UK, restrict the ability of EU migrants to come and live in the UK if they're not working.

[ 10. January 2017, 12:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]And given that the British migrants are largely not working, is holding a weak hand.

[Citation needed]

The EU countries with the highest number of UK expats are Spain, France, and Ireland. This source gives the percentage of pensioners in the last two as 33%ish and 18% for the last two and this one has a third for Spain.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Each time a new member country joins, the budgets and allocations get recalculated. New members start from scratch and aren’t expected to pay towards existing obligations. There is an argument that once the 2 years is up, the UK’s monetary contributions are at an end unless both sides manage to agree terms and, say, a fee for single market access.

But the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget rather than a recipient. To balance the books, the EU will either have to ask net contributors to pay more OR change the threshold for being a net contributor / recipient OR cut budgets. Neither is going to be popular.

The EC doesn’t want to cut budgets or cancel projects. Net contributors don’t want to pay more. And none of the net recipients want the thresholds changed so they pay in rather than get out. One of the slogans in the recent Hungarian referendum was “We hate your rules, but we love your money. Something will have to give.

The fate of expats is unclear. Migration Watch (sorry!) says there are around 1.2 million British born people living in another EU country, according to figures provided by the UN. Around 800,000 will be workers and their dependants. This is much less than the estimated 3.3 million people born in another EU country who now live in the UK, of which 2.1 million are working.

Both
The Telegraph and The Guardian discuss what could happen to expats after Brexit. I included both sources for balance. Both articles have similar content. The point about the Vienna Convention is interesting and not one I’d come across before.

Tubbs

[ 10. January 2017, 12:56: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.
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).

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.

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.

EU citizens have the right to move anywhere within the EU to for work or to find work. But if they don't find a job within x months, they can be deported. Entitlement and access to benefits varies between countries. Usually they have to have lived somewhere for x months / years or have had a job before they can claim.

This has been decided by case law rather than treaties though.

Tubbs
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
According to full-fact there are

600,000 "non-active" EU citizens in the UK
of which about
168,000 are jobseekers
170,000 are retired

There are said to be 800,000 UK citizens just living in Spain, of which 125,000 are said to be non-active.

But who knows if this is correct, some say that there are 300,000 British pensioners just in Spain. How many are living in Cyprus, Portugal and elsewhere?
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

With the UK outside of the EU, increasingly Spain looking after large number of not-very-rich British pensioners looks like a liability.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.

With the UK outside of the EU, increasingly Spain looking after large number of not-very-rich British pensioners looks like a liability.

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).

As for the pensioners in Spain post Brexit. I assume that Spain will require them to take out medical insurance to replace the existing reciprocal arrangements within the EU. Which is going to add extra costs on the pensioners, who have already seen a significant loss in income from their UK pensions due to the devaluation of the pound. The combination of currency devaluation and potentially large numbers selling up will mean that the value of their property will have fallen - so selling up and returning to the UK may not be an option if they can't recover enough of their investment in their home to buy in the UK. There will be a richer set of people who can manage on reduced income and increased insurance costs, who can therefore stay. The rest will either have to find some way to struggle on or sell up and move back to the UK. The poorest of those coming back may find that they've lost so much that they can't afford to buy in the UK, which will add additional burdens on the UK over and above the sudden increase in the population mean age.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE] and the NHS funding will not be available if the UK leaves.

That presupposes that reciprocal healthcare agreements won't be part of any Brexit deal.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

[ 12. January 2017, 15:16: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes, but I was responding specifically to an argument that drew significance from the fact that many of the British expats are pensioners.

FWIW I don't think there's any real political obstacle to some kind of reciprocal grandfathering arrangement for people who are already 'over here' or 'over there', but the sheer logistic challenge of processing special statuses for three million people does scare me somewhat.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
A special status for 3 million people doesn't seem all that special. A simple commitment to grant, free of charge, citizenship or permanent right of abode to anyone who wants it who can show they were resident in the UK since June 2016 until whenever the UK leaves the EU would be a good start.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
By 'grandfathering' and 'special status' I mean something that would preserve the existing rights of the three million despite the withdrawal of the basis of those rights.

I don't think citizenship is the answer because not all EU countries allow dual citizenship. I know the Czech Republic doesn't (officially anyway - enforcement is another matter).

I'd be fine with permanent right of abode but as has been pointed out above, that is technically more than they currently have.

[ 13. January 2017, 09:07: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
So, it seems like it's a pretty hard one then.

Summary of May's speech
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
So we are 'leaving the single market' but at the same time want 'the greatest possible access to it'? [Roll Eyes] [brick wall]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
What do you call it when you want to leave a trading bloc, which you've benefited from for decades, and instead think you can negotiate a better deal with it from outside?

Delusional or just dishonest?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But hard Brexit isn't really about economic benefits, is it? I thought that it's about anti-immigration and deregulation, and May is delivering this in spades. Presumably, some Brexiteers will be delighted by it; does anyone have an idea of the economic consequences? I doubt it. It all looks like a complete gamble to me.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
It's just making the best of a bad job. It has to be this way. Seems the best bet for not losing (more) friends and alienating people (further).
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Delusional or just dishonest?

Neither are strong enough words, but both could apply. Deranged works as well.

And, to top it off the whole thing makes a mockery of democracy. Mrs May and her party were elected on a manifesto to support free trade. The people of Britain spoke in 2015, in support of free trade. Nothing subsequent to that changes that mandate for the government to do all that it can to maintain free trade agreements, and to extend those to encompass other nations. She seems to be trying to double guess the people of Britain by assuming that the June 2016 result must mean "control immigration at all costs". If she wants to know whether the people of the UK want that then she should call another referendum to ask that question.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Keir Starmer, the Labour Brexit shadow, seems to think that May has ruled out a Hard Brexit.

But I don't understand what this means. How can a Brexit outside of the common market be anything other than Hard?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

So say we agree a trade deal with Trump's America. What are the chances that he's going to negotiate a fair deal rather than one where he gets all the things US businesses want but couldn't get with the EU (for example free trade in agricultural products treated with hormones etc) and won't allow the things he doesn't (I don't know, Welsh lamb which might directly compete with US lamb)?

What's the bets that any deal we agree with the EU will be worse for us in Wales (the only part of the UK that trades more with the EU than we receive in trade from it), or that the loss in structural payments from the EU will be greater than anything supplied by Westminster?

All fairly high, I should think. 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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It's certainly being viewed as a hard Brexit on this side of the Channel.

Again from this side of the Channel, it's hard to understand the UK's apparent supreme confidence that it can do better alone than in an existing trading alliance.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
So say we agree a trade deal with Trump's America.

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.

quote:
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.
Pretty slim = non-existant in my estimation. I struggle to see what economic benefit London would get either.

But, it's not about economics. It's "keep them foreigners out, whatever the cost". The sooner Scotland gets independence so I'm not living in the UK the better, not being governed by racists bastards would be worth almost any cost.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
So we are 'leaving the single market' but at the same time want 'the greatest possible access to it'? [Roll Eyes] [brick wall]

Yes. We presumably also want the greatest possible access to the American, Australian, Chinese, Indian and Brazilian markets.

Once we've left the EU, it will be just one more market for us to seek to do business in. 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. The big economic question of the next decade or so is whether gains in the other markets will be sufficient to outweigh losses in the EU one.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Being in the EU does not preclude us from doing business with other markets - you are presenting a false choice.

Yes, there is room for growth in trade to other markets - but in most cases we start from a fairly low base, and trade flows just don't shift that fast (they'll take a long time to increase by any substantial amount, and even if they double or triple they'll be responsible for a small fraction of 1% of GDP).
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

And so many voters convinced by these assurances, but based on what exactly? I'm not an economist, but I don't remember seeing any evidence for this from Boris and his Brexit Brains Trust, or Farage for that matter. I can only suppose that people are considerably less cynical about politicians' promises than I am?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

Being in the EU does not preclude us from doing business with other markets - you are presenting a false choice.
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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?

I notice Starmer cottoned on to this, and is saying that it's not hard Brexit.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
What am I bid on corporation tax? Which multinationals will give me 18%? 17.5% OK 15% I can't go lower than 12.5 I really can't. OK 10.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
There's no alternative now. "Getting more realistic" says Donald Tusk. That's about the size of it.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
May's strategy now seems to be "we hope there'll still be some cake left after we've eaten it."

Getting there, but still a bit of denial going on.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
the single market, a la carte

We on this side of the Channel don't understand that expression.

If you shout it loud enough, I'm sure we eventually will though [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

Being in the EU does not preclude us from doing business with other markets - you are presenting a false choice.
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.
We chooses the crumbs, we gets now sir, and we right appreciates it.

Much better than choosing what loaf to make. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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?

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?
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".

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

And other countries are making the right noises about getting on with a negotiation.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

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?

And other countries are making the right noises about getting on with a negotiation.

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.

It is however true that other countries are "making noises" but any deals will need to take account of the likely future trading landscape and I doubt that any deals will be signed while there is uncertainty in the air. It is clear to me that some sort of deal with the whole EU would be best. But that is what we had when we were members and the anti-EU Tories would regard it as a colossal climb down and would far rather impoverish future generations than that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And other countries are making the right noises about getting on with a negotiation.

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And other countries are making the right noises about getting on with a negotiation.

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.
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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Surely that depends on the deal that is cooked up. But, suppose a deal is arranged that doesn't cover something of importance to one EU nation so they don't actually gain anything, but the deal covers widgit exports to the EU and that nation also makes widgits and without a deal they would be more competitive in selling to the rest of the EU. Wouldn't they be tempted to stand out for including something in the deal that benefits them (either including something they do trade with the UK, or excluding widgits from the deal)?

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? And, as a consequence insist that any deal includes the UK agreeing to maintain legislation on such issues as workers rights that are compatible with current and future EU regulations? Would that be a deal acceptable to Mrs May, or is that the sort of "not good for the UK" deal she won't accept?
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It looks as though Theresa May really believes this can get done without damage. Or maybe she is just forced to sound confident, since the "we've made a terrible mistake and must turn back" option won't fly within her party.

Net result of project is that it will follow the following sequence.

Wild enthusiasm
Confusion
Disillusionment
Search for the guilty
Punishment of the innocent
Reset
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
In other news, Boris Johnson assures us that trade deals with other countries can be 'pencilled in'.

(pause for howls of outrage from all lawyers, civil servants and in fact any Shipmate with half a brain).

Every time that man opens his mouth his brains fall out. Presumably he has an assistant with the job of finding them and stuffing them back in, or he wouldn't have any left.

[Mad]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Corbyn 2020! ... No. Great Yarmouth and Boston and Spalding and Aldeburgh are FREE of Balts picking OUR beets and flooding OUR schools and hospitals. Replaced by BRITISH robots. The 10% corporation tax City and Penny Pound tourism and 20% tax on the 80% of foreign car imports will save us those foreigners will have to pay like a Mexican wall. But if not ... in the words of Shadrack & Co., we English shall burn proud and free. Scotland? Where's that?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
And other countries are making the right noises about getting on with a negotiation.

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.
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?
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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."

The Scottish contingent are particularly gloomy, as they don't think a second independence vote will go Yes' way. To my surprise (but then they're soft Yes, not Wings over Scotland subscribers). Those with their own businesses or who work in the Scottish financial or local government sectors seem to be tracking across to NO FWIW.

Yesterday was the day I finally climbed over the fence onto the making Leave work side. I haven't got the time/energy after doing a day's work to fight it, so might as well plan for the future.

*I'm not remotely expecting you to think it was an impressive speech - but if her aim was to win over more of the centre ground that don't have the time or energy to forensically point out all the flaws and contradictions inherent in any political vision and just want someone, anywhere, to show some leadership, then I'd say it worked.

I've been consistent all along that I was on the fence anyway and a reluctant Remainer, but I've now decided to get on with making it work outside the EU. Life's too short (for me) not to. I acknowledge that others in different circumstances will reach the conclusion that life's too short not to fight it, and that's fair enough.

FWIW, while I admire the certainty that this is "idiocy" and "incompetence" I also can't relate to it. That's not a Pollyanna-ish determination to see the best in everything, so much as an unwillingness to accept that there is only one objective truth and one person has found it (and as a consequence everyone else is wrong).

Particularly when the subject under consideration is a combination of politics and economics, both of which are proverbially willo-the-wisp.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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?

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.
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
"...ok, time to make it work."

That's my attitude as well.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.

[Roll Eyes] 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.

But yes, the UK could 'compete' with Foxconn on jobs as long the workers were willing to endure a drastic drop in living standards, and as long as the country was willing to bear the environmental problems that come with running industry along that model and externalising the environmental costs (the other reason it is cheap).

and now, we've moved from sunlight uplands to dark satanic mills.

[ 18. January 2017, 10:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
How are you going to do that penultimate comment Alan? That charismatic claim?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

And the result is that it's haemorrhaging manufacturing jobs to Asia.

quote:
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.
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.

Most people like the idea of good conditions for workers, but they like the idea of cheap consumer goods even more.

quote:
When it comes down to it, things like working hours directives are popular and supported by the electorates of European nations.
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?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Unfortunately in Britain, "being competitive" means "leading a race to the bottom which will only end when we're all working 20-hour shifts in unheated sheds for 75pence an hour".
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
I find this current theme to be quite amusingly discordant with other arguments in favour of EU membership, as exemplified by 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, and shoppers wouldn't be prepared to pay the extra amounts at the till that would be required to employ them.

Because that's basically the same issue as what we're discussing here, albeit that in that case it's the workers that move rather than the factories. But in both cases the actual work goes to the ones who are prepared to do it for the lowest price, and the ones who have higher standards go unemployed.

Does anyone else find it incredibly interesting that whether we agree or disagree with the issue (and yes, I include myself in that) depends on whether it's the people or the companies that are moving?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Absolutely, but Martin was specifically talking about ('trying to take back') the jobs in China and Bangladesh.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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

Ah, but the difficulty is that we disagree on what's best for Britain (or, even if that's the sole criteria for consideration).

So, as you know, I firmly believe that what's best for Britain and good for the rest of the EU is for the UK to remain in the EU. As you say, that's not going to happen (though theoretically it's not too late to stop Brexit). So, what is the best of the other options?

For me the best includes:
None of which appears to be in Mrs Mays' thinking.

If I stand up for those principles, which I agree are effectively EU membership in all but name (but, without any UK MEPs), is that "bitching about it happening" or working for the best for the UK?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
How are you going to do that penultimate comment Alan? That charismatic claim?

Can you clarify which comment you're refering to? Give me a fighting chance at answering your question.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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."

OK, I can't do much at governmental level, but I can help my firm, my industry and my family and community make the best of it. I'm still ambivalent about the vote, and Remain would have made life a hell of a lot easier, but here's where we are.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It were this one Alan, but you actually addressed my question subsequently:
quote:
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.

Your answer is ideal and none of it will happen. It's race to the bottom time with London as the ultimate tax haven.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

The bigger issues actually reflect working conditions, most of which are intrinsic to the industry. By definition, fruit picking is seasonal work. In any one location there may only be demand for extra labour for a few weeks - this would be a useful bonus for unemployed people in the immediate vicinity, but for anyone else this means that in addition to the work itself they would need to relocate for a short period of time. For someone who wants to work for extended periods of time they need to be prepared to keep on moving to where the work is. That may not be a problem for some people, but as you get older, get married, have children etc then it's good to settle down in one place.

The other unavoidable working condition is that fruit harvesting is physically demanding work. A lot of bending and lifting. And, there are some skills involved as well. When the crops are only at the point of harvest for a short time there would also be long hours to get everything in. Even though the unemployment figures suggest that there should be enough people in the UK, the demands of the job are such that only a small proportion of those who be able to fill the labour gap.

Of course, this is nothing new. The UK agricultural sector (as well as other seasonal employment) has always relied on migrant labour. Gangs of labourers who would move up and down the coast to process fish, following the migration of the fish up and down the North Sea. Families who would take their holidays in the country, working the farms at harvest time. Industrial scale agriculture has never been able to sustain a large permanent work force, but has always managed to sustain a work force willing and able to move around to follow the labour demands.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Is there any chance that May could get Liam fox to shut the hell up - and they go EEA? Just to keep the lights on?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If she succeeds in getting the idiots in her party (Fox, BoJo, Davies, Gove ...) to shut up all that would do would be to let Farage come back to media attention. I'm not sure that's an improvement.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
"...ok, time to make it work."

That's my attitude as well.

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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I had to laugh at the Times front page this morning, their paraphrase of May's speech was: 'Give us fair deal or you'll be crushed'.

I don't think she actually said that, although some journalists are interpreting the threat to emulate Singapore as something like that.

I wonder if this is a leak from an ultra-Brexit politician, just to show the iron fist in an iron glove?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The sooner Scotland gets independence so I'm not living in the UK the better

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.

A politician as wily as Nikki the Fish knows that another lost referendum will bury the issue for 50 years, so despite her rhetoric, I think she'll hold fire on that one for a while. No EU country is taking her seriously. It's more than likely that Scotland would have to apply anew for EU membership. If sufficient Scottish voters are so ideologically wedded to independence that they are willing to be an isolated small country with a basket case economy, they must be allowed to have it, but I rather doubt it.

This question of access to the Single Market is exaggerated in any event. All countries have access, and the UK economy is strong and resilient enough to cope with the worst case scenario, which is WTO rules on a most favoured nation basis. Despite all the sabre rattling which has gone on since June last, today even Jean Claude Junker has made conciliatory noises that, however difficult, the negotiations must find a fair deal for all. 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.

That is to be expected. They don't want to make it easy for other countries to follow the UK out. But pragmatism will out once the dust settles. The Germans won't want a 10% tariff applied to their huge UK car sales. Perhaps sector by sector deals are achievable. In any event, the UK would make more out of reciprocal tariffs than it loses, money which could be targeted a easing any pain caused by this. And there IS a big world out there in which deals can be struck.

The history of Europe over the last few hundred years shows the UK as a country which always looked outward to the world rather than towards Europe. We have always been a half hearted and obstructive member of the EU, because we, and I'm generalising, never had the same vision of European integration that many other countries had. The UK can now renew its ties with old friends and allies, forge new ties in the growing Asian markets, and remain a helpful fiend and ally to our European neighbours. I don't see any of this as bad.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
threat to emulate Singapore

By that, do you mean Singapore's prosperity and the longevity of its citizens. No bad thing!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I know typos are normally hors do combat, but I do like PaulTH's comment on the UK being a helpful fiend. Yay, Dr Freud, I presume.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Yeah apologies for the typo. I hope we become friends rather than fiends!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
threat to emulate Singapore

By that, do you mean Singapore's prosperity and the longevity of its citizens. No bad thing!
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?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I think there would be serious downsides to adopting a radical free trade economy such as Singapore, because certain sectors, like agriculture, could never compete with tariff free imports from around the world, but I'm not sure Hammond had that in mind. Reducing corporation tax is how Ireland has attracted large multinationals to set up there. But it's hardly the "race to the bottom" as Jeremy Corbyn describes it. He would be innately hostile to anything which generates prosperity.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Prosperity for who? I think that the Singapore model is also being talked about in terms of intense deregulation of labour and other areas, and Labour, quite rightly, are worried about that. Whether you can trust a right-wing Tory govt to uphold workers' rights, well, let me see, maybe I need to blow on a dandelion, to find out. Damn, there are none, as it's winter.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

* To encourage the others.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the UK will pay a price designed to discourage others from following suit.

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.

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?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by PaulTH:

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
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.

IF. ECONOMICS. WAS. THE. ONLY. THING. THAT. MOTIVATED. PEOPLE. WE. WOULDN'T. BE. IN. THIS. MESS.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the UK will pay a price designed to discourage others from following suit.

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.

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?

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.

But, campaigns to leave the EU, in whatever nation they are, relate to concepts such as "national identity", "sovereignty", etc. Economics only comes into it when you examine the question - is the economic cost of leaving the EU worth the gains in the less tangible concepts such as national identity?

The EU, and the nations within the EU, will be taking an economic hit from Brexit. Moreover, there is damage to the larger aims of European integration. 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?".
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

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.

[ 18. January 2017, 13:53: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the UK will pay a price designed to discourage others from following suit.

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.

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?

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?

But individuals - both people and states - are notorious for putting their own short-term good ahead of the common long-term good. I think the EU are right to seek to negate short-term good for an individual state in the interests of long-term good for all.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
For Singapore read London ONLY. A city state. How do Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle benefit?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
the UK will pay a price designed to discourage others from following suit.

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.
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.

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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?".

So it's modelled on an abusive relationship where if a partner wants to leave they are kept in by threats?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

I can agree with that aim without agreeing with the method used to achieve it.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Marvin

It doesn't matter whether you think it is unfair, or symptomatic of abuse, or whatever. It is about what the 27 can collectively agree re severance terms. And if severance terms cannot be agreed before the negotiating deadline is passed, we lose all current trading and social benefits without anything to put in their place.

The planned negotiations are to ameliorate that effect. Which might be described as the hardest of hard Brexits. You can safely take it that the results of that would be very unfavourable to the UK in the short to medium term.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

In the referendum it might be argued to be a case of deciding between the lesser of the two evils.

I think the problem is that Leave is the worst of the two and that the vote for Leave was based largely on a nostalgic premise rather than anything forward-looking, either utopian ("never again" to war in Europe) or economic (I think the UK has delusions of grandeur about other countries, and more especially the EU-27, queueing up to strike quick trade agreements with it).

If events prove me wrong then I'll be very happy for you, but I'm not optimistic.

[ 18. January 2017, 15:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
threat to emulate Singapore

By that, do you mean Singapore's prosperity and the longevity of its citizens. No bad thing!
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.

The other reality is that Singapore runs a highly dirigiste industrial and education policy, and the government controls 82% of the housing stock (which provides them with a means of controlling one of the largest sources of asset misallocations in modern economy)

[ 18. January 2017, 15:15: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Meanwhile our Foreign Secretary is pursuing his distinctive brand of diplomacy (winning friends and influencing people) by likening the idea of the EU seeking to impose tough terms on the UK for Brexit to administering a punishment beating on an escaped British POW in an old war film.

Is there no way of getting that man to shut up?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Perhaps Boris Johnson serves the same purpose as Trump: a distraction while the actual forward movement of politics and policy goes on elsewhere.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I wish I could be as optimistic about Trump (and BoJo).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's also possible, that coupled with the Times headline about 'crushing' the EU, such language (punishment beatings), may reflect a genuine, if often suppressed, current of opinion among some politicians. We are at last free from the loathsome Gauleiters!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
For Singapore read London ONLY. A city state. How do Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle benefit?

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!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
I wish I could be as optimistic about Trump (and BoJo).

I never said anything about the actual politics being any better.

I'm pretty sure both of them are just playing to the gallery, though. I doubt Boris will be anywhere near any actual Brexit negotiations.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
For Singapore read London ONLY. A city state. How do Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle benefit?

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!
You are Boris Johnson's ghost-writer and I claim my five pounds.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
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

Well a friend of mine sent me this.......( don't think it's suitable if you're reading this at work...)


We're so sorry, Scotland
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
Funny gig! In fact, in terms of its perceived mandate, the Scottish government has been quite constructive in its Brexit discussions with the Westminster government, but has been pretty much entirely ignored by May beyond the occasional rhetorical flourish. Sturgeon is now almost compelled to move towards a second independence vote on a matter of principle, regardless of whether the polls are favourable or not. If Brexit starts to turn the UK economy decidedly sour, then the likelihood of Scottish independence will grow significantly. If a referendum is called, of course; May is far less likely to agree to one than Cameron, because she will feel less sure of winning it.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Being on the autism spectrum - a LOT of stuff was siphoned in through EU.. and i feel more scard now...

I miss the more liberal feel..
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
If Brexit starts to turn the UK economy decidedly sour, then the likelihood of Scottish independence will grow significantly.

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.

If Brexit starts to turn the UK's economy "decidedly sour" then voting to leave the UK is just about the only way the people of Scotland could prove themselves to be more stupid than the Brexiteers. If the UK's on WTO 10% export tariffs then Scotland would be volunteering to go and stand on the wrong side of the wall to most of its trade - especially if there was a hard border between Scotland and rUK. If Scotland stays in the EU and the UK doesn't then ditto. Meanwhile Scotland starts a desperate dash to reorientate the bulk of its economy, and the rUK govt closes down all the public sector jobs in Scotland which serve the rUK.

I note however that they have the inalienable right so to be and also that the record of votes over the last 12 months should indicate that just because something is jaw droppingly imbecilic doesn't mean people won't vote for it.

[ 19. January 2017, 08:44: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
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?).
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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?).

I agree, except that "rationally" you're still voting to make things worse - and that the Scottish NHS is the Scottish administration's bailiwick.

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. That and the fact that 38% of Scots did actually vote for Brexit, which means that there is a bedrock who are presumably happy (especially if they all vote Unionist again).

Worst case scenario is that Scotland votes either way 52/48 and becomes just as bitter and divided about that as the UK is on the EU. Scexiteers should really be careful what they wish for.

Putting my Mystic Meg had on, I think that (rightly or wrongly, and probably for all the wrong reasons), it might turn out to be the Brexit vote that has killed off Scottish independence for a generation. Counter intuitive, but it's my gut feeling.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well, thing is that in most Brexit scenarios England may/may not come out OK but Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do a lot worse.

So I think it isn't impossible to imagine a future for Wales where there is very low inwards investment, no Westminster funds to replace the EU structral funds and so many parts of Wales begin to rapidly sink.

We then wonder how long the Westminster set will allow this situation without suggesting some kind of devaluation, the reduction of the Welsh social security system or some kind of enforce Wexit from the UK.

Similar but different things in Scotland and NI.

The Tories only care about England, I can see them selling out the other nations to ensure England "makes a success" of Brexit.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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).
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.

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....

Essentially, if the best the UK can get is Hard Brexit, then Yes campaigners in Scotland should be honest and say if it has to be hard Scexit - no EU, no pound, 10% tariffs on trade with rUK - then it's still worth it.

Because they can't guarantee, much vaunted White Paper or no, that a vote for Yes isn't a vote for hard Scexit.

It's just unbelievable that people should be looking at the unfolding chaos of Brexit and thinking, "you know what? The answer to this is more division! Scotland's better off walking away from two thirds of their trade to get back into the EU!"

I completely agree that Scotland's been backed into a dreadful position against its will. But unfortunately a) that's just a fact, and b) I don't think independence is going to help.

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. "The rUK's cut our nose off, so our response is to cut our head off."
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

[Roll Eyes]

That's sort of my point.

In the same way that the UK cannot possibly expect to be partial members of a union and enjoy the economic benefits if it leaves, neither can Scotland if it leaves the UK.

The people pointing out that the EU are being consistent and stating fact rather than being threatening, should presumably extend the same courtesy to the UK government when it does the same to Scotland. If it does.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

[Roll Eyes]

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).

Essentially, if people want to unload their economic shotgun into the national feet then that's their right. Scary, but their right.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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....

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).

And, even then where is the relevance to the Scottish independence case? You have two sets of predictions - one by a group campaigning against Scottish independence, another by a group campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU. Different groups, different scenarios.

quote:
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.
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.

Brexit campaigned for the 'romantic' ideals of sovereignty of our Parliament, maintaining national identity against being dragged into a "United States of Europe", independence from government by a foreign power etc.

But, many of those same people campaigned against Scotland seeking exactly those same things. The difference being that the Scottish Parliament has a lot less sovereignty than Westminster, the EU doesn't govern the UK in any realistic sense whereas Westminster does govern Scotland, political union in Europe is an aspiration that won't be realised for generations (and, will involve several further steps, each of which will give the people of the UK, and the rest of the EU, a chance to say "that's too far") whereas political union in the UK is an established fact.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm still failing to follow your argument.

OK:

Scotland 2014:
Project Fear - don't do this because xyz.
Scotland votes No - Scottish Yes campaign continues to characterise it as Project Fear because there's no evidence that xyz would happen.

UK 2016:
Project Fear - don't do this because xyz.
UK votes Leave.

*If* over the next 2 years Project Fear is proved to have been right about the EU, and the whole thing is a disaster - and I suspect that there will be evidence either way to draw that sort of line of argument very quickly (ie within the 2 years between now and 2019) - then when it comes down to it voters might be even more minded to give credence to predictions of disaster.

Yes it's 2 different arguments on 2 different subjects*, but I do reckon that people might point to "they said the sky would fall in and it has" and side with the camp that says that more of the sky will fall in if they vote yes.

Which is what No to independence will be saying. The only way round this would be for Yes to say more of the sky will fall in if there's a No vote. In which case both sides will be prophesying Armageddon and we'll all be in for the deep joy of the most negative campaign in history.

That's all. I'm not saying I'm right, or that it's in any way fair. But I can see why it might work out that way.

*although given that both votes are about a small thing detaching itself from a larger political and economic union they're not exactly miles apart either.

Put it this way, I have put (a small amount of) money on a No vote in IndyRef2 within 5 years.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
betjemaniac:
quote:
*If* over the next 2 years Project Fear is proved to have been right about the EU
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?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac:
quote:
*If* over the next 2 years Project Fear is proved to have been right about the EU
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?
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.

Raise any negatives in pretty well any UK political argument when you're on the side of the status quo these days and you get "Project Fear" thrown at you.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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.

[Roll Eyes]

UK to EU: if you don't give us all the sweeties we want, we'll ruin you. (Fantasy stuff).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The Tories care about the Tories. The referendum was meant to address divisions in the Tory party, and now May is trying to do the same. I don't believe all the stuff about the poor. She wants to win the next election, which I don't blame her for, but of course, she can't just say that, it has to be dressed up in highfalutin language.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
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.

[Roll Eyes]

UK to EU: if you don't give us all the sweeties we want, we'll ruin you. (Fantasy stuff).
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?'

It's like that time when John Bull, the stroppy tenor, announces he's leaving the choir because he doesn't like the uniform, or choice of music, can't trust the choir committee, thinks the subscription is too high, and wants to pick his own performance dates and venues. But somehow you know that he's still expecting full orchestral accompaniment, packed halls and glowing reviews. You also know he's only going to succeed if he's Pavarotti.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.).

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.

If free movement is seen by the EU as a benefit, then opting out of it is rather like ordering off the prix fixe menu but foregoing the starter because you read in the Daily Mail that foccaccia causes cancer - it's irrational but it's not actually a free rider situation. If free movement is a cost then the nativists aren't necessarily unreasonable in banging on about immigration.

Anyway 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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Incidentally, I wonder what Mr Juncker thinks of Mr Hammond's threat to undermine our European neighbours' tax systems by turning our country into a tax haven?

I hope he is suitably shocked. [Eek!] [Eek!]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think the Channel Islands might be more than a little cross.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
My workplace periodically invites speakers in to give talks on interesting subjects. Last night was a Scottish economist talking about Brexit.

A couple of his conclusions: in economic terms the UK* is likely to lose out far more than mainland Europe. Brexit in its current form is more about immigration than anything else so Theresa May is going to accept a reduction in trade as the price of a reduction in the movement of people. Also if the UK wants to turn into a tax haven it probably won’t be very good at it on account of having much too large an economy.

*The City in particular, because there is a high likelihood of financial institutions in the city of London losing their passporting rights. Financial services are the UK’s n° 1 export. This is a financial company so this is the question that people were especially interested in.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
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.).

The problem with this line of argument is that it only really works if free movement really is a drawback,

...

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.

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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 

Anselmina ,
John Bull never accepted that he was a member of the choir.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

Anselmina ,
John Bull never accepted that he was a member of the choir.

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.

It took decades of misinformation by the hard right, and the worst economic crash since 1929, to get the sort of stupidity and ignorance we now take for granted into the political mainstream. The heirs of Tony and Enoch have triumphed. We're about the learn the hard way why a more sensible and better informed generation consigned them to the political wilderness.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
If Brexit had an overwhelming advantage it was that it could and did put its points simply. That doesn't mean that only simple or stupid people voted to leave but the Remain campaign's messages, especially those refuting the Brexit campaign's soundbites, were lost in a fog of words, which many people found very boring indeed.

I'm still not sure how close Brexit and Trump are politically (TBH I'm not sure where Trump stands, except to do everything in the interest of Donald Trump), but when it comes to election tactics they are peas from the same pod.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If Brexit had an overwhelming advantage it was that it could and did put its points simply.

I think the word you want is simplistically.

Which was what was very frustrating about the Leave campaign, they'd take a complex issue and distil it into a soundbite and then refuse to engage in discussion of the detail. But, then again, the whole question was framed like that - there was no scope to ask "Leave? Leave to where?".

I suppose a classic example was "£350m per week". It's true the total contribution the UK makes to the EU is about £350m per week. But, when you look at the figures things become more complex - there's a rebate that comes straight back, at about £100m per week, a large proportion of the rest comes back to the UK through farm subsidies, support for research and development etc. If all things were equal (ie: the UK continues to fund everything in the UK that the EU funds, and that bringing functions such as international trade negotiations back to Whitehall doesn't cost more than our share of the EU costs*) then about the only saving to be made would be MEP pay and expenses, which is nowhere near £350m per week.

But, as you say, too many people didn't want to hear the details that refuted the Leave claims. Which is a point where I start to despair about democracy - the number of people who participate who actually choose to be ignorant. Democracy, especially through a referendum, requires an informed electorate, otherwise it's just mob rule and our rulers simply need to provide bread and circuses.

 

* which, of course, would never be the case. And, various leaks have suggested that the Whitehall department for trade negotiations will employ the same number of people as the entire European Commission. Probably in expensive London offices, paying London wages.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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

[ 20. January 2017, 19:56: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I'm looking back to the 60s - when de Gaulle with great clarity saw that the UK would not be European-minded - and 70s as well, the days before neo-liberalism. The left opposition then and continuing had very little of the flavours you're now mentioning.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Is there any way to stop this shit? I don't want to be stuck in a xenophobic culture!
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
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.

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.

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

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.

As to the exceptions the main ones were the Rebate, the Social Chapter, membership of the Euro and the Schengen agreement. Of those the first took place during a climate of cuts in public spending and a period in which first Denis Healey and then Sir Geoffrey Howe had taken drastic measures to push down inflation. I can't really see a case for saying that every government department should face cuts across the board except for the UK's contribution to the EU. The ERM debacle demonstrated that membership of the Euro was a bad idea, and the experience of the Eurozone has subsequently confirmed it, Tony Blair reversed our opt out from the Social Charter. Schengen makes perfect sense for the continent but not so much for the UK, as an island, which is why we opted out. Unless you think that the UK has a moral obligation to sign up to everything the EU puts forward the various opt outs were generally accepted by all parties as a reasonable compromise.

Originally posted by Chris Stiles:

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.
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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
@ Alex Cockell

We may not be able to stop this shit, but that doesn't mean we have to wade in up to our necks and eat it. Call out Xenophobic talk, challenge anyone who tries to blame our self-inflicted social problems on immigrants. Point out all the fantasy and wishful thinking that currently passes for policy. It may lose you some friends, but maybe they aren't the sort of friends you want anyway.

I suspect that, like the 1930's or the buildup to the Iraq invasion, this is a time that people will look back on and decide that they were actually on the other side.

[ 21. January 2017, 14:18: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

quote:
So their preferred trajectory after a 'Lexit' would have been diametrically opposite from the direction the country is now heading in.
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.
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.

[In the abstract sense I don't necessarily think that every unintended consequence has to be laid at the feet of the people whose decisions lead to it, partly because this tends to be very much driven by how far up the casual chain you want to go].
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C2dy_PPXgAERall.jpg:large

There's the obvious contradiction there between the desire for migration limits, but against passport checks. I imagine you could generate similar contradictions by posing questions that imply different directions to trade, and so forth.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Is there any way to stop this shit? I don't want to be stuck in a xenophobic culture!

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.

As for the culture. I don't believe Britain is characterised by xenophobia, but I do believe that many people fell for the lies of a small minority of racists and xenophobes in positions of power - both politicians and the media. Which means we have our work cut out to remind the majority of British values: respect, tolerance, compassion, etc.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
It seems that Mrs May is to be the first foreign head of Government to be granted an audience by The Donald. One hopes that she will not so bedazzled by the experience that she forgets the fate of Tony Blair, who (need I remind anyone?) unwisely hitched his wagon to a star.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I hope she remembers to keep her hands in front of her when she meets him.

Or, then again, maybe I don't.

IJ
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
If she wears those leopard-skin shoes, she'll probably remember how to use them...
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Meanwhile, how does the ROI fare? Would you, on the basis of economic argument, suggest that it should quit the EU and rejoint Brexit-UK?

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

As an aside, note that that article is on the first anniversary of the start of the immediate pre-referendum discussion on independence, and still 18 months before the referendum itself. Which puts the few months we had before the EU referendum in perspective.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So the UK Parliament will have its say. That will be interesting.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Interestingly, the devolved administrations don't even need to be consulted (in an unanimous decision from the SC, although I've not yet read the full decision). Which goes to show how much I know - I thought the presentations before the SC by the lawyers for the devolved authorities (esp NI) were the strongest part of the whole thing.

Some are already saying this marks the death of devolution.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So the UK Parliament will have its say. That will be interesting.

Not really. There's very little likelihood of Parliament blocking it.
 
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :
 
Which does rather make one wonder why the Govt didn't have the good sense to play safe and do this by Act of Parliament in the first place, thereby saving face, time, and a great deal of taxpayers' money. They'd have had Art 50 by now and a lot of lawyers wouldn't have lined their pockets with your money and mine.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I have found a very interesting section of the judgement, the conclusion in para 152 (discussed in previous paras) appears to suggest that as the Sewel Convention isn't law, the courts can disregard it - meh, it's just a convention.

Again, of course, IANAL. But this seems to me to be a bit of a problem for the Scottish, Welsh and NI devolved authorities.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I can't find the full text of the judgement, only the court summary.

But from that summary, I'm still inclined to agree with Lord Reed.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
So the UK Parliament will have its say. That will be interesting.

Not really. There's very little likelihood of Parliament blocking it.
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.

But, there may be the chance for Parliament to force May to change her bottom line. Parliament could (for example) insist on free trade even if that means no additional controls on immigration rather than the governments apparent position of controls on immigration even if that means trade tarrifs. The SNP & LibDems would certainly push for that sort of amendment, and would have the support of many from both Conservative and Labour benches ... enough to force it through? Probably not.

But, debates in the House where the consequences of a hard Brexit, the economic double whammy of trade tariffs and restricted immigration, are clearly spelt out might make enough people to sit up and take notice of the fact that this government seems to be determined to push through an immigration policy based entirely on simple racism at any cost, which I can't believe would sit comfortably with the vast majority of the UK electorate. Hopefully mobilising mass support from the UK electorate might push enough MPs to act decently and give fascism a good kicking.
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I can't find the full text of the judgement, only the court summary.

I haven't read it yet but I believe it is here (pdf) or here (html).
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Thanks Demas.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Okay, well, having read most of the decisions (I left out the parts about devolution)...

The majority judgement is indeed far more persuasive than in the lower court. There is one bit, though, that still disturbs me a lot. And it's this from paragraph 82:

quote:
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).
I think it's very much to the point.

I've only quoted that particular sentence, but surrounding it is an apt analogy about Parliament having created a "pipe" and saying that whatever EU rules flow through the pipe become part of the UK law.

All well and good. I've no problem with that.

The problem I have is the unexamined assumption that building a pipe causes water to flow through it.

Because the point of the thing they say is not to the point is that when the pipe was first built, there WASN'T any water flowing through it. The tap, to continue the analogy, was turned on months later.

A rule that says "we control the pipe" just isn't sufficient. It doesn't ensure water at the bottom end of the pipe. Water appearing at the bottom of the pipe is contingent upon water entering the top of the pipe.

Lord Reed goes into this largely in paragraphs 192 to 197. He doesn't use the pipe analogy that the majority uses, but effectively he says that the tap wasn't turned on when the pipe was built, and there was no actual guarantee that the tap was going to be turned on. Nor is there a guarantee that the tap won't be turned off.

To quote from paragraph 197 (emphasis of one sentence mine):

quote:
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.
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:

quote:
The Act is not changed; it does, however, cease to operate because there are no longer any treaty rules for it to bite upon.
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
I might also add one other thing...

The case does a good job of illustrating the significant problems that are caused by any system that says "laws made in one jurisdiction automatically become laws in a different jurisdiction".

I have to deal with such a system, and sometimes it's horrendous to figure out the outcomes. There's a superficial attraction to setting up something like this and thinking that it saves work - the UK Parliament doesn't have to sign off on anything coming from Europe, it just gets automatically converted from being an EU thing into being a UK thing.

But problems arise because those EU things weren't written specifically for, and tailored to, the UK. You end up trying to work out how to fit the EU stuff into the existing UK framework, and there's no guarantee this will actually work smoothly. You're liable to end up with situations where you have to translate the literal words of an EU provision into something that will actually make sense within the UK laws.

I would hope that the EU, having to constantly deal with the different legal arrangements of lots of countries, would draft its legislation to take this into account and so it would probably be smoother than the system I have to deal with where one jurisdiction is pretty much an add-on to another. 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.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
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.

What a way to go down that would be though. Much better than the quiet sputtering finish that they'll have otherwise.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Labour have decided to roll over and not be the Opposition.

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.

Apparently not.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
I doubt the Lords would want to trigger the constitutional crisis that would result if they rejected calling Article 50.
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.

Of course, that would leave May & Co. with no opposition at all - unless HM decided to trigger another constitutional crisis by refusing to sign the legislation...

<pauses to contemplate the spectacle of a Tory government abolishing the monarchy>

Nah.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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...
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

One imagines that Mrs. May would reach for the Parliament Act under such circumstances.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I must be missing something and hopefully someone can point it out to me. Labour MP's are not allowed to vote against the triggering of article 50, but even if they voted against it as a block they still wouldn't amount to enough to stop it; so the question seems to be why? Why not let Labour MP's vote in their own conscience? This is quite apart from the fact that they are meant to be an opposition party but this is the first time I think I've ever seen an opposition party amount to a puppy that rolls over to have its belly scratched every time it has the opportunity to be an actual opposition.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
There's no upside for Labour in voting against article 50: it just leaves them open to being painted as out-of-touch opposers of the people's democratically-expressed will, or something.

You don't get brownie points at the next election for "well, we didn't want it but lost the vote." It's probably true that their best tactic is now to stay out of the way completely on Brexit, let the Conservatives own the process, and make them own the consequences in 2020.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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. One of those options will result in losing more votes than the other (my guess solid support for Brexit would be the worst option). On the other hand, if they just sit and play lap dog to the Tories they risk alienating the entire electorate.

Where they really need to be is having a solid plan for Brexit that is clearly identifiable as their own, and then work tirelessly to try and push the government in that direction at every turn. At the moment the SNP and LibDems have pitched very strongly for maintaining access to the single market at all costs, with staying in the EU an option if that is the only way of staying in the single market. So, Labour need to find another position - what will appeal to their traditional voters would include maintaining all the employment and environmental regulations of the EU, and probably single market access (but leaning to Brexit even if that can't be achieved to put some clear space from the SNP/LibDems).

At the moment Labour seem to be selecting the worst possible option.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

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...
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.

The EU has relevance to personal freedoms, but how does the EU protect the NHS?

[ 24. January 2017, 20:10: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I'm not sure that it would, but the government in power has those goals and any vote in their favour strengthens their sense of mandate. BTW efficiency isn't necessarily a blessing as far as government is concerned. Smooth roads speed the journey to Hell more oft than heaven.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

So, for example, flood planning is devolved in Wales. But should it be decided that flood planning in Wales needs to take of the flood risk in the upper Severn - in England - presumably the UK government could decide to "undevolve" that power.

And this becomes a particular problem in laws written by the Scottish Parliament which appear to assume that the Sewell Convention is more-or-less settled to the extent of being mentioned explicitly in the laws they've written, and yet the Supreme Court says that it isn't. Devolved administrations can't operate like that.

And it is even more serious and important in Northern Ireland where the devolved settlement is predictated on the fact that both sides of the border had certain rights due to membership of the EU. The whole thing hinges on the fact that there isn't much point in fighting over who "owns the land" if it makes very little difference if you are a passport holder of the Republic in the North or vice versa.

If that is taken away then the whole peace process folds. The Supreme Court justices (bizarrely, in my view) seem to have decided that this is no biggie because NI is British, ignoring the very thing that the Republicans have been protesting and fighting about this whole time.

quote:
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.
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.

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?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

At one conference, someone from Wales explained the issues they have with figuring out what law applies in Wales. Wales not really being a separate legal jurisdiction from England, except occasionally when a law made in Westminster says it is... or when the Welsh Assembly pipes up... the first version of the Welsh Assembly not really being an actual legislative assembly...

People have a right to know the laws that apply to them. Having multiple sources of law without a really, really clear hierarchy can get in the way of that quite severely.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
It is interesting to note that the Lib Dems are still stuck on about 10%, slightly behind UKIP and well behind Labour. So their pitch for the 48% does not seem to be succeeding yet.
 
Posted by Tukai (# 12960) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Whether you like the law or not is not the question I was thinking about.

My personal preference was not what I was thinking about, either.
I was more referencing the general process with the sentence you reference.

[ 24. January 2017, 21:38: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

No countries of the EU are showing any interest in Nicola Sturgeon's take on Brexit for that reason: it has no constitutional right to act alone. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have the most to lose, but there's been no evidence that there's any major shift in NI's wish to remain part of the UK. If there is, it can be put to a vote as part of the Good Friday Agreement. There are always regions of any state who feel disenfranchised because other, perhaps more powerful regions vote them down, but democracy works on national majorities, and in this case, the nation is the UK.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The decision by the Tories not to stand in Stoke is going to cloud the issues a bit. If a large portion of the Conservative vote shifts to UKIP then Nuttall has a very good chance of winning. Especially if the Labour vote doesn't hold up. Stoke was very solidly Leave in the referendum, so the LibDem candidate is unlikely to cause an upset. The main question is how strong an anti-UKIP vote can be organised, and if so behind which candidate - presumably it has to be the Labour candidate.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tukai:
quote:
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.

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.
But the royal prerogative has involved control of treaties. For centuries after the events you're referring to.

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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
According to Parliaments of Autonomous Nations, edited by Guy Laforest, André Lecours, 2016

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).


[ 24. January 2017, 23:24: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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?
There's no taking back involved. The Parliament has not tried to take the power. Well, until now.

And that was a fundamental point of the case. It wasn't necessary for the government to show an exception to the treaty making power. It was necessary for the opponents to argue that there was something special about the EU legislation that meant, on this specific occasion, Parliament had taken the power when it hadn't otherwise done so.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The decision by the Tories not to stand in Stoke is going to cloud the issues a bit.

Erm, are you sure about this bit...?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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".

The parliaments in Belgium are not nation states, and yet their co-operation was needed to validate the EU-Canada trade agreement.

Which seems strange to our eyes; but why should a fairly small group of Belgians get to decide whether the whole of the EU accepts a trade agreement but Scotland can't decide whether to accept the earthquake of Brexit?

The Channel Islands and Man are not nation states, and yet they have self-determination in some areas independent of the UK.

This thing is only the way you say it is because Westminster has all the political power weighted in favour of the majority in England.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The decision by the Tories not to stand in Stoke is going to cloud the issues a bit.

Erm, are you sure about this bit...?
It has been reported, and the list of candidates do not include a Conservative (though, Labour haven't named their candidate yet either).
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The decision by the Tories not to stand in Stoke is going to cloud the issues a bit.

Erm, are you sure about this bit...?
It has been reported, and the list of candidates do not include a Conservative (though, Labour haven't named their candidate yet either).

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
From what I can gather from ConservativeHome, the debate within the Tory party is the extent to which they should be putting resources into fighting Stoke.

I can't see anything anywhere that has suggested they've decided not to stand a candidate at all.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by PaulTH:
quote:

there's been no evidence that there's any major shift in NI's wish to remain part of the UK.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Explain the final sentence in the quote above to me.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

Explain the final sentence in the quote above to me.
I'll have a go, based on my Irish relatives. The North is a sea of troubles, angst and a massive benefits bill.

While romantics long for a united Ireland, and most Irish would want it in the best of all possible worlds, it actually suits many in the Republic to give all that lip service while being quietly grateful that Norn Iron and all its baggage and bills are primarily London's problem.

No one ever said nationalism was straightforward.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
What Betjemaniac said.

Also; the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland are poles apart politically, culturally and socially. The disparity grows greater all the time. When Sinn Fein first entered the political arena in the Republic they initially really struggled because they just didn't 'get' the south, which in itself was painfully and yet deeply and satisfyingly ironic. But essentially the Republic doesn't want the economic basket case that NI in all likelihood will become (and to some extent already is - just look at the two most recent crises). It has little to no experience of handling delicate community tensions first hand and I doubt that they would be capable, practically speaking, of bringing along the hardline unionists whose boat is already beginning to sink even in the UK and the hardline republicans whose cause has already been seriously eroded. There is no real and genuine understanding of the plight of unionism in the Republic (why should there be, it's a different country) and there are still so many hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) in the north that have no understanding of the Republic and still feed themselves on the fat of the lies of radical republicanism and unionist rhetoric about what the Republic is and what it's like having lived for decades in their own little insular bubble. You can't really blame them either seeing that the same rumour and innuendo about Ireland is still hissed in the corridors of power in London by those who should really know better. In fact, you donut even need to go to the corridors of power, its posted openly enough on these boards. That is to name but a few of the immediate issues.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
I think Labour are trying to face two ways, it's true, not a very comfortable position.

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. If all goes well for her, then he will be out, and Labour will have to get over their nervous breakdown. Or suicide is an option.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

But the supposedly 'hard' Brexit is just Brexit, isn't it?

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
If Nicola Sturgeon can persuade the rest of the EU to allow Scotland to seamlessly retain the membership rights it enjoys as part of the UK, or if it can claim membership of the EEA or EFTA, then I think she will succeed in taking Scotland to the Promised Land of independence and full nationhood. And she would deserve full honours for achieving it. It may still not be economically sensible, given Scotland's huge ties to the rest of the UK, but it would be the jewel of her lifelong ambition. I wouldn't begrudge her it. But if all the other countries involved refuse to take Scottish claims seriously, I think independence will become less attractive post Brexit than it is now. Ms Sturgeon accuses the UK government of leading us off a cliff edge. There could be no greater cliff edge than an independent Scotland outside both the EU and UK markets.

To me, Ireland is the biggest Brexit challenge. Prior to our membership of the EU, the ROI was so economically dependent on Britain that it was an independent country in name only. Its economy was literally dependent on the British shopper. The EU has done wonders for Ireland. It has allowed it to finally emerge from the shadow of its bigger neighbour and strut the world stage as an equal. But although its economy has successfully diversified, the economies of the UK and Ireland remain joined at the hip. With the dying off of the 1916 political class and Tony Blair's greatest achievement, the Good Friday Agreement, relations between the countries have finally been normalised (relatively) culminating in the Queen's visit to Ireland and the Irish President's reciprocal visit to the UK. In the EU, the UK and Ireland usually, but not always, find themselves on the same side of any voting divisions.

This is all at enormous risk because it depends on the open border and free movement across the island. 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. 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. 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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But the supposedly 'hard' Brexit is just Brexit, isn't it?

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.

The Eastern countries, for example, love free movement of people when it allows them to export their unemployment. But they don't want to take in any refugees, and they would howl murder if a million Romanian gypsies settled within their borders. Given the unlikelihood of securing an agreement across such a wide diversity of opinions, the Prime Minister has simply said the is willing to walk away. Not that she plans for a hard Brexit. Of course she wants as much access to the single market as possible, when it's compatible with what Brexit actually means.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

But the supposedly 'hard' Brexit is just Brexit, isn't it?

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.

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.

Biggest crisis since World War 2 and we have a Leader of the Opposition with the brains of a rocking horse.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

These arrangements are far more likely - at present - to pose a problem for the UK than the rest of the EU.
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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
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.
The RoI doesn't need to implement British immigration policy. The British government would implement British immigration policy.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
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?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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.

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".
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by P{aulTH:
quote:

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.

I think you might be wrong on both counts.

Some political analysts outside of NI (in other parts of the UK) tried to claim the remain vote as an indicator of there being no appetite for a united Ireland. Part of this might be government spin to be fair in a time of instability and concerns about what might happen in the future for NI. 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. This may (or may not) indicate that NI is moving into new political territory. There is an election coming up, but it's a bit too soon after the Brexit vote to be taking it as a marker of anything. In the next two years I think we might get a better picture. Looking at it from the outside and as someone who lived there and still has family there, I can say that the last five to seven years has seen the arrival of an entirely new sense of self understanding for NI, which given enough time and stability would/may have fed into a seismic shift.

To your second point - I can assure you that tax concern isn't top of the agenda for Irish citizens in this race. Tax that isn't 'stealth tax' here more often than not hits the middle income earners, but their greatest concern about NI lies in the political and cultural realm first. Taxes as a result of taking on a failed part of the UK may well be high on the agenda, but it is certainly not on the top.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
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?

Here are some unrealistic plans!

1. RoI leaves the EU
2. Internal border between NI and rest of UK
3. Independent Scotland has NI foisted off on it, rejoins EU
4. Independent NI rejoins EU on its own account
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"
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I still think a United Celtic Nations in the EU would be great fun. Ireland will accept Scotland, NI (so long as they play nice and stop being naughty), perhaps a little bit of Cornwall, the Isle of Man (so long as the TT keeps running - this would be a non-negotiable clause) and perhaps a few small areas of northern France. Wales can't come.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Hmm. Here is some analysis from Queen's University Belfast. It seems to lie somewhere between what I previously thought and what fletcher proposes. See what you think.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
I would point to Tables 1, 2 and 11 as largely backing up my interpretation.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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?

Of Turquoise Tastic's 5 points, the first 4 are unlikely, but the 5th has possibilities.

quote:
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"
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.

A bilateral free trade deal between the ROI and the UK would solve trade issues, although the EU may want something in place to prevent the UK using Ireland as a back door to the EU for its produce. But let's face it. 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?
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
I fear that my only contribution to this discussion is based on much cycling in Counties Armagh, Fermanagh, and Derry, in the 1970s. There are literally hundreds of crossing points; the border runs through fields and, at one spot (IIRC) it weaves in and along a country road for miles. Just putting up a series of markers, let alone a wire fence....

To maintain any sort of immigration control, you will need to properly staff about 6 major, a dozen intermediate, and 40-50 smaller control posts. My back-of-envelope figures suggest an annual expenditure of 50 million sterling on top of the initial capital outlay. And, like the Québec/New England frontier, you will be missing a few hundred other crossing points, some of which are going to be used.

While, in my experience, the north and south are different countries, with each society built on a solid and willing ignorance of each other (the churches are an honourable exception, as they have always maintained all-Ireland structures, with much cross-border exchange and discussion), the communities in the border areas have a studied disregard for the frontier.

The UK cannot have an effective immigration policy without frontier controls, and you cannot have that with the open Irish border envisaged by the peace agreements.

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."
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Turquoise Tastic:
I would point to Tables 1, 2 and 11 as largely backing up my interpretation

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

The example of Jersey that you give is somewhat irrelevant - because it covers a limited amount of agricultural products, rather than the kinds of interwoven supply lines that a lot of UK manufacturing output feeds into.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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."

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The UK cannot have an effective immigration policy without frontier controls,

Why not?

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

Not if the two countries put in measures to prevent EU citizens using Ireland as a back door to the UK.
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.
The RoI doesn't need to implement British immigration policy. The British government would implement British immigration policy.
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

But the supposedly 'hard' Brexit is just Brexit, isn't it?

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.

'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'.

If a deal isn't done in two years, then what? We drop out of the EU, and revert to WTO rules? There might be issues here, not so much with tariffs, as with documentation of goods bound for EU destinations.

I assume this is done electronically at the moment, by and large. However, absent a deal, it might be done via physical checks, load inspections, and so on, red tape galore.

However, a transition period could iron all this out, and I suppose again, this is just Brexit.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It is very easy to enter the UK, and will continue to be so. The focus of immigration control will continue to be elsewhere. You can come into the UK, but without the right paperwork and permissions you won't be able to (legally) work, you won't be able to rent a home or get a mortgage, you won't be able to claim benefit or get medical treatment (OK, if you get hit by a bus you'll be treated in A&E, we're not heartless bastards), you won't be able to open a UK bank account ...
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
The UK cannot have an effective immigration policy without frontier controls,

Why not?

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.

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).

An immigration policy ideally determines whom you wish to enter and the reasons for it (demographic, to remedy employment imbalance, humanitarian, etc etc). Frontier controls are an effective way of regulating admission-- the administrative measures to which Alan Cresswell refers might work with a small intake, but would not likely handle a larger intake.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.

[brick wall] 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).

The UK will no longer recognise the various EU avenues of dispute resolution, nor will accept the EFTA Court/ESA, so unless a new resolution body is set up everything will be referred to the WTO - which is not particularly equipped to deal with disputes over services.

If you want things to 'stay as they are' in terms of free trade, then comparisons with other free trade arrangements are somewhat null and void - because most of them are nowhere near as extensive as the arrangement with the EU that the UK currently enjoys.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
If you want to stay in sync, presumably, this would be done inside EEA? But Mrs May seems to have ruled this out, leading to the interesting problem of negotiating secession from the EU, a new kind of trade deal, and a transitional arrangement - all within two years?

Well, not quite, since the transition would presumably start after two years, but then this would be a way of using the same regulations, wouldn't it?

We are not in the EU, but we are harmonizing with their rules!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
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.

First, they may not be eligible for entry under any circumstances
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

quote:
second, they may be seeking to work without documentation and there are plenty of employers happy to have them do so
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).

quote:
third, they may be entering in order to make a claim to status (such as that of refugee).
In which case they will be presenting themselves to someone to make that claim very soon after arrival.

quote:
the administrative measures to which Alan Cresswell refers might work with a small intake, but would not likely handle a larger intake.
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.

Having immigration check points at ports of entry may give the appearance of keeping illegal immigrants out and be good politics. But, administrative measures within the country are probably more effective - and, they have the added bonus of also hitting other policy targets (people employing illegal immigrants may be involved in other criminal activity such as prostitution or drugs).
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
Alan Creswell makes some very interesting points in their response. Having been involved with such issues IRL (former), countries delight in outsourcing passport control to airlines-- the increasingly-hardwared passports out now assist in this materially. And if domestic authorities approach using regulation seriously (as they are only intermittently in the US, given the importance of the undocumented in that economy), that would have a salutary effect.

But outsourcing control to the Irish Republic (which is part of what would be necessary) would require real negotiation. Reading the English press, I note that UK authorities are now aware of this-- I know from Irish government sources that it took them several weeks of prompting for them to realize this-- perhaps another example of not being prepared for the details of Brexit. I would imagine that intelligence details are being shared more widely than in the distant pass, but it's still no magic bullet.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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. Its biggest foreign exports were to the US, at £4.6 billion. Is there any way in which independence within the EU could be of any benefit to Scotland? If, for example, the UK secures a trade deal with the US, Scotland could benefit greatly from it as it already has a healthy US export market. But with its EU market being only 16% it would be lunacy to prioritise that market over others, the most obvious being rUK. The SNP should really change the record and see the sense of making a good Brexit deal for all of us and escape from its one track thinking.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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?

I can see the argument that balancing free trade with rUK or free trade with the EU then the numbers alone favour maintaining free trade with the UK - though, of course, ideally one would want to maintain both. Assuming that the bottom line is the only basis for making such a judgement - which would be a bizarre thing to say seeing as the UK government is ignoring the bottom line over Brexit.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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. But, assuming Scotland has representation in that trade deal maybe the conversation will go something like:

Trump: "Scotland. You make whiskey" (I'm not going assume he knows the correct spelling), "and you do golf. We Americans love buying Scotch and golf clubs".

Scotland: "Mr Trump, you already own more than enough Scottish golf clubs. We're also a manufacturing nation - we have a big, growing sector manufacturing wind turbines. We would love to sell wind turbines in the US".
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.

At present the Scottish government is more concerned about getting the best possible form of Brexit for Scotland, with Scotland still in the UK. If that's not possible, then the question becomes is there a better future for Scotland outside the UK than inside?

What we are working from is that the people of Scotland do not want the UK to leave the EU. So, from the point of view of the Scottish government working for the best for Scotland and respecting the will of the people of Scotland the ideal outcome is that the UK does not leave the EU. That is almost certainly not going to happen.

So, what's the next best option? From what the Scottish government are saying, plan A is for the UK to remain within the European free trade area - which, in terms of trade at least, would leave things as they are. 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 - but would also be difficult to negotiate taking a lot of good will on all sides. At present I'm not sure if there is a Plan C - we're still waiting on knowing if plan A is even on the cards, though it is appearing as though Mrs May is going to let the racists "keep them foreigners out" agenda take the driving seat, and sacrifice free trade if needed. If plan A is still achievable then there's no real need to think of plan C, though just in terms of economics staying in the UK and sacrificing free trade with the EU makes sense - but, no one is playing the "just in terms of economics" card anyway.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
I don't have dog in this particular fight, but there's something fairly misleading below:

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Though there are probably people within the SNP/Scottish government thinking about such things, it's still very early to speculate on what question will be put to the Scottish people, if there's another independence referendum soon. It takes time for the government to draw up a new white paper on independence (even if there hadn't been a change in circumstances, the people of Scotland rejected the 2014 white paper so that shouldn't be put to us again), get it debated in Parliament and accepted as the governments prefered option for independence. That's probably at least two years work, which is the minimum needed for any referendum to have meaning before the start of formal campaigning to sell the options to the people.

At present we don't even know what Mrs May will be asking for from the EU, let alone what she will get. Until then we have no idea whether there will be grounds to pursue independence, let alone what sort of trading relations an independent Scotland should seek. But, broadly speaking the options are:
  1. Scotland within the UK, trading with the EU and the rest of the world on the same terms as the rest of the UK
  2. (Unlikely) Scotland within the UK, but trading with the EU and the rest of the world on different terms from the rest of the UK
  3. Independent Scotland within the EU, trading with the UK and the rest of the world on the same terms as the rest of the EU
  4. (Unlikely) Independent Scotland within the EU, but trading with the UK and the rest of the world on different terms from the rest of the EU
  5. Independent Scotland outwith the EU, trading with the EU, UK and the rest of the world on terms negotiated with each other partner
If the UK retains access to the EU free trade zone options 1 & 3 work out equivalent in terms of trade (3 allows Scotland to tailor trade deals with other nations independently of the UK, but that would account for a small fraction of trade). But, that's an 'if' (quite a big if).

There will be no movement on Scottish independence until the status of the UK with respect to the EU is clear - at least what the UK government wants is clear. 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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And how long will it take to become clear? If they are talking about a transition period, including a period while various EU laws are either got rid of, or changed, and also a new trading deal, and also a secession treaty, two years is a joke. I think the Korean trade deal with the EU has 1300 pages, and every page has to be scrutinized and discussed.

I think fishing in the EU has 1400 pieces of legislation, of course, a lot of them will be deleted, but how much scrutiny will be involved?

[ 26. January 2017, 14:22: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Fisheries in the acquis communautaire:

http://tinyurl.com/zwu53vw
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There is a plan. Admittedly bare bones

Yes, as you say bare bones. But, of the 12 points listed:
  1. Isn't part of the plan, it just says there is a plan
  2. Is minimal, since all EU directives pass into UK law through Parliament anyway - though in some cases the UK law simply references the EU directive rather than spells it out in the law.
  3. Has nothing to do with Brexit
  4. Is necessary to maintain the Good Friday Agreement, but no details of how that will be achieved or the consequences of failing to
  5. If the free trade (8) is maintained this may mean limiting this to the existing controls we have over EU immigration (which, admittedly the UK government doesn't exercise). Besides which a point in the plan which is basically "we're racist bastards" isn't one I want in anything associated with the UK.
  6. Is something that many people have been calling for since June - only to be told that that's a bargaining chip for the negotiations.
  7. I'll believe that when I see it. Conservatives don't exactly have a good track record of protecting workers rights. The UK government has eroded union powers, for example, while in the EU and we don't need to leave the EU to return those powers.
  8. We already have a free trade deal, yes it's great to try and maintain that - but, the evidence is that if necessary this will be sacrificed to keep foreigners out of the country for no better reason than a minority of people don't like foreigners.
  9. Will be necessary. But, is also goning to take a decade or more to achieve (we'll need to start by training people to negotiate trade deals). And, contingent on other countries wanting to spend time negotiating with the UK rather than, say, the EU, China or the USA - all far bigger markets than the UK will ever be.
  10. Which will require, at the minimum, participation in Horizon2020 and Framework programmes. But, probably also the research that backs fisheries and agriculture, try to keep the EMA and other European research centres in the UK - all of which will require funding from a shrinking UK budget, some of which will be paid to the EU. The Conservatives record on science funding is not encouraging that this will happen.
  11. Also necessary, but not contingent on Brexit - we already cooperate with other nations outwith the EU - through NATO for example
  12. Like 1, isn't part of the plan, just that the plan will be smooth (yeah, right)
Basically, some of those 12 points are not points at all ("we will exit the EU in a smooth manner" is not a plan, or a part thereof), not relevant to Brexit ("maintaining the Union"), or really need expanding on (eg: how to stay in the single market and not participate in freedom of movement). If we're not careful we'll have government policy reported in tweets.

quote:
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.
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).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

.. and the comparisons Farage and Hannan (among many others) were fond of drawing on was with Norway or Switzerland.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

The result was one thing and that is clear. God alone knows what the outcome will be.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
This may or may not be true, but it sounds plausible to me.

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).

2. This would need treaty renegotiation.

3. In most countries this can be done after discussion in parliament and/or by the executive.

4. In the Republic of Ireland, this kind of treaty change has required a referendum. In Belgium trade deals like the recent one with Canada have required agreement by their multiple parliaments.

5. Therefore a Brexit deal may need to be agreed by a referendum in the Republic.

6. Given that a Brexit deal most likely puts Ireland in a difficult position, a Brexit referendum would be... interesting..

Which leaves the nightmare situation of the Irish voter deciding the terms of the British Brexit (Ireland first?) if not actually whether the UK can even leave the EU.

What happens if they vote no? Unilaterally leaving?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]

Only changes to the Irish Constitution require a referendum in Ireland.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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).

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
[Roll Eyes]

Only changes to the Irish Constitution require a referendum in Ireland.

OK, but a Constitutional change was required to ratify Lisbon.

quote:
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.
from wikipedia
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

As I understand the argument - which as I've said may or may not be true - Article 50 requires everyone to agree.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Picking up on news this morning, has anyone figured out how our government decided that exiting the EU also means exiting the legally distinct Euratom Treaty? And, that this extension of Brexit beyond just leaving the EU was only deemed worthy of a footnote in the bill to enable the government to trigger Article 50?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

OK, but a Constitutional change was required to ratify Lisbon.

Britain leaving the EU doesn't change the Irish Constitution.

quote:

As I understand the argument - which as I've said may or may not be true - Article 50 requires everyone to agree.

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.

[ 27. January 2017, 12:22: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

As I understand the argument - which as I've said may or may not be true - Article 50 requires everyone to agree.
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.


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.

The UK electorate voted to leave the EU. I despise the elitist political class that believes you can call a referendum, and if you don't get the result you want, you find a way to ask again until you do. The SNP have become masters of this. I voted Remain although I've always been a reluctant European with little sympathy for Euro-Federalism. But I would in no way support the scuppering of the will of the British people by politicians who think they know better than the voters.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Only changes to the Irish Constitution require a referendum in Ireland.

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.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
In 10 years' time, the debate will go something like this:

to MP: Why did you vote to leave the EU?
MP: because the referendum said you wanted to do it.
to MP: yes, but I didn't think it would actually happen and now look at the mess:
MP: but you told me to do it, so I did it.
to MP: but you don't take any notice of anything else we ever say, why was this so special?
MP: the referendum
to MP: which we didn't ask for, and mostly used to kick Cameron's over privileged arse.
MP: but it told us MPs to get the UK out of the EU
to MP: (da capo ad nauseam)*

(translation - repeat until nausea strikes)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If a government sees any issue as important enough to call a referendum, it must honour the result.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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 .

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

So even if the Crimean referendum was illegal, it doesn't change the fact that most Crimeans are Russian and some people feel that this is one area in which the West should cut Putin some slack.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by PaulTH:
quote:

The UK economy is strong and resilient with a long history of international trade. It will not wither and die

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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 .

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.
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.

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.

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, followed by a detailed description of the intent and public discussion prior to the referendum, finished off by a government that can automatically move rapidly into implementing the result of the referendum. We have had none of those, except a very short period of public discussion during the formal referendum campaign. We've had more discussion since the referendum than was held before, as the government has struggled to figure out how on earth they can implement Brexit on a non-existent mandate for any particular form of Brexit. Over six months after we voted we're only just beginning to get an answer to the question "what does 'Brexit' mean?".

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Err yes it does. The EU Referendum in the UK is clearly "more valid" than the referendum in Crimea for those reasons.

quote:
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..
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.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

Err yes it does. The EU Referendum in the UK is clearly "more valid" than the referendum in Crimea for those reasons.
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.

That the Crimean referendum was even further from the line of validity (an almost non-existent discussion and serious questions about the vote itself) than the June referendum doesn't make it "less valid" as though it's a continuum. Both were invalid because they both failed to ask intelligent questions of an informed electorate, indeed both were deliberately designed to prevent that.

quote:
quote:
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..
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.
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.

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.

It should start with a general election, the election of a government in which that constitutional change is a significant part of their manifesto, so that during the campaign the party has managed to convince enough of the electorate to agree with it, or at least not disagree so strongly that it doesn't negate support for other policies in the manifesto.

But, a general election is fought on a manifesto with a range of policies. So, there should be a follow-up to clarify support for any particular policy - for which there is a long established procedure in the UK, namely producing a bill on that policy to go through the process of debate in Parliament, scrutiny by select committees and votes. Only after the government has convinced our representatives to support the change to the constitution should it come to the electorate as a final confirmation. Through all that process - starting with discussions in party conferences to decide that this should be a manifesto pledge through the formal referendum campaign - there is plenty of opportunity for the electorate to be informed about the issues. And, of course, there is a clear question on the ballot paper.

Which is precisely my point. We didn't go through anything remotely like that process. What we have is a few months of very poor public discussion leading to a vote that resulted in an anomaly compared to previous times that the UK electorate has had significant questions about the EU infront of them. 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:
quote:
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.
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.
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.

We've had months of meaningless sound bites ("Brexit means Brexit" and the like), no commitment to protect the rights of people currently living in the UK which has encouraged the lunatics to verbally and physically attack people just because they don't look like they were born in the UK, uncertainty that caused the pound to plummet in strength (in addition to the impact of Brexit itself), we have had universities seeing significant reductions in EU student applications and difficulty in recruiting staff and questions about ongoing participation in vital EU funded research. We have businesses warning that without access to the single market and without freedom of movement that they will suffer, that they won't be able to compete in international markets. We have a government that decides that spending tax payers money fighting pointless court battles, for what? Just time to try and get their act together?

Of course, if things had followed a sensible route, with Brexit being government policy already supported by a general election and an Act of Parliament then not only would the referendum result have validity, but the morning after the votes, assuming a Leave result, the PM would have been on the steps of No 10 triggering Article 50 and getting straight into the negotiations with the EU.

And, you're concerned about a touch of hyperbole in my posts?
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
No one doubts that you're extremely unhappy with how the vote turned out, Alan, but your reaction involves more than "a touch of hyperbole."

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.

So no, the Brexit referendum was nothing like the vote in Crimea.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

And, as I thought I'd made clear, I agree that the situations were different. We only had one MP shot after all.

But, that doesn't alter the fact that both referenda share the common feature of failing to achieve the conditions that would make them valid. In my opinion, obviously, for the reasons I've given in detail already.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Had your side won 52-48, would you still be protesting the invalidity of the results? Would you still be parading ludicrous comparisons to foreign invasions?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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, so much for their moaning about "not respecting the result" when we do all we can to reverse the result or direct the government towards the softest of possible forms of Brexit.

Of course, Farage effectively threatened to let his thugs loose on the streets if he didn't get his way. A wonderful exemplar of a democrat [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
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.

(And are you really now using Nigel Farage and the Leave campaign to justify your own position re: legitimacy? That smells of desperation.)
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

Well that might be what you like but that isn't what has ever happened, has it?

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:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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

Who are these 'Leave campaigners' other than Nigel Farage, who wasn't actually part of the official Vote Leave campaign?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Who are they? Really?
Gisela Stuart, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, John Mills, Peter Cruddas...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who are they? Really?
Gisela Stuart, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, John Mills, Peter Cruddas...

Did they all say that? I'm happy to be proven wrong...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.


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.

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 (on both sides - a lot of Leave voters claiming it was valid, and therefore those of us who still opposed Brexit were 'anti-democratic' etc).

quote:
(And are you really now using Nigel Farage and the Leave campaign to justify your own position re: legitimacy? That smells of desperation.)
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

Well that might be what you like but that isn't what has ever happened, has it?
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.

quote:

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.

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.

quote:
quote:
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.

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.
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?

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. Except this one referendum, and then by a very narrow margin.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

At the time when Cameron made the pledge he was accused of running scared of UKIP which was probably true, but how can anyone question the integrity of a referendum authorised by parliament more than 3 years after it was promised? Another thing Alan is forgetting is that the UK has always been a bad member. De Gaulle vetoed British membership in the 1960's because he couldn't see Britain ever sharing the EU's long term aspirations. He was right. From Thatcher's rebate to Major's Maastricht opt out of the Euro to the exemption from Schengen, and finally Cameron's opt out to "ever closer union" the British position has always to stay detached.

Indeed Britain was instrumental in the enlargement, the "widening not deepening" because we have always been out of kilter with the federalist drive. John Major took over from Thatcher on a promise to be less confrontational with Europe. Then he had Maastricht. Tony Blair came to power vowing to put Britain "at the heart of Europe." But every one of them ran up against the buffers of British objections to their style of federalism. A referendum was called three years after it was promised. It was called as a manifesto commitment. And it was called with the overwhelming backing of parliament. That some people feel completely jaded by the result is acceptable. To question the integrity of the process is not.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
It has become clear to me that Theresa May and the Conservative party have decided that the only way to 'make a success of Brexit' is to align themselves as closely as possible with Trump. If that is not a sign that there are serious issues with Brexit--the only way out of it is to bank on a trade deal with someone with serious personality issues who could easily back out at the last minute--then I don't know what is.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

Or, 1997. Conservative party opposed to membership of the Euro currency, with a vocal "keep the pound" campaign. Labour considering Euro currency membership, depending on the conditions at the time. Result: Labour landslide. Again, other factors in play but opposition to the Euro not strong enough to keep Labour out of power.

Just to mention two elections.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who are they? Really?
Gisela Stuart, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, John Mills, Peter Cruddas...

Did they all say that? I'm happy to be proven wrong...
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
Well, you mention 1983...
...
Or, 1997...
Just to mention two elections.

...which were 20-30 years ago. Attitudes change.

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
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.

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.

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:
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]
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

No, absolutely not in regards to that last bit. General process of gaining support, yes. Repeated official votes, terrible idea.

"Several chances" to have their say is a recipe for utter confusion. How do you interpret the results if you ask several times and get different answers this time. Best of 3? Keep tossing the coin until some given person is happy with the result?

There might just possibly be certain kinds of situations where a staged process is possible, but only where the later stages assume 100% the answer from a previous stage.

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.

It's simply not viable to go over and over on something if the only thing that has changed is people's happiness with the result. The situation in Scotland is legitimately different with the UK departing the EU, but even then it's quite difficult to muster another independence referendum. Having a vote on some aspects of leaving the EU might be possible. Having another vote on whether the UK should leave the EU is a recipe for disaster.

[ 29. January 2017, 01:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by molopata (# 9933) on :
 
quote:
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.

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".

But the major thing about all Swiss referenda is you are always voting on a law, and as such, the electorate, as the sovereign, assumes legislative function. The proposed law is checked by lawyers and has provisions as to how it should be executed. This usually works reasonably well.

So while I would disagree with Alan that the Brexit referendum could be compared with the Crimean, it was nevertheless seriously flawed. It was not (at least to my knowledge, and certainly not in terms of the voting papers I received) underpinned by a draft law or white paper that would have spelt out what it actually meant, but rather by a public argument full con conjecture, acumen and false promises by whoever could raise their voice high enough. For a democracy, that is at the very least bad style.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Molopata, I agree with you to a large extent. Votes of this kind are far better when there's a piece of legislation, so that people can know exactly what it says.

This vote was really on a piece of executive action, though, triggering Article 50. Some of the problems with it have only emerged later (such as the proposition that legislation was even needed to do that, something I still think is dubious despite 8 of 11 judges saying that it was necessary).

And there's a Catch 22 involved here. The terms of the exit have to be agreed with the rest of the EU. The rest of the EU has said, we won't negotiate until the UK triggers Article 50. The only way to reach a complete deal is until after Article 50 is triggered... which is only going to happen because the UK public voted to say they wanted it to be triggered.

It's not impossible that there will be a 2nd vote once a full deal is on the table, but a full deal is impossible until after that crucial step is taken. And that's all executive action, still to come. So it's not really a situation where a clear piece of legislation could have been created. I suppose a white paper setting out the proposed negotiation position would have been possible.

[ 29. January 2017, 07:18: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
quote:
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]
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.
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).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
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.

No, absolutely not in regards to that last bit. General process of gaining support, yes. Repeated official votes, terrible idea.
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.

I was saying that the policy change put to the electorate in a referendum should be a policy change advocated by a political party, forming part of the platform they stand for election on, and as such have been through at least one general election with (possibly not on the first time) the party gaining a majority in Parliament such that they can progress that policy through to the point of putting the question to the people - and, if the people agree to immediately start putting that policy into action.

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). They would then need to convince enough voters to either agree with that, or at least to not disagree so strongly that they don't vote Conservative because of it. Then having got into government put a bill through Parliament, to convince a majority of MPs and Lords to support the motion. And, finally a referendum. Then, on the Friday morning when the result was known David Cameron could have stood on the steps of No 10 and invoked Article 50 before the TV cameras of the world and sent his negotiating team to Brussels to sit on the door of the Commission waiting for them to develop a negotiating platform (taking the political high ground, and hence a much stronger negotiating position).

By my reckoning that's two votes by the people (general election and referendum), plus votes by our representatives in Parliament. More if it takes several election cycles to convince enough of the UK electorate to vote for a party that is standing with "withdraw from the EU" as part of their platform. That's what I meant by the electorate having several says on the question.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

All of which means that the Parliamentary process will often end up somewhere slightly different from the original manifesto pledges. As happened with the morphing of the (minority party) LibDem desire for a vote on PR turning into a vote on AV - which at the time seemed like a shrewd move by Cameron to get Clegg on board so he could form a government, though with hindsight I'm not sure he's actually that smart.

But, my point is that Parliamentary process needs to be followed. Which the EU referendum did to an extent, though I still don't understand how the bill to hold the referendum got so much support despite the (admittedly with the benefit of hindsight) holes in it. Part of that may have been the absence of any lengthy public discussion on EU membership, so most MPs were unaware of how much support Leave were going to get - it's easy to quickly pass something that you're sure everyone will agree with you on, because it won't make any difference. Why spend Parliamentary time debating what would happen in the event of a Leave vote (eg: can the government trigger A50 without explicit act of Parliament?), or even define what Leave would mean, when you're confident of a resounding Remain victory?

But, that lack of prior public discussion is a big part of the whole problem.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I still think there's a real risk of further breakup of the EU, coming elections in other countries will be interesting. The last few years have been rough, and in my view the Germans have handled a couple of big issues (refugee crisis, Greek finances) somewhat poorly. We might find Article 50 getting a bit of exercise.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Orfeo:
quote:

....in my view the Germans have handled a couple of big issues (refugee crisis, Greek finances) somewhat poorly.

The Germans or Europe?
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.

[ 29. January 2017, 12:30: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

But it isn't about changing your tune, it is about talking bollocks laced with spurious comparisons.

The EU referendum was a free-and-fair ballot with no gerrymandering, no reports of threats of violence, no buying of votes. The vote in that (let's agree, quite narrow) sense was more valid than the Crimea ballot. The British referendum met international standards, the Crimea referendum did not.

Whether or not the question was the right one, whether or not the legislation was worded correctly and whether or not Cameron fully thought through the outcome properly is a completely different point.

One can agree with you on much of the latter without the nonsense comparison with Crimea.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Cheesy:
quote:

no reports of threats of violence

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

There is no comparison between these things and tanks on the streets.

You are right to say there were issues I understated, but that doesn't mean a comparison with Crimea is anything other than bollocks.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

Hmmm ... Setting aside the fact that orfeo isn't British: what word describes someone who defends internationalism by means of national stereotyping?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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?

Thanks for the link, I'd expected it to have been cleared out of Hell by now.
Geez. It's on page 2. Of 4. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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).

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Orfeo:
quote:

....in my view the Germans have handled a couple of big issues (refugee crisis, Greek finances) somewhat poorly.

The Germans or Europe?
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.

How you got half of that stuff from my post (including, apparently, a belief about my nationality that is wrong), I've no idea.

But let's unpack a little.

In terms of the refugee crisis: Germany handled it poorly because it threw out the EU rulebook and turned refugee status into a pan-European footrace. My issue is not about taking refugees in, but about making a unilateral decision on what was supposed to be an EU-wide issue. That is fairly obviously not going to make others fond of the EU - if the central country that keeps saying how great the EU is decides to ignore the EU at a crucial moment.

In terms of Greek finances: where the hell did you get the idea that I think they should have just let Greece sink? I think exactly the opposite. I think there's a serious lack of recognition of the extent to which Greece's problems were contributed to by richer EU countries, and Germany in particular. Among other things, I came to the conclusion at the time that the Euro is fundamentally bad because of the way in which it benefits Germany at the expense of weaker economies.

So thanks for all that outrage, what a pity it isn't directed at anything I actually said or believe.

[ 29. January 2017, 20:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
What was in the Tory platform at the last election - it may or may not have been in a document called "Manifesto", I don't know - was a promise to hold a referendum on continuing EU membership. It pretty obviously could not have espoused one view or the other given the diversity of opinion in the party. What was in the platform was what the the leader put into effect.

Was taking the steps necessary to allow for the holding of a referendum on independence for Scotland in the Tory manifesto for the previous general election?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The possibility of feedback in the other direction - the people telling the party what they want - just doesn't seem to be part of your conception.

[ 29. January 2017, 20:54: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Since I've repeatedly stated that democracy isn't limited to the ballot box, but must include the whole range of lobbying, campaigning, mass protest etc that seems a strange thing to say.

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.

Clearly if the referendum result had been much clearer then the situation changes. Because, it's difficult to respond to the wishes of the electorate when there is no clarity about what the electorate want.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
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.

Who do you get told that by? Parties that don't want their authority challenged.

There's no obligation to believe them.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Talking of such things, May insisted at lunchtime that the UK-Ireland travel zone would continue, customs lawyers later told a parliamentary committee that this would not only be against EU rules, it would be against WTO rules as well.

According to newspaper reports, they said that all freight traffic between NI and RoI would have at least momentary stops to check paperwork and that even someone riding a horse on the border would need to be holding the paperwork as is currently the case between Germany and Switzerland.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Apparently Brexit is due to cause the biggest rise in inequality since Mrs Thatcher came to power.

Here.

The Tories are fine with that, of course. They're Tories. What the actual fuck do the Labour Party - with a few honourable exceptions - think they are doing.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
Interesting, since I thought inequality is now at its lowest for 30 years?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting, since I thought inequality is now at its lowest for 30 years?

You have that entirely the wrong way around, it's actually at its highest 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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting, since I thought inequality is now at its lowest for 30 years?

You have that entirely the wrong way around, it's actually at its highest 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.

Well, The Guardian from last month suggests *income inequality* is indeed at the lowest levels since 1986.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting, since I thought inequality is now at its lowest for 30 years?

You have that entirely the wrong way around, it's actually at its highest 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.

Well, The Guardian from last month suggests *income inequality* is indeed at the lowest levels since 1986.
[Killing me]
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Interesting, since I thought inequality is now at its lowest for 30 years?

You have that entirely the wrong way around, it's actually at its highest 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.

Well, The Guardian from last month suggests *income inequality* is indeed at the lowest levels since 1986.
[Killing me]
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.

Right. Because I said that the gap had gone.... I'm assuming you actually *read* what I wrote?

[Killing me]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
"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.
 
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on :
 
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]

As for inequality, income inequality is one form, asset inequality is another.

It was striking that the Bank of England today held interest rates at 0.25%, while the land registry records house price inflation as being 6.7%. So those that are property owners are having their asset values inflated, while savers are seeing the real value of cash being eaten away. It's a problem neither the Bank of England nor successive governments have taken seriously.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Wealth inequality is even more striking.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
The article linked, on the whole, stills says the poor are fucked. The reasons for the narrowing of the gap are pensions, which are not universal nor guaranteed for younger folk and a slight pinch on the rich. (But not the super rich)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The White Paper is very short considering the magnitude and complexity of leaving the EU. But, at least it provides an adequate description of what the government is aiming for to allow the UK to judge whether or not that is what we want. A pity this wasn't available before the electorate as a whole had a say on it, and even more so that we're now faced with this or some other undefined version of Brexit (and, therefore this version is going to be very likely to go forward, after all who wants the uncertainty of some undefined Brexit? Oh, I forgot, millions chose that in June).

I still wonder whether there would have been a majority for this plan if it had been presented before the vote in June. I suspect the answer would be "no" - there would have been a lot of people voting for a much harder Brexit (who may have accepted it anyway on the basis that a soft Brexit would be more acceptable than no Brexit), and others who were expecting a much softer Brexit (who possibly would have rejected it), and others voting for £350m per week to the NHS (which doesn't get a mention at all).
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Sipech:
quote:
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]
15 weeks' paid holiday? In our dreams.

Pity the poor overworked civil servant who had to write that report. Perhaps it is a coded message begging for help?

[ 03. February 2017, 08:20: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.

But, even so it's an odd thing to include. What's it showing, that within the EU the UK government (and individual businesses) could set annual leave and maternity entitlements that are higher than the minimum set elsewhere in the EU? Why? You're claiming that the UK post-Brexit will have gained all these extra legislative powers that we already have within the EU? If you want to illustrate the ability of the UK outwith the EU to set legislation, at least pick an example where EU regulations prevent the UK from passing the laws we want. Good luck with finding an example (that isn't setting workers protection etc below the minimum level set by EU regulations).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Apparently some companies have an "unlimited vacation" policy - where time off is not counted and instead it is about delivery of results.

It must therefore be possible that one could be paid full time but only actually work every other day (or one day a week?) with all the rest as vacation provided the work was completed.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

I very much doubt there's a legal maximum - it would be pretty pointless to set one IMO. If a business thinks it can maintain competitiveness while allowing it's staff very long periods of paid leave then they can set that. A legal minimum, however, is a very necessary thing to have set.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I'm not sure the latter is totally impossible as Switzerland has a form of "virtual" membership of the EEA and relations with the EA. But then it doesn't have the restrictions on movement that British politicians seem to think is non-negotiable, so that's going to be tricky.

quote:
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.

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.

Of course, more of a threat is that this ridiculous policy irredeemably hurts the British economy. I think the EU leaders think there is nothing much they can do if the UK insists on shooting itself in the nads, but it isn't something that they're very likely to want to share in the risk of (or do a whole lot to help the UK limit the pain from).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes there are - a previous place I worked at ran such a policy.

Anyway the original point is moot - the '14 weeks' figure has already been acknowledged to be an error (possibly caused by last minute editing):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-white-paper-embarassing-error-chart-14-weeks-holiday-a7559561.html

Though going back to those overworked civil servants - a large number of the usual service companies are currently making out like bandits by supplementing them with freshly minted grads on consultancy level rates. The fixed deadline and the undersupply of qualified people means that this is the best the UK can hope for.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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).
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
We're all aware that your list wasn't exhaustive. I believe it is virtually inexhaustible. There are also IT staff, nurses, scientists and engineers, doctors ... and they are just people I can name.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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?"


[ 03. February 2017, 13:16: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
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.

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.

The chart isn't even accurate; entitlement to maternity leave in the UK is currently 52 weeks.

I'm going with 'coded cry for help from civil servants chained to their desks in Whitehall'...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And probably the govt is being coy about the requirements for immigrants in many fields. They don't want the racists to realize that high immigration will continue.

An expanding economy tends to produce labour shortages, and then you either fill them, or close down the labour market, producing closures of businesses.

So the notion of 'control' of immigration is rather nominal, but I suppose Mrs May will hope to distract people somehow.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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?"

[Big Grin]
But .... some of the IT staff, scientists and engineers I know are also in the pesky public sector. Don't tell the Daily Mail!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...wait, paid maternity leave is 39 weeks. OK, I'll let them off the charge of not knowing maternity leave entitlement.

Most EU countries have more public holidays than we do. France has 11, Germany has about 12 (depending which state you're in). England and Wales have 8.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

But also white English people complaining, too many people, services stretched and so on. White flight happening.

Who knows what will happen after Brexit?

Probably on iplayer.

[ 27. February 2017, 20:08: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I've not seen the Panorama programme, I'll look it up on iPlayer at some point when I have time. But that does sound similar to the data collected on immigration over the last few decades.

Immigration is well known to boost the economy. The idea that immigrants take jobs from locals has been conclusively disproved - when Poland etc joined the EU and the government didn't enact the options available under the EU treaties to restrict immigration from new member states there was a very rapid influx of new immigrants taking up jobs in the UK didn't reduce the number of UK citizens in work nor increase unemployment rates, in fact the data show that rather than take jobs each immigrant finding work here resulted in the generation of at least one new job.

Immigrants also bring tax revenue - estimates of income tax and NI are about £2b per year. That excludes council tax, vehicle excise, VAT, duties on alcohol, tobacco, business taxes from increased productivity and all the rest which are probably incalculable.

Areas with large immigrant populations also tend to have better public services, such as health care. Which reflects those services being provided based on population, but with immigrants being younger and not needing these services to the same extent as the local population.

The "problem" with immigration is basically people not wanting to see brown faces and hear Polish being spoken. Which is racism, plain and simple. Probably often racism in ignorance or through the deliberate misinformation of racists - being lead to believe that immigrants pose a danger.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Thing is Slough has peculiar issues that have tended to exacerbate any problems.

It's badly laid out with little or no thought. All transport links bottle neck into a very small area near the centre of town. The town centre itself was always on the run down side, and after the 2000 downturn employees started to move away from the centre of town to further out along the A4 and to other towns along the M4.

Absent immigration helped by it's proximity to Heathrow it would have probably hollowed out.

Development since then has followed the path of being poorly planned - the basic strategy seems to be to dump a large rectangle somewhere that's completely out of scale with it's surroundings and figure out the transport and other implications later. Re-developing office blocks along the main arterial routes as housing has generally added to the congestion and reduced quality of life.

Incidentally, even prior to the recent immigration wave from Eastern Europe, there was a significant asian population living in the area (largely from pakistan and india).
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I was briefly chatting to someone the other day who was until very recently high up in the echelons of the NHS, whose structure I must confess I know nothing about. They seemed quite convinced that after Brexit there wouldn't be an NHS. Their reasoning was mainly to do with the free movement of people (or lack thereof after Brexit). They mentioned something else about European research funding and financial markets and speculators....at which point I glazed over. Anyway, they seemed very convinced of their own apocalyptic scenario for the NHS but interestingly claimed that it would collapse, not on the basis of money, but on the requirement of skill. They claimed (and this is the bit that I have no idea of it is true) that the UK had not invested properly in skilled labour for the NHS and instead sought overseas skill to prop it all up, and because they have allowed this to continue for decades the UK will face a crisis in which the current NHS wage and hours will simply not be attractive enough to compete on the world market in getting the skill required from outside of the EU.

I don;t know, it could be total nonsense, but it was interesting to hear their perspective. On a brighter note, they felt Brexit would simply never happen and this would be one of the reasons. 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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Back again after a relegation break (the thread not me).

Re the NHS I still think David Owen is illuminating (as on most things - I'm afraid I'm quite a fan). He believes the EU is damaging to the NHS, but not that he in any way recommends the way is has been treated by successive Tory and Labour governments.

As I understand it, so long as the NHS had remained a true public service, it is out of the remit of Brussels, as are all state run services. But once you try to introduce privatisation, Brussels tends to push you even further. So the sort of half-way house which Ken Clarke tried is very unstable.

Basically the EU seems to recognise public services, and a neo-liberal market- fundamentalist private sector (to quote Stiglitz).

Apparently Jeremy wants to roll the clock back completely. I wish somebody would but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

... although I agree that the outcome might not be different. I note your points on immigration. Being a resident of a country with proportionally much higher immigration than the UK I will point out that sure, the economy has expanded, the tax take has gone up, the Gvt has eliminated the deficit - and it crows about the result. To the average person facing increased rents, house prices, traffic and pressure on services, this looks very much like sleight of hand.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
The campaign was quite something to behold from the outside. The claims being hurled around were quite remarkable and that X-Fctor style public debate.....

....but I think there has to be a second vote. As far as I understand it, looking at the various stats and commentary, quite a significant proportion of people seemed to genuinely believe they were voting to save the NHS and inject essential funding into it (precisely 350 million as a figure, or something like that). Of course they actually voted to leave the EU, but somehow all these things became conflated in their minds and I don't think it can be argued that they were voting to collapse the NHS, but this does seem like it might be more than just a 'possible' outcome of the vote.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
For me the limit was watching Nigel Farage and Eddie Izzard trying to talk over each other until a member of the audience told them both to shut up.

Seriously. A comedian and a comedian, responsible participating in a debate on the most important political decision in a generation.

I saw it again in a recent Guardian article about a group protesting about Trump's forthcoming UK visit: a couple of has-been politicians, a couple of nobodies and a bunch of celebs, clicktivists and talk-is-cheap columnists. No one of any moral stature at all.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
re: a second referendum. This would be something I would welcome.

Clearly we can't just have a referendum on the same question. Even if we could pretend the last few months didn't happen and there wasn't an outline plan for Brexit it would be wrong to do that. First because it would look like just asking the question until you get the right answer, which is an even more stupid way of doing things than having a referendum as the start and end of the political process. And, of course, it would just be repeating the stupidity of asking a stupid question in the first place.

Since we now have an outline plan for Brexit the obvious question to ask the people of the UK is whether we want the government to enter negotiations to seek an agreement as close as possible to this plan. That would, of course, need to be asked before the government starts negotiating. I would like to see the alternative option of Remaining in the EU on the ballot, but that might be seen as against the "we've already voted to Leave" political fantasy that seems to rule the roost in Westminster at the moment. So, probably the alternative option would be an Opposition plan for Brexit (which given the non-functional nature of Labour at the moment would need to be drawn up by the SNP with the LibDems and Green as the closest thing to an Opposition at the moment) - presumably a "soft" Brexit that retains our position in the Single Market with freedom of movement and most of the current benefits of EU membership.

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.

Which leaves us with 18 months of negotiation, and a referndum on whether to accept the deal that Mrs May comes up with. 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.

Which basically means Mrs May has an open door to just choose here vision of Brexit without any democratic accountability or mandate. But, blustering on as though she does have such a mandate.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

My understanding is that article 50 is irrevocable. Once you've invoked it, you're on the way out and can't change lane.

Of course, the UK could always apply to join again...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
You have to laugh. Millions were promised to the NHS, in lieu of EU contributions. Now the chancellor is saving up billions, to deal with the uncertainties caused by Brexit.

Now come on, you have to have a heart of stone not to smile at least.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Ah, but the long term will be much better (ha bloody ha) -if of course Britannia hasn't sunk between the waves as a result of the short to medium term.

And of course there may not even be a Britannia to sink, if the Scots, justifiably, get so fed up with being marginalised in Brexit negotiations that they split the UK asunder.

Now remind me. It was 52%-48% in favour of this bloody stupid idea. Which is now unstoppable because "the people have spoken".

[ 07. March 2017, 13:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

This is one I've been thinking about.

My current boss in German (One of the EU nationals being held to ransom in Mrs May gets her way). I asked him a few months back about the other European nations' perspective on the UK. Now, obviously that's only one voice but it was helpful nonetheless. The impression I have is that the rest of Europe does really want the UK to remain. As a net-contributor to the budget, a long-standing relationship with the US and the biggest military expenditure in the EU, as well as long-standing historical ties across Europe, there are many ways in which Britain is good for the EU. (Of course being part of the EU is good for Britain but that's a different point).

As such, if handled properly, I do believe Europe would look favourably on the UK revoking article 50.

For that to happen I think the UK domestic politics will depend on
1) A realisation of how bad leaving the EU really is.
2) Thus the loud and ridiculous shrill voices of Leavers who won't shut up about it will become less relevant
3) (Probably) a general election
4) A second referendum

I think steps 1-3 are necessary to get to 4 and 4 is vital to deal with the democratic situation. Such a vote could easily be 60% plus for remain and a higher turnout would be useful too. The demographics are favourable, as this would be around 2019-2020 - i.e. all those annoyed 16-18 year olds who were so angry about the 2016 vote will now be able to vote.

I don't necessarily think the above scenario is likely but I do think it possible.

As such, all of us who believe (with very good reason) that leaving the EU is a really stupid idea need to argue, debate, discuss, lobby and support the moves that can make it happen.

So far, the House of Lords seem to be doing a good job.... Oh, the irony...

AFZ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The problem with waiting for the next election, and all the 16-18 year olds who were so angry in June getting to cast their vote (and, for that matter the 14-15 year olds as well) is that by the next election in 2020 the Brexit negotiations will be over and we'll be out of the EU. 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. And, for whatever bizarre reason, the Commons has largely rolled over and given the government carte blanche to do what they want.

Good on the Lords for putting up some sensible amendments. A futile gesture, since the Commons will reject them and pass it back for the rubber stamp. But, it shows the value of a second chamber not beholden to party politics in quite the same way, in getting some of the questions that the Commons didn't even ask raised.

Meanwhile the government continues to grind the country into the ground with the uncertainty of Brexit, and the probability of a hard Brexit that no one wants. And, like today at work, coffee rooms across the country resound to the discussions from members of staff worried that after living and working in the UK for 11 years they might have to leave, and if so will their husband and infant daughter be able to emigrate to the EU after Brexit? Just in the university sector (which, of course, I'm most familiar with) we're already seeing a drop-off in students and staff drifting away to more certain futures elsewhere in the EU. Personally, I keep looking to see what jobs are available in Ireland.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

Perhaps you (and he) are right. I see that this is also the opinion of Mr. Tusk.

Article 50 does explicitly require a unanimous agreement of the European Council to extend the two-year negotiation clock, but is silent on whether the leaving member state may unilaterally revoke its declaration, leaving it up to interpretation (which probably means lots of lawyers, followed by some kind of a deal to make the lawyers stop talking.)

I agree, of course, that leaving and then not-leaving is not a great way to make friends and influence people.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
AlanC:
I think the difference with the Lords is not about independence from party olitics so much as freedom from being elected. Plus most are independently wealthy.

I don't say that's a bad thing so long as their powers are limited.

It harder for remainer Labour MPs who are fearful of losing their seats, although Stoke shows it is not definite. But "as evry foole know" the Labour leadership is largely anti-EU, so they're in a double bind.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

With foreign stubborness being blamed for a lack of a deal so that the Tories can double down and win another election.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's always about stopping the blue rinsers going fully fascist.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Given how totally spineless the Commons has been, a lot depends on how resilient the Lords is to pressure. They don't have to pass the bill without amendments.

Ironically a bigger majority (not that I want that: I want rid of this awful government now) might make the Brexit policy more sane. May is pandering only to the extreme of her own party.

Making ridiculous demands and then walking away from negotiations will not result in a good situation for the UK at all. However I agree that it may well be the strategy in order to scapegoat 'unreasonable Europeans.'

History will not be kind to any of them. We are being led by fools.

AFZ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Primarily because the UK won't accept the current set of obligations that being in the Single Market would place on the UK.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yep. And this needs to be emphasised every time the Leavers come out with "The will of the people" nonsense.

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.

AFZ
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Nope.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alienfromzog:
quote:
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.
Are you sure of that?
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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alienfromzog:
quote:
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.
Are you sure of that?
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.

Indeed. But even a one sentence bill needs 3 readings in each house.

AFZ
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alienfromzog:
quote:
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.
Are you sure of that?
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.

Indeed. But even a one sentence bill needs 3 readings in each house.

AFZ

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Sioni:
quote:

After all, the referendum question was simple but no one knew what the consequences of an "out" vote would be.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Sioni:
quote:

After all, the referendum question was simple but no one knew what the consequences of an "out" vote would be.

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.
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I still don't know what 'versions of Brexit' means though. I've said it a few times on this thread (possibly to the point of weariness, so I do apologise) but all this talk of 'soft' Brexit and maintaining this and keeping that all sounds daft for the rest of us in Europe. It is essentially saying; 'we want none of the responsibilities but will retain all of the benefits even though we are voting to leave'. It just doesn't make any sense.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I don't think soft Brexit means retaining all of the advantages. It means free movement of goods, but not people.

However, this will probably hit various obstacles, for example, that the EU won't like it. Also, the question of customs regulations is very complicated, since you are moving from harmonisation (convergence) to divergence. How do you export to countries with different systems?

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?

[ 08. March 2017, 15:20: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I still don't know what 'versions of Brexit' means though.

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:
  1. 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".
  2. 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".
  3. 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.
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.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I was looking at the customs union between Turkey and the EU, and article 8 says, 'Turkey unconditionally accepts to make parallel laws to the newer laws made for the customs union by the EU'.

Ignoring the grammatical infelicities, can you imagine something like that being acceptable to the Brexit headbangers?

But then they bravely talk about 'walking away'? WTF does that mean? That we actually stop trading with the EU? What is that, £200 billions in exports? Better start growing turnips in my garden.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Turkey_Customs_Union

[ 08. March 2017, 16:31: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I still don't know what 'versions of Brexit' means though.

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:
  1. 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".
  2. 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".
  3. 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.
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Vent warning.

Did anyone watch the Kuensberg Brexit documentary.

I believe there is shock-horror that the BBC may be anti-brexit, as if people didn't know. BBC is a reflection of the intellectual establishment in Britain and always will be, and like it or not, that establishment is anti-brexit, just like it is anti-Trump, which the BBC also is.

I don't mind that, but it was so patronizingly dumbed-down that I gave up after 15 minutes. We had old-time films about divorce court proceeding (in case you don't know what it is) and back and white train crash (presumably from a comedy) in case you didn't know what that was. Some excerpts from Top Gear, I think, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Tellytubbies got in the act.
Then we had Laura hawking a giant £50bn check (what the EU will charge us - allegedly), so get "ordinary people's" reactions.

And of course, all the usual suspects.

What absolute drivel.

The pity is that it's a serious subject deserving grown-up treatment, and for all I know there were some nuggets of interest in their somewhere. And the way had been shown with a thoughtful piece on the future of the EU about 2 weeks ago on BBC. You may have disagreed with many aspects of it but your intelligence was not systematically insulted.

A lost opportunity.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Guy Verhofstadt has come out and said that Britons should keep EU rights after leaving

I'm certainly up for that.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Sensible bloke, Guy. It may require a payment, but so long as it is not outrageous, I'd stump up.

All the attention seems to be on what problems May faces, but I would not want to be on the other side either. Nobody will thank the EU negotiators for a screw-up, but equally, the rise of populism makes it dangerous because you'll get the "Just stand up to them and they capitulate" attitude gaining ground.

So any gesture of friendship to the UK and the 48%-ers in particular, which doesn't threatent any principle is welcome. But what I don't know is whether is could be argued that the same options would have to be given to Swiss, Norwegian et al citizens, many of whom would prefer to be in the EU. Turkey anyone?

The only chance of a reverse is if:

1. Over the course of the noegiations, brexit gets to looks less attractive.
2. Labour dumps Corbyn and moves to a pro EU stance, really and in earnest. Like no whipping to pass the Article 50 bill.
3. The negotiations get extended beyond the date of the next election (not impossible).
4. The result of that is a defeat for the Tory's and some pro-EU coalition.

In that scenarios, I do not doubt that the EU would bend over backwards to welcome us all in, but I don't believe they are bastards, unline tabloids and (weirdly) quite a few remainers.

Chance? Not much. But what was the probability of Brexit in 2014. The remainers need a Farage, I think. But who could it be?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
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?

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

[Two face]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Humble Servant:
quote:

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.

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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
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?

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

[Two face]

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.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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.

Absolutely. I would be up for that too.

The brexiteers are saying 'go and live there then' as if the EU is a country [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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.

Absolutely. I would be up for that too.

The brexiteers are saying 'go and live there then' as if the EU is a country [Roll Eyes]

It's a nice idea, but I can't see how it would work.

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. I can foresee the Brexiteer equivalent of Gina Miller going to court on that one claiming it's discrimination for a role which primarily involves working in the UK.

Mind you, it would be ironic I suppose if some Brexiteers ended up having to opt back in to keep their jobs having voted out.

It strikes me overall as a nice idea which doesn't stand much prospect of happening. Sadly.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The remainers need a Farage, I think. But who could it be?

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
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?

Anthony Charles Lynton Blair

[Two face]

Yes. This makes a lot of sense. Sure, lots of people hate him. But then lots of people hate Farage, too.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
This could be the new way ahead for western democracies, elect the person we hate the most. Seems to have worked for Uncle Sam.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

But your phrasing? I can point at lots of jobs that require spending significant time within the US, and are held by people that do not have the right to work in the US. The people that hold these jobs live on aeroplanes.

"Work in the US" or "work in the EU" has a specific meaning, which is a bit different from "spend a lot of time in the EU / US as part of your employment."
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Yes, if you're working for a UK company, being paid in the UK then that is your place of work. In that situation you can spend some time in other countries without necessarily requiring any special permissions - normally that would include not being paid directly by anyone in that country. Normally, that would be covered by either a basic tourist visa - which may be vastly simplified by a visa waiver scheme. A very common restriction on such visas is a limit of 90 days per year. How does that work with say a long distance haulier, where their drivers may be in the EU 2-3 days a week or more? Do they spend effort counting the days their drivers spend in the EU to keep the total below 90 days, maybe resulting in their drivers having to sit idle while they bring in someone else because they have used their 90 days? What about those drivers knowing they can't then take their family for a two week holiday in Spain without exceeding their 90 day total? 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?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.)

A self-employed person would probably be "working" in all the countries he visited, so would require whatever permissions he needed to "work".

For lorry drivers, my understanding of US law is that if you're a Canadian or Mexican (say) driver transporting goods between a point in Canada or Mexico and one in the US, you don't need a work permit. If you wanted to transport goods between two points in the US, you would need to be authorized to work in the US.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
So, two of my three examples would need visas for the US. And, the third may if they aren't doing a simple A to B route. Whether the post Brexit UK-EU relationship will have the same rules remains to be seen. But, if it's similar then there will be examples of UK employment where having the relevant permissions to do what their job requires will be essential - either visas or EU citizenship (a colleague at work has already taken advantage of her Irish mother to get an Irish passport to join her existing UK one to ensure her career prospects are not adversely affected by Brexit).
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
If we gave our Article 50 notice on April 1st, we could say afterwards that Brexit was only a joke . . .
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Like all practical jokes, not at all funny.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
AlanC:
quote:
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.
A key factor is what our negotiating partners within the EU would want.

IMO, any default position has to be one which can certainly be brought about, and that is why clean brexit (as championed by Liam Halligan & Gerard Lyons) is often touted, since nobody disputes we can get to it - it's whether we want to that is the issue.

Richard North (he of Flexcit) argues strongly that the EU could not prevent UK from taking your option 1, although he concedes free movement and even a modest increase in contributions. That would, of course, enrage a lot of leavers, not just kippers. I would not agree that this is provably Teresa's mandate, but it certainly meets the terms of the referendum (unless you believe Norway is in the EU).

But I agree with HumbleServant that the time pressure would sink this. Plus I tend to agree with Lawsons view that:

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, two of my three examples would need visas for the US.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
OK, that would assume that the EU follows the same system as the US. In the UK, "work permits" are visas (most probably a Tier 2 visa, Tier 5 covering some occupations such as religious worker, or an indefinite leave to remain, spousal visa etc). Though, I don't think anyone has decided what the situation will be post Brexit for the technicalities to be defined.

It still doesn't change the point though. Whatever you call it, there are legal hoops to jump through to conduct business in another country (though, in many cases there might be a waiver in effect) and if your job requires you to conduct business overseas then having the relevant permits would be an advantage, maybe even a pre-requisite. A visa (maybe waived), work permit, citizenship or whatever other status.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Meanwhile a reminder of what poor, hungry, imprisoned refugees in the UK a threatened with today and which are more likely to get post-Brexit; a one-way ticket back to their abusers.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
In more of that "Brexit has so far made no difference to the economy" news, the pound continues to fall after the House of Commons vote.
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
According to Politico there's a rumour that the UK trade team is exploring a 10 year interim deal keeping the current zero tariffs and giving longer for the final deal.

Apparently this is allowed for under WTO rules.

Of course a rumour is just that. But it shows there may be options.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
It wouldn't surprise me if the UK government presented this as an entirely reasonable option, only to have those pesky Europeans refuse it, which could be a magnificent way to demonstrate how wise they are being in leaving the EU.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
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.

A Leave Victory was supposed to be a supernova to the Tory Party. But Hark, I see no noise of a catastrophic chasm opening.
When you got high profile Tories like Edwina turning Leave having previously supported Remain you know this isn't the same shambles as Maggie and her beloved Geoffrey presided over.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Not yet, maybe, but time is running out...March 29th is not far off, and that's when it'll all start to rush even faster downhill to Hell....

Where's that Deus ex machina when you need it?

IJ
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

Other EU states have been torturing refugees, apparently for years, and you're blaming it on Brexit?

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:

Say what you like about how bad the British attitude towards refugees is, but we don't fucking waterboard them.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
And now the Brexiteers are complaining that the BBC is insufficiently upbeat in its reports on Brexit.
Presumably March 29th is to be proclaimed a day of national rejoicing, with bricks flung through the windows of anyone failing to display the Union Jack or, perhaps more likely, the Cross of St George?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

But I wouldn't say it is totally impossible or improbable. Maybe like many of Irish we'll be wandering the world looking for work.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Other EU states have been torturing refugees, apparently for years, and you're blaming it on Brexit?

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.

No, the UK can't take every refugee. But counter to the bollocks spoken by UKIP and the Tories, we're not taking our share. Not by population nor by our relative wealth in the EU nations.

Britons think "foreigners" as an idea applies to someone else. There was a recent video interview of British long-term pensioners living in Spain. People were asked how they voted, many said they'd voted Leave, pointing without irony to the problems of "too many foreigners in the UK".

People think that the UK is overrun by people seeking asylum. That's so beyond the truth as to be completely stupid. Yes, Greece and Eastern Europe are making a total horlicks of the whole thing - but that is largely because they're in terrible financial straights already and there are a bunch of arsewipes on the other side of Europe who think it isn't their problem.

quote:
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.
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.

[ 21. March 2017, 11:18: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
So, we've kicked if all off then..... [Frown]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So, we've kicked if all off then..... [Frown]

[Smile]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
So, we've kicked if all off then..... [Frown]

Pulled the trigger [Frown]
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
It won't be as good as some hope, and it won't be as bad as some fear. That's Life. Always look for the Win/Win in every situation. This could be Win/Win for the EU and the UK.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
This could be Win/Win for the EU and the UK.

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.

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?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, the idea of 'frictionless' trade baffles me. We have that now, because of harmonized regulations; thus, I can drive a truck to Bucharest, as long as details of its load, point of origin, and so on, are entered on the electronic database. How do I do that as a 'third country'? Well, I can carry paper documents, which are checked at every border. Is that a win?

If the EU awards harmonized regs to a third country, then there is no point to the EU, is there?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

I don't think that will happen with Brexit, but it's not a theoretical impossibility.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

But if the EU agreed even this, then the UK would be getting something that other EU states did not get.

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:
I don't think that will happen with Brexit, but it's not a theoretical impossibility.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If the EU awards harmonized regs to a third country, then there is no point to the EU, is there?

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.

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.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
quote:
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

Well join the queue because there'll be about 16 million of us....... [Smile]

Oh and they have Anglican churches there as well, unless you go to St.Giles Edinburgh in which case you'll scarcely notice the difference. Choral services weekly Eucharists.What's not to like?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

As to the other stuff, I think many are desperate to change some regulations very quickly, in particular those about fishing and agriculture. I think these are actually quite significant and that as the EU regulations will suddenly not apply, the market for those products in the EU will suddenly evaporate.

I'm actually not sure if that's a terrible thing in itself, providing leads to increased local consumption of local products (for example I was told when we lived in Kent that fish landed in local ports actually went to a wholesale fish market in France and from there much of it returned).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
This could be Win/Win for the EU and the UK.

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.

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?

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.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
The only thing as certain in Life as Death and Taxes is 'Change'. All 'Change' has opportunities and problems. Those that overcome the problems the quickest and seize the Opportunities make the most money. Simple.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

True, but also false, in my opinion.

The balance of trade might well suggest that as it has a bigger market the EU will get on better (both internally and externally). But if there is no agreement, then that also means that the EU has a huge UK-sized hole in its budget. Which might be enough to make the whole project non-viable. Plus politically, the UK has been a strong supporter of Western European values such as human rights. With the UK gone, Germany, Netherlands etc are going to be batting with a far weakened team.

I don't think it is an obvious calculation that suggests the UK is in a weaker position than the EU, certainly not from the perspective of Netherlands, Sweden and Germany within the EU.

The fact is that both the UK and the EU are likely to be destabilised post-Brexit. It's a gamble as to who will be more destabilised and who will be better off. In a perverse way, with increased borders, it might well be that the UK can avoid the costs of dealing with refugees and instead can dump all of that cost onto the depleted EU budgets, and therefore ends up stronger (whilst simultaneously seriously pissing off our neighbours).

[ 29. March 2017, 17:03: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Garden Hermit:
The EU has many problems. Mainly caused by the EURO and a reluctance to change.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
A couple of things in the letter stick in my throat.

1. The UK is described as the
quote:
closest friend and neighbour
of the EU. Which is a bit of cognitive dissonance. And I wonder how, say, Norway and Switzerland feel about that?

2. This:
quote:
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.
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.

3. The lecturing tone of the seven principles for discussions "we should... we should" as if the EU needs educating on how to conduct itself.

I'm really not sure this will go down well on this side of the Channel.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm really not sure this will go down well on this side of the Channel.

I'm not sure it will go down well this side of the Channel either.

It will go down well with the Tory Party members who were contemplating defecting to UKIP, and with UKIP. But, not the majority of the country. But, this whole nonsense was, and is, all about appeasing that part of the Tory Party. The best for the UK as a whole takes a back seat way behind the internal issues of one party. And, future relations with other nations in the EU (and without) are even further down the governments priority list. I'm pretty sure Mrs May doesn't actually care how her letter will go down across the Channel, so long as it goes down well enough with her party.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Farron mentioned that trade is cited six times in the letter, and security about a dozen. Whether this amounts to a veiled threat, who knows. Quite amusing to see the government hastening to deny that it is, which indicates that it is.

What staggers me, when I see people interviewed on TV, is the widespread ignorance about most of it. What kind of trade deal? Nobody has a clue, except I suppose, those businesses which are desperate for a continuance of harmonized customs rules.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Eutychus:

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.
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.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
May is likely to do a smoke and mirrors job, isn't she? She will talk tough about making our own rules, but she will also allow firms to export, obeying EU regulations and the appropriate electronic database. Whether this will work - who knows?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
May said “Perhaps now more than ever the world needs the liberal, democratic values of Europe – values that the UK shares.”

Yeah, right.

So that's why her party carelessly led us out? [Mad]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
It occurred to me after posting that as Alan says, it was probably designed more to play well at home than over here.

I also notice withdrawal from the European Atomic Energy Community is concurrent, although I'll have to read up on the implications of that.

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
because Mrs May wasn't happy with the EU's position on passporting.

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.

The BBC had a cleartext version of the letter up on their website and now it's gone. Somebody obviously didn't like it being there. I wish I'd grabbed the text while it was there as the PDF does not lend itself so easily to copy pasting.

[ETA: CNBC is obviously beyond the reach of such censorship, for now. Warning: autoplay video]

[ 29. March 2017, 18:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
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.

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."
 
Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :
 
quote:
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.

Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but surely the number of people who didn't vote was not a fact prior to the referendum.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :
 
Does EFTA need free movement? Or is this likely to be something Theresa backtracks over - and we find ourselves in there? And if the LibDems manage to get back into power - we return?
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
What we do know is that a majority of those voting at the referendum voted in favour of leaving the EU. There was probably a range of specific reasons why, some finding 1 sufficient, others combining, but all wanting out.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
humble Servant
I think the following post sums it up exactly.
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.


 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Does EFTA need free movement?

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.

I would still very much prefer that the UK government stops playing political games with the whole country, using the lives of millions of UK citizens (and millions more EU citizens living in the UK) to maintain the coherence of a political party of a few tens of thousands, and just leave things as they are with the UK a full member of the EU. However, if the government is determined to go through with this decision based on a dodgy referendum then joining Norway and Switzerland in the EFTA would be an acceptable compromise. It satisfies the economic demand for free trade with the EU, retains the existing trade deals with about 60 other nations (which would also need to be renegotiated if we leave), retains the access we need to EU labour and allows UK citizens to access the EU job market (plus, universities etc for study, or simply to retire to the sun), and we repatriate some powers from the EU (most notably control over fishing in UK territorial waters, the reason why Norway isn't in the EU, which was a large factor in the Leave vote in much of the country). But, that's all way too sensible for the numpties in our government to accept, so we're crashing out of the EU with no real chance of retaining the free access to the single market that EFTA would provide.

quote:
And if the LibDems manage to get back into power - we return?
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.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
As one who has been an Agent in Elections may I point out the following regarding the percentage voting. The Electoral Register is compiled around August/September when Councils send out letters to all Houses. They are returned over the next few weeks and those who don't reply are re-contacted. The new Register is usually published in October. It often contains children's names, dog names and fraudulent names. There was recently a prosecution in Reading of 26 people all with the same First Name all living in the same 2-bedroomed house. Many people are on 2 registers, eg at Uni and their parents. (Not illegal. But to use 2 votes is.) There are many who don't want to register for a variety of reasons - eg to avoid detection for crimes etc.
So the Register is only a rough guide of the Adults who are registered to vote. As the year progresses people die, emigrate, go into Care or Hospital, move etc. and so are quite often not available to vote on Polling Day. (I am aware of postal voting but it doesn't cover rapid changes.) So by the June the following year, the Register is way out-of-date and the Councils are busy getting ready for a new one. I would regard any turnout of over 70% as fantastic in a June Election.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The turnout to vote in June was fantastic. The people who didn't vote aren't the issue (though, I think all of us would have prefered it if even more people voted). 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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I also read that MEPs will effectively have a veto on the final agreement on Brexit, I wonder what chance of a vote against something there which is too favourable to the UK. Which would be ironic.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by Alan Cresswell
quote:
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.
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.

Second: I think history will confirm that Mr Cameron wasn't playing games, he was desperately trying to lance the anti-EU boil while giving a realistic chance of the UK voting to remain in the EU. He was fatally undermined by statements and posturing from members of the EU commission, in particular Jean-Claude Juncker, and some other EU leaders who seemed to have little idea of how a Referendum works, or what was at stake.

To be blunt, they thought it unlikely that the UK would vote to Leave but, if we did, were confident they could pull the same trick they had previously with other electorates who had voted the wrong way; despite being told by Mr Cameron that the UK electorate would never wear a second referendum they thought they knew better.

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.

[ 30. March 2017, 08:27: Message edited by: L'organist ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think the fate of the City and the UK financial institutions will be a key factor in deciding whether the negotiations are successful. I've thought for some time that there might be lots of migration of HQs of financial services.

The markets don't seem to reflect these concerns but maybe the international financial institutions don't care all that much about national self damaging stupidities, provided they can compensate by making money somewhere else, or even out of our self-handicapping.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
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.

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."
The whole thing sounds like fantasy Brexit to me. 'Regulatory alignment', which used to be known as convergence, passporting, and high immigration.

Well, the immigration is a separate issue, but I can't see the EU accepting such a deal. It's like leaving a club but still claiming benefits.

It also seems to mark a shift from hard Brexit, to something softer. Some journos are saying that the govt has realized that just leaving would be ruinous, but May has to protect her back from the Ultras, who want Empire 2.0. So talk hard, but act soft? But it's not our choice.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Alan Cresswell
quote:
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.
First, the question wasn't poorly considered: it was a clear IN or OUT
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).

Without the Leave campaign producing a definition of what they were campaigning for (rather than against - they were against EU membership is the only thing they were clear about) then there was nothing clear about the OUT option on the referendum paper. Also, if the Leave campaign had been clear then the Article 50 notification would have been given months ago, it could have even been given the day after the referendum, because there would have been no need to draw up a negotiating position because we'd have a clear statement of what the UK electorate voted for.

quote:
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.
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.

You can hardly blame the Commissioners and others in Europe for not offering credible solutions to issues that had not been brought to them. If you wanted the Commissioners to do that then why weren't you putting pressure on David Cameron to take those concerns to Brussels in the summer of 2015, rather than let him play games with trivial issues?

quote:
The Leave campaign had to make it up on the hoof (a bit like punching fog)
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).

quote:
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 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?

quote:
Second: I think history will confirm that Mr Cameron wasn't playing games, he was desperately trying to lance the anti-EU boil
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.

quote:
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.
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.

I would like to know what damage you think was done by the EU.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm not sure that the nebulous Very Serious Concerns gain much clarity by being promoted to Very Real Issues.

Realistically the only thing that had particular traction with voters was the access of of EU workers living in the UK to tax credits and child benefit (a relatively tiny issue that was more than made up for by the extra income the exchequer pulled in).

The working time directive was solid pub bore territory.

There is one argument in your post that is true however (though for the reasons). Undoubtedly when the UK gets a bad deal the blame will be put on the Europeans.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The issue for me is the first, that we didn't know what Leave was campaigning for. Which I would leave aside if it wasn't for the fact the Mrs May (and others in the UK Government) are so adamant that what they are proposing is what the people of the UK voted for. When there is no way to know that since the question "do you want to Leave the EU and have the UK government attempt to get a deal on these terms?" was never asked. And, even more so when the pollsters analyses of what people were voting for indicates that there was a substantial range of views all brought together under "Leave", and that the number of voters with the views the government is acting on would have been significantly less than the number of voters with other views (those who voted Remain + those who voted for a different form of Brexit). While Mrs May insists on following what I believe to be a disasterous course of action without a mandate from either a referendum or a free and open substantive discussion and vote in Parliament (I would accept either) then I will continue to point out that she is acting without a democratic mandate.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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.

This, exactly this.

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?

Politicians have less to lose it seems, and will give away much to make the soundbites and keep in the public eye.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?


I think this is right - although quite what effect a massive walk-out of the London financial set would have, I don't know.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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?


I think this is right - although quite what effect a massive walk-out of the London financial set would have, I don't know.

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.

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.

Which is good, because not being excited by the challenge is a recipe for not rising to it.

*but then I was a Remainer through fear of change, rather than because I wanted to be a member of the EU, so I accept that perhaps I could make the change more easily when presented with it.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
The only thing as certain in Life as Death and Taxes is Change. No-one actually likes 'Change'. It moves us from our comfort zone and makes us think and move about. Brexit is one of those little changes that come about from time to time. But enough. I have important things to do like get my Potatoes in the Allotment whilst the Weather is Good.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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".

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. (e.g. Switzerland, the United States, Japan, etc.) The "all of the benefits of EU membership with none of the drawbacks" position being sold by some was always unrealistic, but you can't keep some people from believing unrealistic things if they're really determined to do so.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

However the range of outcomes was fairly wide, and even the likes of Hannan and Farage were playing up the Norway/Switzerland comparisons.

In the event, the actual vote is being taken as justification for something significantly different.

[ 30. March 2017, 14:01: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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? Will it stop Brexshit before it's too late? Almost certainly not, because Tory governments are well versed in ignoring what the electorate (excluding their wealthy friends) are saying. And, even when their wealthy banker friends are saying "this is nuts" they'll plough on regardless if it fits their fascist ideology.

I'm not going to stop saying that the UK government is acting in a foolish and rash manner, and they are not doing it in my name. Quite the opposite.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
Essentially a crude summary of what happened:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7-67oxXQAAHD1p.jpg
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

Who is brushing anything under the carpet? Who is even disagreeing with you? Nobody that I can see.

The difference is that some of us are resolved to try and make the best of a shitty situation, and some just want to keep on bleating out the same message - as if we haven't already heard it the other 50+ times you've posted it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
some of us are resolved to try and make the best of a shitty situation

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.

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".

Sorry if you don't think trying to put that across here is something you don't want to read, there is an easy solution - I have no objection if you stop reading anything I write (excluding anything I write as an Admin here).
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I don't know Alan, I'm as against Brexit and pro-Europe as it's possible to be. But I've given up, the people who wanted out have won by fair means or foul (foul imo).

If we, by some miracle, stayed in - the arguments would rumble and rumble as they have in the last few years with nothing much else getting done.

At least we know where we stand now, let's make the best of it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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".

I didn't say you should do anything of the kind.

But repeatedly doing the same things that made no difference in the past and/or repeatedly saying the same things to the same people who've heard you say it before is a road you don't want to be travelling on.

No problem, I'll scroll past you from now on. But do consider your mental health, please.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
I agree with Alan (including the Scottish bit, given my ancestry), but I do understand Boogie's POV as well. We shall have to see how things pan out - there is always some hope....and the UK isn't quite a one-party state just yet.

I don't concur with mr cheesy's final sentence, though.
[Disappointed]

IJ
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Meanwhile, some MP (can't remember which one) gets his soundbite on the BBC radio news about 'taking back control' because the Great Reaper Bill or whatever it's called will mean that the British government makes UK laws instead of EU bureaucrats. And he gets to spout these lies completely unchallenged.

Just to be clear
1) The UK has got to write and consult on all of the EU law.
2) The Great Repeal Bill means huge sections of UK legislation will be written by executive degree (what can possibly go wrong?)
and 3) In lots of areas, in order to maintain EU trade, the UK will copy EU regulations thereby changing only one fact - we no longer have any influence in writing these bits of laws.

It's all bollocks. That's what's so annoying.

AFZ

P.S. What Alan said.
 
Posted by Garden Hermit (# 109) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

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...

AFZ
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.. .

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.

The trouble is how the sort of complex questions to which you seek answers could have been put in a referendum.

Let's start with the basic proposition that the UK electorate does not accept preferential voting for the House of Commons. Now you suggest in one or other of your posts that some wanting to leave may have wanted the UK to join EFTA, some a Norway-type solution, and others to get back to UK alone - probably others as well.

The referendum paper puts these down as 3 choices, with Remain as the 4th. Remain ends up with the support of 40% of those voting; each of the other 3 gets 20%. Now clearly 60% want to leave, but there's no majority for any 1 of the ways of leaving. In any event, the first 2 require the agreement of other countries, and there's no certainty of getting that.

What's to happen?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

A referendum question which bypasses that process and puts multiple options to the electorate would by much more complex. For a start there would still need to be a process of reducing the vast range of options to a manageable number, there would need to be multiple campaigns for the different options (which isn't that big of a problem, it's essentially no different from an election with 3+ parties), and then there would probably be no clear answer anyway - it would provide the information that the Leave side would need to go through the process of defining Brexit to get the most popular support ... but, unless there was another referendum in 5 years that would be out of date by the time it goes to the electorate again.

I would think that there are actually three broad categories of options - Remain in EU, leave EU but remain in single market, leave both EU and single market. The third option is probably the one that can realistically be subdivided into different versions depending on what sort of subsequent trade deal with the EU that would be sought after leaving.
 
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I have said before that I would have prefered a combination of Parliamentary and direct democracy.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, the other way round. The substantive Parliamentary debate (rather than the very perfunctory one we had) leading to a majority in favour of a defined government position on Brexit (a white paper with sufficient detail, rather than the short pamphlet we eventually got). And, then to take that to the people in a referendum - and, if that's a yes vote the PM writes a note to Brussels the following morning announcing that the UK is leaving the EU, paper clipped to the white paper which defines the UK government intent.
 
Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :
 
Our elected representatives had plenty of opportunity to choose to do it the way you wanted, but decided not to, approving the European Union Referendum Act 2015 by 544 to 53, a majority of more than ten to one.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

In any event, whatever the rights and wrongs of the process (mainly the latter, IMV) we are where we are. Personally, I think the whole thing is an unmitigated disaster but it won't be turned around by picking proceduralist holes in the way the Referendum was conducted. If I am right, hopefully buyers remorse will set in and hopefully some configuration of political forces will be able to exploit this and set the country back on the right track. I freely concede that I am whistling to keep my spirits up but it strikes me as a better choice than embracing some kind of latter day Stockholm Syndrome and asserting, in defiance of the available evidence, that the Fash-Powellite-Bennite axis currently running things are going to lead us into the new sunlit uplands.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
In general I don't see the problem with continuing to make the argument even after a vote has passed. I mean if we want to go down the road of accepting cliches ('elections are won from the centre') then we can adopt the approach of 'history is made by unreasonable people' - after all the EU referendum as the culmination of just that, if you squint slightly anyway.

That said, there's a case for adopting an approach that is more likely to yield benefits in the mid-term, both in terms of mitigating the extent and effects of a Brexit and scrutinising the Henry VII process (if you want to do this retrospectively look for governmental officials taking early retirement to work for the private sector and look at the legislation they re-drafted).
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
Henry VIII process - a Henry VII process might have much to recommend it for student's of GR Elton's Tudor Revolution in Government. Of course, as any fule kno, Elton rather overegged the case and much of it was actually an Edward IV process. I digress....
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Whatever monarch we reference, it's still a right royal balls up.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The result was the feeling that they didn't need to do things properly, like define the Leave option, because the country would never vote Leave. An attitude of get the referendum over quickly, put those silly UKIP people in their place, and get on with the important things of government like denying the disabled welfare payments (after all, Stephen Hawking does OK and he can only move his eyes) and allowing rich bankers to ruin the economy and still get their massive bonuses (which can be invested in those off-shore accounts safe from the Treasuries thieving mitts).
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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. Cameron was a twerp who considered himself Master of the Universe because he'd failed to win one election and scraped home in another, but Labour MP's particularly should have been in touch with constituents who would have told them which way the wind was blowing. Instead they tamely waved it all through. It was a racing certainty that leave would win from the day when the pig-fancier came back empty-handed from his totally bogus renegotiation fiasco.

So now we are to spend 10-15 years inflicting on ourselves an act of national self-harm that will not solve the problems that set it in motion. Forgive me if I don't join in with the dancing in the streets.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Really? Let's look at the polling data post the vote:

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).
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

Indeed.
However sympathy for Mr Cameron et al. is extremely limited by one factor: he used those same false fears and half-truths for his own political gain. One reaps what one sows after all.

Unfortunately it is not Mr Cameron or even Mrs May's current crop of government ministers who will pay the bigger costs.

AFZ
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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. This component of the Leave vote were largely the working (and non-working) poor, the struggling, the systemically pissed-off. Those who, rightly or wrongly, feel that they've had a raw deal and it must be someone else's fault. Tory MP's like to pretend they don't exist, but Labour politicians certainly should have been aware of the strength of feeling and the breadth of alienation. I was, and I'm only peripherally involved in politics.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

Really? Let's look at the polling data post the vote:

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).

This is pretty much the reasoning that led Harriet Harman to abstain on the welfare bill in 2015.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

Offering a referendum on Europe, which is an issue irrelevant to most of these people's circumstances, was only ever a piece of political sleight of hand. Leaving the EU will achieve nothing as it was never intended to achieve anything - it was never going to happen. The fundamental problems in our society are still not being addressed. We are storing up huge troubles for the future.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

As to your other point - you are completely correct. Leaving is unlikely to 'fix' any of the problems that might have lead to the Leave Vote.

I've talked to a number of people who voted Leave - and a few who were old enough to have voted lasted time around and who voted Leave this time related a tale of how the ECC caused British industry to fail because it was suddenly exposed to competition and because the introduction of VAT caused British goods to rise in price and thus become un-competitive.

Missing in all this is that the imported goods were similarly subject to VAT, that British industry had been heavily subsidized in the late 60s to keep it running, and these subsidies were removed when Britain entered the ECC largely on the initiative of the British government.

I suspect the contemporaries of those who suffered then are unlikely to do any better under the low-regulation/low-cost economy that the right wing of the Conservative party are in favour of.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
My main beef with Labour politicians is that they should have made all the above points, forcefully, throughout the campaign-referendum-trying-to-decide-what-the-fuck-to-do process. It may have cost them politically in the short term (no doubt they would have been branded "enemies of the people" by the Daily Wail). They might not have stopped Brexit, but they might have managed to build a consensus around achieving the softest Brexit possible, and in the long term saved their party.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
The zeal with which the Labour Party leader has been trying to keep Britain in Europe is well-known.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Is any politician dealing with Brexit sensibly? On the Tory side, you have the Ultras, who seem to want a complete split with the EU. Presumably, ex-Remainers are going along with May, hoping that something will be muddled through. I'm not sure how many of them really understand customs rules, convergence, third countries, and so on.

On the Labour side, total confusion. I suppose Starmer is making a fist of sounding coherent, but then Labour policies are not.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
The mantra "no deal is better than a bad deal" has drawn a mixture of praise and horror, depending on where one is on the political spectrum. But today we see an example of why it may be necessary. The bureaucratic weasels of the EU have allowed Spain to insert a clause which allows it to harass Gibraltar into switching sides. Gibraltar voted by 96% for Remain. If that had pushed it in the direction of seeing its future with Spain, that would be democracy at work. But it hasn't.

Today, the First Minister, Fabian Picardo said that, post Brexit, Gibraltar's ties with the UK will be more important than ever. 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”.

It's quite obvious, I hope, that the UK Government will reject out of hand, Spain's attempt to gain joint of full sovereignty of The Rock by using Brexit as a pretext for this action. The Guardian doesn't name the "EU official" who said “The union will stick up for its members, and that means Spain now." But the implication is that now that the UK is no longer going to be a member, the EU will side with Spain in the more than 300 year dispute between Spain and the UK over Gibraltar. We should, and I trust we will, side with the democratic right of the people of Gibraltar to be what they want to be. In that event Spain can, and probably will, veto any deal between the UK and the EU, as could any of the 27 members who doesn't get what it wants.

This is a perfect example of why no deal is better than a bad deal and why hard Brexit is on the cards.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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”.

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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

This argument is nonsense.

Yes, 96% of Gibraltarians voted for the UK to stay in the EU, and most voted to remain British in 2002.

That option is no longer possible. Gib can't stay in the EU by itself, and its votes are no more and no less important than those of any UK voters.

The options available to Gibraltar now are to remain British and leave the EU, or to ask to be annexed by Spain and remain in / rejoin the EU. There really isn't a realistic third option. But either one of those is clearly possible, and it should be up to the Gibraltarians which choice they prefer.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
For those who want the source documents, the draft guidelines PaulTH* mentioned can be found here [PDF]. The bit about Gibraltar is point #22 (on p. 8). Other territory-specific references deal with Ireland (#11) and Cyprus (#12), both on p. 6.

This is, of course, only a draft document.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
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?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In terms of 'rights' Gibraltar's have not been discarded. In practical terms they have been thrown under a bus.

Everyone got thrown under. Some pitched in and helped throw themselves, but everyone will be mashed by the wheels.
None of this was thought of beforehand because the architects did not wish the thing to happen. That the were the first rolled over is of no comfort.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
De Gaulle was right 55 years ago, when giving his famous "Non!"* he said that the British did not want to recognise that they were European. He was right then and has been ever since. There was a small group around Edward Heath, and a similarly small group voting Liberal, who did make that recognition, but opinion polls in 1975 showed that most of those voting to join did so because they could see a benefit for the UK in trade etc, rather than a commitment to Europe.

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?

The closest I can think of is the 1967 referendum here which amended the Constitution so as to allow the Federal Parliament to legislate for Aboriginal people. Having been given the power by ths direct process, the exercise was a matter for the Parliament. But that's still a long way from the sort of thing you're talking of.


*trans: No!

[ 31. March 2017, 22:36: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

[mr cheesy look away because I'm going to bang a drum I've banged a lot recently]

No, it's not the first time I've raised that concept. The example I've been repeatedly citing, because it's one I'm familiar with and passionate about, is the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum. Where the sequence of events was:
So, in summary a process in which an independence party with significant electoral success reaching a position of government, then spends six years in Parliamentary debate discussing and refining the options for independence and further devolution, with the final Parliamentary position defined 18 months before the referendum, with the public consulted throughout the process and left with an extended campaign period before the referendum (which had an 85% turnout, so very conclusive result).

You probably don't need the contrast to the 2016 EU referendum. But, the main points are: no political party with decades of electoral success on an anti-EU platform, no landslide victory for a party on such a platform (or, even close), no Parliamentary debate with public consultation of the issues, no government supporting Brexit, no white paper, severely curtailed campaign (there was barely a year between the 2015 GE and the referendum, much less time for an 18 month referendum campaign).
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.

You still need to deal with the point I raised about putting the mulltiple reasons for leaving on the referendum paper.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I don't think anybody doubts the integrity of the process which led to the 2014 Scottish referendum. This is one of the reasons why many people, even in Scotland, don't believe that another bite at the cherry is appropriate for some considerable time. But Alan speaks as if there was some democratic deficit in the 2016 EU referendum and I don't see it. David Cameron promised, in 2013, that if he won the next General Election, he would deliver an in/out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017. Of course it was a miscalculation. He didn't expect to win the 2015 election. He figured that, at best, he would be in a coalition with someone like the Lib Dems who would never agree to a referendum, or he would be in opposition.

After winning in 2015, Cameron sought urgently for the EU leaders to give him a fig leaf which he could take to the British people to assuage the perceived problem of uncontrollable EU immigration. He was shown the door. But his 2015 manifesto had promised the vote and that his government would implement the choice of the British people. Parliament voted by 6 to 1 to allow the referendum. So we knew from 2013 that it may be coming. We know that the Tories were committed to implementing the result and parliament overwhelmingly endorsed his call for the vote. What more democratic authority is required?
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
There's the fact that nobody was counting on the tories winning the 2015 election, the fact that during the 2014 referendum the loss of EU membership was repeatedly touted as a reason to vote "no", the fact that only one constituency in Scotland returned a tory MP in 2015. Scotland emphatically rejected the promised EU referendum, and emphatically voted to remain in the EU when it took place. In 2016 the SNP government were elected with a pledge to hold another referendum if there was a material change in circumstance, and nobody can claim that leaving the EU is not a material change. In short: leaving the EU was not a choice that Scotland was interested in making, and yet has been forced into it by Westminster. Scotland must now decide whether it's willing to go along with this nonsense any more, and it's deeply undemocratic for May to insist we stay in the doomed building with her until she's finished pouring the petrol and lit the match.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

If the majority of the UK can vote differently from Gibraltar on this and Gibraltar doesn't have a veto then Gibraltar doesn't have a veto on the final deal either.

Of course I do not doubt that hard-line Brexiters will take this up in their continual attempt to blame the EU for the consequences of their own xenophobia and impossible promises. But it's still hypocrisy on their part.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Sorry I forgot to add. 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? I apologise for my typos. I'm doing this on a phone which I don't usually.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The question on the ballot is a very small part of the equation

quote:
You still need to deal with the point I raised about putting the mulltiple reasons for leaving on the referendum paper.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

See my answer to GeeD above.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Leaving for church in a couple of minutes, so 2 very quick points. The first is that you're scientist and work in a world of rationalism. Politics is not in that world, it inclused irrationalism and emotionalism.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
The extent to which the UK is a democracy, representative or otherwise, is debatable - think of the House of Lords. But seriously, this was not an event where the outcome beyond simply leaving could be said. The means largely depended, and still do, on whatever terms the remaining EU offers. And the clock's now ticking as in under 2 years, come what may with the negotiations, the UK will be out. The UK is in an extremely weak bargaining position.

Stupid of Cameron to promise a referendum and he could probably have obtained almost the same electoral benefit from the promise of a "wide-ranging public enquiry" or whatever is the current equivalent phrase being used.

[ 02. April 2017, 03:49: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

But, at the end of the day when you put a question to the people in a democracy, whether a referendum or an election where you ask them who they want to represent them, there needs to be a mechanism that ensures the number of votes recieved either way means something - which means a rational, objective approach. My contention is that the method adopted in Scotland to define the question satisfies that requirement, whereas in the referendum last year there were sufficient deficiencies that we can't know what people who ticked the leave box were actually voting for, the best we have is that they were voting against maintaining the current relationship between the UK and the rest of the EU.

quote:
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.
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 question is entirely about how the UK(Scottish) government produces that opening argument, and also how they judge what would be a compromise too far. [Of course, the EU has the same issue but that's a different question - how do the negotiators on the EU side decide what they need to insist on? How do the people of the EU express their views such that those negotiating on their behalf know what they want out of Brexit? At the moment it looks like that takes place through the governments of EU nations, but some nations may put that to their people in a referendum as well.]

My position is that the means by which that negotiating position is derived is through a lengthy democratic process of deliberation and debate in Parliament and public consultation, leading to a referendum question where there is a clear summary of what that position would be if the people support it. Which is what we had in 2014 in Scotland, and we didn't have in 2016.

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. A marginally small majority wanted to change the relationship between the UK and EU, but was that to a position where the UK remained in the single market, where the UK leaves the single market, where the UK trades under WTO, where there is an attempt to form a bespoke trade deal (covering what sectors?), etc?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
Either Gibraltar gets a veto over whether we leave at all or it gets no veto at all. Those are the logical positions.

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:
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?
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?

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.)


quote:
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.

Well, we could also point to the Spanish government for putting that line in the text...?

[ 02. April 2017, 07:45: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

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.)


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?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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

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.

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.

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.

I bet both sides have some more chips to put on the table, sorry, I mean thoughtful strategic visions to bring to the negotiations.

I was going to say, does this fool anyone, but the answer is probably yes.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.


I reckon both sides have far more chips on their shoulders than they can usefully bargain with.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
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.


I reckon both sides have far more chips on their shoulders than they can usefully bargain with.
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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

Residency rights =/= right to vote. These UK residents didn't have full voting rights to start with.
There was no reason why they couldn't have been given a postal vote given that they had a clear interest in the question.
The Leave campaign might say that they didn't car that they had a clear interest in the question when it came to voting. But that gives them no right to use their interests as an excuse to mess about with the EU nationals in this country.

quote:
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.
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.
Who knows? It might have been a token of good will and signalled that the UK doesn't view this as a hostile interaction in which each side is only out for what it can get.

quote:
quote:
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.

Well, we could also point to the Spanish government for putting that line in the text...?
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.) But I don't think our government could have exhausted any more good will from EU nations if it were trying.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I keep hearing the line, Brexit is government of old people, by old people, for old people. Not completely true, of course.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.)

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.

Put together a headbanging tendency, a couple of honest concerns on the part of the Spanish. A fear from the rest of the EU that should a trade deal be in place between the EU and the UK the resolution mechanism would rapidly get clogged up with Spanish-UK issues plus a lack of good will caused by the UK becoming a Ruritanian mix of nostalgia freaks with the anger management of a toddler at bedtime, and I can see why the EU might have just gone ahead with letting the Spanish have their clause.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

I happen to agree that the way people voted was very complex, and a mixture of reasons - many of which were not rational.

But, I haven't been discussing how people voted. I've been discussing how the political process framed the question on the paper, the associated political processes to define the options (or, not as the case may be), and how seriously the political structures took the process - is this a subject that deserves years of discussion, or a game that can be played in a couple of months.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I understand that's how you're approaching the matter. I'm saying that such a process was irrelevant to the referendum. It's perhaps a process that a government should have undertaken before making a decision to have one in the first place. Cameron's announcement has all the hallmarks of policy on the run.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.

*this seems very unlikely to me, and AFAIU the EU position is simply to negotiate a divorce settlement within the period, not to deal with all the other issues until that is done. So there wouldn't be much to vote upon in a second referendum anyway.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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".*

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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

At any rate, I happen to have Article 50 right here.

  1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
    -
  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. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
    -
  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.
    -
  4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
    A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
    -
  5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

The key bit is in Section 3, which would seem to pretty unambiguously say that if no agreement is reached ("the terms . . . are too crappy") the separation happens anyway without any specific agreement in place. There doesn't seem to be any mechanism for retracting a withdrawal once proffered.

[ 03. April 2017, 14:40: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.

[ 03. April 2017, 14:51: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I think it is vanishingly unlikely that the UK will not leave, but it seems to me that the EU is going to say that it was the UK that walked away and that there was no element of pushing.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Well, if the Gibraltar issue is anything to go by, any state determining that they've got non-negotiable red lines could scupper both the EU exit negotiations and any future trade deal.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
This is an early period of bluffs and threats, isn't it? Thus, Gibraltar by the EU, and cooperation over terrorism, by the UK, can be filed here.

I expect both sides have more in reserve, including 'I'll go home with the ball, if you won't play properly'.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

Because the economic cost levied by the US or China in the event of any bilateral trade deal with the UK is going to dwarf the cost of further subsidizing 30K people living in a tax haven in the sun.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

A qualified majority is defined as:

quote:
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:

When the Council votes on a proposal not made by the Commission or the High Representative, a decision is adopted if:

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.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is an early period of bluffs and threats, isn't it?

Makes sense.

Most of the time I'm inclined to optimism.

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 ?

Seems to me that it's in the economic interests of each individual EU country for the EU negotiating team to extract some small concessions and then say yes to the rest.

The downside is that the interests of the EU superstructure may not be identical to the interests of the constituent nations...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
or there is some fine detail not included in your broad-brush litany that's problematic.

Whispers: foreigners
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
This is an early period of bluffs and threats, isn't it?

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.

This inability or unwillingness to compromise also seems to be in evidence in the cross-party Brexit committee. Hardline Leavers apparently prefer to leave the meeting rather than preserve unity.

Talk in the white paper of the need to recognise "differences in the negotiating priorities of the different parts of the UK" looks overly optimistic when that, essentially, is what the UK failed to recognise within the EU.

[ 04. April 2017, 05:13: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
or there is some fine detail not included in your broad-brush litany that's problematic.

Whispers: foreigners
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.
 
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
or there is some fine detail not included in your broad-brush litany that's problematic.

Whispers: foreigners
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.
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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!
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
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!

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.

It seems to me that as time goes on and globalisation sweeps all before it, it is increasingly clear that nation states are accidents of history and geography that will become obsolete, probably sooner rather than later.

Marx thought that the state would wither away; I don't recall him predicting that it would be replaced by Google, but I don't think Google would have surprised him that much.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

I think you are right - but possibly for the wrong reasons.

While you are correct that the FPTP system makes things winner take all at the level of different parties, this doesn't necessarily mean that negotiations and compromise are off the table. The corollary of the FPTP system is that the parties themselves are large coalitions of divergent interests where compromise is often on the table, because the parties are the only route to power in a system where coalitions are rare.

OTOH, I do think that the current set of politicians have painted themselves into a corner, and because they are running scared of sections of the media their room to manoeuvre is very limited.

So in that sense compromise is hard, because it is not a particularly good tactic for an individual wanting to survive in front line politics.

[ 04. April 2017, 11:03: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.

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.

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!

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
You can see a clear way ahead now for the government. May is being conciliatory over Gibraltar, showing that she is going to try to neuter the zealots.

1. The idea of no deal is clearly disastrous, for example, for the City.
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.
3. The various bluffs and threats will be smoothed over, e.g. EU citizens, Gibraltar, intelligence sharing.
4. The EU 'bill' might be a problem, but is probably less than 50 million, and can be spread over ten years or whatever.
5. Immigration - sectors will be allowed foreign labour if there are labour shortages.
6. Of course, Murphy's law applies, and May will be looking anxiously at the headbangers, and their spokesmen, Dacre and Murdoch. But I would think that various City figures will lean on them.

So it's not really win/win, but spin/spin. May will sell a deal as good for Britain, blah blah blah, and above all, hopes to win the next election. It is really associate membership, but those words will never pass her lips.

Of course, you might well say, what was the bloody point? I don't know, but then I'm not a philosopher.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

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.
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
And just what are they doing while that little squirrel (beg its pardon, pagan bunny)is occupying the headlines?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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).

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.

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?

On the zealots, Tresemme is good at smoke and mirrors, so I expect tons of the stuff, building up to the next election. British values, bulldog spirit, glorious victory over Gibraltar. Will Dacre buy this? I have no idea, but presumably, he will be put off by the idea of the cliff-edge, unless the zealots have serious suicidal impulses.

Correction, yes, should be 50 billion in the bill.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
See chris stiles' post. Now the EU are wrecking Easter, because they hate the English, and anyway, most of them are Muslims and Jews. (It doesn't have to make sense).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.

Talking about Easter and Happy Holidays and all that is an easy way to rile up a certain constituency without actually saying anything of any consequence.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Some journalists are saying that May has basically acceded to the EU timetable, that is, trade negotiations start in 2 years. It looks like it, possibly because the Brexit ministers didn't have a clue what Brexit might mean or how to achieve it. So it goes.

So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

Filthy, brown, foreign heathens killing other filthy, brown, foreign heathens . Morally neutral at worst.
Much less important than preserving the sanctity of a co-opted pagan festival filled with co-opted pagan symbols and the vaunted Christian symbology of sacred Capitalism.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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'.

At the same time May herself seems to be rather credulous on the 'PC Gone mad' line (see the migrant vans, and the tale of the immigrants cat), but then I suppose that's going to play well with a certain part of the Tory membership. As someone put it elsewhere "why wouldn't a credulous, intolerant, mildly-hysteric reactionary who'll make people *who aren't you* suffer be popular in Britain?".
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

Without doubt, Mrs May will gloss over all this, and will spin fine gossamers around it, or will talk about bizarre stuff such as Easter eggs.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?

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.
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?
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
Apparently UKIP and their spokesman are blustering about the EU putting conditions that are impossible to comply with in negotiating Brexit. Prior to the Referendum, it seemed fairly obvious to me that the EU would be dictating the terms of Brexit, and that any claims otherwise were delusional. Yet it was dismissed as 'Project Fear'. Is there a website tracking the claims made by Remain and which ones have come true already and which are still to come true?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Longer term, their policies are going to be a failure, in that whatever form Brexit takes, it is unlikely to deliver the sorts of social change that their supporters think it will. When that dawns on them, they will demand an ever more radical set of changes, and it'll be easier to create the scapegoats necessary if the economy is doing badly at the time.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.)
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It is the government and the House which run the Country, not the people. They could quite easily turn around and say --- You Know What? Let's just forget all about that 'kin' Referendum.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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?

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.)
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
17.1% drop in the pound since the Brexit vote. I guess it's still 0.9% inaccurate though; there's always that argument.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
17.1% drop in the pound since the Brexit vote.

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.

I accept it's going to cause problems for a lot of people, and Brexit is a heavy handed way of going about it, but the £'s level was too high to start with.

Still, it does seem like a painful way of achieving devaluation (which is not in itself a bad thing).
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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.

[Big Grin] - but then it would be actually low rather than recovered from an artificial high so I won't be praying for it sorry!
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

[Big Grin] - but then it would be actually low rather than recovered from an artificial high so I won't be praying for it sorry!
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'".
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

Point of order - if Trump starts WW3 then it won't be because of Brexit.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how long for the whole process? Go on, guess. 7 years?

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.
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?
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.

The equivalent shift for the UK would therefore not be towards free trade, but away from it.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
This is due to the steady and deliberate removal of Christianity from the public sphere.

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.
Prissy little fits about stupid things doesn't put Christianity in a better light, so counter productive regardless.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
What does "a place in the public sphere" actually mean? Concrete examples please, for the weirdly-wired.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

Not sure what system of ethics and morals is unique to Christianity.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

I liked this piece in the Guardian from Victoria Coren Mitchell.

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.


 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

[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)]

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. So, a year ago we should have known that the intention of the government was to seek a bespoke deal with the EU retaining tariff -free trade with the EU on specified sectors and control over EU immigration (etc... the exact intention would need a document of several hundred pages). The expectation of the electorate would then be that the government try their hardest to reach a deal that is as close as possible to that intention (assuming a vote in favour of the government trying to do that). With a General Election in 2020 (and, every 5 years after that) in which we can express how well we thought the government did.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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 [Disappointed]

[ 17. April 2017, 15:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

[ 17. April 2017, 19:46: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
values of respect, justice, fair play etc...

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. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
quote:
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 [Disappointed]

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.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
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?

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?
Missed the traditional early May date - June 8th allegedly....
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Either the Queen is dead... or there will be a GE (IMO).

If it's a GE, I'm going to volunteer for the LD in whatever constituency they can realistically beat the Tories.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
It is indeed June 8th....
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Bollocks. This is bad.

We have a "one-off" chance to stop Brexit. Will we take it?
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
I've put a new thread up...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bollocks. This is bad.

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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

But it is bad that Labour are not united and don't have a leader that looks like winning, so whatever happens we're going to have the Tories as the main party in the Commons, which will be bad.

Even in my most rosy scenario, the election will be indecisive and probably lead to another election.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bollocks. This is bad.

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?
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The problem is that it doesn't look like we'll be voting for policies for the next five years. We'll have an election where the main position of each party will (presumably) be something like:

Tory - vote for a Brexit negotiating position as briefly outlined in the White Paper earlier this year
Labour - vote for a Brexit negotiating position that has yet to be outlined, but presumably will be softer than the White Paper
Lib Dem - vote to stay in the EU
SNP - vote for holding an IndyRef when the Scottish Parliament chooses (oh, and to stay in the EU)

All the other issues of government - welfare, healthcare, education, law and order etc will take a very definite back seat.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

On top of which, of course, the timing sucks. Mrs May (according to what I got from the radio news at lunchtime) is calling for the parties to put forward their vision for Brexit. That should, of course, have been done before the referendum was called last year. At the very least, we should have resolved the issue of what form of Brexit and who will lead the government in negotiations for that before anyone triggered Article 50. We have a very tight 18 months to negotiate Brexit, and now Mrs May proposes that the government stop work on those negotiations for a few months while we have an election campaign, potentially electing a government which will want to scrap everything already done and start again with a different vision of Brexit. What a total and utter farce. Unbelievable.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
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:
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.

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!
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.

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?

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.

I suspect that not all SNP or Green voters are pro-independence. It's just they see them as a better alternative than what else is on offer at present. If the opposition parties can get thier act together, things might change.

But, as the SNP have been in charge for over 10 years IIRC, they are sooner or later going to have to stop blaming London for everything and accept that some of the problems are either of their own making or theirs to solve.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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:
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.

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!

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.

But, those versions of "leave the EU" have some common features. Top of the list being that the UK would cease being a member of the EU. So, regardless of whether the UK remains in the single market or not, regardless of views on immigration, agriculture, fisheries and all the rest of the issues that are bundled into "what does Brexit mean?" a vote to Leave would mean that EU institutions currently in the UK would have to relocate to remain within the EU. That was not something that was going to happen under some versions of Brexit but not others.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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?
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

'twas ever thus. As true in the 40s and 50s as it is today.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

'twas ever thus. As true in the 40s and 50s as it is today.
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I would certainly be disappointed by a clear vote in favour of a position I dislike. But, that's democracy. The problem is that an election doesn't give clear answers on specific questions. 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. And, when voting for someone to represent my constituency for the next five years the choice will be directed by a large number of issues. Do I want an MP who has a history of forming political alliances of convenience against conviction, just because he opposes Brexit? Do I vote for someone who opposes Brexit, even if I find all the rest of their policies abhorrent?

If you want to know the views of the electorate on a specific question then you ask us in a referendum. One that has a question we can actually answer.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
But elections never do that Alan. You seem to be saying that the whole idea of a representative assembly is unacceptable and that what we really need is direct democracy and government by plebiscite. Which would be a terrible idea.
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
No, he's saying that such a huge issue should be asked in a referendum not a GE. Also that the options are properly defined - unlike the 'leave' option last June.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

One might elect representatives based on a broad policy platform, but ideally one would elect representatives one believes to be competent and with the character and political entourage liable to help them make wise, informed decisions, rather than ones that match our checklist of hot-button issues perfectly - the latter reasoning is precisely how you get evangelicals voting for the likes of Trump.

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.

In today's complex world, referenda almost inevitably give the power to the people who get to set the question, not to the voters.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

In the EU referendum, the opposite appeared to happen.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

In the EU referendum, the opposite appeared to happen.
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Even if by some unimagined political means the entire population of the UK were to communicate to the EU tomorrow that "we've changed our minds", that would need to be enshrined in a fresh agreement of which the terms would need to be defined.

The argument now is about how soft or hard Brexit might be. At this point you'd do better gearing up for that argument than trying to decide whether the current position was fairly arrived at.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

In the EU referendum, the opposite appeared to happen.
I didn't say what the outcome of having that power might be. Either getting your way, or stirring chaos.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

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.
I agree entirely.

But, at the same time they stand for election on a manifesto which outlines how they are likely to act in relation to a wide range of issues. And, though there may be times when we vote for an individual we know will be an exceptional representative for local people despite disagreements with their manifesto, usually we vote for the manifesto that's closest to our views.

quote:

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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
The question was asked in a referendum last year. Almost 50% of voters didn't get the answer they wanted. But we can't all be like the SNP and ask for another referendum every time the wind changes direction. So now the question for the electorate is do you support the PM and her administration to deliver on Brexit or do you want a change of direction. The voters are getting their say on this. We have very little history in the UK of government by plebiscite, usually reserving it to issues of huge constitutional significance. We can't have a re-run of last year's vote, but the voters have the chance to pass judgement on the government's handling of it. That's appropriate democracy.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The question was asked in a referendum last year. Almost 50% of voters didn't get the answer they wanted.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But we can't all be like the SNP and ask for another referendum every time the wind changes direction.

Why not?

That's a serious question. If you've already abandoned parliamentary government in favour of popular plebiscite, surely having serial referendums is simply the natural progression. How else can you determine the will of the people?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
The idea that we can vote for a particular "sort" of Brexit is, I think, mistaken. The outcome of negotiations is not entirely in our hands.

What we can do, I hope, is to vote for a particular attitude to the negotiations, one which sees it as a constructive discussion between friends and not a hostile fencing match against enemies.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

For example Scottish referendum - say the brave Scexiteers get their wish and win IndyRef2. 2 days later Nicola and key friends are wiped out in random bus crash.

Does that invalidate the referendum result, or is it assumed that there is a mandate for *someone* from the party to get on with negotiations?

I appreciate a clear statement of the negotiating position ought to be made, but why is the "who" part so rigid - other than the capacity to swing the vote one way or the other on the day? After the day you can't expect to be able to hold them to the who bit surely?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Ultimately it's "the government will conduct negotiations to seek ...", we wouldn't be voted for each member of the negotiating team - we would expect the government to be competant enough to select the competent people for those roles. But, barring unexpected illness or accident, we would know who the leading figures in the government would be - first/prime minister and a few key cabinet members.

We wouldn't want to see the leader of the government who would need to enact the will of the people throw his toys out of the pram and walk away to let someone else pick up the reins.

Of course, it's much prefered if the question is posed such that the government actually wants to see the change enacted. Rather than have a government reluctantly doing something on the basis of a glorified opinion poll, while those who actually wanted it largely sit outside of government sniping away at every decision that is made.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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? [/QB]
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).

Since Mrs May has called an election and someone else may be leading the government in June (we live in hope) the options are now re-opened. I would expect that the exit terms will be different if the UK negotiators follow the Tory/UKIP agenda compared to (say) a LibDem-Labour agenda of remaining in the single market. For a start the UK won't be in the single market if our negotiators don't ask for that.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The question was asked in a referendum last year. Almost 50% of voters didn't get the answer they wanted.

We had a referendum last year. And, we were denied the option of an informed vote.
It was every bit as informed as the 2014 Indyref.

Make what you will of that.

I will only add that, like the 2014 Indyref, it was a very long time coming. I remain baffled by the impression given by a good deal of people both on here and those I know in real life, that it all came out of nowhere. I grew up on the edge of London, and went to school in a relatively wealthy working-class Tory area. All totally hostile to EEC. After Maastricht, there were immediate calls for a referendum, and a party was formed to fight the 92 election on that basis. Later that decade I canvassed for the Lib Dems in a couple of elections and became acutely aware of the potential unpopularity of the party's position of Europe. Suffice to say that it was not something that was emphasised.

Opinon polling doesn't indicate that the public would now vote Remain.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
It was every bit as informed as the 2014 Indyref.

Bollocks.

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 - the arguments for independence and the vision for what they wanted to achieve in negotiations if they were given the chance by the electorate. We went to the polls without any excuse for not being informed about the question, without any doubt about exactly what the government would be seeking.

Forward to 2016 and we had practically none of that opportunity to be informed. There was barely more than a few days Parliamentary debate, and most of that on whether to hold a referendum rather than the pros and cons of the different issues, and no public consultation of the issues. We had no unified and defined position for Leave with basically all the options espoused by someone. If we had a 700 page plus document describing why we should leave the EU and the governments vision for Brexit, if we had had that decade of political discourse, if we knew precisely what the government would seek in negotiations then we would have had a vote where we all had the opportunity to be informed and a vote where the result would mean something. If that vote had gone Leave by a very narrow margin I'd have been disappointed but accepted it as the will of the people, I wouldn't have spent a year talking about it - though I would reserve the right to campaign for readmission to the EU in 20-30 years time (just as in September 2014 I was prepared to wait 20-30 years before we started on Scottish Independence again - if it hadn't been very quickly obvious that the Tories in particular were going to keep on side-lining Scotland as a second-class part of the UK).
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Alan,

Absolutely not bollocks. Consider the following.

1. Boris and co promised an excellent trade deal. Salmond and co promised an excellent trade deal and shared use of the pound.

In fact both Boris and Salmond's standard response was "something will be worked out" in response to any hard question.

2. Farage & co promised weekly millions for the NHS. Salmond & co promised billions of oil money. Don't be deceived by the fact that one was a slogan on the side of a bus, and the other was part of a lengthy White Paper. All that means is that Salmond & co laboured longer and harder to produce an argument that was just as speculative as Farage's.

3. All manner of matters, pensions, division of assets, citizenship, defence, etc were glossed over by Salmond & co. They had no answer to any of these questions and resorted to saying things liek "there'll be a deal". Sounds familiar? It should do. It's just like how Boris & co had no answer to questions such as financial passporting and so on.

4. Scotland had been discussing independence for ages. However, as I noted in my post above, so has Brexit. Just not in certain quarters it seems.

The difference was that immigration didn't play much part in the indyref, however, Scotland hasn't had anything like as much as England, evne proportionally, so no one should be surprised.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
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?

We were assured by the Leave campaign that the British negotiators would be able to have the moon on a stick and eat it.
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?

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Alan,

Absolutely not bollocks.

Still absolute bollocks.

Consider this. We had a detailed white paper on Scottish Independence months before the start of the referendum campaign. We had an outline white paper on Brexit months after the referendum vote. 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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

If the referendum question actually specifies free ponies then it is open to the 'no' campaign to propose that free ponies are highly unrealistic. The yes campaign can claim they are entirely achievable and the public can decide which side they consider more credible.

What actually happened was that no criticism of leave campaign objectives was able to get a grip because it was taking aim at a nebulous and moving target. Any given leave campaigner could disavow anything said by any other leave campaigner, or even by themselves, or could evade the question entirely.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Still absolute bollocks.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

It looks to me that the PM wants to be given carte blanche, with an increased majority to guard against internal difficulties.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I think the real answer is that the majority of Britons never thought of themselves as European, wanted to leave the EU for a variety of reasons, but a good majority of those voting agreed that they wanted to exit. Come what may, they wanted out.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I broadly agree with Gee D.

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.

(Before voting in the Maastricht referendum, I attempted to read the copy of the treaty thoughtfully provided by the French government; I gave up after about two pages all about coal and steel).

And even if someone did read such a paper right through, it's too much to expect them to come to the "right" conclusion on that basis, just as you couldn't expect somebody to successfully operate a nuclear power plant simply by walking into the control room and reading the manual: it takes practice, experience, teamwork, and focus.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Possibly more importantly, the existence of a white paper is evidence that our representatives have done their job, that the finicky business of examining the issues has been done on our behalf. There is no doubt that the Scottish Parliament had spent considerable time and effort defining what the Scottish government would seek in independence negotiations. Conversely, there was effectively no time and effort spent by the Parliament in Westminster to define what the UK government would seek in EU exit negotiations - indeed, our representatives still haven't done that even as negotiations start (if they had, why would Mrs May want an election at this stage?).

It also means that there is a defined position with the vast majority of those in favour of the proposal singing from the same hymn sheet, and those opposing the proposal aren't finding themselves arguing against an ever-changing position. Or finding that they have spent time and effort countering points that once the vote is cast turns out to be not part of the proposal (£350m for the NHS ....)
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
The hymn was that well-known favourite "Let's leave the Common Market" brought up to date with "We'll leave the stuffed EU" appearing at frequent intervals. No need for a white paper with that.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
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.

[ 24. April 2017, 00:57: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

People don't even know who the Famous Five are these days?! O tempora O mores!

(The dog is one of the Five.)
 
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
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
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.

From what I have read, Official Leave decided not to endorse any specific plan because it would be rubbished as pie in the sky, and 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.

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?

Indeed such a promise would have been pointless. Even now, if May promised a second vote if the terms were bad, guess what? The terms would be bloody terrible. To win the later vote.

So to me, your 700 page document was "of interest" but no more. And going into the vote, I would have simply worked on the basis that Salmond wanted Scottish independence at any cost, but knew he would have to lead people to hope for it to be smooth, and generate the belief that when it happens "good sense will prevail". Just like Brexit, and like Brexit, open to quite a degree of uncertainty.

There is no reason to suppose he would have backed down if the negotiations went badly. And you lose so much face. Nationally not just personally.

Mind you, far be it from you to suggest Alec Salmond could actually have a devious streak.

[Snigger]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
Ooops!

I read Secret Seven to Dlet and he then read the Five series to himself. I don't think he was the only one in his class to do so either.

A mild tangent: Dlet's edition had drawings through the volumes, one showing a parental car. It looks very much like an Armstrong-Siddeley Sapphire. That's a bit of social history.

[ 24. April 2017, 07:58: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
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.

Not to mention betting the house on the oil price.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

quote:
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.
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.

But, those are old arguments. Which will be re-run when we hold the next referendum next year.

quote:
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?
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).

Which contrasts with Brexit where there was no plan to vote for. So, we don't know whether the British people agree with what Mrs May proposes - and the result of a general election still won't do that. So, we don't have a plumb line to judge the government against, no basis to define whether or not the final deal is the best fit to the plan.

quote:
So to me, your 700 page document was "of interest" but no more.
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.

And, if the government had failed in the task the electorate gave them, especially if it was considered they hadn't tried hard enough, then they would have found out about that come the next election (which would have been before the end of independence negotiation).
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

As irresponsible as introducing a referendum with no clear plan? Or campaigning for an outcome in that referendum that one didn't truly want?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
Am I alone in failing to understand Labour's Brexit strategy? Today Sir Keir Starmer, Labour's Brexit spokesperson, tried to put some clear water between Labour's aims and those of the Government. He said that Labour would unilaterally agree the rights of EU citizens resident in the UK. So far so good. He said that Labour would prioritise access to the Single Market and Customs Union over immigration in order to protect jobs. But he also said that immigration rules must change when we leave the EU. Jeremy Corbyn alose said this on last Sunday's Andrew Marr show.

I'm missing something here. The EU has made it clear that full access to the Single Market only comes with freedom of movement and continued contributions to the EU budget. Neither Jeremy nor Sir Keir have explained how they plan to "change" immigration rules while convincing the 27 members, the Commission and the European Parliament to grant us free access to the SM. Neither have they said whether they would be willing to continue to pay into the EU budget. In other words their position is little different from that of the Government.

The Tories have said they will seek the best possible access to the SM, but that we can't stay as members. Labour say that immigration rules must change, which will automatically exclude us from membership of SM. I don't see the difference. It's only the Lib Dems who have a coherently different position. Labour is in a shambles.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Both Labour and Conservatives are in a shambles over Brexit. They both seem to be cherry-picking nice bits of the EU, such as 'regulatory alignment'. There has even been talk of a modified Customs Union kind of deal. Presumably, this is to avoid non-tariff barriers, so that British trucks don't get stuck at Dover or Calais.

I don't see the EU doing a la carte like this; they operate a set menu.

Mrs May has been suitably Delphic about it, which seems to be working. Say nowt, and you are enveloped in veils of mystical allure. I wonder if we are in for a big shock, when the negotiations start.

[ 26. April 2017, 08:52: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, Mrs May has taken opacity to new transcendent heights. FFS, this will be the second election where talk about Brexit is muffled, I suppose partly because nobody has a clue about it. And also, because opacity has a strange mystical allure for the right-wing press.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
opacity has a strange mystical allure for the right-wing press.

Strangely, only when it's their favoured candidates who are being opaque.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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

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.
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.

EU treaties stipulate that EU nationals can move to another EU nation for a period of three months to seek work, if they fail to find employment in that period they can only remain if they can independently support themselves (ie: they can't claim welfare payments from their host nation). Starmer seemed to be wanting to a) remove that 3 month provision (how, since someone could enter the UK under a visa waiver scheme for that period anyway), and b) prevent people remaining here even if they could support themselves independently (in practice, that provision is usually used by people with a pension - mostly Brits in Spain). The "deal" that David Cameron brokered didn't really change this, it just clarified a few points.

EU treaties stipulate that EU nationals in another EU nation should have medical insurance, or their own national medical scheme would pay for any treatment needed. This is generally not enforced because the paperwork for billing another nation is quite burdensome - and the "loss" to the NHS is largely balanced by the "gain" of not paying for treatment of Brits in other EU nations.

There were provisions when Poland etc joined the EU which allowed existing EU nations to restrict immigration from new states for a significant period of time. The UK government at the time chose not to use those provisions, since the influx of cheap labour was a big boost to the economy, unlike most other EU nations - which is why so many more Poles, Czechs etc came to the UK than to France or Germany. It is very likely that any further EU expansion (eg: to include Turkey - though that's a long way off) will include similar provisions.

Put simply, concerns over immigration re: people coming to the UK to claim benefit or receive NHS care would be addressed by simply enforcing existing provisions within the EU treaties (they, of course, represent a very small minority of immigrants anyway - most are here to work and contribute to British society). And, as has been amply demonstrated (and, it appears, taken up by at least some in Labour leadership) the UK needs a substantial number of immigrants to keep our businesses running no sensible immigration policy will actually significantly cut the number of immigrants.

Basically the whole issue of immigration is a series of lies and half truths propogated by a small minority on the far right, but which have been swallowed by a much larger number of people. And, was a very shaky issue on which to sacrifice the country in June last year.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
The main problem with all of it is that whether Conservative or Labour, all of them understand that basically the result of the referendum is a bad thing and now it's simply an exercise in damage limitation. If they can spin it so that it looks like they make hard demands of the EU and then the EU says 'eh...no' then they can spin the tale of woe that the EU didn't play ball. I can still see far into the future that Britain will have to enter the single market in some shape or form in order to survive at all (especially if the UK starts breaking up) but the 'have our cake and eat it' approach at this early stage in reality isn't going to wash easily with many in the EU. Of course, the danger is that the hardliners in the Conservative party who want leave at any cost at all might win through too. May is kind of putting herself on the chopping block, but she's probably chosen the right time to do it when she can still survive and keep the Conservatives intact. I guess the UK can comfort itself a bit though in the knowledge that the whole of the West is in a very, very strange place right now. Just as the Islamic Spring was looked upon in great hope and wonder, so all of the shenanigans in the west is plotting the same trajectory. God knows what foul beast lurches forward to be born from it.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I would think that May is back-tracking quite hard from 'leaving at any cost', as no doubt she has been informed by the City and other business interests that it could be catastrophic. 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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
opacity has a strange mystical allure for the right-wing press.

Strangely, only when it's their favoured candidates who are being opaque.

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.

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.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
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.

None of this is known. However what we do know is the Britain will be Great again(said sarcastically).
When this particular mirage turns out to be dust the Tory might have a problem. This is several years away though, by then one might hope the Labour Party is in better shape to exploit the situation. Question is will it know how to exploit it?
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
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).

No. The question was:

quote:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
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.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

As irresponsible as introducing a referendum with no clear plan? Or campaigning for an outcome in that referendum that one didn't truly want?
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
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).

No. The question was:

quote:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
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.

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).

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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The question was:

quote:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
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.
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.

[ 27. April 2017, 09:35: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
As I said on the IndyRef thread recently, I agree that most of us in Scotland do not want another referendum just now. Like the vast majority of people I know, in September 2014 I accepted that we had had a well worked through exercise in democracy, and although I was disappointed by the result I was willing to wait until sometime after 2030 to try again. It was a once in a generation chance to answer the question.

That timetable started to look dodgy as soon as David Cameron undermined the promise made that Scotland would be assured of EU membership as part of the UK by putting his idea of an EU referendum in his manifesto - clearly (once again) putting the Tory party above the people of Scotland. The EU referendum result sealed it. We don't really want another referendum, but the way the Tory government has pissed all over Scotland has made it inevitable.

And, the Scottish government has the mandate they need - a debate and vote in Parliament. We don't need a referendum to decide whether to have a referendum, that's what representative democracy is for. If Westminster denies that Parliament is sovereign that is just one more string to the pro-indy argument.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.


 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.


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?

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

or

" as part of leaving the EU this is one of the many things we're going to have to do" and here's how we're going to do it.

The article further makes clear that the Great Repeal Bill will allow us to do exactly the sanctions we can currently do - the further legislation is for a case where we should wish to take action different to that allowed by the EU once we're independent.

Seriously, even as someone who didn't want to leave the EU last summer, for the life of me I can't see how this article is evidence of a lack of forethought/planning, or a scandal. 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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

FWIW I think Nicola Sturgeon's in a difficult position - she's sort of painted into a corner where there's an inexorable logic in one direction, but not necessarily the reality to back it. And all the while, one Alex Salmond is on manoeuvres behind her....
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I think that if SNP form the government again, the pressure to call for IndyRef2 will be immense. I suppose it also depends on Brexit to an extent - if things seem to be going well, maybe independence will seem less attractive, and v.v. However, Sturgeon is committed now.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
betjemaniac:
quote:
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...
...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).
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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...?"

quote:
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.

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.

The numbers are not encouraging enough to be sure of winning a referendum, or even to be sure of not alienating the Scottish electorate by even calling it.

Yougov for The Times yesterday:
do you want another independence referendum
y 45, n 55

should there be an independence ref after Brexit negotiations but before UK leaves the EU
n 49, y 37, dk 14

should there be an independence ref post UK leaving the EU
n 48, y 35, dk 18

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...
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
betjemaniac:
quote:
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...
...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).
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.

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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
the point is also that it *is* covered by the Great Repeal Bill

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...?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Well, I'm not someone who sees any real difference between Brexiteers and Scexiteers

The big difference is the nature of the current relationships.

The UK government is a government, the EU is not a government - it is a treaty organisation for cooperation between sovereign states. Scottish independence seeks to end the state of being governed by a foreign nation, Brexit seeks to end mutual cooperation between the UK and other European nations.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
betjemaniac:
quote:
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?
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.

Alan:
quote:
...Brexit seeks to end mutual cooperation between the UK and other European nations.
...whilst at the same time pretending to cooperate on matters of profit, sorry I mean interest, to the UK.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.

Fisheries policy has long been a major issue, especially in the Scottish fishing communities, one of the areas that has long been in need of reform. Though, that's something that I would suggest is best done from inside the EU rather than getting outside - since the policy will still need to be international (since fish don't see the line on the map that markes territorial waters).
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
This seems a well balanced article by Sean O'Grady in today's Independent. In he it says that the illusions British politicians hold on Brexit, referred to this week by Chancellor Merkel, are held on both sides of the political divide. There is no such thing as "soft Brexit." Donald Tusk said as much earlier this year. Perhaps we all need to get over these illusions and get on with it as best we can.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
How else would the Scottish government proceed?

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.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
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).

No. The question was:

quote:
"Should Scotland be an independent country?"
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.

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).

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.

OK, legally speaking the Scottish goverment could have ignored a Yes vote. Politically, that's not how things work.

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. The decades of debate was all addressed to that question and, as you say, whwether it was realistic and feasable (and the answer was no).

quote:
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.

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.

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. As it happens, taxation is exactly the sort of thing that governments make all sorts of changes to without manifesto commitments. Not just the scope and function of specific rules, but rates of taxation too. I don't remember either party in the Coalition government bringing in an anti-avoidance rule, but it's on the books now.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

Those were issues that had been addressed in years of Parliamentary and public consultation resulting in the white paper, and that was what framed the question on the ballot. Independence is not a simple question, and the simple question on the ballot paper was only meaningful because of the white paper and the discussions that lead to it.

And, as I've repeatedly said the absence of a similar process of Parliamentary and public discussion with a clearly defined set of answers to the various questions relating to the UK membership of the EU resulted in a simple question on the ballot paper last year, but a question that wasn't meaningful because it could only be a vote against something rather than a vote for something.

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. ...

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.

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.

I don't see why you want to put a white paper on Scottish independence into a different category. Why should the plan set out by the Scottish government be any different from the plan set out by a political party? Why should we expect a government to obtain exactly what they said they wanted in international negotiations, when we wouldn't expect a political party to do exactly what they said they wanted?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Scottish independence seeks to end the state of being governed by a foreign nation,

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Yet, the United Kingdom is a union of four nations (well, three and now a bit of the fourth). That's a fact well recognised in our culture - we mark four national saints days, we have our national sports teams.

The Act of Union that merged our nations together into a single country was a long way from being mutually accepted. Yes, some members of the Scottish Parliament were bought off and signed the relevant act, in a poorly attended Parliament. With English troops already enforcing order in Scotland (including events such as Glen Coe), and soldiers needed to guard the members of Parliament who voted for Union it was hardly a union that was free and with the support of the people of Scotland. At least we are seeking independence through peaceful politics, unlike the enforced union at the point of English guns.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

I would have thought that the merger of the thirteen states of revolutionary North America might have a claim to be more successful.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

Then there's geography and genetics. I originate from Carlisle and I have English, Scots, Welsh, Irish and Channel Islands ancestry. I feel a product of these islands, not narrowly English. I think we would all agree that, at present, Scotland is very divided on the subject of independence, just as Britain is on Brexit. Mny Scots, even when they have little love for England, see that we have been economically and culturally tied for so long that breaking up is hard to do.

I sincerely hope that the Union survives Brexit. I have little confidence that it will because nationalism has been on the rise for the last 50 years. But it may peak just short of a majority, who knows?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Is this a private fight, or can anyone join in? I believe that it was the Duke of Argyll's regiment, made up of Campbells, the MacConalds' traditional enemies, who perpetrated the Massacre of Glencoe. Further, it was Dalrymple of Stair, a Scotsman though of course a Lowlander, who took the decision to make an example of the MacDonalds of Glencoe. The Massacre was thus inflicted by Scots on Scots. And aren't we getting a little far from the subject of Brexit?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think nobody has a clue what Brexit might mean, so it's easier to argue about something like IndyRef2. Well, we've had the dictum about fantasy Brexit from Merkel, fair enough, but then just leaving the EU seems like a fantasy really, since exporting to Europe would become a nightmare of documentation and border checks.

I guess there may be a meeting point; after all, Turkey has a customs union with the EU, although services are not included. Also, I don't know how much Turkey goods are waved across borders, through being on the electronic databases.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Alan:
quote:
Yet, the United Kingdom is a union of four nations...
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.

[ 30. April 2017, 20:34: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Not exactly four nations, or not exactly a union?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Yes [Big Grin]

But seriously... what I meant was, Scotland has always had more political clout than Wales and Ireland due to the different way it became part of the UK/GB.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
hopefully Wales will also have the chance to follow Scotland out of the Union.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
By all means fight for the Union, just not for the Union we currently have. Unless it's a Union of equal nations then it's doomed, sooner or later the second class nations will go their own way. So, fight against those things in the system that are driving Scotland away from the UK. Which includes Brexit, unwanted in Scotland and disastrous to the rest of the UK. When you complain that the people of Scotland don't want IndyRef2, remember that we didn't want the EU referendum either (indeed, you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that the people of England wanted that either). When you hear people talking garbage about immigration being a problem, remember that a) immigration restrictions are causing problems in Scotland where we need more immigrants, and b) that immigration is good for England too (it's just you've all believed the lies of the Mail and other far right groups), and fight against such idiocy. When you get a chance to vote, remember that the Tories policies are destructive to the UK, and Scotland clearly rejected them yet suffer the consequences of idiots voting for them in England, and campaign against policies that are divisive.

If Scotland was treated as an equal partner in the Union the pressure for independence would rapidly evaporate. While we're treated as a lesser partner, with our interests and views neglected in favour of English interests (even worse, the interests of that minority of English people who are members of the Tory party), then we will continue to seek independence.
 
Posted by Kitten (# 1179) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
hopefully Wales will also have the chance to follow Scotland out of the Union.

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.
We are not a principality, we are a country
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kitten:
We are not a principality, we are a country

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!

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
When you get a chance to vote, remember that the Tories policies are destructive to the UK,

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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!
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
.. 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/
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I can't decide whether May is being clever, and faking a hard Brexit, to keep the Ultras quiet, and then she will accept a kind of modified customs union, although not called that. 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.

It's probably the latter, and no doubt, the Tories are geared up to blame the EU, Germany, France, Corbyn, and anybody else they can think of, when it goes pear-shaped. But the pear will be strong and stable.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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/

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.

[ 01. May 2017, 12:51: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Alan Cresswell
quote:
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.

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.

Apart from three or four years in the early 1980s Scotland has been subsidised by the English taxpayer. A major reason why Scotland voted "No' in the 2014 referendum was the failure of the Nationalists to offer a convincing case that independence would not lead to increased taxation and cuts in public spending to addressed the consequent fiscal deficit, and to qualify for entry to the euro. Significantly, no answer has been forthcoming since. Furthermore, the Scottish SNP government has shown no inclination to use its tax-raising powers to off-set the "Tory Cuts." In truth, any increase in public spending in Scotland rests on the return of a social democratic government to Westminster that will shovel money north of the border. Scottish Independence may be the Nationalist solution, but it is not the Patriotic one.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I was amused by Juncker apparently waving around the EU deals with Croatia and with Canada, which between them, in printed version seem to weigh in around 6kg, (blimey, he has strong arms). I suppose he mentioned that the Canada deal is 1600 pages long. "If we had world enough and time, this coyness, lady, were no crime." (Marvell)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Alan Cresswell
quote:
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.

Regarding Scotland, this is ideological garbage.
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?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

The way I see it is that if there is a union, then both parties are free to leave. Seems straightforward to me.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The way I see it is that if there is a union, then both parties are free to leave.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are very good reasons for Scottish independence,

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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%.

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.

quote:
That's why I agree that this is not the time and that the SNP alone doesn't represent the views of Scotland.
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I know that the last thing most contributors here would want is a successful Brexit. According to the leaks in the German press, at last week's dinner date between Theresa May and Jean Claude Juncker, when she said "let's make a success of Brexit." He said, "It can't be a success." That seems to be the consensus here. But I'd be quite interested what others think of the 60 billion Euro "divorce bill." According to some sources there is no legal enforceable requirement for us to pay anything to leave. But the government may consider that, as part of a deal which includes trade, it might be a good idea to pay up, at least something, to "buy" good will.

But it seems that Monsieur Barnier and President Juncker think they can demand this amount up front without promising anything for the future. Well they have the advantage of being unelected and not having to go before any voters. Many British voters would be aghast to hear that the Prime Minister had coughed up 60 billion with nothing to show for it. But she could probably sell it as part of a package. That's why I agree with the British negotiating position, once held by the EU as well, that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. To pay 60 billion Euros up front would be insanity.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I know that the last thing most contributors here would want is a successful Brexit.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It seems fairly obvious to me that even if there is no legal requirement for the UK to continue to honour some of the money already agreed to the EU, there are very good moral and political reasons to do so. If the EU has to start scrabbling around to find additional funds to cover already committed expenditure for ongoing projects, some of which (such as pension packages) are long term, then that's going to create ill-will towards the UK within the rest of Europe. If the tables were reversed and (say) France was leaving would the UK electorate look favourably on the UK government agreeing anything with France if the UK was having to increase contributions to the EU to cover the money France wasn't paying?

It keeps getting called a "divorce bill". Of course, when a marriage breaks up we expect that both partners will continue to support their children until such a time as they are old enough to support themselves - that usually takes the form of whoever has primary custody of the children receiving money to ensure they can afford a suitable home, food, clothing etc. We (quite rightly) consider someone walking out of a marriage without providing for their children to be immoral, and the courts can force payments to be made. 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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I know that the last thing most contributors here would want is a successful Brexit.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
May saying she's going to be 'bloody difficult' won't help either. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
May saying she's going to be 'bloody difficult' won't help either.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
'Ms May, the EU is a political, economic and legal entity - not a golf club'

Lol, I love Juncker.

[ 03. May 2017, 08:01: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
what, for example, is wrong with the PM's suggestion that the mutual rights of citizens be agreed next month?

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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

The "divorce bill" will need to contain two elements. One is the already committed expenditure in mid-term projects. The second part would be the open ended commitments (pensions for EU staff being the biggest of those), we could commit to making those payments as they are due (which would mean making payments to the EU for decades to come) or we make a one-off payment to pay off our commitments. If I was on the EU side, an agreement to pay smaller contributions over the next 3-5 years to cover the already committed project expenditure would seem reasonable. But, I wouldn't want to rely on successive UK governments over the next few decades to pay the pensions etc, and so a one-off buy-out of those would be very attractive.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
A softish Brexit might be a success, since British firms would still be able to export to the EU without paper documents and border checks, the City would still be able to deal with euro-related contracts, and so on.

Whether this can be achieved seems doubtful, as Mrs May seems fairly chaotic. I suppose one can hope that her hard Brexit pose is stricly for the Ultras, and she intends to row back to a more soft Brexit. I have my doubts about that.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes, and we've had 7 ramshackle years under the Tories, who have borrowed a huge amount, and not paid off the deficit.

But this will go under the radar, since it's packaging that counts. May will be packaged as strong and resolute, whereas she has been irresolute and wobbly. And possibly rather dim.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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

I think we can rely on Mrs May to balls it up when it comes to Brexit too.

We can also count on the well-paid friends of the Tories in the media to present the unmitigated disaster it will be as a resounding success.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Actually, Marvin, some capitalists also think the Tories have ballsed up the economy this time around.

Or would you describe the governor of the Bank of England as a socialist?

I notice this bout of quantitative easing went almost unremarked in the mainstream media. Presumably it is only bad when socialists do it.

[ 03. May 2017, 10:30: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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

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.
OK, so where haven't they ballsed it up?

The economy has been stagnant by basically any indicator you wish to choose for the last 7 years. At a time when the US economy has been growing, and the Eurozone economies growing even faster. About the only major economy that's doing worse than the UK is Japan (and, they have some unique problems of their own, including having been hit by one of the biggest earthquakes in recorded history).

Education is an underfunded shambles, and the only thing the Tories have to offer is more Grammar Schools, as though that will solve anything for the majority of students not blessed with a rich mum & dad to pay for the private tutors to tell them the answers to the exam.

The NHS is an underfunded shambles, with ever increasing waiting lists and never-ending stories of overstretched A&E departments.

Welfare is an underfunded shambles, with more and more people in desperate need denied the resources they need for dignified living.

And, as for national unity, social inequalities have sky-rocketted. More and more people are dependent on food banks, more and more children stuck in sink estates with crap schools, little prospect of employment ... while the rich find life getting easier. And, that's even before you discuss a highly devisive and pointless EU referendum that was only ever intended to hold the Tory party together for an election - with the resultant reopening of the questions of Scottish independence, and the status of N Ireland.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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

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.
No, you wouldn't.

Socialism is state intervention in a capitalist economy: by any fair (you may not feel this applies to you) measure, the UK left the 50s with a recovering economy, a healthier, better educated population, a welfare system that comprehensively had done away with the poor house, and a strong sense of national unity.

Whereas a glance at the current statistics shows that the economy has been moribund for a decade, educational standards are falling, the health of the nation is worse, the welfare system is punitive and arbitrary and the UK is unlikely to survive as a political entity beyond a 10-20 year time frame. All of which are directly attributable to Tory policies.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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

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.
I'm in a quandary now. I'm not sure whether Marvin knows less about socialism or capitalism.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Or his response "Brexit can't be a success." He will do everything to ensue it isn't a success.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Interesting point about the 100 billion euro bill, that it doesn't seem to come from the EU, but originally from the Financial Times. The rest of the press then took that figure as somehow authoritative. Barnier said, 'I don't know what the figure will be'. A kind of mad echo chamber in the British press.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

"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.

ETA: Regarding the bill: the UK have agreed to fund projects, how would breaking those agreements be good for negotiations?

[ 03. May 2017, 16:35: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I think it's impossible for a 'third country' to have frictionless access to EU markets. It's just a contradiction in terms. And May has ruled out the single market and the customs union.

If you could cherry-pick market access without membership, then there is no point to membership. It's like leaving the gym, but asking if you can still use the weights four times a week.

On the bill, the UK will also get money back over a period, as debts are repaid, buildings sold, and so on. But the tabloids like 'EU hikes bill to punish the UK'.

[ 03. May 2017, 16:42: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Or his response "Brexit can't be a success." He will do everything to ensue it isn't a success.

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.
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Of course, that's the optimum. But, the only sure-fire win-win would be for the UK to not leave the EU. Anything else and there are losers - probably on both sides. So, the name of the game is to cut your losses.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The obvious solution is to continue membership of EEA; but apparently, that is ruled out by the Ultras. It's got the dreaded word 'Europe' in the title.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
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.

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.
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'.

This leads to the contradiction in the May position, which seems to be 'frictionless' trade. How can you have that, and yet avoid EU regs?

It can't be done. Hence, you incur non-tariff barriers, which are probably much worse than tariff barriers. Imagine a truck queuing up at every EU border, to have documents checked.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Brexit has never been lacking in contradiction. Why should frictionless trade without common regulations be any different?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I think she's trying to channel Mrs Thatcher on the eve of the Falklands War, without actually having a war. But as she seems to be making it up as she goes along, it's hard to say.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

Flippant as this might sound, can we take a moment to be grateful for the last bit?

I'm hiding under my desk for the next 5 weeks.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.

Flippant as this might sound, can we take a moment to be grateful for the last bit?


I don't think we have the means to make war or enforce peace independently nowadays. As you say, this is just as well.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
quote:
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?

If you have the patience to read a long Twitter thread,
this long run of tweets provides some potentially plausible back story/analysis.

tl;dr
It argues (with evidence) that May's political persona is based on being perceived as a fighter. In order to be a fighter, you need a fight. Winning the fight/resolving the superficial issue isn't the point, and indeed is bad, because then you're not a "fighter" anymore. So you set out to pick fights that don't exist, that you know are bullshit, so you can come off tough and feisty. Even though you could have got the same or a better result much quicker/more easily/with less damage if you'd just done the sensible thing at the start.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.

Flippant as this might sound, can we take a moment to be grateful for the last bit?


I don't think we have the means to make war or enforce peace independently nowadays. As you say, this is just as well.
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!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I don't know if it will sour negotiations, really, they last a long time. I also assume that Mme May will not be the ehief negotiator.

So it's win-win for the Tories, really. What else matters?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

Only so long as nobody decides to make war against us.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

Only so long as nobody decides to make war against us.
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
We still do.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Any examination of history will show that Britain was (and remains) far more often the aggressor.

Maybe, maybe not. We certainly weren't the aggressor in the World Wars, the Falklands, the First Gulf War or Kosovo.

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:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Marvin:
quote:
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?
Is that actually a serious question?

If you are really interested in learning more about the history of British aggression, I suggest you read this book

[ 05. May 2017, 10:46: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If you are really interested in learning more about the history of British aggression

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
If you are really interested in learning more about the history of British aggression

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.
<my italics>
And there we have it. Marvin isn't interested in learning more about the history of British aggression. If he doesn't want to find out why people have a different view to that which he has then we have come to a dead end.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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?

I think you'll find the clue is in the word 'colonies'... [Disappointed]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Marvin isn't interested in learning more about the history of British aggression.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Marvin isn't interested in learning more about the history of British aggression.

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.
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.

[ 05. May 2017, 11:46: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
I hope you are not suggesting that those of us who criticise our government's actions love our country less than you do.

I love my country. I am not always proud of it. But it's because I love it that I get so angry when I see politicians who claim to represent me behaving like a bunch of pillocks.

Furthermore, "having an education" does not guarantee an understanding of "the history of human aggression" as you put it. All countries use their education systems to teach history from their own point of view. Some teach a more biased view than others. The only way of getting a completely unbiased view of your country's history is to read all the original source documents (in whatever languages they were written in) and all the major secondary sources. This is unlikely to happen in schools.

Michael Gove's proposals for reform to the National Curriculum for history in 2013 were considered controversial at the time and were extensively rewritten. The emphasis on 20th century history, especially on Nazi Germany and the Second World War, encourages us to wallow in the Glorious Past and view the Germans as enemies (they've moved on since then, but a significant minority in Britain evidently have not).

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.

[ 05. May 2017, 12:28: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...view the Germans as enemies (they've moved on since then...

Yes, they've decided to use political means to unite the continent under their rule rather than military ones.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
If anything ever needed to be said to justify the opinion you accuse others having of Britain, then you have just said it!
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Why Marvin, why not use some xenophobia, then we'll have the full set of baseless idiotic Tory claims on this thread.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...view the Germans as enemies (they've moved on since then...

Yes, they've decided to use political means to unite the continent under their rule rather than military ones.
If you feel like that, you'd have to agree it's the 'will of the people' that we let them do it.

All we need now is a shot of May at a windy airport, clutching at a sheet of A4...
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
If anything ever needed to be said to justify the opinion you accuse others having of Britain, then you have just said it!
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?

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. Just don't go suggesting that we're somehow alone in that. Shit, even Belgium got in on the act!
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...view the Germans as enemies (they've moved on since then...

Yes, they've decided to use political means to unite the continent under their rule rather than military ones.
If you feel like that, you'd have to agree it's the 'will of the people' that we let them do it.
Not any more, it's not. Not for Britain, anyway.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The Tories tend to harvest it well, 'angels in marble' and so on. (Disraeli-speak for working class Tories). A bitter harvest, though.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess I find the raw xenophobia on show here to be shocking.

Fine. Britain is utterly and irredeemably shit, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is xenophobia.

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?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

It's amazing we survived so long before joining the EU, really. Grass must be more nutritious than we realised.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

It's amazing we survived so long before joining the EU, really. Grass must be more nutritious than we realised.
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.

The govt is aware of this, hence the talk of 'frictionless' trade. 'Cutting ties' is the talk of nutty and ignorant people.

[ 05. May 2017, 15:13: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I must confess I find the raw xenophobia on show here to be shocking.

Fine. Britain is utterly and irredeemably shit, and any attempt to suggest otherwise is xenophobia.

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?

Relevance to what is actually being discussed?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think Marvin missed the false dichotomy.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
What's the standard on how much anyone is allowed to be critical of past British imperialism?

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Lilbuddha:
quote:

Relevance to what is actually being discussed?

There is no relevance. It's a schoolyard tactic employed to deflect the criticism of repulsive xenophobia.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

It's amazing we survived so long before joining the EU, really. Grass must be more nutritious than we realised.
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Well, since I can just about remember that time, I have to agree with your analysis.

You can just about remember the entire history of the UK prior to EU membership? Wow, you're older than you look [Biased]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's a schoolyard tactic employed to deflect the criticism of repulsive xenophobia.

I refute the notion that pointing out that Britain is hardly alone in having a history of imperialism constitutes "repulsive xenophobia".
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Yes. Yes I am. And infinitely wise, too.

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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
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.

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.
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).
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
You talk as if membership of the EU has given us unlimited benefits. I beg to differ. Its closed bureaucracy has set it on a path of long term economic decline. The Euro has locked countries like Greece and Italy into a cycle of zero growth, stagnation and mass youth unemployment. It seems to be unreformable. And De Gaule was right. The British, whose history has always been to trade on the high seas, could never be good Europeans. Our different vision of what the EU ought to be has made us habitual moaners who have sought opt out after opt out. Federalism floats very few boats this side of the channel. I have always hated the whole rotten edifice. I voted Remain due to Project Fear. But I'm not sorry we're leaving.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
You talk as if membership of the EU has given us unlimited benefits.

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).

quote:
Its closed bureaucracy has set it on a path of long term economic decline.
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.

I voted Remain for the benefits of EU membership, including:
And, more besides.

Deny that any of that list is not good for all the people of Europe, and in some cases (eg: environmental protection) beyond, including the people of the UK. Name one single benefit of leaving the EU. IMO there are simply no benefits of leaving, and as has been said Brexit is a massive mistake that as a nation we will rapidly regret and seek to correct by returning to the EU at the first opportunity.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... IMO there are simply no benefits of leaving ...

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I noticed that the newspapers which are owned by very rich people supported Brexit.

The newspapers that backed Remain are also presumably owned by very rich people?
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
The newspapers that backed Remain are also presumably owned by very rich people?

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.

On the left/Remainer side: The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, which is meant to prevent "commercial pressures" from interfering with their reporting (source). The Daily Mirror is owned by the Trinity Mirror group; I searched online to see if I could find the name of a rich individual who owns the Trinity Mirror group - I couldn't (maybe someone else knows more than I do?).

While I could be wrong, it appears that the ownership of the print media on one side of the debate looks different from the ownership of the print media on the other.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
On the right/Brexiter side, it seems that the Daily Mail is owned by Viscount Rothermere.

Who also owns the Mail on Sunday, which backed Remain.

quote:
The Sun and the Times are owned by Rupert Murdoch.
The Times also backed Remain (although the Sunday Times backed Leave).

[ 07. May 2017, 09:06: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Alwyn (# 4380) on :
 
Fair enough, I was wrong about The Times. I hadn't realised that the Mail on Sunday backed remain.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
The Mail on Sunday can be surprisingly liberal, especially the magazines. Articles about 'Why every mother should have a gay son' or cartoons criticising Jeremy Hunt's running of the NHS probably wouldn't get a look in in the daily edition.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
I noticed that the newspapers which are owned by very rich people supported Brexit.

The newspapers that backed Remain are also presumably owned by very rich people?
Murdoch owns the Simpsons (essentially). Doesn't make him any less reprehensible.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
... IMO there are simply no benefits of leaving ...

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.
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

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.

[ 08. May 2017, 09:10: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?!

Tubbs

[ 08. May 2017, 09:19: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Marvin:
quote:
Yes, [the Germans have] decided to use political means to unite the continent under their rule rather than military ones.
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?

You keep talking about sovereignty, but you don't seem to understand how political power actually works internationally. The days when you could send in a gunboat to settle diplomatic difficulties are long gone.

I'm going to try one more time and then give up: you (or whoever is in charge of these fabulous trade negotiations that are going to give us better deals than we already had) need to know SOMETHING about how other countries think of us, or you are doomed to perpetual bewilderment at India's lack of enthusiasm for closer ties with the UK (that's a link to the well-known socialist rag The Financial Times, in case you were wondering).

Nobody is denying that other countries have done beastly things. What are you afraid of?

[ 08. May 2017, 09:18: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
fletcher christian:
quote:
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?

I hope it's a bubble, but given the results of the UK local elections...

The lemming, on its way over the cliff, is beginning to feel lonely.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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:

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.

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.

The barminess of that whole idea is, of course, that the only thing we can really count on is that the governments of each of the EU nations will enter the negotiations with the interests of their own nations foremost in their thinking - and, as 28 sovereign nations it would be inconceivable that they would do anything else. The Commission would be balancing the interests of the EU as a whole with the interests of the 27 nations who were not contemplating national suicide. There's no reason to expect that anyone other than the UK government would be seeking the best for the UK above their own interests, at present there's no evidence that the UK government is seeking the best for the UK.

And, the thought that Le Pen would be more inclined to be friendly to the UK, and put the interests of France further down her priorites, than Macron is simply laughable. It would be something too bizarre even for a Monty Python sketch.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I've seen some reports that the UK gov have been drafting in diplomats who are used to negotiating post-war peace agreements. I don't know if that's true or not, but there certainly is an impression that things are progressing as a war rather than an orderly negotiated transition with outcomes in everyone's best interests.

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.

I don't really understand it, but as far as I can understand it means that everyone is so fixated on their own economic interests that they end up with the worst possible deal. Varoufakis' version for Greece seemed to be to win concessions by refusing to co-operate with Germany, so I'm not entirely sure how he was really enacting his own economic theory.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Norway pays as much, possibly more, than most EU states without the political influence.
Norway is forced to accept freedom of movement
Norway is forced to accept the European Court judgments

I'm not sure if Norway can legally negotiate trade agreements outwith of the EU, but I'm sure the EU would take a dim view of them getting cosy with international trade competitors.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Now of course it's too late, and things have been ratcheted way past the point where such an approach is feasible.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Tubbs:
quote:

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.

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?

Regarding the payments to the EU, the break down of the bill seems pretty reasonable to me. It includes payments up until a negotiated leave but more importantly it includes elements that Britain committed itself to both financially and legally. Many of these things have to do with research - not least, medical research. These are things that will continue to benefit Britain if and when it leaves, but more importantly it will be of benefit to the poorer countries of the EU and those who live with debilitating disease and who live in hope of the day of an affordable and effective medicine or treatment. 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. Instead, Britain consistently trumpeted the 'I am not my brother's keeper' line and the British public couldn't tell you what research has taken place or what is ongoing. I would like to think that many of these things could somehow continue after Brexit, but it's hard to see how the present government would accept further payments to it or how British researchers and scientists could work with people who know the British have decided they really aren't interested in.

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'.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

One of the issues is that we have been downgrading the social value of scientific research for decades in the UK. As we have moved further and further towards a service economy the ability to actually make things has been diminished, and the argument for research that "we can make better things" has less weight - especially when if we do make such a break through the resulting work ends up outside the UK anyway. The research we do becomes more of a service provided to others, and we become a nation of consultants.

The attitude seems to be increasingly let someone else do the research, develop the new products - and then we'll simply buy them. Maybe provide some advise in financing, marketting and packaging. To actually fund the research is a bit too much like investment - and it's gone the same way as investing in our infrastructure, housing stock or anything else that the Tories have cut to allow tax-cuts to their rich chums.

quote:
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'.
Agree entirely.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, at present within the EU there are two nations for whom English is an official language

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.

I shall now resume the social media blackout
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Surely, Juncker was having a wind up about English being demoted? In the same speech, he had a fairly amusing section about the might of the Luxembourg army, all 771 of them.

Incredible to see the tabloids ranting about 'Brussels threat to English language'. Sense of humour by-pass. They will probably write about 'Luxembourg army threat to UK'.

[ 08. May 2017, 12:59: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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.

No shit?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

From various news reports, it sounds like the Lords may be right when they said that any demands for extra money might not be legally enforceable if it did end up in court.

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
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Wouldn't the committed figures be whatever the UK's annual contributions to the EU for that particular budgetary cycle?!

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).

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?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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

Yeah, but one is a real goat.


HINT: It is the one which bleats in English.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Some interesting variations in rumours going on about the leak of the Juncker dinner. 1. That it was a bad mistake by EU apparatchiks, and has reinforced May's position. 2. That it was deliberate, with the aim of reinforcing May's position, thus helping a good Brexit deal. 3. That it was deliberate, with the aim of reinforcing May's position, thus detonating any hope of a good Brexit deal.

Or maybe I am going mad in a hall of mirrors.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
4. Deliberate, reinforcing May's position of blaming the inevitable problems on the EU.
In other words, a complete misdirection.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Some of the imputed motives are interesting - for example, that those who leaked, knew it would be a red rag to a bull, and May would come out all hot and heavy, followed by the tabloids - 'Hands off our election', 'EU is helping Labour', 'Our Queen is under threat', and so on. (I made that one up).

It sounds like a wish to sabotage Brexit, but maybe this is too clever.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Cleaver hoofed it when they "won" the result they didn't want.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Wouldn't the committed figures be whatever the UK's annual contributions to the EU for that particular budgetary cycle?!

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).

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?

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.

If a project comes in multiple stages and some of those stages will take place after the UK has left, then I’m less convinced about the obligation for the UK to continue funding. Unless it’s something where there is continued UK involvement. New EU members aren’t asked for contributions to projects that they join half way through. Once the current budget cycle ends, if the EU will have to find the money from other member countries or cut things.

One of the drivers for the request for extra contributions is nothing to do with moral imperatives or fairness, it’s that the UK paid in. The other member countries are reported to have told the Commission they're not prepared to pay more to make up the shortfall. The Commission doesn’t want to make cuts.

Like most relationship breakdowns, it all comes down to money. And about 4 million people are caught up in gigantic pissing contest.

Tubbs

[ 09. May 2017, 10:16: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I am tempted to add that I suspect they will come into power on the back of a 'colour' revolution rather than a General Election, but that is one hostage to fortune too many.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

This might be a nice round figure for the purposes of outrage, but it appears to consist of a mix of things.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

If there is a moral obligation for the UK to support some of the EU's ongoing expenses post-Brexit, does the UK also have a moral right to some of (say, at least 1/28th) of the EU's assets (to the extent that it has any)?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If you sign a 3 year mortgage agreement, and after 6 months find another company that offers a better deal, would you not have to pay the first company a fee to prematurely cancel the agreement? Some agreements we can can just cancel, others require a fee of some form to be paid. Generally, the deeper a relationship the greater the costs of breakup. A subscription to a newspaper is an almost non-existent relationship. A club membership is marginally deeper, the financial arrangements of a mortgage have an (impersonal) depth. Marriage is a very deep relationship, the costs of break-up are great - and may include financial payments.

The EU isn't a newspaper you pay a subscription to, nor a gulf club. It isn't a government, nor a law maker. It does no one any good to make arguments based on false statements about the nature of the EU.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU isn't a...law maker.

Interesting post. But it is very much this, isn't it?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
The UK is and must remain a country which pays its debts. 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. But when people come up with figures such as £84 billion, it ten times our annual net contribution, something must be wrong. Wanting the UK to fund French and Polish agriculture into the next decade is nonsense. So is just believing a figure which comes from an organisation so financially wasteful and incompetent that it hasn't managed to sign off its annual accounts for 20 years. Come up with an honourable figure and an honourable country will do the honourable thing.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU isn't a...law maker.

Interesting post. But it is very much this, isn't it?
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The EU isn't a...law maker.

Interesting post. But it is very much this, isn't it?
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.
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.
 
Posted by M. (# 3291) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Which is all academic, since EU regulations are produced by the UK government in cooperation with the governments of the other 27 nations in the EU, and the democratically elected members of the European Parliament. The EU institutions merely facilitate that cooperative process, rather than generate the directives and regulations independently of the sovereign nations of Europe. Or, at least that's the way it should be - if our government and even some MEPs haven't ignored their roles in the process and then complained that they hadn't had a say.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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.

EU regulations on cabbages: zero words.

Farmers' own Red Tractor scheme on cabbages: 23,510 words.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
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:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The UK is and must remain a country which pays its debts.

Really? The UK will pay all its debts? Oh, you just mean to white people.
quote:

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.

Only a fool thinks the final figures won't be discussed.


quote:
Come up with an honourable figure and an honourable country will do the honourable thing.

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.
Oh, wait, you said honourable. Which country are you speaking of?

[ 09. May 2017, 20:55: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

So it'll be just like we trade with every non-EU country then? (Unless trading with non-EU countries 'just equals stupid'?)
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

So it'll be just like we trade with every non-EU country then? (Unless trading with non-EU countries 'just equals stupid'?)
The intent was not to leave the EU, but that is the result. Which is stupid.
Banking on favourable trading agreements which have not been yet negotiated is also stupid.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

My understanding is that it is the Commission that has the monopoly (or virtual monopoly) on initiating EU legislation?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

My understanding is that it is the Commission that has the monopoly (or virtual monopoly) on initiating EU legislation?
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
In order to ensure the drafting of regulations and directives is coherent and coordinated they are passed through the Commission, which then produces the text which is passed to other EU institutions (Parliament and Council) for discussion, amendment and eventual votes. The Council and Parliament can request the Commission to draft legislation, and it's unusual for the Commission to refuse to do that. It's even possible for EU citizens to bypass both Parliament and Council and request the Commission draft legislation, through a million+ signature petition process (though, like the UK Parliament petitions that only requires the Commission to consider it). The origin of practically all EU regulations and directives is through either Council (the governments of EU nations) or Parliament (the people of the EU), or both.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

My understanding is that it is the Commission that has the monopoly (or virtual monopoly) on initiating EU legislation?
You can (could?) get involved
url.

Although it does go through the commission, who've clearly got some monopoly*, not sure if it's 'initiating', but clearly in the first steps.
process

(indirect election method)

*Well except for each country individually choosing to create the same law by some other discussion (but that would be effectively duplicating the council, anyway).
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, wait, you said honourable. Which country are you speaking of?

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
An honourable country wouldn't leave millions of innocent people in limbo for a year or more. It wouldn't refuse refuge to people fleeing war and persecution, especially not unaccompanied children. It wouldn't allow lies about immigrants to be widely circulated without official correction, feeding bigotry and racism. In an honourable country there wouldn't be people reliant on food banks, or disabled people without access to the welfare they need.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
There are no Utopias on planet earth. I feel lucky to have been born and lived in this land.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An honourable country wouldn't leave millions of innocent people in limbo for a year or more.

I thought the UK government wanted to do an early deal on residency rights but the EU refused?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Oh, wait, you said honourable. Which country are you speaking of?

Another naysayer who can'd find a good word for Britain.
If you cannot admit its faults, you do not truly love a country.
Patriotism isn't flag waiving 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.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are no Utopias on planet earth.

Not an excuse for not doing one's best.
quote:

I feel lucky to have been born and lived in this land.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An honourable country wouldn't leave millions of innocent people in limbo for a year or more.

I thought the UK government wanted to do an early deal on residency rights but the EU refused?
The EU refused to start Brexit negotiations before article 50 was triggered.

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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
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.

You mean like the Financial Times, which came up with the 100 billion figure?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
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.

You mean like the Financial Times, which came up with the 100 billion figure?
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An honourable country wouldn't leave millions of innocent people in limbo for a year or more.

I thought the UK government wanted to do an early deal on residency rights but the EU refused?
The EU refused to start Brexit negotiations before article 50 was triggered.

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.

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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There are no Utopias on planet earth. I feel lucky to have been born and lived in this land.

Alan wasn't talking of Utopias and you know that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
lilbuddha:
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] This.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

The EU refused to start Brexit negotiations before article 50 was triggered.

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.

If you believe in any kind of deal being reached, then this is absolutely criminal.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Even if you believe in no deal, there is plenty to be done. For example, with regard to aviation, if the UK simply leaves the EU, then its aircraft cannot go through EU airspace, as current airspace arrangements will fall. This also applies to plenty of other stuff, for example, with regard to customs checks. You would think then that there would be furious activity to set up alternative arrangements.

But maybe no deal is a kind of bluff and not a serious idea, or it is being offered to the Ultras, to keep them quiet.

Ironically, for a so-called Brexit election, we are no closer to knowing anything. I suppose voting for a blank cheque is meant to be bracing and morally uplifting.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
For the Tories, giving details of Brexit would expose the divisions in the party over the EU, ironically I think the referendum outcome has simply made those divisions deeper rather than Camerons intention to bring the party together. Repeating meaningless phrases about "Brexit means Brexit" and "we'll get the best deal" papers over those cracks.

Labour seem to be equally divided over Brexit, and have consoled themselves with the patently false assertion that "the people have spoken", and are probably hoping they won't get put in the position of actually having to sort out the mess.

The LibDems are at least consistent in their position - they were and still are basically Remainers. But, they have failed to grasp the opportunity of offering a radically different vision on Brexit. Merely saying they'll a) seek the best possible deal (with little extra details than offered by Labour or Tory on what that deal might look like), and b) then bring it back to the people to decide if they want Brexit on those terms or to remain in the EU.

I'm not sure about PC, but the SNP would seek to remain so close to the EU that they would prefer the UK stay inside the EU - and failing that, for an independent Scotland to move back into the EU asap. The Green position is very similar.

The LibDems/SNP/PC/Greens offer the only real option for the majority of the electorate who don't want anything remotely like a hard Brexit. The Tories will almost certainly go for a hard Brexit, but we can't be sure. Labour look like they'll seek something softer but if that's not possible (eg: if they can't get single market membership without freedom of movement) will also default to a hard Brexit. But, the stupid FPTP system means that for many there's no real chance of anyone other than the Tory or Labour candidate winning their seat.

Meanwhile fake news continues to win the propaganda campaign - with very few voices being heard to challenge the idiocy that says "immigration is a problem" (whereas the truth is that immigration isn't a problem - unless you have a problem with seeing people with different skin colours on the street, or hearing non-English people on the bus). Even Labour, while not following the dive to the bottom of the lowest figure possible for net migration, are talking about the need to control immigration to the detriment of the nation.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think Labour have categorically rejected the idea of no deal, as they have probably realized how catastrophic it would be. 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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I forgot to say that there has been talk of being in the EEA with an opt-out on migration, that is without free movement. Popularly known as the Liechtenstein solution, there is disagreement about whether this is only applied there, because of its tiny size and easily overwhelmed population. Or would the EU be prepared to extend article 112 (often known as the emergency brake) to the UK? No idea, but presumably it is discussed in the hallowed halls of the EU and the UK government.

Of course, it might be construed as still too close to the EU by the mighty patriots of the Daily Mail, and others.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

Some of them probably take a fairly cynical line and genuinely don't care (it's hard to read Dan Hannan's public changes of mind as anything else).

Finally, one more dynamic in all this - I think the media senses blood over much of the current front bench - they have realised they can get a decent story out of putting May under pressure - should she remain PM into the negotiations (as opposed to resigning after a year or so) I can see this kicking off in a big way.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
As some journos are saying, it might be a good election to lose, at least in relation to Brexit. There is some expectation of political carnage post-Brexit, when people realize how horrendous it is.

Of course, there might be a 'frictionless' deal, with all customs arrangements intact, British aircraft free to fly via the EU, and so on. Seems unlikely.

[ 04. June 2017, 15:51: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It's only a good election to lose if you are completely cynical about the national interest - otherwise it is vital to win, to try to shape the negotiations and whether there's ultimately a vote on the deal reached - even if your party is then buggered for a generation. Because the outcome of this will have effects for much, much longer than that.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

This is possibly rather melodramatic, and indeed, bleak.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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. It's also not Labour who have been antagonising the very people we must strike a deal with. Sir Keir Starmer, QC who would be their Brexit negotiator is a far better choice as a negotiator too.

The Financial Times allows non subscribers to read a few articles free - it's worth reading what they say about the dangers:

The danger of no Brexit deal to UK economy

Trade realities expose the absurdity of a Brexit ‘no deal’

And it's also very much worth reading this about Brexit in general

After Brexit: the UK will need to renegotiate at least 759 treaties

Personally I think Labour would be in a much better place to row back from the precipice.

Also, by the by, in terms of security they're not the people sucking up to Donald Trump in deluded hopes of an advantageous free trade deal. 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. I'd far rather rely on them than Donald Trump who's been attacking the Mayor of London and talking nonsense about how knife-wielding terrorists would have killed fewer people if guns were readily available in the UK!
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
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. The party whose membership is still really not onboard with this probably has the best chance of making a rapid U-turn when the brown stuff hits the air conditioning. That's not the Tories.

[ 04. June 2017, 20:58: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
But, the Tories have so much experience in u-turns.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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. If it's phased payments which "buy" a high level of access to the Single Market, it could be acceptable. If it's an up front promise with nothing offered in return, it's an unacceptably bad deal IMO. 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. But this is what Angela Merkel has repeatedly denied, firstly to David Cameron when he wanted her help to persuade the British people to vote Remain.

For her and all the federalists, free movement is a fundamental inviolable principal of access to the Single Market. So even if Labour's team are using sweeter words, they haven't explained how they will get past that most fundamental impasse. Do they intend to just pay up and hope? Do they think that by avoiding confrontational talk that Msr Barnier will allow free access to the SM after they halt free movement? Unless someone, whoever is elected, is prepared to do an almighty backtracking fudge, and explain it to the British voters, I don't see where a "soft" Brexit can come from.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

quote:

For her and all the federalists, free movement is a fundamental inviolable principal of access to the Single Market.

It's nothing to do with 'federalism' but simply a second order effect on how comprehensive the Single Market (in Goods and Services) is.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Because we're in the Union no-one cares what Scotland thinks and demographically we have enough elderly No voters to make sure we are chained to the Brexit mess and are going down the toilet with it.

You still seem to be under the illusion that there's any such thing as a good deal from Brexit. There isn't. Neither Labour nor Tories can offer a good Brexit deal to the electorate without single market/free movement because such a thing doesn't exist. It's not how modern economies work. There is however the possibility of utter economic catastrophe as opposed to mere economic damage ie. crashing out and trading under WTO rules, which is more likely under the Tories.

I get the impression you don't know why that is so bad and what it entails - which was rather my point. Neither main party dares honestly explain it to the electorate, and there will be no covering it up with flannel in the usual newspapers if it happens, because the economic effects will be so profound, widespread and obvious.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

This strikes me as one of those unpredictable turns that make "a week a long time in politics".

Trump's victory has suddenly given the EU a new raison d'être and an "anti-Trump" in the person of Macron. Of course it is unsure how long this will last...
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
I get the impression you don't know why that is so bad and what it entails

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.

The other group is the opposite and want Brexit to fail so the British people loudly change their mind an beg a way back in. This could result in us losing all the opt outs we previously had, making us the largest contributor, taking the euro and joining Schengen. I doubt if the British people would accept all that. I belong to the first type, those who hope our leaders can make a success of the whole project. That sufficient compromises can be made to permit a high level of access to the SM in order to protect jobs and living standards on both sides of the channel. I'm not wildly optimistic about it, but in spite of differences in style and rhetoric, this seems to be the aim of both the Tories and Labour.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But I don't believe that this is what people voted for last June 23rd

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.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
It's not a question of what anyone 'wants', Paul. There isn't a realistic good outcome, short of ditching the whole thing. There is also a sadly non-negligible possibility of a catastrophic outcome which currently people aren't giving enough weight to.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

That's no great model for the UK given the size and position of these islands. The simple fact is that if the UK had an advantageous trading relationship without being a member (which it would have if it had access to the common market without fully keeping the rules), there would be no point in having the EU or the EEA.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Louise:
quote:

There is also a sadly non-negligible possibility of a catastrophic outcome which currently people aren't giving enough weight to.

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.

In light of all of this - and of course much, much more - Britain seems destined and blindly determined to destroy its own future for many decades to come. I fear for what will transpire, not just for Britain or for the rest of Europe, but for the world. We live in a global economy whether we like it or not; that's just how things are. The demise of one effects everybody else in some shape or form, but I've always argued here (and been repeatedly mocked for it) that the EU represents much more than a stable economy, and if Britain looses that then then there is a very real possibility of social and cultural carnage. It just doesn't bear thinking about, yet there seems to be a feeling among the public that they are prepared to do this reckless thing whatever the cost to them or to anyone else. It is without doubt the weirdest most incomprehensible thing I've ever seen in my life.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It is without doubt the weirdest most incomprehensible thing I've ever seen in my life.

Couldn't agree more.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
It's weird and incomprehensible to those of us who have (some) understanding of the issues involved, what the EU actually is and the reasons why our national interest is best served by being a member of it.

If you've never looked beyond the Daily Mail bogey-EU, you think your life is a bit shit and it must be someone else's fault, and/or you're not comfortable with people who aren't from round here living in your street, then voting to leave made pretty good sense at the time. Factor in the perennial desire to stick two fingers up at those in authority, and Brexit was a racing certainty from the moment the wretched Cameron announced his referendum.

No doubt the consequences of Brexit will be blamed on the EU for not giving us everything we wanted. The EEC/EU has been a convenient scapegoat for self-inflicted problems more or less since we joined, and no doubt will continue to be after we leave.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There's also the odd feeling that many politicians don't actually understand what Brexit might involve, or what no deal might involve. For example, apart from tariffs, how many of them are conversant with customs regulations, and how they are operated in the EU, and how a 'third country' might be plugged into these - or not. I don't see that anyone has tried to discuss such matters, and outline possible solutions. This may be because they have no idea, they don't care, or that's somebody else's job, or it's all the EU's fault anyway, or these things shouldn't be discussed in front of the servants.

[ 05. June 2017, 14:15: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
But I don't believe that this is what people voted for last June 23rd

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.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

And, I also struggle to identify with your final statement. There hasn't really been any sort of sustained campaign against EU membership. Obviously some discussion in the 1970s when we entered the Common Market, which seems to have largely disappeared after the referendum. Some disquiet among a minority of Tories, but mostly only as far as not wanting further integration with Europe. Before UKIP there was no real campaign to actually leave the EU, which isn't decades. And, they only managed one MP and a handful of lazy MEPs. Which hardly amounts to a substantial political impact, until the Tories started treating this bunch of fascists as though they were a serious political party.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
IIRC, there was quite a substantial majority of those voting. Just as there had been in the Scottish Independence referendum also.

You're right that there was no vote in favour of any particular type of Brexit. Apart from the real difficulties I've adverted to previously about this (you'd really need some sort of preferential voting, a skill which apparently is beyond any British voter) I doubt that such subtleties would have had much effect. The majority just wanted out.

As to your last paragraph, whilst the formal exit campaign has been UKIP, there seems to me to have been a pretty solid, if unthinking, press one for many years now. And let's face it, despite the large vote in favour of joining, I doubt that many thought through the real consequences.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

As for who voted, that was influenced by the arcane rules on who can vote in UK elections. To let some non-UK residents vote, but not others is simply stupid. Especially when those excluded include those most affected by the outcome. It's another thread probably, but if I had my say about things then the criteria to vote would simply be residence - anyone living in a country gets to vote, anyone who has chosen to live in another country gets a vote there but not the country they left.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
What would have defined the clear will of the people? The 10% margin in the Scottish independence showed a pretty clear ill, but there were many at the time who argued that that was insufficient. In the Brexit referendum, here was a minority (of those voting) who voted to remain. In normal terms of democracy they do not get their will; the majority get theirs. What would happen in a normal election? Assume an accurate 1 vote majority for candidate, then it is candidate A who is elected.

There are always rules on who can and cannot vote. The rule here is that apart from being a citizen, you must be 18 (and I know that in the Scottish independence referendum this was reduced to 16). That means that a 10 year old, no matter how aware of the issues, cannot vote. How would you define resident? Citizenship by birth or naturalisation gives a simple and clear cut answer.
 
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :
 
All referendums are political cowardice, if there was a clear winner politicians would be covering themselves in glory, not putting the question to the people. That said the UK was offered an option and one side won. The turn out was better than most general elections and the winning margin consistent with one from which governments are formed. Nothing in the lead up suggested the vote was advisory and the ballot questions were unequivocal.

The issue was complicated by the leading protagonist resigning over an issue he himself had offered, and the principal players scattering on day one, leaving also-rans and opportunists like May to take up the mantle. May is a Remainer, Corbyn is almost certainly not. Hypocrisy never goes out of fashion.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by romanesque:
Nothing in the lead up suggested the vote was advisory and the ballot questions were unequivocal.

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.

[mr cheesy, skip this bit]
2. The question was undefined, because no one had defined what Brexit would mean. We still have little more than the meaningless "Brexit means Brexit", though it's likely that if the Tories win on Thursday it will mean an end to our participation in the single market, customs union, freedom of movement, EURATOM, Horizon 2020, CAP, fisheries protection, and other parts of EU membership that are highly beneficial to the UK economy and society. If Labour win the list of what we lose may be shorter. If we were to have been given a meaningful and unequivocal question then the Leave campaign would have had to define what Brexit meant, and it would need to be a lot more detailed than £350m per day for the NHS. Ideally, there would have been a series of Parliamentary debates with public consultation on the various options so that the UK government, with the support of Parliament, could put forward a proposal for leaving the EU. And, then the referendum question would be effectively "do you support the governments proposal for leaving the EU?" (even if the actual words on the ballot paper were no different from what we had last year). I would recommend that given the significance of leaving the EU the UK Parliament and government should have given it at least as much thought and consideration as the Scottish government and Parliament gave to the independence referendum (which was 7 years or Parliamentary/public debate, across 2 Parliaments, leading to a 670p white paper produced months before the formal start of campaigning).
 
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QB] Constitutionally, a referendum is always advisory.

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.

At the time it seemed a good idea because the polls swung his way. The government would never have undergone the expense of a referendum, and the turn out would not have been nearly so large had the advisory nature of it been emphasised. It was pure political opportunism. Cameron was banking on winning by a head but a short nose would have sufficed - he wouldn't have gone back to the country either way and would in all probability still be PM. What he realised the morning after was the cognitive dissonance between his proposition, and the unavoidable consequences of the result.

Neither Brexit nor Remain campaigns were clear about the detail of the choices on offer, and haven't been since the referendum, largely because the EU have shown no desire to compromise on its monolithic view of European-ness. Had the commission offered a scale of inclusion, Brexit wouldn't have arisen, Maastricht wouldn't have emerged from French doubts about a united Germany, and the whole sorry ideological mess of what became of a splendid trading partnership could have been avoided.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Page 39 and we are still re-hashing the basics...
 
Posted by romanesque (# 18785) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Page 39 and we are still re-hashing the basics...

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.

Like I said, I think referendums are a dumb idea and if a legal challenge stopped them permanently and made political parties stand for election on those issues instead of passing the rope to the electorate to hang itself, we could all rejoice. What we have now is a PM who never believed in Brexit actively promoting it, and a would-be PM who is a Eurosceptic keeping his mouth shut in fear of losing popularity. When people understand the institutional hypocrisy at the heart of party politics, they're better able to apply a suitable amount of salt to its offerings.

[ 06. June 2017, 11:27: Message edited by: romanesque ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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,

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.

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
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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,

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.

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

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.

There are avowed atheists, avowed theists, and a very broad spectrum of belief.

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....
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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....

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.

Very few people voted Leave on the basis of no deal and WTO rules only.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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....

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.

Very few people voted Leave on the basis of no deal and WTO rules only.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Everybody has been quiet about the benefits of leaving. The lack of information coming from government or opposition has been remarkable. Whether the politicians are deliberately withholding stuff from the public, or simply don't have a clue, is an open question. To call it a Brexit election is laughable.

I think it is dawning on some people that no deal could be a catastrophe, as customs checks would begin immediately on British trucks at borders, planes might not be able to fly, security cooperation might end, and so on.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Everybody has been quiet about the benefits of leaving.

Could that be because there are no benefits to leaving?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Ah yes. Mr Farage and his belief that immigration is bad if it's anyone coming to the UK, but good if it's him moving elsewhere. Now, what's that word starting with a 'h' I'm thinking of?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
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?

Seriously, ISTM that a "successful" Brexit would look like: The UK trading freely with Europe and the rest of the world, no tariffs or excessive bureaucratic customs checks, no hard border with the Irish Republic or (God forbid) Scotland, UK residents able to travel to Europe without visas and work there, the City of London able to trade in Euro-denominated securities...

Pretty much what we have now, then.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
In the Guardian Simon Jenkins is suggesting that this chaotic election result may be an opportunity to reset Britain's Brexit expectations. We can hope so!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I would think that hard Brexit will be dumped. Trouble is, most positions are very vague. We sort of want a full and fruitful trading relation with the EU, but we don't want all those nasty foreigners coming here. But please can we retain our regulatory harmonization with the EU, so we don't have nasty border checks on trucks? Thank you very much. Nothing has changed.

Actually, the obvious choice now is EEA, but will the Ultras accept this?

[ 11. June 2017, 14:53: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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.

Absolutely. It would be clear enough, probably would not require massive legislation, and would satisfy exporters, banks, etc.

So you can bet that both Tories and Labour will reject it. Labour are terrified of losing the UKIP vote, I surmise, and therefore sound ambiguous about everything. Tories, well, who knows.

But maybe in the end, through exhaustion, and total confusion, it may happen as a kind of reculer pour mieux sauter, (strategic withdrawal).
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps we should just ask Norway to take us over, lock, stock, and barrel.

Harald V seems a nice old boy - he and Betty would make good joint monarchs.

IJ
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Quite possible is a long transitional period, with a kind of quasi-single market arrangement, that everybody pretends is something else, and is given a stupid long name, and then we all fall down in exhaustion, and wonder what the hell that was about.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.
Yes. You're absolutely right. But being Sweden is off the table. Being Norway is on it.
 
Posted by blackbeard (# 10848) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps we should just ask Norway to take us over, lock, stock, and barrel.

IJ

Harald Hardrada had a bloody good try. Maybe his plan is finally coming to fruition.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Actually, the obvious choice now is EEA, but will the Ultras accept this?

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :
 
A parliament cannot bind its successors, and presumably a referendum cannot bind a parliament elected subsequently.

I don't know if there is a remain majority in the new Commons, but if there is, then they should very rapidly propose a multi party government that has the confidence of the House.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

I hope so.

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
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I see President Macron is holding out an olive branch this morning and saying 'you don't have to go through with this'.

Rescued from our own stupidity - by the French? There are many people in this country who would rather cut off their own heads than have to live with the embarrassment. Unfortunately, they are expecting the rest of us to join them.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I still have trouble believing in this as anything other than gesture politics from Macron.

It will enable him to say later on that France and other EU nations showed willing to be accommodating and that any form of Brexit is not for want of that, but in my view he knows full well it is not a realistic option - he himself stated that it would be a challenge to democracy in that it would ignore the referendum outcome.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
It's only gesture politics for as long as we refuse to call their bluff. IMNSHO.

Seriously, I doubt that anyone in the (rest of the) EU really wants to waste time negotiating with an increasingly erratic UK on the terms for Brexit unless we really, really mean it. Even if the prize is not having us inside the tent pissing in (think about it, we were).

And it's not just about us. Macron is probably playing to his own Eurosceptics too: in fact we are serving as an Awful Warning to any other member of the European Union that might be considering jumping ship.

[ 14. June 2017, 12:11: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
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.

I hope so.

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

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Just looking at the newspapers, and the Times has a front page story that Hammond favours staying in the customs union. I don't know whether this means the EU customs union, or a bespoke one, such as Turkey has. But in any case, it looks as if the impenetrable wall of Brexit no-speak is beginning to crumble, after the election. Interesting that May can't sack him now. She is the medieval monarch, imprisoned by her barons.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Hammond is using his new-found job security to speak common sense; anyone who wants to leave the customs union is presumably comfortable with queues of lorries miles long at the channel ports, backing up onto the motorways.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Truth to tell, Mrs May isn't fit to lead Brexit negotiations. Her recent trajectory has been a dizzying rollercoaster, inconsistent, and full of dishonesty.

I suppose you could argue that this is normal politics! However, Brexit isn't normal. Hard Brexit could be catastrophic for the UK, and it looks as if it is now being undermined, as more and more adherents of a softer Brexit break cover.

She looks like a drunken driver, rolling around on the road, fast ahead, no, now the brakes are on, only surviving because the Tories dare not risk another election.

Laugh or cry.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
She'll never be accused of being the sharpest tool in the chandelier, that is certain.
If the current political scene were a film, it would never have been given a greenlight as it being far to improbable, even as a farce.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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. 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.”

This will certainly mean the loss of the long held Thatcher's rebate. It will probably mean being made to take the Euro and accept Schengen. I'd be interested to know how many people think our membership of the EU is important enough to agree to this. Without the rebate we would be the largest net contributor, and taking the Euro is only for those who want ever closer union. In fact it's the only way the Euro can function properly as a currency. In addition to personal views, what would the electorate be likely to make of this?
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Poking people in the eye and then being astonished when they don't offer a sweetheart deal... well, there you go.

As has been pointed out before at length, nobody gets forced into the Euro, beyond making a nod to it at some point. 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.)

Given the threat to the Western world that Trump currently constitutes, European solidarity and co-operation in defence would be a far wiser course for Britain than cosying up to Trump - a personality-disordered Russian puppet with no allegiance to NATO who will sooner or later lash out in a way which can't be contained. Closer integration in that respect would be the wisest thing.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

You plunge people into fear, uncertainty and doubt and then they have the temerity to stand up for themselves.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.”

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".

I can well imagine the UK civil servants who are working through the technical aspects tearing their hair out at the politicians' unwillingness to admit this.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.)

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?

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Whatever happens, even raising the notion of Brexit has changed the game. I'm not even sure the EU can survive it, whether or not the UK actually leaves.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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].

As a rather obvious corollary, any Brexit deal negotiated will have to be acceptable to at least three of the nations listed in the post-Brexit bloc of four.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Sorry, that last bit should read " . . . any Brexit deal negotiated will have to be acceptable to at least two (and probably more like three) of the nations listed in the post-Brexit bloc of four."
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

So would we be "cutting our losses" if we became the EU's major paymaster and were forced along the road, via accepting the euro, to euro federalism? I have on sever occasions, as recently as last week, misjudged the mood of the British voters, but I feel quite sure that if you tell them that Guy Verhofstadt's programme is the alternative to Brexit, you would get a far heftier vote in favour of leaving than there was last year.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
Because there's a Brexit angle on everything, in this case the Grenfell disaster:
quote:
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.

Guardian
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Has any party or politician in the UK come out with a detailed and realistic plan for Brexit, hard, soft, or inbetween? One that acknowledges what the other EU countries would never agree to and is honest about the economic costs of withdrawing from certain parts of the EU (passporting, nontariff barriers to trade, etc)?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
No, because that would take a lot of time and effort to define. UKIP have been around long enough to do that, just about, but have never had the number or caliber of people to do that sort of work - besides which, that's done best by interacting with the public and refining the plans in the crucible of public opinion (similar to the SNP through the 70s and 80s where a fairly broad platform of "more power to Scotland" was refined through internal discussion and doorstep interaction with voters to be for independence, which was then further refined over two Parliaments in power to the 670p white paper that we voted on in 2014).

Put simply, the referendum was held a decade too early to allow any vision for what the UKs relationship to the EU should be, if not being in the EU, to develop.

For that matter, the constant dodging of discussing the issue within the main UK parties (Conservative in particular) and unwillingness to engage the electorate in the question means that we never developed a vision for our position within the EU.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
A comment by 'nosecolouredglasses' in the Guardian -

[deleted per Ship's copyright practice]

[ 19. June 2017, 20:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Are my eyes deceiving me, or have the UK already conceded the EU timetable on Brexit talks? In other words, trade talks have been parked.

This was probably inevitable, but the UK govt is weakened now.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
hosting/

Boogie, we don't allow extensive quotes of material subject to copyright, and it doesn't appear to make sense in this case to post an excerpt of the material.

You may link to material elsewhere with the usual provisos, but please don't simply copy-paste huge swaths of content from elsewhere here.

That's not what here is for.

/hosting
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Interesting article in the Irish Times on Brexit and where the UK economy is going:

Britain’s politics and politicians are unhinged and the economy is in trouble


quote:

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.

Worth keeping an eye on the Irish Times to see ourselves as others see us.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
The CBI this morning are describing it as the economy 'shifting down a gear' which sounds considerably less alarming than "visibly slowing" even though it means exactly the same thing.

Somewhere, George Orwell is laughing...
 
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
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.

All we can do is mitigate the disaster as if it was an actual disaster.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.


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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
All we can do is mitigate the disaster as if it was an actual disaster.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

However, there is still the conundrum as to how exactly you have a 'deep and favourable' relation with EU, by leaving.

Many people are talking about transitional arrangements, useful, because it can mean almost anything you like.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

The patriotism of the right wing is very limited.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
Especially as it has been doing so for seven years. Austerity my arse.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
It's very hard to see how any party might want to join the Conservatives in this mess of their own making except for very clear and direct political gain. The previous coalition has warned everyone off that kind of thing, unless they can directly point to the gains they are achieving for those who voted for them. It's not surprising progress with the DUP is very limited since it's not clear that the Conservative party realises this.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
My understanding is that the DUP regularly have a pop at the UUP for being in the pocket of the Tories, so I can see that they may want to ensure they get a better pay off than the Lib Dems got in 2010 before signing the piece of vellum, proffered by Theresa Mayfistophilis.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
For those with some knowledge of NI politics - if DUP is tarnished from a deal with the Tories, will that help the UUP, Alliance (which I know is not a Unionist or a Nationalist party), and (shudder) TUV (since DUP voters are unlikely to switch to a Nationalist party)? And/or will it help SF and SDLP (by splitting the Unionist vote and galvanizing Nationalists to show up at the polls)? Or are DUP voters so worried that Brexit will lead SF to push for a border poll that they will stick with the DUP even if they are in bed with the Tories' unpopular policies?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
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 ?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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 ?

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Doublethink:
quote:

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 ?

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.

The Ulster Unionist Party is a democratic party in favour of the Union, but are looked on as a party that has gone soft, considering their involvement with the Good Friday Agreement and their belief that democracy should prevail even if Northern Ireland was to favour a united Ireland.

Into this crucible the churches of Northern Ireland pour their molten legal to forge something for themselves. In a curious twist of fate NI and the RoI have almost switched roles in this regard, with the churches in the RofI considerably losing their power and authority (more than they should have ever had, in my opinion) while the churches in NI seem to making their grab for power and cementing their position in society despite the fact that their numbers appear to be dropping very considerably. The DUP are more than happy to use the churches of the reformed traditions for their own means. You can see this at work quite clearly in their opposition to GBLT issues; mirroring the current sentiments of the reformed churches throughout NI. They have politicians of an age who grew up in the midst of the worst of the troubles and essentially this is the only version of politics they know so our modern political world, especially with its global considerations is either not understood (and therefore not engaged with) or simply seen as a threat to be opposed. This can make itself known in rather peculiar ways, such as the opposition to stop or halt climate change legislation.

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.

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.

Cross-posted with Sioni who summed it all up beautifully in much fewer words!

[ 22. June 2017, 09:05: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
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.

How is SF smarter?

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?)?

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?
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
What do NI unionist voters think, when they see how disgusted the rest of the union are by the DUP ?

Would it help if NI had more political choices ? If the national parties ran candidates there ?
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Generally they take the Millwall approach: "No-one likes us, we don't care". This is partly cultural I think. Unionists like to think of themselves as dour, serious people who stick to what they believe however unpopular this makes them. If everybody else opposes you, this just goes to show how right you were not to trust them in the first place! Ireland is the enemy, but Britain is treacherous and ready to sell NI down the river at any and every provocation.

As I said, by no means everyone is that extreme, but that's the general worldview even if considerably diluted.

It most definitely would not help if the other UK parties ran candidates. No-one would vote for them. The Conservatives did try. They got nowhere.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Stonespring:
quote:

How is SF smarter?

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.

quote:

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?)?

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.

quote:

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?

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.

There is also a curious move to consolidate what is seen as 'Protestantism' in NI which appears to moving towards the level of Gospel Hall; where you can be 'saved' and a repentant murderer/terrorist/agitator but you can still hold on to the ideology that gave these actions birth; usually easily identified by hatred and/or disgust. Presbyterianism has gone far down that road in the last two decades leaving many of the 'old fashioned' Presbyterians feeling like they now exist in a wilderness. The CofI appears to be succumbing to this drift also. If Christianity was ever to give birth to an Isis type cult, NI is a prime candidate for its birth. The seed was sown long ago and the fields are ripe.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Lots of people are now talking about a transitional period, since two years is clearly inadequate as a time for making final deals.

However, as with many things about Brexit, 'transition' means different things. For some, a kind of Norway/Swiss/Turkey kind of deal, which replicates the customs union. You would think that business leaders would prefer this.

For others, the runway towards a hard leave. I suppose it also enables people to fake stuff. So they might hope to fool the Ultras by getting a softish Brexit through under a hard name.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It's certainly the issue that got the "I'm not a racist but" voters to tick the "Leave" box.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Damn, I shall have to go off and read about the Turkish customs union now. I think it has free movement of goods, but not services, nor obviously, people. These things are usually about 1500 pages long.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
It did feel to many as if the influx of Europeans into the UK was unsustainable.

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:
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.
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.

Or, she's simply incompetent and can't figure out what she wants.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
TM is now promising the 3 million already here the right to stay which sounds like a softening of rhetoric.

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.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
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.

Was it lies that factories and small industries were being set up and filled with immigrant labour without positions ever being offered to locals?
If immigrant labour is such a blessing, and I have no doubt visitors work harder than indigenous Brits, it must be a conundrum for the archetypical lion-hearted Tory who wants Britain for the British while at the same time shipping in overseas labour for increased profit.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

Do un-verified stories reported as factual accounts of widespread practices count as lies?

[ 24. June 2017, 10:08: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
Meanwhile, Andrea Leadsome, 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 Leadsome is calling for.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
rolyn:
quote:
I have no doubt visitors work harder than indigenous Brits...
But then you question whether immigrant labour is really a blessing; make up your mind which it is.

The specific problems with agricultural labour, as this guy has belatedly realised, are firstly that it's seasonal (most British workers are looking for steady jobs) secondly, it's hard physical work that older people aren't likely to want (there aren't that many young British people in the labour market), and finally it is very badly paid (what seems like good money to someone from Eastern Europe is peanuts to a native Brit).

Add that to the fact that most farms requiring pickers are in the middle of nowhere (so no large population of nearby natives to draw on) and voila! Instant labour crisis!

Most of the people of working age that I know do work very hard. They do not want to waste their precious time breaking their backs for a pittance picking strawberries in the middle of nowhere so that the likes of Harry Hall can rake in millions. They can get equally badly paid jobs near where they live.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Also, perhaps if we hadn't treated traditional seasonal migrants such as the Roma like shit, they may have been more interested in doing these jobs.

[ 24. June 2017, 11:50: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
The increasingly loud flapping sound we can all hear is that of chickens coming home to roost.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
According to the magazine of my professional association, the Department for Education is spending £1.3 billion on an overseas teacher recruitment drive for specialist maths and science teachers and is willing to pay a private company up to £300,000 to focus on recruiting 50 teachers from the Czech Republic, Germany and Poland.

Free movement of labour?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This is old news. Forget fruit pickers; you might not have anywhere near enough teachers soon.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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? ...

Yes.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
Second post

quote:
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.

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.

After the blissful silence of her time at the DoE, when she seems to have said or done next to nothing, she's only been back in the public gaze a few days, and she's let slip once again something that is what one suspects she really thinks rather than the person she's like to present herself as. And again, though divulged to the media, this seems to have been entirely off her own bat, not tricked from her by clever questioning.

Has she given up her higher ambition? I suspect not. Since when has visiting a disaster zone been part of what's expected of the Leader of the House of Commons?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Enoch asked:
quote:
Since when has visiting a disaster zone been part of what's expected of the Leader of the House of Commons?
Since 1940, at least. And you can still find conspiracy nutters who believe that Churchill deliberately let Coventry burn...

[ 24. June 2017, 19:46: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
You can find historians who believe Churchill deliberately ordered a bombing raid on Berlin to provoke the predictable response from an easily enraged mr. H. By doing so the heat was turned from a beleaguered RAF to British civilians and undoubtedly prevented an invasion.

Maybe Britain's population still has invasion paranoia embedded in it's psychology, hence last year's Referendum result.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Enoch asked:
quote:
Since when has visiting a disaster zone been part of what's expected of the Leader of the House of Commons?
Since 1940, at least. And you can still find conspiracy nutters who believe that Churchill deliberately let Coventry burn...
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.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Can someone explain the difference between settled status in the UK and the many other forms of almost-citizenship that exist in the UK and actual citizenship? It appears that many categories of non-citizens in the UK can vote, and some can get a UK passport. Does that mean that for many people with these kinds of almost-citizenship, the only difference between them and a UK citizen is that UK citizens cannot be deported? Here in the US, the big differences between having a green card and being a citizen is that only citizens can vote and run for state and federal office (although some local jurisdictions are experimenting with allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections), people with green cards can still lose their green cards and be deported for committing serious crimes, and people with green cards can lose their green cards if they spend a long time outside the US (also people with green cards do not give US citizenship to their children if those children are not born on US soil). One of the main reasons that, before the Tea Party and then Trumpism blew up chances of legal status for undocumented immigrants as part of comprehensive immigration reform, moderate Republicans in Congress could not reach an agreement with Democrats was that moderate Republicans were ok with undocumented immigrants being eventually able to get Green Cards (permanent residency visas), but they were not ok with them ever being able to become citizens (whereas most all Democrats insisted on their being able to become citizens (after a looooong process that involved paying a fine, learning English, working and being model upright people for years and years, and having a super duper "extreme vetting" application process where they could be denied for all kinds of reasons).

What kind of process is involved in becoming a UK citizen? How long does it take once you have achieved the next-closest to citizenship status, whatever that is?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Who may vote.

[i]Three words and I still misspell. [brick wall]

[ 26. June 2017, 18:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Enoch:
quote:
The Leader of the House of Commons is only a middle ranking figure...
My bad, I misread your original post.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who may vote.

[i]Three words and I still misspell. [brick wall]

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.

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? Is there any resentment towards this? Aside from freedom from deportation, what are the main legal differences between UK citizens and Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Who may vote.

[i]Three words and I still misspell. [brick wall]

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.
This will have to be negotiated.
quote:

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?

Nope.
Foreigner voting rights
quote:

Aside from freedom from deportation, what are the main legal differences between UK citizens and Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK?

Benefits are one. Right to which and how much depend on what type of resident one is.
Commonwealth citizen

[ 28. June 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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...
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.

But I don't know how to love my country, I don't understand the concept. I can love people and animals and enjoy many places. Maybe it's because I wasn't brought up here.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Dr Johnson defined patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel but Ambrose Bierce had it right when he modified it to the first.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I actually think of the people in my city when I think of my country. I want to live in a country where noone is hungry (except from choice) and noone has to live in a fire-trap because their landlord won't fix it and they can't afford anywhere else. A country where all children get a good education, where everyone who can benefit from higher education is able to go to university. A country where nobody has to worry about how they will pay the medical bills if they fall ill or are injured. A country that is welcoming to everyone, respects their human rights and treats them with dignity. Not because they've done something to deserve it, but because it's the right thing to do for fellow human beings. A country that is basically respected by its international allies, even if some of them tease us about being 'Insel Affe' (thanks Boogie) or 'rosbifs'.

I used to live in a country like that. Or at least, I thought I did.

ETA: maybe this is part of the problem. The Right talk about 'country', the Left talk about 'society', which is what I've just described.

[ 29. June 2017, 14:59: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

It is innate. But if people would understand that and think beyond, it would certainly help.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Love of Country is a burden of sorts. Like any love potential it makes a person vulnerable to seduction.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I want to live in a country where noone is hungry (except from choice)

Ay, there's the rub.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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, knows full well that in order to stay in the SM and CU, the UK would have to continue to accept free movement of people and the oversight of the European Court of Justice. He would argue that it's a price worth paying. It's the standard approach of Remainers who've been forced to accept the reality of Brexit, but who want to minimise the damage. But both Jezza and Marxist Mac have ruled out membership of the SM, and Keir Starmer has opposed the ECJ still having authority post Brexit.

So if Labour oppose Chuka's amendment, why didn't they vote against it? Instead Corbyn, who has voted against the party whip more often than most members, imposed a three line whip to abstain, and has sacked three shadow cabinet members who defied him. Labour talk these days is about retaining "all the benefits of the SM and CU" without explaining how. It has been clear from the get go that if Britain rejects free movement of people, any deal we reach on access to the SM will be inferior to what we enjoy today. That may cost jobs and damage prosperity. Labour's shadow Brexit team know this well, so why don't they tell us how they would handle this paradox? If we reject free movement and the ECJ, we will be ejected from the SM with or without a deal.

What Labour is hoping for is that when this happens, they can blame it all on the government, soak up any social unrest it may cause and march into Downing St with their Marxist claptrap. It may work. But what the country needs now, as many have said, is a cross party consensus as to how to conduct Brexit. When Chuka Umunna tabled his amendment in the Commons, every member should have voted for it or against it, and not hid behind an abstention with the purpose of causing maximum trouble later. But we're so lacking in honest politics these days.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
They're all mad. I don't know what they think they're playing at.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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,

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.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/chuka-umunna-single-market-free-movement-brexit_uk_57e3e201e4b0db20a6e8b057

So presumably he believes in a near-imaginary variant of SM which doesn't include the FoM clauses.

I don't carry a torch for Corbyn on this issue - but it was hard to see Umunna's stance as anything other than grandstanding and political.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
They're all mad. I don't know what they think they're playing at.

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.

The only people who are certain of their position are the loons - Hannan, Rees-Mogg, Redwood et al.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

Touche Chris. I walked right into that one. And I thought Chuka was being serious about securing the softest possible Brexit!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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!

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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
There is a very simple reason for this, which plenty of people are saying but nobody important dares to.

There are three options.

1. The 'Moronic Brexit' advocated by Farage, Davis, Fox, Leadsom, Rees-Mogg etc.

2. Various versions of what is described as 'Soft Brexit'. These involve in some way remaining within the single market and the customs union. But our fellow Europeans probably won't agree to any permutation of this. Those politicians who are not stupid and aspire to have the country's best interests at heart vaguely try to give the impression that this is what they favour, but they don't agree on what they mean by it. This is partly because they want to keep the votes of electors who are really Remainers and partly because being too clear what one is advocating makes one a hostage to fortune. And

3. No Brexit. All the sensible supported that until the referendum. Even quite a lot of otherwise weak ones did. If they didn't feel they had to pander to the small majority Leave voters, and if they had any intellectual integrity, most of them would recognise that they are still obliged to advocate this.


The trouble is that unless you're a crack-head in the Moronic Brexit camp, as soon as you look seriously at option 2, it's self-evident that option 3 is better. The extra alleged freedoms to control national affairs in 2 are illusory. To get the benefits of the single market, the customs union etc., it is better to be a proper member and to play the proper part in this community of nations to which for every reason of history and geography, objectively we should belong.

But everybody is so afraid of the votes of those who voted leave, that nobody in the political sphere dares say that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?

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.

So we have an odd situation where 48% of the country voted to Remain, but 90% of MPs support Leave.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Because most Remainers accept the result...?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Because most Remainers accept the result...?
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Because most Remainers accept the result...?
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.
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
What a fucking nightmare the world has become in such a short time.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
There are three options.

Aren't you forgetting 4. the "cliff-edge" Brexit where nothing is agreed at all?

I don't think anyone except Alan has mentioned the prospect of crashing out of Euratom yet, but that looks truly alarming.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by LilBuddha:
quote:

What a fucking nightmare the world has become in such a short time.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

The only way of explaining it is that May has taken an irrational exception to a number of bodies with 'Europe' in their name.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40461496

"Mr Davis has said a new international body will have to be set up to settle disputes between the UK and the EU after Brexit, a job currently done by the ECJ."

May doesn't like the ECJ, so therefore for the purposes of disputes a new body has to be set up under a different name that will serve the same purpose that the ECJ would under the trade agreement that has not yet been agreed upon.

On Euroatom:

"Mr Chapman said the reason for wanting to withdraw from Euratom was to prevent the free movement of nuclear scientists, which is governed by the ECJ."

The same issue is presented over the rights of EU citizens currently living in the UK.

[From the European's point of view it's perfectly rational that they'd want an independent body arbitrating residency rights, because they don't want to be left without the legal means of enforcing any such agreement.]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by LilBuddha:
quote:

What a fucking nightmare the world has become in such a short time.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Because most Remainers accept the result...?
No such luck, Anglican't.

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.

[ 01. July 2017, 10:33: Message edited by: Enoch ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I suspect your massive classist stereotype of being a massive classist stereotype.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by rolyn:
quote:

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.

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.

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.

[ 01. July 2017, 11:50: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

Why is no one afraid of the votes of those who voted Remain?
Because most Remainers accept the result...?
No such luck, Anglican't.

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.

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.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Trouble was many of us thought the EU was fucked because of the Bankers crash, Greece going down, talk of the Euro folding and all that crap. Yet now there is audible chuckling from across the Channel at Blighty's current self inflicted debacle.

But as I have asked many times since this debate has been raging, what was it that made Middle Englanders align themselves with the previously isolated Nationalist rabids? The seeds of this go right back to the Blair Premiership and beyond. It is likely something that has nothing to do with Party politics whatsoever.

As a footnote I still wonder what good EU rule has done us. It did not prevent Blair from joining Bush in a catastrophic Military campaign. And now, as has become apparent it did not prevent construction corporations from using hazardous materials on hundreds of our large buildings.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

Even by the time we reach the bottom of that article he'd retreated from that stark position.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Even by the time we reach the bottom of that article he'd retreated from that stark position.

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.

Now let's quote the end of the article:

"“But I have always been totally consistent in saying that Britain must be a member of the Single Market, on which thousands of jobs and rules protecting workers’ rights rely.

“At the same time, we need an alternative to free movement as we know it. The government should aim for both in its EU negotiations.”"

The latter is complete rubbish - it's equivalent to Boris' 'have our cake and eat it' promise. There is no real precedence for such an agreement [*] - and the political logic of the EU is against it if only on the economic grounds that it would lead to wage arbitrage.

It's equivalent to a motion that 'under no circumstance can the economy be negatively affected by Brexit' it's a truism that's the refuge of the madman and the self-promoter. You can read Umunna's speech in the House and decide which category to put him into.

[*] and no, Liechtenstein isn't a precedent in this case.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I see Barnier has been getting hot and heavy, saying that there is no possibility of frictionless trade outside the customs union. Well, who thought otherwise?

Well, the Daily Express did maybe, as they are saying that this is punishment of the UK. Apparently, if you leave a club, you are still entitled to use its facilities.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/06/frictionless-trade-impossible-if-uk-leaves-eu-single-market-says-barnier

I wonder though if a shift is going on; business is saying no to hard Brexit, Barnier is saying that you can't have your cake, etc. Are May and Davis getting squeezed?

[ 07. July 2017, 15:09: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
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)?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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)?

The DUP are possibly more anti freedom of movement than the Conservative Party....
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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)?

The DUP are possibly more anti freedom of movement than the Conservative Party....
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?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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)?

The DUP are possibly more anti freedom of movement than the Conservative Party....
We're going to build a wall and the English will pay for it.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The DUP are possibly more anti freedom of movement than the Conservative Party....

Except that is on the freedom of (mostly middle-aged) men in sashes and bowler hats to go where they please in Norn Iron.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I noticed that the EU has published nine discussion papers as part of the Brexit negotiations. The UK side has published one.

Yes, but that one was of a rare and rarefied lustre, don't you know, so that the EU nine could be seen as poor quality lavatory paper really.

Are we living in the middle of a farce or a tragedy?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Like Oscar Wilde, Boris Johnson cannot resist a headline-grabbing remark. And like Oscar Wilde, that will eventually destroy him.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This is looking hopeful 🤔
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Although Kinnock is pretty anti-Corbyn, I think. I wouldn't put it past him to be using this to plot against the leadership.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This is looking hopeful 🤔

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.

But because you're not in the EU, you also don't get a seat at the decision-making table.

About the only case for Norway is that it lets Brexiteers save face and deliver on "leaving the EU". Which may be the way the wind has to blow, but it's just stupid.

Certainly if I was a Brexiteer, I'd choose remaining in the EU over Norway.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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).

That sounds fairly accurate to me.

Everyone in contemporary British politics supports British people's rights to go wherever they wish. The British government does not and should not try to prevent people from leaving Britain. Equally, nobody in contemporary British politics thinks the British government can or should force arbitrary foreign countries to allow British people to settle there.

And your last sentence is also spot on - they don't think that anyone should have the right to settle in the UK, but are in general happy to extend an invitation to settle in the UK to people who will fit in and not cause problems. There are differences of opinion over how to define "cause problems".
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There are differences of opinion over how to define "cause problems".

It's easy. Too much brown and/or not enough money = trouble maker.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
So......

How about this, then?

Wonder what the Daily Yell will say about it?
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Probably nothing at all, but I'd say it was the Guardian being wanky.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Unpleasant stories flying around that there could be food shortages after Brexit, if a trade deal isn't achieved.

It's not so much about tariffs, as non-tariff trade barriers, for example, that goods would have to be checked at borders, leading to the stack problem - trucks queuing.

You have to hope that the government are aware of this danger, and taking steps to avert it. But how much do the headbangers want it, so that they can bring about serious austerity and the collapse of the welfare state? Alarmist?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Probably alarmist. Brexit won't affect food imports from outside the EU and the other nations where there are trade deals with the EU. And, though there may be delays for trade with the EU, it'll still continue. 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.

What it highlights is the lack of foresight, all the bits we (as a nation) should have considered in the discussion we didn't have before calling the referendum.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Further fueled by the rise in sterling, which would also affect the JAMs more, but then perhaps the following reaction is more universal

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/17/tory-party-reputation-new-leader

'“Sterling falling? Who the fuck cares if sterling’s falling? You’ll be all right; I’ll be all right. It’s a revolution!”'
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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? Starting from the point that there is no legal basis for the UK to pay anything, I would agree with those who say we have a moral obligation to pay what we have already agreed. But some sources say this is no more than 20 billion. The EU is obviously worried to be losing a long term net contributor like the UK, and when reconfiguring future budgets, none of the net receivers want to receive less, and none of the net contributors want to pay more. But does this mean that the UK has to finance Polish agriculture into the next decade? I don't think so, and I would like to see the final bill put to an independent assessor. The UK has already acknowledged that it owes money, but we won't and shouldn't agree to 100 billion.

Next the ECJ in the future rights of EU citizens. Did anyone see when Msr Barnier was asked to name any other country in the world where an outside court could exercise jurisdiction? He couldn't because there isn't one which shows how absurd the idea is. A tribunal body of some sort, not controlled by one side or the other is fair, but a post Brexit UK should never have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ. That these talks aren't going so well isn't exclusively the fault of the British. And where is the Labour Party on this? Waiting for the government to fuck it up so they can pounce. But without putting up a single credible position on any of this.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It's been fashionable in this long thread to blame every difficulty on Britain

Well you have rather brought this whole thing on yourselves. It wasn't the EU-27 who kicked you out, you know.
quote:
a post Brexit UK should never have to accept the jurisdiction of the ECJ
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.

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?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
For the benefit of the comprehension-resistant, there are these deeply inconvenient pieces of paper called international treaties, which among grown-up countries have force of law. Britain has engaged in certain obligations under those treaties which are not negated by our attempted petulant flounce straight onto our own forehead.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Should the UK pay 100 billion Euros as a severance.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

So your question is actually, "Should the UK pay a figure made up by the press?" ?

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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,
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I thought that Barnier had explicitly said that the EU has not arrived at a figure. But of course, the tabloids and Brexiteers have enjoyed speculating with various figures, esp. the 100 million one. I thought this was a guess by the FT.

Still, fantasy outrage is much more fun than facts.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

They haven't assessed how much we owe, you are huffing over a strawman figure drawn up by the press.

Presumably you trust the UKs own assessors to get it right.

And the referendum wasn't a vote for leaving the EHCR, what a silly thing to say.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.

At least there was a lot of people pointing out that the ECHR was a) not something we were voting on, and b) it was something the UK created anyway.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I'm keen to see democracy enacted. If that means leaving the European Court of Human Rights, then yes.

[Paranoid] I didn't know you elected judges in the UK...
quote:
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.

I'm not sure if this is a case of accident or design.

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.

(Indeed, I've just got my paper copy of this week's Economist, cover story: Britain faces up to Brexit)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm sure there's no conspiracy. Ill-thought-through is certainly the case.

ISTM that the role of the ECJ in the UK post-Brexit will depend very heavily on form of Brexit. Any form of trade deal will need mechanisms to address disputes, and I can see that the ECJ could provide a convenient and efficient mechanism for that (but, not essential - after all, other trade deals don't have recourse to a similar body). The aversion to any role for the ECJ within our government seems to be driven by some form of political dogma rather than anything practical, and certainly not anything that can be claimed as "the will of the people" (unlike freedom of movement, where a case can be made that a large portion of the public bought the lies about immigration being a problem and hence based their vote to leave in part on ending freedom of movement). The move to leave EURATOM etc is a consequence of that dogmatic decision to have no role for the ECJ, rather than a decision that was considered on it's own terms.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Meanwhile Labour is getting in an awful mess arguing in public about whether to be in the SM.

Together with Corbyn's claim that he never promised to cancel student debts held by graduates, it makes me wonder if somehow the Corbynistas actually believe there is some kind of political advantage to be gained by pushing the country into a recession.

I think he's losing support. I can't see why anyone in their right mind would vote Labour given their apparent belief in the hardest of hard Brexit outside of the EU and outside of the SM.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
Did Labour campaign on the basis of staying in the SM during the General Election or am I mistaken?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.


Actually I'm pretty sure there is a legal impediment for any EU state conducting any kind of trade discussions outwith of the EU.

You can't say "oh this isn't a negotiation, this is just a discussion about future negotiations.." because that's not allowed.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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).

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.

It's like they're all playing poker, holding their cards close to their chest and hoping that nobody is going to ask them to show to see if they're bluffing.

The problem with this approach is that the person they're playing poker with is rather better at it than they are.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I ask because I recollect that they wanted to remain in the Single Market. I wondered at this, because I was also aware that they also proposed nationalising certain industries.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

IANAL of course. But it seems that almost everyone accepts this is the correct interpretation as far as I can see.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yeah, experts. Who needs them, eh?

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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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):

1) Full membership (rejected by UK referendum)

2) "Norway": EFTA and EEA membership (Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein); most of the single market including movement of people

3) "Switzerland": EFTA membership but not EEA membership; some single market access including free movement of people

4) "Turkey": in a customs union with the EU (Turkey, San Marino, Andorra); no single market or 'four freedoms', no ECJ, but no third-party free trade deals allowed

5) "May": comprehensive free-trade deal with the EU; as 4 but free trade (but not "frictionless" deals)

6) "WTO".

link; three articles per week available subscription-free; well worth a read

[ 24. July 2017, 11:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

Yeah, experts. Who needs them, eh?

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?

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.

Some politicians are breezily saying that since we will still be in 'regulatory harmony' with the EU, there will be no problem.

The problem is that we will be a 'third country', to which different regulations apply. For example, the movement of food and animal products is subject to veterinary checks, and hygiene checks, and border checks of other kinds. I think there is also a 6 month delay on this, but this is buried somewhere in EU law.

Some are warning of long queues of trucks at Dover and Calais, because of this.

I don't know if this is correct or not, but I suspect that nobody else does either. But it's possible that if we get close to Brexit day, with no deal, panic may occur.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
"On day one after Brexit, all such exports [of food], including those over the Irish border, could come to an immediate halt. Yet, if Ministers believe we can avoid such devastating disruptions to our trade by being given a unique exemption from the rules, this simply confirms their residence status on another galaxy.

It is here that there is this sense of unreality at its strongest. They have already been told what they stakes are, but they choose to believe that the EU negotiators are bluffing. At the last minute, they believe, Mr Juncker will give the nod, all the "colleagues" will roll over and the trucks will be waved through as the come off the ferries at Calais – all because "they need us more than we need them"."

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86548
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
On the news today I hear that Sir Vince Cable has stated strongly that the old Brexit voters 'shafted' the young. I think he is right. Pre-referendum local meeting featured our local Brexiteer MP and Sir Vince. I have always been a remainer but even apart from that I do not know how all the old fogies in that hall could not see that his case was vastly more convincing. I'm not about to become a Lib Dem supporter - it would be useless in this area anyway - but I am very pleased he has said what he did.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I was in the UK during the screaming headlines about longer border checks for holidaymakers "travelling to the EU".

As far as I know, the UK is still - for the moment - part of the EU. The idea that one has to travel to get there embodies the disconnect that is at the root of the current troubles, I feel.

Secondly, the "chaos" invoked relates not to the EU but to the Schengen area, which the UK has never been in. It's not much wonder people don't understand what's going on.

And finally, the article in the "i" I read about this ended by somehow simultaneously arguing this was and wasn't a punishment for Brexit but could in any case become a reality "when Brussels closes the door". Excuse me? Just who closed the door here? [brick wall]

I really hope something better than a cliff-edge Brexit ("6" above) can be avoided by some muddling through, but if I was a UK-based business I would definitely be preparing for it as a contingency, because the gap between the public perception and reality even now is so huge.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
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?

Oh FFs - what's with this road to Venezuela none sense - did you actually read the Labour manifesto ?

Secondly, do you not understand how politics works ? Both parties are split on Brexit - so if you've just had a much better than expected election result, do you force a vote five seconds later totally distracting the media from the government making a pigs ear of itself ? Not if you have any common sense.

Everybody knows what the hard brexiteers promised is not deliverable, you wait for the negotiations to show some of that before you try to shift public opinion and move to a vote.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
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).

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.)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If we move to a "Turkey position" do we get to point out the irony that before all this Brexshit nonsense the UK government was alone in the EU in wanting to accelerate Turkish admission to the EU? Or, should we just keep talking about voting for Christmas?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
What's the name for a negotiation where everyone misunderstands the resolve of the other side and imagines that they'll back down eventually but then nobody actually does back down and so everyone gets a shitty deal?

Maybe it doesn't have a name yet but Brexit is going to be the watchword for it going forwards.

It seems to me that the problem here is largely one of perception of the other side;

The Tories think that the EU needs British trade and therefore is going to offer a good trade deal if they hang on and refuse to budge on the freedom of movement issue.

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.

The two facts that both sides seem to be avoiding are (a) the massive amount of British trade which depends on free access to the EU market and (b) that the UK is one of few contributors to the EU budget.

The reality appears to be that the UK could have tighter policies with regard to EU migrants, as shown by other EU countries. Having freedom of movement does not have to mean having EU workers in the UK for more than 3 months unless they have a job.

And the other reality appears to be that a deal with the UK where it continued to contribute to the EU budget (as per Norway) would be far better than no-deal which would leave a massive hole that may sink the whole EU (given the ongoing economic problems with Greece, political problems with Poland etc).

If both sides had negotiators who were prepared to negotiate rather than shouting constantly over their shoulders about how tough they are, then there is a chance that a deal could be struck which would be good for everyone. If it continues as it is, then we're heading for a recession both in the UK and in the EU in my opinion.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I am not a trade negotiator. I have no experience of the same.

It might well be that everyone holds all of their cards to their chest until giving concessions at the very last minute, I have no idea. But then I don't think many negotiations have a time limit set as per the Brexit discussions after which the thing reverts to WTO rules.

Maybe that's also normal, I have no idea.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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?

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.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I absolutely believe that the EU trade negotiators are likely extremely well practiced and prepared for this - however it is still possible that they're underestimating the willingness of the British to shoot themselves in the foot and their own economic position. I still believe that the British leaving with no deal would be economically disasterous for the EU.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

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.

[ 07. August 2017, 12:08: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

If the UK were allowed to leave on generous terms, it would send a message that anyone else could too.

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.

The problem is more like the classic 'tragedy of the commons', a single market in goods and services relies on movement of capital and labor, a common regulatory framework, a common dispute regulation framework and so on. For the single market to function properly, all parties have to be signed up to these - or you create areas where business can arbitrage away things like standards, and long term damage the functioning of the market.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

On the other side, the EU negotiators obviously feel like they have to take charge of the negotiations and set lines as to what is and isn't discussed and when.

The not-particularly-bright British strategy in return is to turn up to negotiations empty handed.

It's a cycle of stupidity which unfortunately looks like it is going to end up with everyone losing.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

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.

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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

Away from a close trading relationship.

quote:
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?
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.

The UK could walk away with no deal and presumably no contributions to the EU budget. This would be stupid from a British point of view, but also terrible from an EU point of view. How would the hole in the budget be filled?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I agree with Dafyd: as far as I can see the EU-27 are "setting the terms" solely because the UK hasn't got its act together.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Away from a close trading relationship.

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.

[ 07. August 2017, 13:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I don't know how we get out of this mess - you are absolutely right that if the EU gives too much to a leaving country then there might as well be no EU. On the other hand, if they continue giving every indication that there is nothing to discuss beyond the black/white options ("no deal" vs "massive bill and freedom of movement") then they might be left with nothing.

It seems to me like there ought to be some kind of mutual arrangement fairly quickly in areas where everyone benefits from the free market, such as agriculture. There is perhaps more to discuss about areas where the balance is tipped in favour of the UK and away from other states.

But ultimately it seems to me that the best outcome from the point of view of the EU is one where the UK continues contributing to the budget, takes little or nothing from it and where the flow of tourists and funds into the common market isn't reduced. If they can also do this in such a way as to cherry-pick some of the high-performing parts of the UK economy whilst also leaving the door open to allow freeish trade in some sectors which depend on UK consumers, then that's also good.

But a scenario where the door is closed and there is WTO barriers at the border and there is nothing coming from the UK into the EU coffers and there are much reduced tourist and capital flows has got to be a bad thing.

Again, I don't know how anyone is going to circle this square - but I'm pretty convinced that the current posturing by the EU negotiators isn't coming anywhere close.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
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.

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:

Away from a close trading relationship.

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 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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

The UK is a net contributor. That means that even taking those deductions into account, it is still overall paying into the pot.

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:

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.

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.

Second of all, as I've already explained, 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.

Once again, this is a fact. Whether or not one is in favour of Brexit, the reality is that if the EU doesn't do something to continue the filling EU funds with payments from the UK, then it has a big hole to fill.

Instead of ranting as if by raising this issue I'm somehow a cheerleader for something I didn't vote for and don't support, how about addressing the points I've actually made?

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 you can take that right back, because I've never said anything resembling this.

It seems to me that the EU position will ultimately hurt the EU if they don't find a way to get the UK to continue paying in cash to the EU pot. If they allow the UK to walk away with no-deal, that will potentially be very bad for the union.

To me the reason that nobody is talking about this reality is because there is too much testosterone in the negotiation from both sides.

I don't like this and I don't expect you to.

But kindly keep your criticisms, which can fairly be fired at those in the Tory party who are actively creating this mess, firmly pointed away from me.

[ 07. August 2017, 16:23: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
You made the allegation that the EU-27 negotiators were "testosterone-fuelled" without adducing any evidence whatsoever.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You made the allegation that the EU-27 negotiators were "testosterone-fuelled" without adducing any evidence whatsoever.

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.

Nobody who uses the term "hamfisted" is asked to give evidence that the hands are covered in pigfat or "cackhanded" that they're covered in shit.

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.

And I have explained why I think this is happening, namely that nobody wants to back down, which I believe is neatly encompassed by the term "testosterone filled".

If you don't like the argument, then refute it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:
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

 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

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.

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:

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.

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:

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

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.....

quote:

how about addressing the points I've actually made?

Haven't I done that? There are a few trifling points regarding figures and facts - hard to respond without that really.

quote:

Well you can take that right back, because I've never said anything resembling this.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you said testosterone 'filled' not testosterone 'fuelled'.

quote:

If they allow the UK to walk away with no-deal, that will potentially be very bad for the union.

There's that weird term again; 'allow'. Did they 'allow' the UK to have a referendum?

quote:

the negotiators appear to be be prepared to allow the UK to walk away without a deal

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I'd totally agree that the UK negotiating position is pathetic compared to the EU. But 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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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)?

There are EU and UK Parliament estimates. Use google and find them.

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.

Oh I'm so sorry you took offense at me accusing you of believing something you don't.

No. That's not good enough.

quote:
quote:

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

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.....
Again, you misunderstand the importance to the EU of losing a net contributor.

quote:

Haven't I done that? There are a few trifling points regarding figures and facts - hard to respond without that really.

Nope. You've added a load of bluster and accused me of holding to the British government position. That's pathetic.

quote:
quote:

Well you can take that right back, because I've never said anything resembling this.

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, you said testosterone 'filled' not testosterone 'fuelled'.
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

There are EU and UK Parliament estimates. Use google and find them.

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.

quote:

No. That's not good enough.

Awww, diddums. There, there now. Let me explain how this works. I posted this initially:
"Did you as a country...."
I thought that made it clear what I meant when using 'you' for the sake of argument, but I guess there's no assuming reading comprehension ability.

quote:

Again, you misunderstand the importance to the EU of losing a net contributor.

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.
Just for clarity sake, I'm not using the royal 'your' there.

quote:

Nope. You've added a load of bluster and accused me of holding to the British government position. That's pathetic.

Well, at least we're agreed on one thing; the British governments position is most certainly that.

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.

Until you do so, I have nothing else to say to you.

You know, I can imagine that this is almost exactly what is going on around a table in Brussels right now.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

You said:
quote:
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
The clear implication of your words is that it is the EU-27 that would somehow be responsible for any lack of a deal.

To this I quoted the UK Prime Minister's oft-repeated preference for no deal, and contrasted it with the EU-27's lead negotiator's recent expressed preference for a fair deal in clear preference to no deal.

On the face of it it's hard to see at this point how the EU-27 could be more responsible for the prospect of no deal than the UK.

quote:
you simply seem to be failing to appreciate my point regarding the damage that a no-deal would do to the EU
You simply seem to be failing to read what I quoted Michel Barnier as saying in this respect.

All the evidence I've seen so far suggests it is the UK that is not playing ball, and I think the reasons it is not doing so are a) due to divisions within the Cabinet b) the gap between the realistic options facing the UK and the spin, which is simply unbridgeable. On this side of the Channel we have far fewer illusions in this respect, I believe.

In this respect, the UK government are acting to save their political skins in the short term (admitting the truth being political suicide) and hoping that something might turn up to save them in the longer term. I cannot think of a better recipe for a cliff-edge Brexit and again the responsibility lies clearly in Westminster.

quote:
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.
What kind of "ground" do you expect them to "give"?

As I see it the UK broadly has the choice between the six menu options I outlined earlier, and is currently fixated on "none of the above" by default. It's hard to see how there can be much negotiating - apart from over the size of the divorce bill, which I believe is going on - until the UK decides on one of those options.

[ 07. August 2017, 18:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Everyone is responsible if a situation is caused by negotiators where everyone loses out.

Making this solely about the British government intransigence is getting pretty tiring.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Of course, all parties would bear some responsibility for any failure to make a deal.

But when the avowed starting point of the UK PM is that "no deal" is preferable to anything she decides is a "bad deal", while the declared position of the EU's chief negotiator is that "no deal" is the worst of all possible options for both sides, and the UK appears essentially to be sitting on its hands at present while the clock the UK set in motion ticks, it's hard to apportion blame for any lack of a deal 50-50.

I ask you again: precisely what "ground" would you like the EU-27 to "give"?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

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.

Again, going off the data on that page, it would appear that the EU's net revenue is set to shrink by some 7% when the UK leaves, ignoring other effects and any option whereby it continues paying into the system ("Norway").

Can anyone demolish my findings or point to alternative statistics?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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.

If you can explain to me how the EU is going to cope with a net loss of income, given the likely ongoing economic crises in Greece and elsewhere, I'd be interested to hear it.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

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.
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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?

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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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.

Now, obviously the political problem for the EU negotiators is that too sweet a deal makes membership more difficult to justify for countries like Germany who are already paying for a large part of the budget. But, on the other hand allowing the UK to walk away with no-deal would be really bad for the union.

I suspect that the most sensible compromise would involve something like an extended version of the 3-month rule (which has never been enforced in the UK) so that EU migrants only came to the UK if they had a permanent job, together with freeish trade in markets where there is an overall bilateral benefit (ie neither the UK or the EU benefit from the existence of free trade in those areas) together with some kind of trade barriers in other areas to prevent the UK sending cheap products to the EU (not very likely, admittedly) or the reverse.

That kind of deal is never going to happen if the EU continues to insist that it is their way or the highway, and is very unlikely to happen whilst the UK government is trying to play some kind of crappy Oxbridge-inspired Game Theory with trade negotiators who are better at it than they are.

Ultimately I don't think we can expect much from the Tories, because they're idiots, ideologues and ignoramuses - but one might expect the negotiators from the EU to realise that unless they back down from their take-it-or-leave-it approach, the whole EU is going to take a hit.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I don't understand how you think the impact on the EU is just going to be a flesh wound.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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?
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

I don't understand how you think the impact on the EU is just going to be a flesh wound.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I'm not trying to pretend that the UK wouldn't likely come out of no-deal very badly off, but I'm not at all convinced that the EU would come out of it with a minor flesh wound. In fact it seems that some individual countries would feel quite a lot of pain even if the overall impact on the EU as a whole was less than the impact on the UK.

The best option is clearly no Brexit. But fairly obviously a negotiation which comes out with no-deal and reverting to WTO rules would be pretty bloody bad for the EU as well as the UK.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.

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?

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Yes, I'm sure there are issues that will be caused as a result of this shortfall. On the other hand, it's bound up with a general issue that the EU (and the eurozone in particular) is going to have to face in the next few years anyway - that of how to organise its economy generally, and to what extent fiscal transfers are needed within the union, so I'm not sure that Brexit causes anything new there - it may even be a catalyst to a new settlement.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
Here's another way to look at it:

For the UK, a country with a population of 66 million and a GDP of 2.5 trillion euros, a 10 billion euro net contribution (0.4% of GDP) is not a crushing burden and its relief won't be an incredible boon (bus slogans to the contrary notwithstanding.)

For the EU-27, with 6.7 times the population and 5.5 times the GDP, the same quantity of 10 billion euros (0.07% of GDP) is still less of an incredible boon now, and its loss will be still less of a crushing burden after Brexit.

It's a significant fraction of the EU budget, but frankly at 150 billion euros the budget isn't all that big compared to GDP or even the spending of national governments. (For comparison, the US economy is about as big as that of the EU, but US government spending last year was nearly 3.4 trillion euros.)

The EU will presumably cover the loss with some combination of spending cuts and increased contributions from the remaining members - it will be annoying, but not a disaster.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Isn't this exactly the situation for Canada? I'm not following your logic here.

Surely the problem is not that a non-EU country wants out of the ECJ and wants to be able to make its own side deals - but that it wants to do those things whilst having entirely free access to the common market.

That's the part that is basically impossible. 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 - as per various other states that have "free trade" with the EU in particular markets but without entirely free movement of people - like the relationship with Canada, China and other third countries with which the EU has trade deals.

[ 08. August 2017, 07:39: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

Isn't this exactly the situation for Canada? I'm not following your logic here.
The Canada option is number 5 in the Economist's lists of six "menus" referred to above, of which it is said:
quote:
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.
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 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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Absolutely.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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.
Yes. And don't forget that the Canada deal took a really really long time.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Rosa Gallica officinalis (# 3886) on :
 
quote:
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?

Would this fit the bill?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
AFAIU if you want to be Norway (or possibly Switzerland), then you have to have the ECJ.

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.

quote:
And don't forget that the Canada deal took a really really long time
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.

quote:
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.
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".

The only thing I can see the EU could possibly "backing down" on in the absence of a negotiating position on the part of the UK is the deadline, but I doubt this would be politically acceptable on either side for any length of time - in the meantime the UK still has all the responsibilities of EU membership, including legal and financial responsibilities, and none of the privileges.

[ 08. August 2017, 08:34: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

And, that's before you figure out how to negotiate a trade deal with, say India, when your foreign secretary states that this would be good because we can export "clinky clinky". If you don't enter negotiations looking like you're taking this seriously then you're unlikely to be taken seriously.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

Not unless the UK wants to be Norway. Which is obviously doesn't if it can't stomach free movement.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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?

In other words, submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ without a say in it?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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?

In other words, submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ without a say in it?
Apparently not. But it still sounds fiendishly complicated, and again the UK is not Singapore.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Apparently not.

But then again (this was my first thought: a forum for dispute resolution).

ETA:
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.


[ 08. August 2017, 10:05: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
There's a very odd self destructive element to the hard line Brexiteers, which does get reported outside the UK (presumably also inside it, but I guess that's no longer a given). They appear on TV and on the radio and seem top positively relish the idea that Britain will create a domino effect throughout Europe and bring the whole thing crashing down. The phrases they use and the choice of language always paints the EU in the vein of the language used about the cold war, as if the EU were old communist Russia. Then there is also the dangerous talk of delighting in the idea that far right parties might gain increased sway and influence in Europe; and not in small countries, but in major players like France and Germany. This is what people in the EU outside Britain are seeing and hearing coming from Britain currently. This, and a PM who seems to be pandering to it and stalling negotiations at the same time.

Needless to say, the rest of Europe is looking at all this aghast. It is hard to believe that a once great nation which so embodied democracy and seemed to be emerging positively and constructively from the history of colonialism and empire is now throwing everything it has gained away. It's quite the horror show to watch and for many it is deeply, deeply worrying. I know I get heated at times and I know I can make it unnecessarily personal, but where I live there is so much at stake here that if I were to think on it too long I'd lose sleep. The UK government on the other hand doesn't seem to care and even recently has made moves to make things even worse. I've lived through what people can do to each other when the wood is green. It doesn't bear thinking about what will happen when it's dry.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

.. 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.

The other issue is that the governing party are very far from speaking with one voice. In effect there are multiple attempted negotiations going on, all with an eye to what the tabloids are saying, and a particular minister's standing at the end of things. Oh, and they reserve the right to switch at the last minute should they think that they can get a better deal.

This is not a recipe for getting a good deal, it's a recipe for pissing off the other side. And I'm not sure what you think the EU should offer that they aren't?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

[ 08. August 2017, 10:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

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.

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.

Wat concerns people here most is the question of a hard border. If the UK decides it wants a hard Brexit then it would appear that a hard border is almost inevitable. That will require a re-write of the GFA and nobody wants that because currently the political parties in the north are entrenched, polarised and have both drifted very far to the right in recent years. The GFA would be dead in the water. The only sensible options - which has already been mooted by the EU - is to have a sea border. This would create an economically united Ireland and throw the politics of Northern Ireland into utter chaos leaving the paramilitaries to run the country in the vacuum, and presumably murder each other. A civil war is not out of the question.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So Hammond and Fox (who as I understand it represent the two ends of the spectrum in the cabinet) say today
quote:
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
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.

This (whatever it is) is to be achieved by means of a "transitional period". Does anyone have any ideas how a "transitional period" could apply to customs controls, the single market, the four freedoms...? It reminds me of the joke about Ireland switching to driving on the left but doing so gradually, starting with HGVs.

Apparently the UK government's position on the NI border is also due out this coming week.

[ 13. August 2017, 06:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
The new LSE study ¹ may be concentrating minds. Though it is notable that they did not include a remain scenarios in the choices offered.

---

¹ Buzzfeed
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
How does it concentrate minds?
quote:
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.

Sure, you can aggregate responses to determine a hypothetical set of priorities, but that's a billion miles from implementing actual policy.

As far as I can see, this analysis is in danger of concentrating minds to produce a fudge in which everyone thinks they are in "aggregated" agreement until the very last minute when it all falls to pieces in their hands.

[ 13. August 2017, 07:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
I think they are casting around for an approach, and this allows them to try to pick the combination with the broadest support - where wants are directly contradictory they will go with the one which will fit most coherently with the other options.

Doesn't necessarily mean it will work though.

[ 13. August 2017, 07:47: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Also, I do wonder how they define custom checks to the respondents. It would not surprise me if people are thinking of physical checks for people trafficking when they endorse both positions.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
On that point the LSE survey does I think make a valid point to the extent that it seems to show a majority on both sides want the referendum result to stand. Which is perhaps more important, in the very long term, even than any bad outcomes in the medium term.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
IME, what this shows is that a lot of Remain voters have seen so little change so far that they are willing to support the Leavers in having a good go at getting the result they wanted from the Referendum, while reserving the right to say 'I told you so' when it all goes pear shaped.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
It is fairly clear that there was a large amount of mis-reporting of this particular report, and the percentages - didn't in fact - translate directly to levels of support for particular options.

Ben Chu has written up the majority of these criticisms here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/infact/brexit-report-latest-remainers-deport-eu-citizens-uk-back-hard-european-union-study-expla ined-a7892216.html

So I don't think that the conclusions drawn by the last few posts necessarily apply. Even the preference for some sort of Brexit was driven by the particular set of scenarios that the researchers chose to present, and the particular ways in which these were framed.

So the study shows us the preferences people have from that particular set it doesn't necessarily have any wider application.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I was reflecting this morning when a hard Brexit MP was talking on the radio about leaving the CM and the EU that in fact the whole thing is about a gamble.

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; that the EU is going to stall badly in the next few years whereas other markets will grow quickly; and that the UK can reasonably be hoped to do well.

Picking apart all of those things is fairly easy, but this is about aspiration and hope not facts as they stand at the moment.

But it also strikes me that those pushing Brexit seem to have persuaded themselves that they can't possibly lose. So any negativity can be wafted away so long as everyone keeps the faith and pulls together.

[Ultra confused]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
There seems to be a notion that the Commonwealth will suddenly want to massively increase its trade with the UK taking up any slack from loss of business with the EU. Of course what is really meant in regards to 'Commonwealth' seems to be Canada and India (Australia should surely be in there but it doesn't seem to get mentioned, not sure why). I can't really see those two nations suddenly wanting massively increased trade with the UK unless there's some kind of deal on the table that involves massively reduced labour costs and cheap materials, neither of which I imagine the UK can actually afford or deliver on. It all seems like such a fairyland really.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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;

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).

[ 14. August 2017, 18:16: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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

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.)
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
My recollection such as it is of the trade-related arguments at the time of joining the Common Market was that no-one argued that Britain would be worse off from that POV in the Common Market, on the contrary. It was, however, argued, as a reason for not joining, that to do so would be damaging to Commonwealth nations who depended on special trading relationships with Britain as a market for their lamb, butter, sugar etc.

I don't know how the picture looks nowadays.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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

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.)
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?

This is just another thing the "Leavers" ignored in their one-dimensional campaign, but probably the most important. To be honest, the "Remain" campaign ignored it too, out of complacency.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So the proposal is a temporary customs union during which time the UK can also negotiate trade deals outside the customs union.

Bearing in mind Sioni's point, this sounds to me like the UK wanting to have its cake and eat it, indefinitely (ie as long as not all desired trade deals are concluded).

It also contradicts (already) what the ministers said on Sunday about being outside the customs union from March 2019.

I wonder what the EU-27 will make of this?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I expect they'll get a rather dusty answer.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So the initial article wasn't cleared by the Brexit secretary?

Who said
quote:
the transition could vary between sectors and would be “driven by practicalities” rather than ideology or timing.

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.

This seriously dents any faint hope I might have had that this was all an elaborate case of not revealing their hand too soon.

I think the only hope now is that some senior civil servants who have actually thought about things sensibly manage to beat some sense into their political masters before it's too late.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It is a shared delusion. I'm convinced they think the EU will be worse off if they don't agree to trade with the UK and that a trade agreement would be a win-win.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
That's not delusional. What's delusional is believing it could happen in anywhere near the two-year deadline they have allowed themselves under Art 50 (the terms of which the UK originally signed up to), all the more so in that we are already the best part of six months into that.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's not delusional. What's delusional is believing it could happen in anywhere near the two-year deadline

As I said, I think that a Tory leadership contest is being fought with the EU negotiations as a proxy.

The other issue is that none of them are particularly competent - even when it comes down to the raw pursuit of power.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's not the first time that the UK has been used as a pawn in an incompetent power struggle within the Conservative Party. The sooner the electorate realise that most senior Conservatives are only interested in their standing within their party and only care about their constituents or the nation as a whole when those interests align with their latest power play the sooner the electorate will find people who are actually concerned about their constituents, and vote for them.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Apparently the UK government's position on the NI border is also due out this coming week.

Now out, apparently. The BBC report on it is here:
quote:
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.

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?

Talk about "lack credible detail".

If this is not both having one's cake and eating it and pie in the sky, what is?

[Ultra confused] [Help] [brick wall]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's eating one's own cake before it's even half-baked.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I've been trying to get my head around what sort of arrangement this could conceivably involve. Putting UK customs at Irish ports? Putting all goods arrivals from NI through customs again at Great British ports? What insulates NI from EU freedom-of-movement provisions applying in Eire?

The exceptionalism of the current Euro/£ border and Schengen border including Eire already makes my head hurt. I can't tease out all the implications except to have a vague sense that the potential for loopholes goes some way to explaining why Irish passports are so appealing for criminals, and (not that I'm a criminal!) wondering if I shouldn't join the long line of people applying for one (I qualify).
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's eating one's own cake before it's even half-baked.

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.

I also like Eutychus' post below yours: I've been wondering along the same lines.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
They are basically relying on a fear of losing the peace, as allowing a massive fudge - they don't actually care who comes into N.I. They are care who comes to England, which is the part of the union that delivered the leave vote (without giving a toss about N.I. or Gibraltar).

[ 16. August 2017, 07:38: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Well if anything comes of this I can see smarter business minds than mine coming up with all sorts of import-export shenanigans to be set up in Ireland along the lines of the order fulfilment businesses that thrived briefly in the Channel Islands.

And am I right in thinking that NI massively voted Remain? If so, I would think this fudge will add grist to the mill of nationalists even across sectarian divides (for moderates).

[ETA Gibraltar is a legal case apart - not part of the UK. The Channel Islands are a different legal case apart again as they have never been part of the UK - or the EU]

[ETA more: also, what happens to VAT in the UK post March 2019?]

[ 16. August 2017, 07:56: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Euty:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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

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?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I think the sea border is the only 'workable' solution as far as I can see. It could have passed the mustard if given much more time and work for the various parties in NI to get on board and to frame it in such a way that it can't be seen solely as a 'nationalist' victory that feeds into notions of a united Ireland. But none of it is good. The whole shambles demonstrates that when Brexit was considered for most (if not all) Brexit politicians, NI didn't even feature.

The problems relating to a hard land border are legion. In many respects that could be worse. I remember the days of a hard border and it was always a political touch paper which sporadically ignited. The whole thing is forcing the RofI to think about a united Ireland, which it really doesn't want to do currently. Having watched how the Brexit referendum was done the RofI doesn't have any great hope that a future referendum in NI about a united Ireland would be handled any better, and that's a significant worry. Would they, for instance, allow such a significant decision to pass on a tiny margin? What would they do if NI votes for a united Ireland but the RofI says no? Now that would be an irony Paisley would have liked; 'Ireland says No!', but it's a very real possibility.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

Agreed.
quote:
Now that would be an irony Paisley would have liked; 'Ireland says No!'
[Big Grin] I can just hear him saying that (from beyond the grave). What a mess.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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

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?
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.

There's an element of that already to crack down on illegal imports and immigration. Whether it's practical or not is another question. It would need an almost total shift to everything being computerised, and it would need the cooperation of couriers and import/export businesses who carry the majority of goods across borders (and, if it means they don't have any of their stuff held up at ports of entry they may well welcome it if the IT system works smoothly).
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The UK gov solution appears to be a system by which there is an equivalence in certain sectors between the EU and the UK and exemptions for small traders to avoid checks between NI and the Republic.

There is an obvious problem here: this means that the UK has to continue meeting the EU regulations in this area, and therefore destroys the notion that somehow the UK Parliament is taking back powers.

"Oh, we're taking back powers and... we're deciding to follow the EU regulations anyway. Not because we have to, but because we want to, don't you know.."
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Another strange aspect of this is that a hard Brexit would increase red tape. This is quite ironic, since the headbangers go on about EU red tape, but then harmonizing regulations decreases it. If there are borders checks for every truckload of your widgets, you are in big trouble.

Hence, the Alice in Wonderland language being used now, that we will leave the customs union, but we want a 'mirror' of it, so as to facilitate trade. So why not stay in it? Because it's tainted with nasty European viruses or something. We'll have our own Britannic customs union, which just happens to look very like the EU one.

In other words, we are involved in an internal Tory struggle.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Another strange aspect of this is that a hard Brexit would increase red tape.

No, no, no! The UK will unilaterally get rid of all red tape by adopting free trade status and gain £135bn annually!

It's the Brexit bus all over again.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Henceforth, all the various bits of necessary paperwork and regulatory hurdles will be called blue tape. Hey Presto, elimination of red tape.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
gain £135bn annually!

It's the Brexit bus all over again.

and the same debunking works: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit06.pdf
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/19/ecj-farewell-brexit-european-union-surrendering-influence
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

But that shows that there is an oxymoron here; if the UK wants to be inside a trading zone with the RoI, it is hard to see how that can be done without being in the CM with the rest of the EU.

Otherwise (for example) Chinese companies could have products which didn't meet EU standards in the UK, which are then transported into the RoI and then to the rest of Europe.

In which case it would be hard to see how the ECJ wouldn't have a role as to what exactly the UK was importing and allowing to enter the EU.

It seems to me that NI is actually the stumbling block for this whole project; if there is completely free trade between NI and the RoI then it is hard to see how this can't also include the rUK without somehow changing status of NI. But the consequence of that is that the whole UK would need to be in the CM under EU rules and the ECJ. Which the politicians clearly think is not possible.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.

The reasoning:

1. Currently some sectors in the UK are heavily dependent on cheap labour, which has been coming from Europe without restriction.

2. The presence of that labour has had the effect of stifling innovation. For example perhaps the presence of EU fruit-pickers has prevented innovation in robots to pick fruit.

3. Therefore causing a shock causes those who have a lot invested in those industries to either reform/innovate or die. Of course the other impact of the shock (as per Naomi Klein) is that it gives space for governmental clampdown.

4. If this is all true, it perhaps explains why the first priority is the restriction of low paid migration and why there seems to be little concern about the economic impacts: that's part of the point

--

Which seems so screwy it might even be true. I'm not as convinced as some that AI/Robots are on the verge of massive changes to our economy - however I'm not so certain that there aren't massive parts of our lives which could change given enough investment.

And it isn't even just the lowest paid jobs which could be affected. If AI gets to the point where it could accurately drive vehicles, that could destroy many driving jobs. But if it also could show accuracy-beyond-humans then other higher status jobs could be under threat. Who would trust an accountant if a computer programme could instantly check a complicated set of business accounts? Why bother having a pharmacist if a machine could check correct dosages, for harmful reactions etc? Why bother with conveyancers if the machines could more accurately send and receive paperwork and check contracts?

I don't like the idea that a shock has been deliberately engineered. But I wouldn't put it past them. That's some scary shit.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I doubt if the brexiteers have such a detailed plan. All is political expediency and on the hoof 'plans'.

Farming fruit and veg is rapidly becoming a warehouse enterprise -like this.

[ 21. August 2017, 09:37: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I think they fully believe that business can only remain competitive via a steady stream of cheap labour. They also realise that if/when the UK cuts immigration one way or another this lowers the stream of cheap labour. They believe that in this case the only way of compensating is to cut costs for business generally - including red tape, and generally driving wages down further by cutting state support for the poorest.

Look at the rhetoric that they produce for internal consumption and it's fairly clear that this is what a significant segment (the Rees-Moggs, Redwoods, Minfords etc) hope to engineer.

They don't think in terms of AI, they aren't technocrats in that sense.

[ 21. August 2017, 10:04: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
To the people on top of the heap, inequality does not seem like a bad thing.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

The EU takes longer because 20+ different countries have to agree to the terms. With only two countries negotiating it should be much quicker.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by dyfrig (# 15) on :
 
I'm not sure that's right. Whatever a President agrees in a treaty, it etill needs a two-thirds majority in the Senate.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I've only skimmed recent govt publications, but they seem to be saying that goods that are currently free from border checks and the like, should carry on being so.

Eh? Is this for real? Maybe I am reading it wrongly, but the whole point of leaving the EU is to become a 'third country', whose goods do not enter the single market freely.

That is what third country means. This is what escaping from EU regulations means.

I don't know if the govt are trying to blame the EU if they say no. I am waiting for the right wing press to start with this.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There doesn't seem much point in doing more than skimming government publications on Brexit, since they lack any detail which would warrant study.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
HMG's position still seems to be "we will eat cake and have cake, and if we can't it's all the fault of Johnny Foreigner".

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Oh, I don't think it's a ruse: I think the Brexiteers really are that incompetent... and totally out of touch with reality.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

The leave campaign was successful: why shouldn't the Tories win elections? It's a matter of appealing to the electorate's lowest principles.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
The European Court of Justice, the UK Government says, will no longer 'directly' influence UK law after Brexit. By implication, it may have an indirect influence, since there is no way UK judges can be prevented from regarding a decision of the ECJ as an advisory authority when interpreting a point of European law where that is relevant. But is anyone apart from a few fanatical headbangers remotely worried by this?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The ECJ has become a totem for Mrs May, since she has declared that we will leave its influence.

But now there is the inevitable dilution, which I suppose will be camouflaged to avoid upsetting the headbangers.

It's a question of logic really. If we are to 'mirror' EU regulations, and those are legally overseen by the ECJ, then our regs also are. For example, if the EU declare that henceforth sprockets must have 15 teeth, not 16, is the UK really going to insist on 16?

But politicians have to live in their own pretend world, and hope nobody notices, which of course, everybody does.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I see Mrs May has said that we will make our own laws. That sounds fine, but if we are mirroring EU regulations, then legal oversight over these will be by ECJ.

I guess they will do their usual sleight of hand; once we have accepted the rulings of the ECJ, then it will become 'our law'.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Future dictionaries will feature Hannan as an illustration under sophistry. Link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41023335/hannan-we-want-a-friendly-bilateral-deal-with-ecj

[ 23. August 2017, 18:21: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I assume that Barnier has realized that it's the Tory party conference on 1 October, therefore negotiations with the EU will be subject to a kind of paralysis, in case any govt minister should say something that causes horror to the Ultras. It's omerta from now on for the jolly gang of negotiators.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I can't quite believe what I'm reading......... here

Does nobody see the parallels that run down through history?

I'm utterly dumbfounded.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
FFS
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
So much misinformation. Leaving the EU does not imply ending freedom of movement, and that wasn't on the ballot paper.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It sounds scarily like Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine in action.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There are a lot of rumours of a pull-out by the UK. Hopefully, it's a bluff. They must know that planes could not take off, trucks could not go through borders, food and animals would have lengthy inspections, and so on. Absolute chaos.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I see it was leaked. Trial balloon or a moderate voice sabotaging more extreme views? Either way it points to a blindness to facts. But then, so did the Brexit vote.

What a nightmare.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
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.

The only vaguely close historical parallel for me is British Empire Asians being ejected from East Africa. Any closer?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think the govt will be focused on the party conference on 1 October. So there will probably be lots of right wing and anti-EU rhetoric to please the Ultras, and to protect May's position. Probably, the EU understand this, and will not take all the rhetoric seriously. Or am I a hopeful fool?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

Ian Wright, director general of the Food and Drink Federations said:
quote:
If this does represent the government's thinking it shows a deep lack of understanding
Well, he said more but this represents the problems' root.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I can't quite believe what I'm reading here.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the govt will be focused on the party conference on 1 October.

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.

I'd be hopeful, if they showed any signs that they are able to ever do otherwise.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I suppose the stuff about immigration is a pledge to racists, who seem to hog the limelight, in terms of trash Tory tabloids. You know, all those areas with few immigrants, which want to stop them in other areas.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I'd also like you to know that should IndyRef2 happen, you should so go for it. London - or the UK government - has fallen down the rabbit hole.

Tubbs
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
They just seem confused to me. There is talk of frictionless trade, yet also indications of a hard Brexit - you can't have both.

I should think that business leaders are screaming at ministers that they are going to be ruined, if border checks come in, planes can't take off, food and animals have to have rigorous inspection, and so on. Presumably, somebody somewhere is discussing this, and trying to estimate its effect. I guess we will be told about it down the road, or through leaks. Taking back control, you see.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

That's a generous view. Many of them don't seem to care about the interests of their party.
Mind you I see no reason to suppose May isn't sincerely acting in the interests of the country for a value of 'interests of the country' defined entirely by petty xenophobia.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

Aren't the various trade agreements that the EU is currently negotiating with other countries supposed to aim for, ultimately, frictionless trade?
Frictionless trade in some areas and not others - most don't cover services at all.

All of which took time to achieve, including common regulatory standards, agreeing with mechanisms for maintaining regulatory convergence, and agreeing the dispute resolution bodies.

In most cases, the first of these consisted of adopting the existing EU regulations whole-cloth (and of course the maintenance of regulatory convergence means that in effect those countries are now subject in some way to the baneful influence of 'Brussels'). So all of which is anathema to the hard-Brexiters regardless of their 'trade is fairly simple' stance.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The Irish Greens are taking the UK Government to court over their deal with the DUP as it potentially breaches the Good Friday Agreement and the Bribery Act.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I keep trying to find out what hard Brexit actually means

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can't break all ties - trade would be impossible. You couldn't even drive an HGV into France.

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:

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I have to say that there are two areas where I agree with the UK's negotiating position and oppose that of Msr Barnier. One is on the Irish border. We were asked to come up with a proposal which maintains an open and invisible border. So the UK's position paper proposed two scenarios. The ideal one would be a bespoke customs arrangement, not membership of the Customs Union, which would make a border unnecessary. Failing that, exempt small businesses, which comprise 80% of cross border trade from customs regulation. These ideas were dismissed as daydreams. But the UK correctly says that the exact arrangements for the border depend entirely on the final agreement.

So yesterday Mr Barnier, after saying he was worried by the UK proposals, said that it's the responsibility of the Uk alone to solve this issue and that nothing, not even the peace process, is as important as the integrity of the SM and CU. He's wrong! A border will affect the island of Ireland most of all, so if he objects to the UK's ideas, the Irish government and the EU should come up with some suggestions of their own. In her Article 50 letter, the Pm made it very clear that she has no wish to harm the Irish Republic. 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.

The so called divorce bill. Inconvenient as it is for an unelected bureaucrat like Mr Barnier, the UK team is answerable to an electorate of which 72% think a Brexit bill of 30 billion in unacceptable. 66% think 20 billion is unaccepatble. Barnier knows this. They could get away with paying a substantial sum if it's presented as part of a package which includes a future deal, but no UK team is able to commit to £75 billion without anything to show for it. The maxim was "nothing as agreed until everything is agreed." What happened to that?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
I would just like to correct a point I worded rather badly in my last post. I didn't want to imply that Mr Barnier has no concern for peace in Ireland. What he actually said was,

"The UK wants the EU to suspend the application of its laws, its customs union and its single market at what will be a new external border for the EU. And the UK wants to use Ireland as a kind of test case for the future EU-UK customs relations. This will not happen."

I don't think the UK wants the EU to suspend anything. The preservation of the Irish Peace Process is so important that it may have to trump the considerations of the Customs Union. In fact it was the joint visit by former PM's Tony Blair and John Major to NI just before the referendum which persuaded me to vote Remain against my Eurosceptic instinct.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I'm absolutely with the EU negotiating team on this one. The Brexiteers seem to think that even though they've thrown the toys out of the pram they don't need to accept responsibility for picking them up.

If 72% of this country don't want this country to pay its debts or honour its past commitments then I do not see why Mr Barnier should fold before that. I should guess that 72% of the people in the countries he represents agree with him, whether or not he's democratically elected.
If you think the bill is too much you need to say which specific items in the bill are unreasonable.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you think the bill is too much you need to say which specific items in the bill are unreasonable.

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.

While many, myself included, believe that a United Ireland would probably be the best solution, even after Brexit, 63% of NI voters support remaining part of the UK. Under the GFI, such a vote would kick the idea into the long grass for a generation. So a solution to the border issue is imperative upon ALL parties to the negotiation, not just to the UK. As I said, thinking outside the box. The UK has set the ball rolling with ideas. Let's hear from the others.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
You can't break all ties - trade would be impossible. You couldn't even drive an HGV into France.

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:

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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
the government may not get all it's asking for.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Paul TH:
quote:

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.

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'.

And that's the problem. Not once - not even once was the issue of Northern Ireland, its border or the GFA ever mentioned in any of the Brexit debates or commentary or early discussions. It was like Northern Ireland didn't exist. Now it is becoming painfully apparent that this is a significant problem so the solution seems to be to hand it back to the EU to sort out. It's an utter farce.

[ 09. September 2017, 11:41: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you think the bill is too much you need to say which specific items in the bill are unreasonable.

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.
When you use quotes round 'flabbergasted' whom are you quoting?

quote:
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 blog post you cite there disagrees with the House of Lords there and is arguing that there is indeed a legal basis.
In any case, the House of Lords is hardly going to be considered a neutral body.

quote:
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.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this arrogant bollocks.
The UK needs to accept that it needs a lot more of the EU's good will than it has so far done anything to deserve.

quote:
The UK has set the ball rolling with ideas. Let's hear from the others.
'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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Perhaps some of them actually think of this kind of thing.

In reality, they are attempting to play (badly) a high stakes game of brinkmanship. They know these things are all unacceptable at some level, so they are pushing for a hard Brexit (which would contain none of the mechanisms that facilitate any of the above) on the basis that everyone else is more reasonable and can be bullied into doing whatever it takes to continue to allow these things to operate.

There are words I can find to describe them, but I suspect they wouldn't be allowed, even in Hell.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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. Imposing tariffs and restricting trade is to no one's benefit. If Ireland and the EU refuse to accept anything the UK proposes, and refuse to propose anything themselves, they can hardly complain later about the harmful effects of a hard border.

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. The EU needs to read Article 50 properly and see that both the separation and future relationship are contained within it.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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.

The only possible solution anyone has suggested is for the UK to remain in the Customs Union. The referendum did not ask about leaving the Customs Union so it is mendacious to maintain that the UK negotiating team are bound to leave it. If the UK doesn't like that then the UK must come up with some solutions that are actually workable and do not amount to an insistence that the world revolves around England.

quote:
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.
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.

quote:
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.
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.
The opinion of a random elector on a lump sum presented out of context with no information on how the sum was reached is worth precisely nothing and is of no authority.

You did not answer my question about your source for the word 'flabbergasted'.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You did not answer my question about your source for the word 'flabbergasted'.

"flabbergasted"


quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

And, of course, the result to be used as an excuse for particular policies (labelled "the will of the people") which were not explicitly voted on is a further insult to democracy.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Firstly, in absolute terms it wasn't necessarily the biggest factor:

http://lordashcroftpolls.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Leave-vs-Remain-podium-rankings.jpg

Secondly, once you are arguing about hypothetical reasons for why people may have voted to leave the EU, Alan's argument is equally as strong.

quote:

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.

The vote last year was a vote to leave the EU, it was not a vote to end FoM.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by PaulTH:
quote:

The UK came up with two possible scenarios

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?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
"flabbergasted"

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.
We still don't know if there's anything actually in the bill that the UK can reasonably object to.

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.
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.
What is widely believed about people's reasons for a vote does not amount to an absolute democratic mandate.

[ 10. September 2017, 15:13: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
What is widely believed about people's reasons for a vote does not amount to an absolute democratic mandate.

Indeed.

We were not asked "should the UK leave the Single Market?", therefore there is no basis to claim that leaving the Single Market is the will of the people of the UK expressed through the referendum.

We were not asked "should the UK leave the Customs Union?", therefore there is no basis to claim that leaving the Customs Union is the will of the people of the UK expressed through the referendum.

We were not asked "should the UK end freedom of movement between the UK and EU?", therefore there is no basis to claim that ending freedom of movement is the will of the people of the UK expressed through the referendum.

I could go on, and mention agricultural policy, fisheries, EURATOM, the ECJ, workers and consumers rights, etc. But, I'm sure you've got the picture.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
We still don't know if there's anything actually in the bill that the UK can reasonably object to.

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.

quote:
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

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.

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? In both cases, it reflects that all people who comment on our relationship with the EU, Labour or Tory, Leave or Remain, are fighting to assure us they will curb immigration. So it is seen as a major issue throughout the political spectrum.

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

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.[/qb][/quote]Politicians go on about it because the far right media have managed to sell the UK population a heap of lies. Despite the evidence to the contrary, a large proportion of the people of the UK do think that current immigration levels are creating problems. Mainly because of the scare stories of the fascists writing for the Mail and other organs of propaganda for the racist and xenophobic minority. It's easier for politicians to get votes by playing along (in the process making the whole thing worse) than to challenge the underlying falsehood and bigotry. They're lazy, spineless and scared.

quote:
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.
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.

When Cameron toured the EU nations seeking further immigration controls, is it any wonder he didn't get very far by asking for powers he already had, and asking for further powers when he didn't do anything to use those existing powers (indeed, almost looked like he was unaware of them). If you want a serious response from others, you need to at least appear like you're a credible person who knows what they're talking about. 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. Several members of the current government should take note of that.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
Leaving the Single Market makes no economic sense, so we've ruled that out as a reason for doing or not doing anything.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

Fortunately for the government as a whole, nobody who has looked upon May's election campaign would suspect her of being such a person.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Unfortunately I think the "divorce" payments are a catch-22. On the one hand, even if legally the UK can avoid paying any number that the EU comes up with, it is going to royally piss the other member states off if it refuses. Which is going to make getting a sensible trade agreement even harder.

On the other hand, I think any politician who votes for a massive divorce payment whilst the NHS crumbles is going to have a very hard time come the next election, particularly in areas where cash is tight.

I think MPs for parts of South Wales which (a) voted leave (b) is currently struggling with an NHS in meltdown and is (c) facing the imminent loss of EU funds is going to have a pretty rough time next election.

--

I know others have said this, but I'm increasingly thinking that the whole question of the Irish border is going to scupper both the UK and EU negotiating positions.

If the EU digs in and refuses to budge, then it seems to me that it is basically sacrificing the Republic, as it is hard to see how it is going to be able to protect the Irish economy with Brexit Britain in the way.

It is possible that the UK unilaterally refuses to enforce EU customs rules for stuff moving from Republic to NI, but it is hard to see how this would work without some other customs arrangement between the Island of Ireland and the rest of the UK. Which the unionists refuse to accept, full stop.

If the UK government continues with its idiotic position, then we'll be doing the WTO thing, and suddenly there will be tariffs across the Irish border, and no incentive for the nearest EU countries to bother trying to trade with the UK, and no incentive for the UK businesses to bother trying to trade with the EU rather than whoever else.

If the EU can't find a way to fill the UK-sized hole, it is going to feel the pain. If the UK can't find anyone who wants a free trade agreement, then it is going to have no option but to devalue. If that happens, presumably that's going to have a big impact on the Irish Republic even if some trade fudge is agreed.

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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

What a - fucking - mess. There is no good path out of this for anyone.

Absolutely right, as far as I can see.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
What a - fucking - mess. There is no good path out of this for anyone.

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'.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

[And yes, that is still no good path]

[ 10. September 2017, 20:15: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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).

As it happened; the conservative end of the media started playing the immigration card and playing it heavily, which opened up space to their right, hence the UKIP, hence the mess they are in now.

As Alan alluded to above, FoM is defined very narrowly in terms of freedom of movement of labour rather than that of people. The UK chooses not to avail itself of existing provisions - and the politicians on the right make hay by spreading ignorant bollocks.

[ 10. September 2017, 20:37: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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 there are a number of requirements here - the EU has to recognize British conformity with their regulations; as rules change, there has to be some mechanism to ensure conformity; if there are disputes, there has to be a mechanism for resolving these.

So one of the big issues is the continuation of convergence - the UK has to be able to monitor EU regs, and update ours, and ensure that the EU okays our convergence.

Well, this is going to take a lot of work, a lot of software updates, and meetings between various officials. Are you ready, UK?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I suppose you could have a patchwork system, whereby the UK matches EU on some things, but not others. It does sound baffling, and ironically, could increase red tape.

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, which we want control over, so we will fill labour shortages, which we are not in control of. Good stuff.

[ 11. September 2017, 13:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I've heard stories of shipments which were abandoned by foreign companies at bonded warehouses because they couldn't navigate the customs system successfully.

In comparison, if I'd imported the items from one EU country to another (providing they're not things like meat or plants), one can stick them in a white van and drive them across the border. Customs might check that there is nothing illegal in the shipment, but there are no bonded warehouses and all that malarky.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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).

Tubbs
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
...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.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

A paper label will be slapped across the package with the relevant information. Already done for the even more backwards markets.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

If the economic boost was so significant then shouldn't we have noticed that we were getting it and they weren't?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
A few months age, President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Brexit "cannot be a success." Indeed a successful outcome would be an existential threat to all that the enthusiasts of "ever closer union" hold dear. This is why I suspect that Mr Barnier has an unwritten brief to scupper the negotiations. It's now virtually impossible that he will recommend next month that "sufficient progress" has been made in the three key areas to allow the talks to progress. But look at what is at stake.

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.

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. But even if it could justify £75 billion or more, Mr Barnier and his team know that no UK government can concede this unless it's woven into a long term deal.

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.

Taken together, this all points to the EU wanting a hard Brexit to "teach the UK what it means to leave the Single Market" to quote Mr Barnier last week. 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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A few months age, President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Brexit "cannot be a success."

Which could be taken as how it was meant; as a simple observation rather than a threat.

quote:

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.

That old hoary chestnut ? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36276175

[ 11. September 2017, 19:07: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Except for all the times they don't - like when the US wants to extradite someone from the UK.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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?

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.
We would have noticed even less doctors and nurses than we have, even less care workers, fields of fruit and veg rotting unharvested etc.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
A few months age, President Jean-Claude Juncker said that Brexit "cannot be a success."

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.

quote:
This is why I suspect that Mr Barnier has an unwritten brief to scupper the negotiations.
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.
There are a lot of people in the UK who know deep down that the UK government is through malice or incompetence scuppering the negotiations and who are desperately trying to shift the blame onto the EU.

quote:
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.
It's not unprecedented. It is the status quo in the UK at the moment.
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:
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.
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.

quote:
Dafyd seems to think that we must owe the EU anything which it tells us we owe.
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.
Instead, as chris stiles has shown, you are resorting to groundless and false allegations about incompetence and corruption.

quote:
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.
So setting up customs barriers between Northern Ireland and Britain is ruled out because the Unionists won't stand for it.
Giving Northern Ireland special status in the EU is ruled out because it would require customs barriers between Northern Ireland and Britain, and anyway, the Unionists wouldn't stand for it (you're trying to shift blame onto the EU here, but it's clear the Unionists wouldn't stand for it anyway).
A special customs deal without border checks on the Ireland/Northern Ireland border is an unworkable fantasy; you have given no reason to think that it isn't.
You have rejected out of hand any compromise on the part of the UK that might deal with this problem, which the UK has created. You are therefore casting wildly around for a way to make the EU take responsibility for the consequences of the UK's refusal to compromise.

quote:
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.
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.
The EU cannot be expected to greet every public statement by a member of the UK government with serious consideration under such circumstances.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

The status quo is that the UK is in the EU. Apparently, that's going to change.

The role of the ECJ is to be the ultimate arbiter of EU law - the ECJ tells member states and their courts what the EU law says, and how they should apply it. Post-Brexit, there will be no EU law in the UK, so nothing for the ECJ to do.

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?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by PaulTH:
quote:

But there are very few options left, and the EU thinks it's up to the UK to solve this.

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?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

This article clarifies the differences between the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).

The ECJ is an agency of the European Union. It's role is to consider the actions of institutions within the EU and its judgments serve to clarify European law to ensure that it is applied in the same way in all EU Member States. No third country is bound by it's rulings.

The ECtHR isn't. It deals with breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unless the UK leaves the Convention, it still has a role.

May has muddled the two up and suggested that the UK leave both - and got knocked back. I doubt she'd get a vote to leave the Convention through Parliament.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Oops, you're right. And I have criticised Mrs Mayhem for getting them mixed up [Hot and Hormonal]

<wanders off in search of caffeine>
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Oops, you're right. And I have criticised Mrs Mayhem for getting them mixed up [Hot and Hormonal]

<wanders off in search of caffeine>

If it's any consolation I'm sure she has done so deliberately.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?!

Tubbs
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

Or Brexiters are full of crap. [Big Grin]

Your opinions on whether Brexit is a good thing or bad thing may influence who you blame for the current state of affairs.

Tubbs
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

But pragmatically, those close to business fear that Dover could turn into a huge lorry park, as trucks line up to cross the Channel, while their cargoes are checked. In other words, you can't just stop trading with the EU, and non-tariff barriers could be a nightmare.

I notice that Hammond yesterday made a speech, saying that there should be a transition period, during which, regulations and movement of people should stay the same. He will not be popular with the nutters!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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].
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

I read that as a typically English ironic statement. The Leavers looked like snake oil salesmen then and they still do.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.

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].

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.

I suppose this applies to Ireland also, since if rubbish is coming into N. Ireland, it must be prevented from entering the Republic.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Well spotted, Sioni Sais. Full marks for perspicacity.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
Interesting article from the Irish Examiner. While the overarching conclusion can be quibbled with, parts of it seem to be fairly accurate:

quote:

"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. "

The latter in particular seems to capture David Davis' entire negotiating strategy.

[ 14. September 2017, 09:16: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Mrs May is said to be about to make a speech which will miraculously dissolve the obstacles to progress in the Brexit negotiations. The next round has been postponed for a week to oblige her. This will be before the start of the Conservative Party conference.
It is difficult to envisage what of substance she can say that will not upset the applecart either at the conference or in the negotiations. The London Times says she is already having to modify what she is to say for fear of BoJo's reaction.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
On a different, and lighter, note I imagine myself, in my wilder moments, hoisting a European flag over my house, and defying the fanatical hordes, like General Gordon at Khartoum. 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?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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?

Any flag retailer?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Such as?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Such as?

There are lots of flag manufacturers with websites. They'll make whatever you want.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Such as?

Amazon will sell flags and ship them via Prime. I assume you should be able to find such things on ebay also.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Choose your size. you might also want to purchase these, choose your window size.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I think it is true that other third countries have trade disagreements sorted out in other fora, but they don't have completely free access to the EU.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
For example the EU's long negotiated CETA agreement has provision for mediation between the EU and Canada (ie not via the ECJ).

And whilst (AFAIU) the agreement means that trade is much easier between Canada and the EU than it was before, it is still a long way from the extremely simple trading system one has within the market as an EU state.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
The EFTA and ECJ have a slightly asymmetrical relationship in that the EFTA court is obliged to take ECJ rulings into account whereas the ECJ is not obliged to take EFTA court rulings into account but has generally done so.

I don't think the case of the USA is exactly equivalent. The EU is a group of member nations bound by treaties rather than a single nation. It's not equivalent to the US.

The point is that the EU would like to guarantee EU citizens rights in the UK. The present UK immigration system would make Kafka scream, and is prone to implementing further restrictions every time the government wants to make things more difficult for non-nationals. Therefore the EU does not want to rely on the goodwill of the UK system.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore the EU does not want to rely on the goodwill of the UK system.

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.

I don't think the fact that the EU is a group of countries rather than a federal superstate makes much difference - we still come down to the issue of having some aspect of an agreement between two entities being policed by a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the entities.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Therefore the EU does not want to rely on the goodwill of the UK system.

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.
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

And who is responsible for ensuring that EU nationals are treated in accordance with the EFTA treaties when in the EFTA countries?

'Cause in general, one would expect the ECJ to ensure that EU law was correctly applied in the EU (including to EFTA nationals who happen to be in the EU) - that's its job. But given that M. Barnier is proposing that the ECJ take on a role with regard to EU citizens outside the EU, one would expect him to offer some quo pro his quid.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
Far from it being a leverage point in the negotiations, speaking in my capacity as a UK citizen residing in the EU, I think for most of us, our working assumption is that we are going to be screwed. Note that we are expecting to be shafted at least as much by the British government as by the countries in which we reside. I for one have exactly zero confidence that Mrs May’s shambolic outfit is going to protect my interests.

That is why there is currently a massive scramble among British expats to obtain other nationalities wherever possible. I am also considering opening a marriage bureau (“British expat urgently seeks love with EU passport holder”) [Biased]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Mrs Sioni and Sioni V were both born in Malta and under Maltese law as it now stands we think they might be good for Maltese citizenship, which wasn't the case when the Mad Dom was in charge. We all have connections with Ireland and Scotland for that matter, through grandparents.

We have hope.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Thanks, shipmates, for helpful suggestions on obtaining EU flag (and window protection). Now, can anyone suggest how I can find a fanatical horde?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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?

Well, the Tory party conference is coming up.
 
Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :
 
I see Boris's bus is back, with the same claim of £350 million for the NHS....
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If Boris can find an extra £350m per week that then gets spent on the NHS, good on him say I. It just won't come from what's currently forming the UK contribution to the EU budget.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Boris the Bold envisages a 'glorious future' for the UK outside the EU.

'"I don't know what you mean by 'glory'," Alice said.

'Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"

'"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'" Alice objected.

'"When I use a word'" Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

'"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

'"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be Master - that's all."'

(Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass)

And that's what it's all about, isn't it?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Is Boris daring May to sack him so he can launch his leadership bid? Is he calculating that he needs to do this before the members start leaning towards Rees-Mogg (God help us)? The Telegraph article seemed to be precisely targeted at the Tory faithful.

Johnsonian ambition detumesced after the referendum he never intended to win and the Gove betrayal. He may now have realised that the only way to escape from his firm sidelining by May is to move to defenestrate her before someone else does.(Foreign Secretary with no responsibility for Brexit or trade - May rather overdid the humiliation there.)
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

and it strikes me that Boris has realised that his best chance of survival politically if the country is subjected to a hard Brexit.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
Also (with apologies for the double post), what is the basis of Johnson's support? Who likes him? Why? Over here he seems rather like a self-publicizing joke. But so did Trump, and see how wrong we were about his political prospects.

Cross posted wjth chris stiles.

[ 17. September 2017, 12:48: Message edited by: roybart ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Also (with apologies for the double post), what is the basis of Johnson's support?

Middle-aged pub bores who suffer from minor chronic pain and thus adopt a stance of weaponized viciousness to the rest of humanity.

The same people who like Clarkson and Farage.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Well, there's got to be a first time for everything...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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?

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.
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".
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
It's her utter incompetence, actually worse than Cameron's, but not Blair's, in announcing good socialist dementia tax BEFORE calling the election that's so depressing.

Ah well, we're about to become Europe's Singapoor.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
Also (with apologies for the double post), what is the basis of Johnson's support?

Middle-aged pub bores who suffer from minor chronic pain and thus adopt a stance of weaponized viciousness to the rest of humanity.

The same people who like Clarkson and Farage.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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"?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Well, I don't pretend it's a winning strategy necessarily - just that they need to think that it might be.

After all - they governed by arrangements with other parties since 2010 - and I think a lot of Tory supporters - as well as the media - often forget this.

Anyway, the indications are that Gove/Johnson have chosen this time to make another attempt to upset the apple cart, so I suppose we will see what we will see.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
Well, this is the apple (and Party Conference) season!
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Sioni Sais:
quote:
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"?
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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?

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.
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.

But Boris seems to have drawn flak, partly because he resurrected the 'money to the NHS' deal, which is now very suspect. He also seems to state that everybody agreed that we must leave the single market - no, some Leave people argued for staying.

As the joke goes, before the EU negotiations begin again, negotiations must carry on in the Tory party, and quite soon, we will be informed as to their outcome. Aren't we lucky?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Sioni Sais:
quote:
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"?
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.
Link

This didn't get much coverage on the mainland.

[ 18. September 2017, 12:38: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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".

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.

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.

[ 18. September 2017, 15:04: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

You missed charm. He does have charm and that works for a surprising number of people, even those who don't like him.
Charm, personality, charisma; all things that get people elected and forgiven.
With Boris it is natural and calculated at once. But it works.
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
He was down here a few months ago and made himself extremely popular - and this in a country that hasn't much time for the stereotypical English toff.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
He preaches a populist message and has a facade of the blundering buffoon and appears likeable. That's what a lot of people see on the surface and they either don't see beyond that or they chose not to. What is also present is an unpleasant attitude to foreigners, an extremely insular politics and a bare faced ability to perpetuate a lie even when it's been exposed. I doubt these issues are good traits in a prospective future leader of the country, but perhaps people feel the alternatives are worse. It would be like having an apparently more stupid version of Trump for PM but likely even more of a wily fox underneath all the bluster. Personally, I tend to think of the man as extremely dangerous.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Quite right fletcher. If Jeremy Clarkson was in politics his method and message would be the same: well educated, smart, but plays dumb.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

You missed charm. He does have charm and that works for a surprising number of people, even those who don't like him.
Charm, personality, charisma; all things that get people elected and forgiven.
With Boris it is natural and calculated at once. But it works.

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.

Boris’ mates always said that he’d shine if he got a decent job. He hasn’t. He’s just confirmed he really is all style, no substance and not interested in anything other than himself.

He’s no longer that popular with Tories if the recent survey’s on ConservativeHome are anything to go by. (According to the Guardian). Voters also seem less keen. He’s only got a 3,000 vote majority.

The Telegraph column read like someone having a final throw of the dice. An attempt to present himself to the Ultras as the keeper of the One True Brexit ™ flame before resigning and launching a leadership bid. If May had any sense she’d call his bluff and sack him. (As she has none, she won’t).

A leadership contest is likely to lead to another election. Which the Tories are almost certain to lose. Hopefully. I’d far sooner Starmer led our negotiations than the Tories.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

It is hard to disagree that this quote from a recent LRB isn't accurate:

"..he seems to know that the laughter that surrounds him is a substitute for thought rather than its conduit, and that puts him at a wonderful advantage. If we are chuckling at him, we are not likely to be thinking too hard about his doggedly neoliberal and pro-City agenda, let alone doing anything to counter it. With a true genius for taking the temperature of a country that has never been closer to sinking ‘sniggering beneath the watery main’, Boris Johnson has become his own satirist: safe, above all, in the knowledge that the best way to make sure the satire aimed at you is gentle and unchallenging is to create it yourself."

There is plenty of evidence that - as you say above Boris is willing to lie and stretch the truth and then attempt to brazen things out. There is a select committee hearing where he was questioned at length by Andrew Tyrie over his various claims about EU regulations, where you can visibly see his bluster/guff approach fall apart - I can only find a portion of it at the moment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY-DE5cuc4Y
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
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.

The blue-rinse vote is important at conference and they do turn out to vote.
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
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.

The blue-rinse vote is important at conference and they do turn out to vote.
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.
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.

It annoys me beyond reason that the biggest issue facing our country in generations and the discussion about what kind of country we'll be is being dominated by that ... that ... Well, that.
[Mad]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Interesting article by Faisal Islam here, in which he makes various points, the chief one being that no deal is now impossible for the govt, as it would not get through parliament. Also, business leaders would have hysterics over it.

If this is true (a big if), it would explain Boris splurging in the Torygraph, as he is trying to put his finger in the soft Brexit dyke.

And there has to be a transition.

Some amusing colour - Tories thought that Corbyn would attract Glastonbury hippies, but he also drew in middle class people, freaked out by May's hard Brexit stance.

A vignette of McDonnell meeting with business leaders - I wonder what they talked about? We are quite comfortable with the rich.

Hey, this guy is very bright, he seems brighter than the politicians (Islam I mean).

http://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-the-next-three-months-are-totally-unpredictable-11019976
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
So according to official extracts on the Guardian's website, Mrs May is going to say in her speech in Florence this afternoon:
quote:
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.
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.

But then, this seems to have been the government's approach (such as it is) throughout: create the mess, then blame the EU and tell them to sort it out. How long before they decide it's not worth it?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

[ 22. September 2017, 13:35: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The self-deception goes on and on. Barnier doesn't need to speak. May et al knows where he stands.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, that was the mouse that roared, all I can see in May's speech is a 2 year transition, which is not a substantive issue in any case. On the issues of EU citizens, the leaving payment and Ireland, very little of note.

I suppose it's pablum for faithful Tories. You can expect the trash media to celebrate this as brave new Brexit proposals, May to the rescue, and so on. The EU will see it as a bucket of sick. So far, no deal looks quite possible.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, she is kicking the can down the road for another 2 years, by which time, she'll probably be gone. 4 years to a hard Brexit then. Get those lorry parks ready.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.

At that point, it seems to me, May is hoping that France and Germany will have clear sight of the fact that the UK leaving will leave them (Germany and France) facing increased EU contributions and increased costs - and that they'll then be prepared to negotiate better terms.

It's a fairly inept exercise of Game Theory after Yanis Varoufakis that failed in Greece but which the Brexiteers seem to think is going to work in the UK because we have greater leverage.

Another thing I was thinking reading the reports of the speech is that it is finally coming out what the UK actually wants and what the Tory gov is prepared to do to get it.

The fundamentals appear to be that it wants all low-paid EU workers to leave (essential workers and better paid can stay. Aren't we generous?), they want all UK retirees in the EU to continue sitting in the sun (even if it requires continuing to make payments for EU healthcare), and they want EU countries to make payments for NHS treatment for any EU workers that remain here.

They basically don't care about having free access to the single market - it is a bargaining chip because they think borders would hurt the EU more than it would hurt the UK. They don't really care about making payments to the EU, because they don't believe they legally have to and/or can be forced to if they refuse to recognise the ECJ as an authority going forwards - so it can be held as a sword of Damocles over the heads of the French and Germans.

At the end of the day, they think that the threat of throwing toys out of the pram and walking away will have the same effect as doing it in a Cairo souk; the shopkeeper will come running out and desperately accept a last-minute deal.

And what that will come down to is how much the EU values the UK contributions and the extent to which they (France and Germany) can compromise without destroying the SM and/or the EU.

Of course, the danger is that there is no agreement, the EU 'shopkeeper' is not able to come out into the street with a good deal as May walks out tutting - and that the end result is chaos both inside the EU and for the UK.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Some of them are - maybe - but at this point the Tory party could hardly be said to speak with one voice.

At this point, regardless of how they try and deflect blame onto the dastardly foreigners, some of the blame will be seen to stick to them.

and businesses and supply chains have now been given a countdown, they'll be moving with increasing urgency. The chances are high that come the end of the two years - if May lasts that long - the UK will end up in another period of chaos.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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. But that's forgetting the Tory conference, which May has to get through, by presenting herself as the doughty British warrior who went to foreign lands and pulled their beard. Or something.

So I'm doubtful that it's a set up, designed for a walk-out. But there's not enough at the moment to carry negotiations forward.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Deliberate or not, this is the inevitable end point of the negotiations at present.

In order for the negotiations to succeed the British government has to - at some point - have clear stances on a number of issues. On a number of issues, any stance but the 'go whistle' one is unacceptable to a small and very vocal minority with the Tory party who are supported by parts of the media. Therefore no Tory politician will have a clear stance on any of them, and any agreement reached has to be couched as one that was forced on them. This tactic only works if the EU is willing to play along - and I don't see why they should be.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Singapoor here we come.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Singapoor here we come.

Complete with 80% of housing stock owned by the state?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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 - feeding homelessness, and all those people struggling to pay the rent, the JAMs. A decent sized council housing stock would alleviate much of the housing problem, and associated social problems.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I think you're all missing the main point: if there isn't a market to export to soon (ie the EU or somewhere else appearing as if by magic), there is going to be the square root of feck all to spend on housing, by the state, by private owners or by anyone else.

And if we don't have exports and don't have anyone who wants to sell stuff to us, then we'll not be able to afford to buy anything either.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Singapoor here we come.

Complete with 80% of housing stock owned by the state?
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!

[ 23. September 2017, 13:35: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

[ 23. September 2017, 13:43: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think you're all missing the main point:

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I seems to me highly likely that the Tories are trying to dismantle the state. I don't really know why, but I assume somewhere along the line if the end result is really terrible they'll abandon ship.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
I'm no Tory, but I think some of us need to remind ourselves that not every one of them is insane.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

Absolutely correct. Some are stupid, some are selfish, some are ignorant...
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
It is a great mistake to despise your enemies.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

I suppose the Ultras do have a clear plan, to crash out, and take the consequences. I doubt if this is widely popular, but it seems that Mrs May has to give it some respect, via Boris.

So it's not insanity; rather, mediocre thinking, ignorance, and lack of transparency. Welcome to the political world.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think the Tories are dicking around with Brexit

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.

In addition, the next round of Brexit talks this week will hit the buffers immediately when Mr Barnier says that he still wants £60 billion plus before he'll talk future arrangements, while Britain's voters won't tolerate anything above the £20 billion already offered. It's an entire shambolic clusterfuck. There is no consensus in the country, in parliament, in the Tory government or in the Labour opposition as to what to do about Brexit, and the oft touted transitional period or implementation phase or whatever else we call it will be blocked by the EU unless we roll over and give them everything they want. Happy days!
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
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!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If there's a Brexit, and it's still not too late for common sense to prevail and step back from the brink of Brexit, then it's looking increasingly unlikely that there will be anything other than a very hard Brexit. The time constraints don't really allow any other option, two years isn't long when you start that period with a clearly defined plan for what you want to achieve, it's no time at all when you kick off the process before working out what you're doing.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

You are talking like there is a wonderful solution to this mess, if only people put their minds to it.

It's not Labour that are supposed to be leading this country at this minute. This entire mess is all on the Tories and their fellow travelers in the press and UKIP (and I'll save some ire for people who voted Tory in 2015 because they thought Ed Milliband was the second coming of Trotsky and had 'stabbed his brother in the back').
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
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!

You're not being expelled - the UK voted to leave. That's not the EU's fault.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Yep, our stupid political leaders have decided to expel us from the EU, against the wishes of the majority of the UK electorate. It's just trendy to blame the EU for everything, especially things that the EU has no hand in.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
against the wishes of the majority of the UK electorate.

I have to say this ongoing complaint irks me as much as those still protesting that Hillary won the popular vote.

It reminds me of the remark, etched indelibly on my brain, by a French football commentator reporting on a defeat by the national side: "we were by far the better team, the opponents just happened to score more goals".

[ 25. September 2017, 07:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
against the wishes of the majority of the UK electorate.

I have to say this ongoing complaint irks me as much as those still protesting that Hillary won the popular vote.

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.

If on the 24th June 2016 David Cameron sent a letter to the EU announcing our withdrawal from the EU, and a week later had a team of negotiators in Brussels demanding that the EU start negotiating because they had a defined plan for Brexit in their hands, one that the UK electorate had voted for, then I wouldn't be complaining (preferences for a super-majority aside, with Leave providing a detailed plan for Brexit such that everyone could have been informed of the issues then that would be a democratic decision).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The acid test is whether you would still be making the exact same arguments if the result had been 16.1m people in favour of Leave and 17.4m in favour of Remain.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The difference is that Remain was defined. We all know what membership of the EU is. We still don't really know what the government is going to seek for the relationship between the UK and EU when we're outside the EU - so it was impossible for someone to make an informed vote for Leave.

The nature of the referendum, called without sufficient time to define the prefered Leave option, was always deficient. It denied the electorate the chance for an informed decision to vote Leave. It meant that after the vote the government was forced to define what Leave means, under pressure from the nutters to get it done quickly - and hence the mess we're in now of the government making policy on the hoof, policy that is unlikely to satisfy the majority of those who voted Leave. If the result had been the otherway round it would have been a deficient referendum causing no harm, and there would have been time to run it again but done properly (which would, IMO, take at least 10 years for the public consultation and discussion).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Alan:
quote:

....17.4M voted for some form of Brexit...

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:

1. They genuinely believed that they were voting to put an enormous amount of money into the NHS on top of its current budget at a time when it was under pressure and under a government who probably has a significant proportion of its membership who would like to be rid of its financial burden.

2. They voted on the basis of immigration, hoping that by leaving the EU they wouldn't have to accept those dirty foreigners coming in and stealing their jobs.

3. The rise of nationalism. National sentiment in Britain has been rising in an insular sense and with a desire to rewrite history. Part of this is undoubtedly due to former colonies finding their voice all of a sudden, which must be unnerving if you believed that the empire brought people out of ignorance into a land of milk and honey. But even a cursory view of what Britain is currently producing in terms of art, theatre, cinema and literature confirms a lazy nationalism and a history viewed through rose tinted glass. Take a look at the nonsense that is 'Victoria and Abdul' which would more accurately have been called 'Look At My Latest Exotic Pet.', but that probably wouldn't have sold tickets.. The memorialisation of war, and particularly the first world war, has become quite nauseating in its peculiar obsession. Political contests are won and lost, not on the merits of the argued points, but on who happens to be able to employ vague and unspecified accusations of a loss of sovereignty to best effect. The public long ago swallowed the lie that someone other than the British government was telling everyone what to do and how to live.

Clearly, not everyone who voted for Brexit voted on this basis. There are those who who simply hold to isolationist politics, who resist globalisation, who hold to the 'shock doctrine' and the rich who felt they wouldn't be overly effected by whatever happens. However, I certainly feel that if you took out the votes that directly related to the three areas outlined above you probably wouldn't have a huge vote at all.

[ 25. September 2017, 09:53: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
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!

You're not being expelled - the UK voted to leave. That's not the EU's fault.
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'.

I suppose it's a cover against the possible economic damage which Brexit may bring, then the Ultras can blame the EU.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

But the Tories appear to be rejecting EEA membership, possibly because it has that dreaded word 'European' in it, and the Ultras may actually believe that it is in the EU. But then of course, EEA membership involves free movement (I think).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

But the Tories seem to want to do a trade deal, before doing a secession deal. Or alternatively, they are in full procrastination mode.

It reminds me of my brother-in-law, who when going through divorce, refused to discuss finance, children, and any legal stuff. Avoidance, I suppose.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Yup. "We got ourselves into this mess, so it's your responsibility to get us out of it."

This is known as Taking Back Control.

Actually, come to think of it, they haven't even accepted responsibility for the mess yet. It is the Will of the People (or at least, the will of 52% of those who actually voted in the election and were stupid enough to believe Bojo, Farrago and Gove). So really it's our fault, for being stupid enough to think that sovereignty beans would solve all our problems.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There is the odd situation whereby both Tories and Labour are trying to avoid saying anything too specific. I suppose Mrs May is looking over her shoulder at the Ultras, and the danger of a leadership challenge, so cannot say anything too soft. On the other hand, some journos are saying that the election went badly for her, because a lot of people were scared of her hard Brexit talk.

Labour seem rather similar, although you get the impression that Starmer wouldn't mind a stab at EEA, if Corbyn will let him.

Another possibility is to have another transition after the transition, and then sort of forget that it's a transition. But M. Barnier will get very cross about that.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

But the Tories seem to want to do a trade deal, before doing a secession deal.

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.

And you can, I think, quite sensibly think "we tried to get to a new relationship within the EU, but the EU didn't want that, so now we're trying to get there outside the EU, and we should talk about the important bits first.

The EU, on the other hand, knows that it has the upper hand at the moment, and so is pushing for the "divorce bill" to be settled before any trade negotiations. If it negotiated a new trade deal first, it would have a much weaker negotiating position over the divorce bill.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But you could argue that the Tories are being very picky about doing a trade deal. They are rejecting various avenues, such as EEA, for various reasons, yet keep saying that they want something glorious and all-enveloping. Hence, the accusations about cake and eat it.

I suppose that the secession deal has now become an entry point. I mean, that the EU will judge how much they can trust the UK negotiators, by how much they take seriously the 3 items on the agenda. You could say, not very much, since Mrs May tends to mention them in passing.

Are they not serious because they want to crash out, or because they are frightened by the Ultras, or because they are stupid? Or all of them?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I suppose that's rather inaccurate, since the Tories partly don't want EEA because it contains freedom of movement, and maybe some of them still believe it's in the EU. So they want the nice things, and not the nasty things, but M. Barnier is urging them to take their medicine.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

(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).

This is a circle that cannot be squared, so they are just punting things down the road to the point where they can just blame obstreperous foreigners (I assume also that originally a few of them thought that the EU may fold in the wake of a Brexit vote).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That point about freedom to set regulations could really bite, as there is no way that the EU can give way on this. There is no point in having a common market, without common regulations.

This is the point about non-tariff barriers, since if the UK gives up regulatory convergence, then every border in the EU will become a choke-point for UK goods. If they want to do this, they should be building lorry-parks, constructing IT systems to deal with it all, working out how to fly UK planes, and so on.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Alan:
quote:

....17.4M voted for some form of Brexit...

I think this can be stated in terms of the result but I'm not sure it was actually that straight forward at all.
Which is my point. That number can not be interpreted in a straight forward manner at all.

I generally agree with your big three points, though I hope that very few believed there would be any more money for the NHS as a result of Brexit - the fallacy of the bus slogan had been pointed out by so many people that anyone who still believed it would have a) been stupid and b) probably going to vote Leave anyway.

The lies repeated about immigration for decades was probably the biggest Leave vote winner. Of course, immigration is a net economic and social benefit to the UK (and, every other nation), but the constant repetition that immigration is a problem had resulted in too many people believing it. I think that largely ties in within rising nationalism - if you think immigration is a problem then a xenophobic nationalism is a natural response.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

In any case, having made hay of the 'take back control' argument, that path isn't as easy to take politically as it once was, so they are either being 'realistic' in their terms, or nakedly opportunist. I leave it to the reader to decide which.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
I get there in the end, 37% of the electorate were allowed to destroy our political economy http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020320;p=5#000230
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The lack of definition is a separate issue. Martin's concern is about the numbers, eg on an acceptable quorum.

It looks mindlessly stupid with hindsight not to have included anything about turnout levels or a 2/3 majority, but I think the fact is that both sides thought they had a fair chance at winning on the suggested terms.

Complaining about those terms after having lost on them is a pretty pointless excercise unless it leads to a bill on reforming the conditions for a referendum.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

But I suppose the paralysis is partly a result of looking over their shoulder at the Ultras; they dare not alarm the ultra-right wing, who want to crash out of the EU, and have a low tax, low wage, economy.

By the North blogs I mean Richard North's and his son Peter.

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86634#disqus_thread
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I fear that "never put down to conspiracy what you can safely attribute to incompetence" may well apply here.
 
Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :
 
Nick Clegg's book, published yesterday, How to stop Brexit may interest shipmates following this thread. It is a good read, in my opinion, more significant to people like me who are interested in politics but who are not too sophisticated. He argues passionately that Brexit is not inevitable and pleads for a sort of ground-swell of public opinion.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

If the UK walks out without a deal, it won't be taking the ball with it but leaving the ball behind.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.

What a f*****g shambles. It's hard for a half-way adequate PM in these circumstances and Theresa May was railroaded into the job. I actually feel sorry for her.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
The House of Commons "Leaving the EU" committee was bone-achingly bad this morning.

Experts were basically asked how the dickens this is going to work. They shrugged and said "haven't got a clue".

Nobody has a clue. Nobody has the first idea how this is going to work or how to make it work.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There's only one logical option. Which, of course, the government won't take.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Whatever it is, is politically impossible, therefore illogical.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Only politically impossible if the views of a minority of bigots are considered more important than the good of the country. So, perhaps impossible for the current lunatics running the government.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's only one logical option. Which, of course, the government won't take.

They will end up either tearing the country apart, tearing their party apart, or both.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Well, I for one won't complain if the Tories tear themselves apart.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

If a bad deal means 'worse than WTO rules', then by definition a bad deal is worse than no deal. But for that same reason, 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. So if a bad deal means 'the worst possible deal that the EU is likely to offer', then by definition a bad deal is better than no deal.

So really the question just means 'Which group of voters do you want to appeal to?'
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's only one logical option. Which, of course, the government won't take.

Can you actually map that option out?

[ 17. October 2017, 19:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'd have thought the most logical position is to now say that negotiating a good deal is impossible so we (the UK) are going to stay in the EU for the foreseeable future.

But I fear that even by having a referendum - even if we don't actually eventually leave - the UK has torpedoed the EU.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

And of course we've got a huge problem in that we've got a shedload of pensioners living in Europe who have no unambiguous right to live there even under EU law - given that they're not actually working.

If the whole thing goes completely doolally and the EU states refuse to entertain British pensioners who aren't working, then they'll come home and our NHS will be toast.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There's only one logical option. Which, of course, the government won't take.

Can you actually map that option out?
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.

The logical solution, indeed ISTM the only reasonable option, is for the government to sort out what they want - commission a load of studies on the effects of different forms of Brexit on all aspects of British society, form cross-party working groups (MPs, peers and others) to work through the options engaging the public, go through the Parliamentary processes of select committees and debates ... all the way to a defined and detailed plan for exiting the EU. And, I would like to end the process with a referendum on the revised question.

Of course, that process will take an extended period of time, years if not decades. Certainly more time than is left until March 2019. Therefore, the government would also need to withdraw the Article 50 statement and seek to rebuild as many of the bridges we've burnt as possible (though as we'll still be, potentially, looking at leaving the EU ... well, that puts a different perspective on things that makes our relationship with the EU different).

I can't see any other way out of the difficulty that has been created by a government unable to decide what it wants from Brexit. If the government can't decide what it wants, then let Parliament and the people do so. And, give us the time we need to do that.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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

Largely by following the letter of EU Law, which is explictly drawn up around freedom of movement of 'labour' rather than of 'people':

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_2.1.3.html

The problem now is that all these terms have been freighted with negative connotations that the press use to trigger a response out of the vocal minority of hardline leavers.

And so the most visible members of the Tory Party play a game where they compete to see who can say the most hardline and idiotic thing. One of the current front runners must be that non-thinking-man's idea of a thinking-man, Dan Hannan with this little misinterpretation of what the Empire was about:

https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/919696266522656769
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

"We're not quite sure whether we actually meant to invoke Article 50 or not, so would you chaps mind awfully if we went away to have a think about it, indefinitely?"

A reasonable way forward is one that takes into account the 27 nations the UK is negotiating with. From this side of the Channel, the way the negotiations appear to be going simply adds credence to the idea that in its arrogance, the UK never took the EU seriously in the first place.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
It all comes down to the fact that the Leavers™ promised us a Unicorn and the more this becomes obvious, the more they deny.

AFZ
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
This is becoming a sort of catch 22. The only way to get out of Brexit is to commit political suicide, but if you've got the necessary desire for martyrdom you're either not in power anyway or you're an ardent Brexiteer and want to martyr the whole country with you. I'm kind of hoping that May will see the writing on the wall and decide she wants to save the country even at the cost of the party. I hope the secret legal advice on revoking article 50 supports the idea that it can be done without further recourse to parliament (the relevant bill was enabling the PM rather than compelling).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

[Paranoid]

What kind of banana monarchy is this?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
<weary sarcasm alert>

Listen, EU. The thing is that this marriage simply isn't working so we want to leave now. There are plenty of other fish in the sea, and we are tired of all the bizarre restrictions you want to put on us. We want to manage our own affairs, we want our own bank account.

Now, surely EU can see that the best arrangement is that we continue to cohabit. That way we can continue to share stuff like mature adults.

What? No come on now. That level of severance is ridiculous. Yes, I know what the pre-nup said, but no.

And you can come over to my half of the room and take all your shit away with you to. Wait, what are you doing? We need that. Can't you take the stuff I don't want and leave the stuff that I do.

No, look, now you're being totally unreasonable. I might be up a ladder with a chainsaw, but it is obviously EU who are being totally unreasonable.

The fact is that I'm an unimaginable catch, you've punched far above your weight in getting me. Yes EU have. You need me. You do.

So let's just stop all this arguing and get on with discussing this like adults. What do you mean? I'm being totally reasonable here.

etc and so on </sarcasm>
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Absolutely perfect. Talk to the hand of Barnier. The EU took the pain 15 months ago. They've moved on. Everything else is just solicitors. Singapoor here we come.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
In Singapore, the government owns 90% of the land, 85% of housing is public, and state owned companies account for 20% of GDP.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Aye. How do they tax foreign investment, trade, wealth, income?

[ 18. October 2017, 07:52: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
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.

[Paranoid]

What kind of banana monarchy is this?

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I really don't see how Brexit can be gone back on without unprecedented domestic upheaval.

If a bill passed in Parliament can be reversed without another bill being passed in Parliament, especially in the case of such far-reaching consequences, it strikes me one can do without the Parliament altogether, whilst also setting a precedent for disregarding any popular vote that proves too unpalatable.

The referendum may have been all sorts of unfair but disregarding the result makes things worse for democracy in my view.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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).

We're going to get major domestic upheaval anyway, when the shit hits the fan after we leave. The question is whether we still have a functional economy afterwards.

[ 18. October 2017, 09:21: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

No deal would probably produce economic chaos - I think it would be better to cancel Brexit.

I suppose the govt are hoping for their frictionless trade with the EU, outside the EU. It sounds impossible. They are trapped.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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).

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).

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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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".
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Also, obviously, the pound has fallen against the Euro - and Spanish property that the expats own is falling in value.

And I think I'm correct in saying that if UK pensioners are outside of the EU they do not get the ongoing inflationary state pension increases that they would get at home (and by extension if they're in an EU country).

So they're going to have (a) less money (b) any UK funds they have will be worth less in the Eurozone (c) they're probably going to have to pay more for healthcare (d) they're probably going to be increasingly less welcome because of all these things.

I don't think any of the EU countries is going to have to throw many/any British OAPs out, they're increasingly going to leave because of other factors.

[ 18. October 2017, 10:03: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Reneging on Brexit would be fuel to the far-right's fire.

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:

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?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

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.

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".

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.

I don't see why we should just accept hard Brexit, when it wasn't on the ballot. Some of them want no deal, which would block trade, empty supermarket shelves, and impoverish more people.

In fact, some Leavers were touting the Norway solution before the vote.

I think the longer this impasse goes on, the more that there will be disillusionment with the whole thing. Probably some kind of Associate Membership will be a solution, but it all hinges on the details.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Chris:
quote:

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?


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'.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Reneging on Brexit would be fuel to the far-right's fire.

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:

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?

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.

Pretty nasty stuff though in your quote, a kind of épater la bourgeoisie, with knobs on, where the bourgeoisie are seen as anyone who drinks latte and reads the Guardian. And of course, utter contempt for Labour. Class war, anyone?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Chris:
quote:

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?


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'.
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.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Who's we? Hard Brexit is absolutely politically inevitable. Europe will shut the door and change the locks on schedule and our crap will be out on the street and the bailiffs will be upon us wherever we go. The repo man will take the car.

So what? There won't be any Bulgarians picking OUR turnips. Victory.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think the Tories should have a new campaign slogan: 'Things will only get worse'.

Not only inevitable; deliberate.

Sigh.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

And yes, I think there is a blasé attitude exposed by the sentiments behind wording like:

"Basically it will wipe out the cosseted lower middle class and remind them that they are just as dispensable as the rest of us. "

"I expect to see a cultural revolution where young people actually start doing surprising and reckless things again rather than becoming tedious hipsters drinking energy drinks in pop-up cereal bar book shops or whatever it is they do these days"

"I have always primarily thought Brexit would be a reboot on British politics and culture. In a lot of ways it will bring back much of what is missing"

They are the kind of thing that only someone who doesn't really believe they are part of 'the rest of us' could say.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I'd bid, but by the time you get organised with the Post Office I will probably have to pay excessive import duties to get them into Europe, so I'll just buy here thanks.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
quote:

I expect to see a cultural revolution where young people actually start doing surprising and reckless things again

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes, there is a very "The rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate" feel to all of it.

But that's a fairly common thread that runs throughout the extreme Brexit element (Rees Mogg, Redwood, Johnson etc) none of whom are exactly likely to be facing penury.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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?

You got them after they had been pulled out of the ground by East Europeans.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Reneging on Brexit would be fuel to the far-right's fire.

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:

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?

May as well start now [Smile] 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.

Tubbs

* This might happen anyway if the reports about the size and age of Tory party membership and the voting intentions of most people under 50 are true.

[ 18. October 2017, 11:50: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I predict that the current turmoil in Europe and beyond will lead to the emergence of something resembling the city states of yore. Cities worldwide are increasingly finding themselves at odds with domestic policies and developing increasing clout.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
If the lower middle class are to be wiped out, where are your NCOs to come from, to keep the squaddies in line? or your police, for that matter?

Surely these idiots can only be talking to each other, aren't they?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
If the Right attempts to impose a free-market Brexit on the UK, the consequences could be social upheaval just as bad as if we were to reverse the Brexit process, as the OECD is recommending that we do.

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. Ironically, these are largely the same people who will be taking to the streets if Brexit is cancelled(or if a Norway-type compromise is miraculously fudged through). But as someone remarked upthread, if we're going to have social unrest, let's have it with an economy that still functions. People who still have jobs will be a lot easier to buy off.

If I was a Brexit true believer (for it is a religion, not a political programme), I would be desperate to torpedo the negotiations and get hard brexit now, before the full horror of our self-inflicted predicament percolates into popular consciousness.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That's a good point. The present impasse is like a kind of slow poisoning, and the whole body politic is suffering as well. Hence, we get the ghastly spectacle of Boris talking about the lion roaring, and so on. Politicians have rarely looked so foolish, and indeed, incapacitated. Maybe it's the worst mess since Suez.

So if this drags on and on, there will be more of a push back against Brexit. As Rocinante says, the headbangers may want to guillotine the whole thing, to avoid the push back.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
The beating will be happening, anyone saying otherwise is a liar or a fool.
The choice now is which stick will do the least damage. And, if the pols cannot playing silly buggers, it will be a large, knobby log with nails in it.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
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.

But will they blame Brexit? I suspect not. I think they will more likely blame the EU for being "unreasonable".

"Stewing in own juice" is not an effective teaching tool.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Blaming the EU is being well primed right now. The trash press are gung ho for any sign of EU resistance to UK wishes. This is, well not treacherous exactly, but certainly unreasonable, but also what you would expect from Johnny Foreigner. Why can't they just admire British bullshit?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
There is a lot of anger around now, the JAMs, the Squeezed Middle, the young locked out of home ownership, it seems everyone's angry about something. The Brexit vote wasn't just about the EU, the problems people were kicking against were largely to do with Austerity, regressive taxation and poor working conditions. Unscrupulous politicians were able to persuade large numbers of the electorate that it was all the fault of the EU and immigrants. All this is now a matter of record, more or less.

It would certainly be a political masterstroke for the BarStewards to use the EU as a scapegoat one last time: The EU is to blame for The consequences of us leaving the EU!

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.

Who knows, a future government (not a Tory one, obviously) might then be in a position to actually do something about these peoples' grievances, rather than blaming them on foreigners and the vulnerable.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That's very funny. The EU is to blame for the consequences of leaving the EU. This is a bit like the husband who says, you made me feel lousy, so I hit you, and now, you've made me feel even worse.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

After all, the referendum was swung by promises on the side of a bus and screams of 'Breaking Point!'

The UK has a toxic media culture, which exists almost solely in order to feed outrage into public credulity and convert it into money. I don't see this changing. Whether or not the majority of people *actually* believe them is neither here nor there given that in practice politicians act as if they did and no one protests.

The permanently-pissed off aren't going to buy any narrative that blames their own decisions - they'll always ultimately deflect onto some weak group in society, blame the EU will easily transform into 'blame all foreigners'.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Da-DAH! Starting with London.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Sorry, that was in response to Eutychus.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
If article 50 is revoked, we haven't left. There is no "readmission".

[Killing me]

When will people wake up to the fact that the rest of the world, and the EU-27 in particular, has not ground to a halt while the UK dithers?

According to the European Council the letter from Theresa May triggering Article 50
quote:
starts the withdrawal process
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
'Cause that's that, I can scream, I can shout
I can cry my eyes out but she's not coming back
That's that, I can hope, I can pray
But she's still gone away
And she's not coming back and that's that.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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.
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Hence we have the prospect of British MPs in the Westminster parliament refusing to accept a no-deal Brexit.*

The question is then what happens next.

A scenario whereby the EU refuses to budge forcing the UK to a no-deal exit seems fairly likely at this juncture. A vote in Westminster rejecting this state of affairs seems possible, if not likely.

Some legal experts say that the A50 notification can then be undone, which presumably would mean that the UK carries on as before.

It isn't desirable for the EU, but I don't see how this means that the UK would only be allowed back into the club on different terms. If the change is made before the end of the 2 year period of notification (and assuming that the legal opinions which suggest the A50 thing can be reversed are shown to be correct), then the UK never leaves and "allowing the UK back in" is not what is happening.

But then in the not-very-long term, I don't think it matters anyway: whether or not the UK eventually leaves, the EU is dead.

* not guaranteed, but surely possible - and a reflection of democracy such as we have it here.

[ 19. October 2017, 06:53: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:
Some legal experts say that the A50 notification can then be undone, which presumably would mean that the UK carries on 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:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think it matters anyway: whether or not the UK eventually leaves, the EU is dead.

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:
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?

That would certainly be better than the legal smoke and mirrors you seemed to be referring to previously.

But who is the "we" that "know the mess we're in"? I'm really not convinced that if you went out and re-ran the referendum tomorrow you'd get the outcome "we" would like. This discussion is hardly representative of popular opinion.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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'm not even sure about that. I think there's a trend for "up yours and damn the consequences" votes.

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.

[ 19. October 2017, 07:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
My point was that the method by which it is done won't affect the degree of whining from the leavers - they believe in one person, one vote, once - so why not go with the method that focusses the fallout on as few people as possible. Polling suggests that there has been significant, though not decisive, movement against Brexit. I'd give it a few more months before another referendum just to drive home the sort of disaster we're looking at. I wouldn't want to leave it too long or we'll have lost a lot of jobs and investment just on the possibility of Brexit.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.


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".

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.

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.

quote:
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.

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.

I don't think those things are likely to change, and the fault-lines created by the Brexit vote are only going to make the EU less stable. It is a great shame.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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'm not even sure about that. I think there's a trend for "up yours and damn the consequences" votes.

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.

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.

It is hard to parse how extensive the left's support is disintegrating, but if pressure comes from both the hard right and from the up-to-now supporters on the left, then it is hard to see who now thinks the EU should continue.

Losing a net contributor is going to make the EU weaker, if the election of the far-right into governance in some EU countries leads to increasing bad feelings about sending EU funds south and east (never mind the other issues, including the migrant crisis) it is hard in my opinion to see how the union can continue for long.

[ 19. October 2017, 07:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Hence my prediction upthread of the resurgence, in the long term, of the city-state.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

But, you are correct - there have been several legal experts who have expressed their view that A50 can be withdrawn. I've been told by an MSP who has had a role on the edges of the negotiations that the treaty doesn't specify that there is a way to withdraw an A50 declaration, so whether that's possible is a political question rather than strictly a legal one. Ultimately the question can only be resolved by trying ... will the EU27 let us back away from Brexit at this stage? and, on what conditions? I'm optimistic, if only because Brexit is a distraction from the more important issues facing the EU.

If (when) we back out of Brexit then we'll still be an EU member, but it won't be the same EU and the same relationship. Will the move of European agencies out of the UK stop, or continue? Will private companies who have started to move operations to elsewhere in the EU continue those moves? Other nations in the EU have started to move the EU in a new direction, the UK will have no political capital to influence those moves.

As for the mechanism for the UK to withdraw our A50 declaration, I don't think it can be just by government diktat (despite the penchant for our current government to do everything behind closed doors without bothering Parliament or the people with any input). It needs, at least, a debate and vote in both Houses of Parliament, maybe another referendum.

Of course, a further referendum cannot simply be a rerun of the 2016 referendum. It needs to be a referendum with a different question - be that "do you agree that the UK should withdraw A50 and remain in the EU?" or "do you want the UK to leave the EU on the terms defined by the government?" (with, naturally, access to the details of that form of Brexit and the associated studies that informed that).
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Another suggestion here that the Tories are attempting to use Game Theory to get the deal they want.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

Either:

a) Any negative fallout is a price worth paying to be out of the EU. (But their desire to talk up no deal and walk away now suggest that some of them are savvy enough to realise that once the public realises they've been conned, they might change their minds).

b) Scare stories because they understand nothing.

Politico makes this very valid point:

"... any of the consequences of the Brexit cliff edge are likely to come into focus, and even take effect, well before that last stroke of the clock. While politicians tend to have an extraordinary high tolerance for down-to-the-wire negotiations, businesses and markets loathe uncertainty, and corporate actors are likely to act well in advance. As a result, the drop off the cliff may end up being more of a prolonged, slow-motion abseil than a dramatic leap in the middle of one night."

There's going to be a lot of anger whatever happens. It depends what they want people to be angry about ... Fudging the Referendum or breaking everything.

[ 19. October 2017, 12:25: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.

The EU has to decide what to do about that in response. If they do nothing, refuse to consider making any substantial changes, etc then they watch the UK back off a cliff.

One can almost imagine this diagram on the back of an envelope in Downing Street:
code:
                    EU
No Compromise Compromise

NC very bad UK win, EU
for all lose
UK

C Politically Everyone wins
impossible

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.

Perhaps they are even calculating that the EU states will realise how bad the situation will be if the EU negotiators don't compromise and that they'll come in at the last minute, ditch the prior negotiating position and be prepared to make concessions - on the basis that if the UK don't make concessions then the only outcomes are bad.

On the other hand, this perhaps downplays the importance to the EU of solidarity and how bad it would be (to the union) if the EU does actually compromise.

So perhaps it is all bluff and counter-bluff.

Bollocks, I really hope this isn't how their negotiation strategy looks.
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
I had a really nice mango yesterday, juicy and sweet. I understand that you won't have mangoes after you leave the EU. Sad.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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.

Get a large glass house and grow my own?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.'
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
mr cheesy:
quote:
Bollocks, I really hope this isn't how their negotiation strategy looks.
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.

[ 19. October 2017, 14:41: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Not very long ago, I challenged a leave-voting colleagues to name one way in which our lives will be improved by leaving the EU. She thought long and hard, and eventually came up with "people from the EU won't be able to compete for our jobs". My response was to count the number of non-British citizens in our team, the total being the square root of FA. (It's a diverse team, but we are all born in the UK apart from a couple of people from the subcontinent who have acquired citizenship.) Beyond that she couldn't think of anything. And she still supports Brexit!

The real Brexit headbangers are those of us who are banging our heads against a wall trying to talk people down from this cult, which I increasingly consider it to be.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It's like playing chicken, only the UK is on a bicycle and the EU in a 4x4.

[ 19. October 2017, 15:36: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

I hear the joke a lot now - you won, get over it.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.'

Something like this?
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.

All of the above is based on reading European sources and talking to colleagues who are not British (i.e. ignoring the self-serving nonsense of the UK press).

As I said, I may be wrong but I do think that whilst being welcomed back with open arms is unlikely, being accepted back is a realistic possibility if the UK (especially with a change of PM) revoked A50.

AFZ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Geopolitically the UK is the biggest European player in NATO

Which is unrelated to its membership of otherwise of the EU, isn't it?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'd think there will be less problem from the EU with accepting a withdrawal of the A50 notification than from the Tory Brexit headbangers.

This is the problem that May has; even if the plan is to try to push concessions by holding a hardline until minutes before a deadline, she now has an antagonised wing in her party who will accept nothing other than running full speed off the cliff.

I can't see any scenario where this is going to end well. If we (the UK) renounce A50 then there is going to be significant problems with Brexiteers, never mind the neo-Nazis who wander around in their wake. I've no idea what form that'd take, but I'd imagine at very least they'd cause a 2007-style fuel protest. I'd imagine a campaign of attrition would get very bitter very quickly.

If we accept some deal which doesn't include restrictions on movement, that's equally not going to be good enough.

If we hold out for some deal where only workers can come to the UK (which isn't so different to the deal which happens in some other EU countries), the EU isn't going to accept unless all the current EU citizens get regularised status. Which isn't going to be acceptable.

Indeed, it seems that the only deal which would be acceptable to the hardliners is the very one which seems most impossible and unlikely for the EU to agree: namely one where UK goods and people can move freely within the EU, where the UK is not restricted in trade agreements made with third countries and where the UK doesn't have to follow EU regulations.

Sigh. What a mess.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Geopolitically the UK is the biggest European player in NATO

Which is unrelated to its membership of otherwise of the EU, isn't it?
Technically yes. But I cannot believe that Brexit, especially a bad-tempered process with resentment all round, will do other than weaken NATO.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I'm probably being dense or ignorant but can anyone explain what either side are hoping to achieve with the Irish border?

Both sides agree that there should be no 'physical infrastructure' at the border. And the EU also seems to accept in principle that a trade deal is possible without the UK being part of the customs union.

There is no precedent for the border of a customs union not to have physical infrastructure. Without the physical infrastructure, you don't have a border. Mr Davis thinks some technological solution can be found (e.g. customs declarations made at the depot instead of at the border) but Mr Barnier says the solution must be political, not technological. But there are no political solutions other than putting the border down the Irish Sea instead, which is a good a way as any of pissing all over the Good Friday Agreement.

So it looks like both sides are in absolute agreement that what we really need is a square circle. Then, every few weeks, we're treated to a press conference where Mr Barnier says he's very disappointed at the lack of square circles in the British proposals, while Mr Davis says he's confident that a square circle can be plotted just as soon as a few technical details are overcome.

[ 20. October 2017, 09:43: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

[ 20. October 2017, 09:48: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

Besides which, trade agreements of that sort take a long time to negotiate - and time is not necessarily on the UKs side.

You are assuming again the position of 'they need us more than we need them'
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are assuming again the position of 'they need us more than we need them'

Well I think we need each other. We both gain by thrashing out a satisfactory deal and we both possibly lose without one.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are assuming again the position of 'they need us more than we need them'

Well I think we need each other. We both gain by thrashing out a satisfactory deal and we both possibly lose without one.
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.

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
Well it could do that, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it would benefit from it.

How, out of curiosity, do you think the UK has been 'completely intransigent'?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Anglican't:
quote:
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?
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.

It is less clear that the UK government is acting rationally. Eighteen months after the referendum they are still arguing over what they want from Brexit. They are refusing to publish the results of studies they commissioned on the possible impact of Brexit and seem to think they can solve all their problems by handwaving or 'pencilling things in' on the back of an envelope. They're not fooling anybody.

And they seem to have lost half a trillion pounds down the back of the sofa. Fifth-largest world economy, are we? Not for much longer - and it will be our own fault.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

How, out of curiosity, do you think the UK has been 'completely intransigent'?

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.

but then .. putting Johnson and Rees-Mogg in a box, and ignoring what the Mail, Telegraph and Spectator say for the duration of the negotiations appear to be beyond them.

[ 20. October 2017, 11:09: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

[ 20. October 2017, 12:57: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

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
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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

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?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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?

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).

Tubbs
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
(It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).

Tubbs

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.

Oh yes, I remember. They did, and it got dubbed "Project Fear".

[ 20. October 2017, 14:43: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
(It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).

Tubbs

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.

Oh yes, I remember. They did, and it got dubbed "Project Fear".

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.

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).

The problem now is the the media aren't picking up the hard Brexit brigade on their claims ... That they're mind-readers, knowing exactly what people voted for ... Despite polls that say most people don't want the kind of Brexit they're proposing. They have a better knowledge of trade, business and sectors than people directly involved who say that what they're proposing would be terrible ... They've gone from liking the Norway model to the most extreme version possible ... And not least, they're from a party that has bugger all members, no MPs and almost no counsellors Nigel.

Tubbs

[ 21. October 2017, 19:36: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, the media are treating the headbangers with kid gloves, since no deal is clearly untenable. In fact, they don't mean no deal, they must be referring to an ad hoc collection of deals, for example, on aviation, the carriage of food and animals, pharmaceuticals, machine parts which have to be delivered 'just in time', and so on. Just saying 'on WTO terms' is not really good enough.

I suppose also there is great boredom about it, which allows the nutters to get away with nonsense.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
If by side you mean hard or soft, I agree. The Telegraph-Mail-Sun-Express have WON a scorched earth - their own back yard - war, with all their bridges burnt, all their fields salted, wells poisoned in which they will be the greatest losers. That's that.

There was no rationale for Brexit, we didn't want foreign technocrats reading us the social chapter.

We want all the benefits of socialism without socialism. We want a divorce after which we're richer. We want Johnny Foreign to fuck right off and still spend all his money here and if 'e don't it just shows wot uh bastard 'e was and 'ow right we were, the bastard. Tellin' us wot ter do. Bastard. Pickin' our turnips. Bastard. Talkin' Polish at the doctor's. Cow. Now look wot 'e's made us do?! BASTARD!
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I often don't really understand your posts, Martin, but I think you pretty much nailed it there.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Hmmm. I feel uncomfortable satirizing the uneducated, the poor, the old; the left behind who felt they had nothing to lose by pulling down the temple. It wasn't their fault. Can we even blame the swivel eyed loons of the Tory party? Were ambitious Tory MPs, swinging in the wind pivotally to blame?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
(It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).

Tubbs

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.

Oh yes, I remember. They did, and it got dubbed "Project Fear".

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.

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

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.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
And today, David Davis admitted what many cynics have suspected all along... for him and many other Tory Brexiteers, Brexit is a game that is very exciting because they think it's fun to screw up a country and see what happens. Secure in sufficient wealth that they don't give a damn who it screws. And willing to blame everyone else when it all goes wrong.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm hoping, possibly against hope, that access to these accounts is conditional on membership of the EU/EEA + Swiss trading bloc.

There are going to be some substantial drawbacks, even for the rich, but the Brexiteers are too stupid to realise it yet. At least we know we're screwed.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Some of the more 'moderate' leavers have written on this topic:

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86556

(Richard North is Pete North's father, and co-author of the Flexcit paper). The presence of Phillipa Stroud as CEO of Legatum is interesting - as someone who has past connections with both the religious right and the fringes of the Republican party.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know how many Ultras are fans of disaster capitalism...

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?

[ 25. October 2017, 13:31: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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?

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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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].

So your question is only a serious one if you assume that both are a set of realistic possibilities - most don't.
 
Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

At the moment, the fact is the UK is succeeding in SPITE of heading towards Brexit, not because of it. The government has not yet got the message that it is not possible to endlessly do more with less, although the Universal Credit changes, the issues with the NHS and Local Councils should be screaming this at them. The same will be true of many significant industries.

When we were told by prominent Brexiteers that we would have to work harder to make a success of Brexit, I and many others of my generation are going: 'how can we do that?' I know literally no-one of my mid-to-late twenties graduate friends that doesn't take work home with them on a regular basis. Many of us work 60+ hour weeks. And this is why you will find many of them telling you that they hate Brexiteers and everything they stand for, and why we (twenties + thirties graduates) voted to Remain overwhelmingly. Because we don't have much left to give. A hard patch before things get better is not going to help a generation increasingly struggling with mental health due to substantial overwork by faceless corporations that doesn't give a damn about them. It will just mean a significant increase in the suicide and mental health illness rate that will hugely cut productivity.

The reason I think Brexit can't be a success because such a drastic change will require harder work from people who have nothing left to give. And that's the truth no one in leadership wants to admit.
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know how many Ultras are fans of disaster capitalism...

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?
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.

[ 25. October 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Well said, Marsman. The worst consequences of Brexit may well not be economic (though I am personally preparing as best I can for a long recession and the possible premature end of my career.)
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
Indeed one of the worst short-term consequences of Brexit we are likely to face is the political choice between Corbyn's Labour and a hard-Brexit Conservative party. I would take Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, Brown, Milliband, Hague, Foot, Callaghan, Eden or Screaming Lord Sutch in a heartbeat over either of the current choices.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Good post, Marsman. I haven't thought about it in terms of people being expected to work harder, but it is rather sobering.

It's possible that the two sides will stumble towards some kind of deal, I suppose a kind of associate membership. The govt will then have to disguise this, so that the Ultras don't see any trace of the word 'Europe' in it, and so that others don't realize that we have a much worse trading relation with Europe. What did we expect?

I see that the Mail is now talking about 'remainer universities'. Good God, what rough beast slouches towards Bethlehem?

[ 26. October 2017, 11:11: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Nice to know our universities are staffed by rational people, isn't it. Who'd have thought...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Nice to know our universities are staffed by rational people, isn't it. Who'd have thought...

And that they are being hounded by the lunatic right wing. Where are we going?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I was watching David Davis in the Commons just now. MPs were debating whether they'd get a substantive vote on an EU Brexit deal.

Davis said a lot of things, but the gist seemed to me to be the following:


The implication appears to be that if MPs reject the deal (which Davis reckons they'll be able to debate before it goes to the European Parliament or other parties) then the only other option is to leave with no-deal. Because there won't be time to negotiate anything else.

And further, it appears that if the British parliament votes to agree with the proposals, this isn't actually binding on either party, so they can continue negotiating until just before the deadline.

But the part that makes least sense to me is that if the UK Parliament votes in favour of the proposals, and the negotiations then continue until midnight the night before Brexit day - then all the other parties have still got to agree and/or ratify the agreement, which they couldn't before it actually was an agreement rather than just a proposal.

Which therefore seems to suggest that there is a black-hole immediately afterwards. The UK and EU agree the thing, the UK Parliament votes for it, the parties come out of the negotiation smiling and shaking hands. It is then sent to everyone else for ratification.

So what happens until it is ratified?

Utter chaos.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I thought it was just me who felt like we were all contestants in a reality TV show...
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
We are being lied to on so many issues - EEA, the idea of no deal, WTO rules, non-tariff barriers, and the media mainly give the right wing view. And then the lunatic right wing target the treacherous remainers in universities and the BBC.

Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Meanwhile Fox's trade department is trying to conjure up bilateral deals which inevitably run interference with one another and with the overall exit strategy.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The port at Dublin is being dredged, to prepare for deeper cargo ships and cruisers. I think this work has been prepared for years, but I wonder if there might be just a teeny-tiny soupcon of a thought crossing the Irish authorities' minds, that it might be useful to take sea traffic away from British ports coming from Zeebrugge, etc.? Just supposing that traffic to these becomes more difficult after Brexit, every British cloud has an Irish silver lining.

This information is taken from DredgingToday.com, and I urge everyone to read this, fascinating stuff.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
It's not just a soupçon of thought - they're doing it. They are also buying up fleets of haulage trucks from all over Europe and we've been so preoccupied with building new commercial properties that we've neglected to build normal housing.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
But then this might just be practical thinking. If there is no way to the EU other than via the UK, stuff going to the EU is going to have to go via Wales and England. And whatever the trade deal is or isn't, that's going to involve more complexity than at present.

I'd have thought it makes good sense to have more direct sea routes.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It would probably make sense even without Brexit, which is presumably why it's been planned for years. But, being able to trade freely without bothering about stupidity in the UK is a bonus. And, if the UK government manages to get the square circle of the UK being outside the customs union and an open border in Ireland then it will probably be easier for trade from the EU to go through Dublin to get to the north than going through the rest of the UK.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It would probably make sense even without Brexit, which is presumably why it's been planned for years.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by LilBuddha:
quote:

it has to have been in planning for years.

Kinda like Brexit then? That didn't happen overnight as far as I remember.
 
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :
 
I just watched Have I Got News For You and heard about that call for universities to give up names of their Brexit-teaching academics. Is this the UK now? It is rather shocking.

Best wishes to you all.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Re expansion of the port of Dublin: isn't that just a consequence of the widening of the Panama canal?

The maximum size of a ship is determined by the size of the locks on the Panama canal. These were recently expanded, which in turn creates a new generation of supermassive ships. Liverpool was recently expanded for this reason- not because the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company expects a huge upturn in trade, but so that the port isn't forced to turn ships away as too big.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

It is entirely rational for the 27 to say: 'yes we would prefer a deal to no deal, but no deal will only affect 8% of our exports whereas it will affect 44% of the UK's. So no deal will hurt the UK more. We can share the pain amongst a lot more countries and a lot more people.'

It is why in a negotiation of 440 mil v 65 mil the 440 mil have the upper hand by some way.

The thing they won't do is give us such a good deal that it will (even remotely) destabilise the single market. There is no way that, say, the German Car industry would want to undermine the integrity of the EU.

[ 31. October 2017, 10:30: Message edited by: Luigi ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Luigi:
quote:

Why would they give a 'cake and eat it deal' to the UK and not to the 3 largest economies in the world?

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.
 
Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Luigi:
quote:

Why would they give a 'cake and eat it deal' to the UK and not to the 3 largest economies in the world?

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.
It does, doesn't it!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It looks really daft in black and white. I don't think it looks any better in red, white and blue. Even rose-tinted it's pretty bonkers.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
Simon Stevens, head of the NHS in England asks a rhetorical question.

I expect he'll be asked to resign. Watch this space.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
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.

They're still working on the first two: one marked "Arse" and the other "Elbow".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I think their first impact study was on the brewing industry, and required a visit with some drinks ... they're still struggling to organise it.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.


On the contrary, they are exactly as the Remain campaigners suggested. Not convincingly enough though, which says nothing complementary about the British.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Well, the Department for Exiting the European Union is advertising the role of insight and evaluation officer currently. Which seems a trifle late.

BBC Radio 4 currently has a series called Brexit: A Guide for the Perplexed - today's edition was about Euratom and the issues not having a deal with that will cause.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Fast forward to 2015 and Cameron has a similar sized majority, and the referendum is clearly actually a referendum on the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservatives. If he wins he shuts them up, but oops, he lost and now we are in a mess.

If only he'd had the courage to do what Major did and resign and stand again when it got rough. 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...
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.

Certainly Major's "back me or sack me" gambit was political genius compared to Cameron's inept attempt at re-negotiation followed by disastrous referendum campaign.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.


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).
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
FWIW I would agree that Major wasn't a total disaster - he just ended up looking done in by everything at the end. He did do some good stuff, particularly for Northern Ireland where he and Albert Reynolds got on well. Blair might have bagged the glory for that in the end, but Major did a lot before then.

It all certainly looks like a golden age compared to today...

ETA - oh, and he did manage to get stuck into people in the street on his soap box - something we haven't really seen from a party leader again until Corbyn.

[ 09. November 2017, 11:40: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

But I'm sure that couldn't possibly be the case...
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
So the date is set, and so even is the hour...

23:00 GMT on Friday 29 March 2019.

Matthew 24:36...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Bertie Ahern spells it out.

I heard the interview and it gives a clear explanation of why the UK position over the Northern Ireland border is incoherent. Avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and Eire is only possible by three means.

1. The Brexit deal requires the UK to agree to the single market and customs union position.

OR

2. The UK agrees to establish a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.

OR

3. Ireland is reunified and the reunified country remains in the EU.

The DUP, which is propping up the UK government, is opposed to all three options, but so far as I am aware has no coherent alternative to a hard border with Eire.

The Tories have set their face against option 1 as a negotiated outcome, and cannot accept either option 2 or option 3 for constitutional and political reasons.

The 'soft border' option is now seen as technically unworkable, creating a soft option for uncontrolled movement of goods both ways.

As Bertie Ahern puts it, Brexit has created a hell of a mess for the island of Ireland.

I'm well aware of the historical ingenuity of EU officials in coming up with fudges to square circles. But over the Northern Ireland border, I think they are right to argue that the UK position is incoherent and untenable. That doesn't strike me as politics or negotiating tactics. If the UK government wants to withdraw from the single market and the customs union, then Northern Ireland must have a hard border with the south. And that border is notoriously difficult to police and maintain.

And negotiating a single market customs union deal under Brexit will bring down the UK government.

Can any of my Shipmates see any way out of this for the UK government? A hard Brexit seems also to mean a hard Northern Ireland border.

[ 11. November 2017, 06:38: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I can imagine an EU fudge along the lines of NI becoming a "Special Administrative Region" of the UK à la Hong Kong.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
{Across the Pond caveat.}

Maybe let N. Ireland go, if the majority so votes?

Weird question: Should the ethnic Irish in NI have a weighted vote, compared to the English Irish? (Just popped into my head.)

The article, linked a couple of posts up, included:

quote:
“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.”

How accurate do Irish and UK Shipmates think that is?

Thx.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The DUP would accept reunification of Ireland over their dead bodies (hopefully not literally).

AIUI, the Tory government does not have a majority without the DUP. Reunification of Ireland is a lot less likely than the government collapsing and a soft Brexit being back on the table, and even that doesn't look likely.

NI really does have more to lose even than the rest of the UK over Brexit and nobody much seems to care.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Ok. If Ireland and NI decided to reunite, would the British/UK gov't send in the military to stop it?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I don't see any route by which "they" could "decide" that unilaterally by peaceful means any more than I could see Texas simply deciding to leave the Union and absorb itself into Mexico.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bertie Ahern spells it out.

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)

Both of these have democratic, constitutional, health, safety, economic issues.

I suspect a happy Brexit deal, could in theory use elements of these (it's a sea crossing to 26 of the countries anyway, if it were Normandy it would be a different issue). You'd have to ensure that the regulations in and border to NI was close enough to not damage Eire. Eire would need compensation for the trade damages of any extra checks. So it would need the UK to move on 1&2. But if it could be shown that there were at most 10,000 bottles of beer without measurements in ml, but otherwise identical lose in Europe. Then it's probably not the end of the world.

On the other hand if we went back to our form of Opiate trafficking, that would be.

[ 11. November 2017, 07:35: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

Well, Texas talking about secession is a long-running thing, but as its own republic. I doubt Mexico wants it, if only because of all the attendant hassle.

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.

[ 11. November 2017, 07:40: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
4. The EU agrees to establish a hard border between Eire and the rest of the UK.

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...
quote:
5. All 27 countries of the EU follow the UK
I don't understand this option.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Well, Texas talking about secession is a long-running thing

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.
quote:
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.
This pretty much echoes the popular thinking behind Brexit*, I would say.

Brits finding the EU allegedly does something absurd (banana sizes) or wrong (takes their money, hands down pro-terrorist rulings†) makes them into Brexiteers, waving away the problems with losing the nice bits or borders. They were only half-serious, but a couple of political opportunists led by Cameron and Farage conned them into believing their half-serious dream could come true, and now it has, only it's a nightmare.

=

*And Catalonian independence
†In the mistaken belief that the ECHR has something to do with the EU (admittedly, the ECHR is literally across the road from the European Parliament in Strasbourg, but they are wholly separate institutions)
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Bertie Ahern spells it out.

For completeness you do have

For further completeness.

6. Northern Ireland becomes an independent nation state within the EU, or at least the single market and customs union.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
5. All 27 countries of the EU follow the UK
I don't understand this option.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The article, linked a couple of posts up, included:

quote:
“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.”

How accurate do Irish and UK Shipmates think that is?
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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.)

Only if you wanted to screw up the Good Friday Agreement.

Also Northern Irish Protestants aren't English. In origin they are mostly Scottish but they've been there long enough - as long as white people in America - to develop their own culture.
quote:
Ok. If Ireland and NI decided to reunite, would the British/UK gov't send in the military to stop it?
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.

I am not sure by what mechanism the people of Northern Ireland are supposed to express their desire for reunification, but I assume it would start with electing a republican majority in the Northern Ireland Assembly - which doesn't seem likely within the next few years.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

I don't think this is possible in one go.

If the EU's position on Scotland is anything to go by, NI would have to first become an independent nation state (how?) and then apply to join the EU.

Even if NI was independent now and started the application process tomorrow, there's no way it would be able to enter new membership by March 2019.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Richardus:
quote:

I am not sure by what mechanism the people of Northern Ireland are supposed to express their desire for reunification

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.

The real question comes later - after Brexit is rolled out fully. In the midst of political crisis, economic hardship, isolationism and businesses wanting to be int he EU zone for the sake of trade, NI may become something of a wasteland. It has only ever been buoyant on the basis of outside investment and the UK consistently propping it up. There are some signs that people who would not have contemplated a united Ireland, are now. If it doesn't descend into violence I'd say there's a significant chance a referendum on a united Ireland might actually pass. The question remains as to how Ireland would respond.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

I don't think this is possible in one go.
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
It is remarkable - and deeply sad - that Britain has been the undoing of one of the flagship enterprises of peace in the world, so often held as an example of what might be possible elsewhere in seemingly intractable conflicts. It was never even mentioned in the campaign - not even once. But then I guess it was done under duress with pressure from the EU and the USA. Still; cutting your nose off to spite your face has sunk to a whole new level on this one. Right from the start I always said the real question of the referendum over Brexit was 'Am I my brother's keeper?' Britain has consistently responded during these dark days with a sharp 'F@&k off'.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Indeed. The strong possibility of Brexit torpedoing the GFA should have been sufficient reason to vote against it, for anyone (other than a hardcore Ulster unionist) who thought about the issues for more than thirty seconds.

The DUP are laughing at us.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Richardus:
quote:

I am not sure by what mechanism the people of Northern Ireland are supposed to express their desire for reunification

It would be by referendum.
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.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
5. All 27 countries of the EU follow the UK
I don't understand this option.
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.
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.
I didn't posit it as a good/fair/likely option* .

*By itself. In proportion to Britain, doing the reverse in a controlled fashion, it's different. Practically the ideal option would be if Britain, France, Germany, ... had proportionate say through some common supra-national democratic organization.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

In other words, the best solution is for the UK to remain in the EU.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I know it's hard to come to terms with, but that ship sailed long ago.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Ricardus:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I really don't understand the DUP policy at all whatsoever. Whilst it might be true that individual constituencies they won voted Leave, overall (I think) NI voted Remain.

And yet the DUP seem hell-bent on the hardest of hard Brexits. Surely they must know what the almost inevitable future for NI would look like. Surely they must realise what that would do to their future electoral prospects.

Madness.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Just another example of Brexit face-spiting. Hard Brexit will sabotage the Good Friday Agreement and make any cross-border collaboration much more difficult. To the DUP that is well worth sending Ulster back to the 50's -

- the 1650's , that is.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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)

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).

Which tells you all you need to know really. These people inhabit some kind of 18th/19th century fantasy land.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I know it's hard to come to terms with, but that ship sailed long ago.

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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Thanks for all the responses to my questions. Wishing whatever's best in all the situations.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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)

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.

However doom-laden leaving appears, I really can't imagine an electable UK prime minister of any stripe standing up and saying "sorry guys, we've decided this was all a big mistake and we've changed our minds". And if it did happen, it would almost certainly plunge the country into an even deeper political crisis, Catalonia style, amid arguments over legality, legitimacy, etc.

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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, as we've been reminded again this week, Article 50 can be revoked.

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.)
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I haven't heard a credible alternative plan, I'm not sure there could be one. Ever since the referendum we've been thrashing about in search of square circles and unicorns.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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)

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.
Whether any UK government would is different from whether the government could.

quote:

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.

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.

Of course if we're denied the opportunity to have a say on the government's plan then we will get a say in subsequent elections. It won't be long before a party stands on a platform including regaining EU membership - some parties already have that aim. Does it count as dithering if there is a strong movement within the UK to rejoin?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure there can be much dithering.

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.

With such a huge difference of expectations even before anything happens, the potential for chaos, confusion, further weakening of institutions, loss of stability and loony parties emerging à la Catalonia is to my mind even higher than going ahead on the current basis.
quote:
But, the people will have had a chance to have their say and that generally concludes things for a generation.
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?

quote:
Does it count as dithering if there is a strong movement within the UK to rejoin?
No, but I note you used the word rejoin. Contrary to your previous posts, that implies acceptance of the fact of leaving.

Leaving and rejoining later on other terms is another question altogether, but on the face of your own assertion above it wouldn't be for another generation.

Dithering is what's going on now.

As so often when it comes to the EU-27's perception of the UK's behaviour, thinking article 50 can be revoked at the UK's whim comes across as wanting to have your cake and eat it (or at the very least, deciding the terms on which the cake is to be eaten unilaterally): seeking to prolong the state of not quite being sure whether the UK wants to leave or not for as long as it sees fit.

Once again, this is unreality. Even if it were realistically possible, deciding on its own whether Article 50 can be revoked is not, in realpolitik, a decision that can be taken by the UK alone. The EU-27 cannot afford to accept such behaviour and rightly so to my mind. Economic decision-making has moved on, albeit without full clarity, on the assumption that the UK is leaving.

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.

[ 12. November 2017, 15:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2017/11/12/british-lawmaker-advises-investors-to-take-their-money-out-of-the-uk/# 52edb88f4c1e

Redwood isn't on the cabinet, but he appears to have been all over the news like a rash recently.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Davis has just announced that

quote:
the agreement will only hold if Parliament approves it.
as he revealed a binding vote on the final deal

Which certainly makes it interesting. Does that mean if the deal is rejected in parliament, that we leave with no deal, or we don't leave?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I have a terrible feeling Rocinante's right, and that this is just a way of being able to share out the blame on other people when it all goes pear-shaped.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The BBC report says the vote by Parliament would be before the EU nations get to vote on it. That makes it theoretically possible that the government could go back to the EU and try to negotiate another deal that would be satisfactory to Parliament. Though the time frame would be incredibly short. 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 (though the nutters at the right will object to even a penny as a divorce bill, and may object to guarantees on rights of EU nationals, the majority of the House isn't that stupid). Then as long as there's an agreement that there will be an interim transitional period, and an indication of a sensible aim, then a vote on that could pass as well ... and, if the House votes for attempting to reach a different end point after transition then there's all the time during the transition to get that negotiated.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I think Rocinante is probably right. Pass the buck is a totally cynical strategy, but what else is there?

There was a line in 'Yes Prime Minister' about getting into the EU to make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing. We'll, a pig's breakfast is what we've now got.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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

What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?

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.

I assume what he means is that there will be checks at the border but that those with some kind of special ticket/pass will not face duties.

The problem with this seems to me to be the risks to the EU. Once again, it appears that the British government is deliberately stoking this problem to make it even worse, then sitting back to watch for the EU response, on the basis that they (the EU) have too much invested in NI to allow the border issue to destroy the Republic.

The problem for the EU is that the Republic is away from the rest of continental Europe with the UK in the way. If the beliefs of the UK Brexit believers are realised, then the UK will have a massive increase in trade with partners elsewhere in the world. One worry for the EU is that these imports will slip into the EU via a border in NI. There seems less of a worry about the reverse happening.

Also Davis' comments don't seem to deal with the movement of people across the Irish border, which of course is currently completely free. Even if they can introduce some kind of customs arrangement without causing chaos (which, to be honest, is unlikely), what are they going to do about people and stuff they're personally importing/exporting.

Once again, this smacks of the Tories trying to play with Game Theory to get what they want: which presumably is no change whatsoever in the status of NI (with a convenient back-door into the EU). The problem is that it seems fairly clear that the EU cannot agree to that.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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

What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?
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.
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The DUP, required by the current UK government for a parliamentary majority, will vote against a soft border and against any form of internal border. The Republic of Ireland is opposed to a hard border. Do I have that right?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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

What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?
Hard border with the mainland, soft border on the island itself - fudge on the customs union for N.I. Some kind of special status.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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".

[ 14. November 2017, 07:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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".

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.

But at the same time, they're saying that they want the closest possible relationship between NI and the Republic - largely (I think) because of the economics of the thing. There are many cross-border links in Ireland that only happen because of the border status, it seems.

I can't see how they can have both. But an arrangement like HK (whereby NI is neither in the EU nor the rUK for the purposes of customs) seems to be the worst of all worlds for the DUP. I really don't have any clue what it is that they want or think they can get.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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".

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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

I'm not totally familiar with the HK-China customs and passport situation, but I assume that there are some controls there.

But in general, I'm not sure anyone is going to go for a solution whereby NI gets to have an open door both to the EU and the rUK. 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).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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).

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" [Two face]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
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.

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!
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.

He came across as a man of action for whom policy detail (and politics in general, really) was a bit of a bore. An ideal pick for leading the most complex negotiations this country has ever entered into. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I don't think age is an issue, Davis is basically the same age as Jeremy Corbyn. Competence is an issue, Davis appears to be even less competent than Theresa May.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The clock normally gets stopped if the absence of a timely solution is mutually damaging. I think that would happen if the multi billion dollar divorce settlement is contingent on everything else being sorted in time. While we're still in, we have to pay our dues. If we threaten to leave unilaterally, tell the EU to go whistle for the divorce settlement, the EU may blink, and offer to stop the clock. The alternative looks like a trade war, maybe also a European court legal battle.

So I suppose the clock might get stopped out of mutual fear of consequences
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:


So I suppose the clock might get stopped out of mutual fear of consequences

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.

I can only conclude that he's rationalising that it will all work out in the wash.

It won't. We're screwed.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So I suppose the clock might get stopped out of mutual fear of consequences

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

I don't know how, for example, to weigh the cost to the EU of getting the Irish border wrong. As it stands, a no-deal appears to involve not only the EU only receiving whatever exit payments the British government feels like giving then but also a huge hole in the finances going forward and a massive problem in Ireland.

Similar with the free-skys arrangement. We might think that the balance of pain is mostly on the UK if there is no agreement about planes landing in the EU. But I don't know how to assess the impacts of British tourists abandoning EU resorts because there are no cheap flights.

It seems unlikely now, but presumably it wouldn't be so tricky to have cheap flights going to other places outside of the EU if the local tourism industry (possibly in North Africa or the Middle East) saw it as an opportunity and pushed to develop the market for British tourists.

I still think that the major sword hanging over the British government is the British OAPs in the EU. Davis has been fudging this by talking about EU citizens in the UK, but I can't see that anything he says is really dealing with the issue of large numbers of British expats who are economically inactive inside the EU.

If there are fewer working EU citizens in the UK, there seems less urgency to continue to allow/encourage UK retirees to continue living in the Costa del whatever.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
But then I also see that the British government is basically doing a dump on the EU's doorstep, pointing at it and then folding arms whilst tapping feet - as if it is the EU's problem to sort out.

The problem is that if the EU doesn't sort it out, the UK ain't gunna.

What a nightmare.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What sort of deal on the Irish border do you see being made and passed quite easily?

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.

His actual answer - when examined closely - was considerably vaguer.

Besides - the government has no hope in hell of speccing out and building an 'electronic tagging system for customs' in time.

Davis' tactic seems to be to repeatedly put on and take off his glasses while waffling.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I just read this news item.

Am I the only person to be even more confused at the end than at the beginning?

(And once again, to despair at the lack of any consideration at all of what is happening on the EU-27 side?)
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Perfidious Albion, Eutychus. We have a 500 year history of seeking to divide the French and the Germans, or the French and the Spanish, or, let's face it, the French and just about any other country. The inner meaning of the entente cordiale.

As Jim Hacker described it, following his visit to meet the US President "It went very well! We swooped briefs and spent the rest of the time rubbishing the French".

All this historical mutual mistrust is now coming back to bite us. Bloody David Davies. Bloody Redwood. Bloody Boris. Where's that Gunpowder?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
1. The clock can't be stopped if the Brexit date (and time!) are set in stone in an Act of Parliament, as announced by Mrs May.
2. If the 'meaningful' vote of approval goes against any 'deal' the negotiators come up with, we leave anyway without a deal.
3. The light visible at the end of the tunnel is indeed an oncoming train.
4. But no worries, President Trump will save us.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Interesting evidence yesterday from various car manufacturers to a parliamentary committee. The fears are often connected with 'no deal', but there is another problem - that leaving the Customs Union means that manufacturers have to secure 'type approval' for their goods. This could mean that production has to stop.

Some journalists express this as the EU 'threatening' the UK, but in fact, it seems to be an automatic consequence of being a third country. I wonder if MPs and ministers have got a grip of this?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Forgot link:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/14/honda-uk-warns-mps-of-consequences-of-leaving-eu-customs-union
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if MPs and ministers have got a grip of this?

From what we've seen since the referendum, I'm guessing they haven't.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
If only the UK economy post-Brexit were powered by metaphor... [Killing me]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if MPs and ministers have got a grip of this?

From what we've seen since the referendum, I'm guessing they haven't.

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.

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'.

I don't know if this is true, but if it is, it is an irresponsible gamble, because if the EU don't panic, then we are out, we are a third country, and we have no permission to export to EU.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's a game of chicken with the UK negotiating team in a clapped out Morris Minor facing the EU negotiating team in a Mercedes articulated lorry. Who's going to come out worst if neither side flinches?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
What I find shocking is that we are all having to guess, because of the lack of information forthcoming. Perhaps they are playing chicken, perhaps not, but it's difficult to tell. Of course, I get that you can't advertise that you are playing chicken, but it leaves the UK public in the dark.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
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.

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."

To which the EU response was along the lines of "we want you to stay, but not at the cost of severely limiting the freedoms and principles that are the foundation of the single market". He came back pretty much empty-handed, some minor technical changes to immigrant benefit entitlements dressed up as a game-changing victory.

Clearly nothing has been learned from Cameron's experience: that the EU doesn't consider continuing British membership or participation in the single market to be more important than the four freedoms. The juggernaut will just mow us down and carry on its merry way.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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'.

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.

I think what led here was a certain sense of hubris and exceptionalism [Throwing the problem of the NI back on the Republic just shows the extent to which exceptionalism pervades the whole thing
].

The Tory Brexiters assumed that everything was either fairly straight forward - or would be made to be so by a trade block that would be declining economically/politically and would be eager for a deal (Le Pen gets voted in, Euro blows up, Southern European block has a major split with the Central Europeans). I'm ignoring for a minute those who are either mad, bad or sophists (JRM, Redwood, Hannan etc).

In the event, the EU is doing well enough to paper over any fault-lines - and so they have gone for a de-politicised approach which hasn't so far allowed the UK to take advantage of any wedge issues.

Faced with this, the government can literally do nothing except play out the time and follow the strategy of Mr Micawber. The result is this weird limbo where they hope someone else can solve the issues, or that events overtake the negotiations. The problem is that the people in their own party won't settle for a longer negotiation period, or a transition arrangement that is long enough for circumstances to change.

In this situation, the only thing possible is hope and a fall back strategy of blame.

[ 15. November 2017, 19:28: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It's never got beyond seeing it as essentially a trading partnership - the "Common Market". So much misunderstanding stems from that.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

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.

It's never got beyond seeing it as essentially a trading partnership - the "Common Market". So much misunderstanding stems from that.

Absolutely. As someone remarked in the referendum: people on the continent see the EU as a church, the British see it as a supermarket.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
It's depressingly ironic that the more Remembrance Day has been promoted, even fetishised, the less people seem to remember about the history of conflict in Europe.

People,vote for far right parties in the context of a global financial down turn - and very long recovery period - as if this will solve a problem rather than replicate the problems of the early part of the 20th century.

How on earth do people not see this ?
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
May I ask a question, from across the Pond?

Do the people and countries of the EU like each other enough to be in a union? I gather that one purpose of the EU is to prevent another European war.

But, as was just mentioned, different EU member countries seem to have different ideas about what it all means.

It took the US a long time to put a union together, and a lot of hard work and arguing. I think our last state, Hawai'i, joined in 1959. And we still have places like Puerto Rico that are kind of half in and half out.

Theoretically, the colonies joined together to do things they couldn't easily do separately. States gradually joined the colonies-turned-states. A good chunk of that was probably due to wealthy individuals seeking more power. So it wasn't all clean, and happy, and honorable. And not necessarily due to a vision of peace and cooperation.

Sorry for meandering. I guess I'm saying that if the UK really wants in or out, I hope you get whatever's best. If it doesn't work out right now, maybe it's something that needs a lot more time?

And no, you don't need to be like the US. It's just that, from over here, the Common Market and the EU have formed comparatively quickly.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

In the UK, WW2 was something "we won" (with a little help from the Americans). Elsewhere, it's more like something "we survived". It took me many years of living in France a) to realise I lived under the former assumption b) to realise it was not shared within Europe outside the UK c) to realise what a huge effect differing assumptions in this respect had on the various national psyches, with each of those realisations taking longer than the previous one.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

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.

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.

There are plenty of centrifugal forces within the EU - and at one point a lot of the smaller countries worked closely with the UK for just such a reason. Similarly, there is no serious convergence path on which Norway/Switzerland joins the EU and the Euro.

The UK's failure has been a failure to recognize the rules based nature of the arrangement, and thus try to go for something custom (doubly difficult as the acceptable range of custom options changes daily) or even to reinterpret existing rules more favorably[*], but then all the existing possible arrangements have already been ruled out by some vocal part of the Tory party.

[*] The UK could for a long time have operated on the basis of freedom of movement of labour which is all the directive requires.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Eutychus--

**Ah.** Makes sense. Thx for the explanation.

And I'm guessing that maybe there's resentment of the UK on the continent for not being invaded?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

Tell the people of Coventry, for example, that the UK hadn't been scarred by WW2.

quote:
They don't realise this isn't 1945 any more.

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.

So your final statement needs to shift by about a decade. "They don't realise this isn't 1955 anymore", or maybe 1935. Sometime I wonder if 1845 might be closer to the period they think the UK is in.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Those governing us (or purporting to) appear to be operating on the same principle as the French politician Ledru-Rollin: 'I am their leader; I must follow them.'
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Tell the people of Coventry, for example, that the UK hadn't been scarred by WW2.

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".

The moment this came home to me was seeing a wartime photo of a Wehrmacht soldier outside my (still relatively unchanged) local department store. It's like the feeling when as a child you watched the invasion of the daleks only for real.

quote:
So your final statement needs to shift by about a decade. "They don't realise this isn't 1955 anymore"

Agreed; I actually considered putting the 1950s.

[ 16. November 2017, 08:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's just that, from over here, the Common Market and the EU have formed comparatively quickly.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's just that, from over here, the Common Market and the EU have formed comparatively quickly.

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.
So far. It really doesn't look good with the resurgence of extreme nationalism and racism.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!)

There's a very different dynamic at play now. Rather than accommodating the desires of one of its most important members, the EU is now being asked to do special favors for a (future) non-member country that has demonstrated that anything less than 100% capitulation is unacceptable.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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!)

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).

The EU27 already got together and decided what their stance for initial negotiating would be, and instructed Barnier accordingly.

The only way of losing is to not play - i.e not be in the room when the rules are decided (which from what Gummer says is something he realised early on).
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
David Davis has been telling the EU not to put politics above prosperity; it is never a smart choice.
He should know.

[ 17. November 2017, 06:31: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Yes, thanks DD for summing up the case against Brexit so succinctly.

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. I don't see leaving the EU as something he would die on the barricades for. He was a minister for Europe under Major and as a whip he was responsible for keeping the Maastricht rebels in line.

Close involvement with the Brexit negotiations might well be enough to change the mind of someone who doesn't like detail work and was never that committed in the first place...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

The longer the negotiations go on, the more this seems like his good luck in stumbling across a set of principled positions.

One snippet from the last few days - part of his announcement seemed to imply that the vote on the final deal could take place after Brexit had occurred [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The prospect of a "transition period" for an indefinite duration after Brexit day during which nothing much changes is an intriguing one.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I'm now wondering if part of the Davis plan is to force the EU to accept a transition whereby the UK gets all the good stuff (especially ongoing free trade with the EU) and none of the "bad" stuff (especially forced acceptance of EU regulations and courts). And then when the EU27 realise all that they'd lose by fighting the UK over it, they'll back down - so that this period continues forever.

Which sounds pretty ridiculous now I've written it down. Why would the EU27 allow a state outwith of the EU and the EEA to continue as if it was within but without any of the obligations?

The only other thing I'm wondering is that maybe Davis is hoping that he can split apart the consensus of the EU states, possibly by targeting countries that seem to be slightly less like hawks (apologies for that designation, I'm not sure how else to describe it) - and that this might mean that the council can't move forward with any "punishment" of the UK.

That might even work. But it would be an enormous cost to the EU. Possibly could destroy it.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Romania (in this imaginary scenario) then kiboshes an attempt by the EU27 to put up borders.

AFAIU the EU needs unanimity, so presumably they'd need all states to sign up both to the start and the end of an indefinite transition period.

Classical British divide-and-conquer. I don't know why this didn't come to my mind before as a tactic.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Quite a lot of journalists have been writing about this, that the UK side expected the EU side to crumble, either because they could not live without UK trade, or because the EU would just start to implode, partly from right wing populism, and then would be eager to do a deal with UK. None of this seems to be happening, of course. Maybe there is even the vainglorious idea that without the UK, the EU is an empty husk. Those whom the gods wish to destroy ...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Run this by me a bit more slowly.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

Run this by me a bit more slowly.

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.

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?

There are many countries in the EU who could exercise a veto. Indeed, Ireland might be one of those that would most *want* to. I'd genuinely put them near the bottom of countries that actually would though. Because that would be self defeating stupidity of near British government levels.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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?

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."

not in any way suggesting that they're going to change things, but at least now acknowledging the point.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
On this, the Guardian reports the following:

quote:
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.

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?

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?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Well, aren't they all in a trap? Brexit means separation from, and hard borders with, EU countries; but Ireland doesn't want that. In fact, a soft border is dangerous for the EU, isn't it, because of the dangers of smuggling and illegal immigration?

This came up over import of US goods, which would not satisfy EU regulations. They come into N. Ireland, quite legally, and then move south? In other words, you have to have Border Inspection Posts on the border, what a mess.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this, the Guardian reports the following:

quote:
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.

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?

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?

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.

Is Mr Varadkar trying to bring the new British fashion of political amateur hour to Dublin?

At best he's posturing, if he actually understands what he's saying and Britain has a hard Brexit because of the Irish approach* then when the Irish economy tanks he can expect to be crucified by his own voters.

I can understand *why* Ireland would want the things they're asking for. And indeed anyone sane in the UK would too. But, ironically given he's accusing the British of not having thought things through (which they haven't), I'm not seeing much evidence of the Irish government having done so either if this is genuinely a line in the sand for them.

*by which of course I mean that while Britain has brought all this on itself it would presumably be useful for the Irish government if the damage done to the Irish economy as a result didn't have the Irish government's fingerprints on it anywhere. Which, if this happened, it would.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
That Guardian article also says that May is prepared to offer a further £20 billion on the divorce bill. So does this amount to £40 billion?

I suppose it's a no/yes technique. At first, I rebuff you, but then show some willingness to make luurve.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
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. Ireland can exercise it's veto in the first phase of talks, effectively forcing the UK to come to the table with their plans. The problems is, I don;t actually believe the UK has any plan for the NI border other than pushing it far enough into the future as to allow them to shack up with the DUP long enough to keep them in power. The UK have been warned again, and again, and again over this issue and only now is the press beginning to see it. Pity the government can't.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On this, the Guardian reports the following:

quote:
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.

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?

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?

This is sort of the point. Ireland's threatening to exercise a veto if the UK doesn't guarantee something not in its gift.
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

[And further to fletcher's point, the UK cabinet currently includes the author of this: https://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/111220142628-thepriceofpeace2000MichaelGove.pdf ]

[ 17. November 2017, 12:36: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Alan
quote:

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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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).

My head hurts.

Surely given that NI is (a) not going to be remaining in the CM and (b) the Republic is not going to be exiting the CM - then the only alternative without a hard border appears to be for one part of the EU (Republic) to have an extremely close and unhindered economic relationship with a non-EU country, ie NI and by extension the UK.

Which (d) is basically what the UK wants and (e) what at least some of the EU27 don't want.

If the Republic torpedoes a deal, then the thing is back to no-deal, which means a hard border.

The only way it doesn't would then be if the EU allowed a third country to have a free-trade arrangement, with no written deal, with it.

Which, if I'm right, means that the UK just needs to hold its nerve to get what it wants - ie a free trade non-agreement with the EU.

The Irish Republic can splutter, but they need to persuade the EU to come up with something not the UK because at present the UK would appear to be on route to getting what it wants, and the only possibility of a hard border would be if the EU puts it there.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I didn't explain that well.

Try this:

What the UK wants: a economic reality like between NI and the Republic at present without being in the EU.

What the Republic wants: a continuation of NI-Republic economic situation as at present

What the UK wants: some restrictions on borders but overall basically unrestricted access to the EU as at present

What the EU wants: the UK to continue paying into the coffers and to keep up with EU Regulations

What the UK wants: to pay as little as possible to the EU and to be free from the jurisdiction of the European courts

If imports come into the UK which are not meeting EU regulations, then they ought not be imported to the EU. This is unlikely to be a problem in the opposite direction - the UK probably would accept anything produced to EU standards from the EU.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The possibility I was alluding to was one where the border between the NI and Republic was soft, but the hard border was at the Irish Sea. Of course, this won't be in favour with the DUP, or the headbangers like Gove (that link I posted is somewhat illuminating). It will also require a lot of good will on each side - so kind of moot while the Brexiters rule the roost in the Tory party.

On which topic, this link by Simon Wren-Lewis is apposite:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/11/the-brexit-revolution-and-its-source-of.html

Exploring the question of why a referendum won by a slim margin should leave the most radical fringes in charge; he points out that the possibility of a leadership election means that the parliamentary Tory Party has to constantly pander to their base (100 thousand members, mostly men, largely middle class and with an average age of 67).

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.




[ 17. November 2017, 19:46: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
The Referendum was a vote by those who have never left the 1970s to drag the rest of us back there with them.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Well this is the point I was trying to question.

If (a) the Irish Republic, (b) the UK and (c) possibly other EU governments which can have their arms twisted see continued trade as important, is it possible to imagine a "no deal" scenario whereby there is an impasse between the Republic and the UK and the EU is unable to agree sanctions to prevent it.

We are led to believe that "no-deal" = a hard Irish border. But if nobody on the ground wants it, then how can the EU actively stop it?

To me it look like more to do with British-Irish politics and the value of Irish trade across the border versus the possible costs of punishment by the EU - if the Irish state (plus other wavering states) refuse to go along with a French-German proposal to punish Ireland for (for the sake of argument) refusing to enforce the EU customs regulations at the Irish border, can the EU do anything?

I'm not saying this is a desirable scenario. But I'm wondering how many "sticks" the EU actually have if states within it refuse to co-operate.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
So what you're suggesting is that Britain might not only leave the EU, but also further enhance its isolationist credentials by flouting international law too? ....and then they wonder why the rest of Europe looks on in disbelief while Britain slowly erodes its democracy.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
@fletcher christian - did countries to the east flout international law when they opened borders to the EU to allow refugees to get to Germany?

I'm fairly sure that this would be in violation of EU law, and would come under the European Court. But I'm not sure what happens if one party refuses to accept the jurisdiction of that court.

But then I don't really understand international trade law.

And anyway - I'm not saying this is a desirable or good thing. I'm simply wondering aloud whether a no-deal necessarily means a hard border.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
This report from the House of Lords is interesting with respect to the possibility of a bilateral agreement between the Republic and the UK; covered in particular in paras 241-265

Para 246 in interesting:

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”


 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Fair enough, but you're also arguing from a purely economic standpoint. Many (certainly the majority here in Ireland) would feel there is a lot more at stake and that there are more important things than the cold face of economic reality. Lasting peace and stability and the preservation of democracy are fragile and moveable feasts when it comes to Northern Ireland and for these reasons getting the border issue right is of primary importance to Ireland and the rest of the EU (except of course Britain....currently). One aspect that are never mentioned in this are the cross border projects. Some of these are of course cold economics to do with trade, but a very large percentage are also social issues like mental health care, sharing health care provision (our hospitals in Ireland are full of people getting health care because the provision in NI is so poor), working out how governments and communities can work together in a shared future, tackling issues of crime and issues of sectarianism, looking at provision for families divided by the border (spread on each side of it), local community encounter and engagement, interface planning, schools projects, church encounter projects, arts funding projects and educational projects.....to name but a very tiny fraction of the full body of work. All of these things are funded largely by the EU and the Irish government to help in preserving peace and building a better future for NI and for it's people. All of this is currently under threat because there has absolutely no planning whatsoever done to discuss how any of these things might continue without EU funding and with a border in place, if there is going to be one....but we don't know that either because Britain won't talk about that yet.

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. This would enable all of the above projects including trade to continue without threatening the peace and stability and the democracy of a part of the UK. For a country that keeps telling everyone it wants to take back control it is becoming increasingly apparent to everyone around it that it is utterly incapable of being in control of itself.

[ 20. November 2017, 09:04: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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'.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Chris:
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'.

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.

Edited to add:
There lis a side to all of this that probably isn;t all that clear to most people in the UK. When the Tories made their deal with the DUP a spectre from NI's inglorious past rose from a rotten grave: namely, Carson. That has a very large part of the community in NI shifting rather nervously at the moment. Things are not good and a lack of clarity as the days and months pass will openly serve to make things worse.

[ 20. November 2017, 09:40: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Yeah, it's a mess. I still can't help thinking it is deliberate.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Yeah, it's a mess. I still can't help thinking it is deliberate.

To wit there is absolutely no political capital to be made by coming up with a solution.

An Irish Sea border cuts across the fantasies of the Hard Brexit/Legatum right - of a free wheeling buccaneering Britain.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Came across this article summarising things from the Irish side:

The Brexit Veto: How and why Ireland raised the stakes

The Irish are making it clear that the only two options available are Britain staying in the Single Market, or NI staying in and the border moving to the Irish sea. I particularly enjoyed this:

"The Good Friday Agreement in any event completely guarantees the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the UK. The notion that this is a kind of stalking horse for a creeping United Ireland-ism is nonsense. It requires leadership from the British, and a certain amount of common sense by the DUP."

What are the chances of either of those things happening, do you think?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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'.
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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I can't get my head around the DUP position. It seems to make even less sense than the Tory position.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
In a tangent that possibly deserves its own thread, it seems that at quite a critical moment for the EU, Angela Merkel is out circulation.

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't think Angela Merkel's absence from the scene is insignificant.

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.

In our little corner of Europe, Brexit may be dominating everything politically. But, that isn't true of the rest of Europe.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't think Angela Merkel's absence from the scene is insignificant.

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.

In our little corner of Europe, Brexit may be dominating everything politically. But, that isn't true of the rest of Europe.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
In more evidence that as far as the EU-27 is concerned, Brexit is happening whether you like it or not, the UK says goodbye to two EU agencies.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The UK based EU institutions have no choice but to leave, it takes time to relocate and starting that can't wait until the day we leave. If we make the sensible decision to remain in the EU we'll have still lost those institutions, and all the other investment that follows from their presence (the pharmaceutical companies with major offices in London to access the EMA, for example).

As I've said, if we reverse the decision to leave (which I still believe we can do, if the people so decide) then we're not going back to the same position as before the referendum was called. The loss of these agencies is just one part of what we'll have given up because of a few idiots who managed to convince a lot of people to believe the lies they peddled.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
It's just that, from over here, the Common Market and the EU have formed comparatively quickly.

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.
A small thought, from across the Pond:

I just started skimming
"The Federalist Papers" , by Alexander Hamilton (yes, that one), John Jay, and James Madison (Gutenberg). I've never read it. But I was rummaging on the site, and noticed that Gutenberg has it. I was curious as to what the guys might have said that would relate to the current US situation.

And I wound up thinking that some of what they wrote sounded like EU and Brexit, and figuring out what to do.

Not saying that anyone *should* read it. But if you are tired of looking at EU and Brexit in a particular way, this might be a good change.

FWIW, YMMV.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't think 18 century papers have a lot to do with 21 century Britain.

It is easy to link Brexit with all kinds of other historical thinking and ideas - when in reality Britain is in this situation because of a unique combination of historical impacts, a Western-European understanding of the State and so on.

I suspect strongly that many of our politicians are blind to our actual position in the world. Geographically we're in a bit of a backwater, off a major continent. In terms of world politics we're mostly running on inherited influence (seat in the UN SC, nuclear power, etc). In terms of economics, our currency is massively overvalued. In terms of social security, we generally value Scandinavian levels of service but we don't want to pay for it.

We're fat, expect too much, think we deserve things, try to throw our weight around.

There will come a day of reckoning.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Geographically we're in a bit of a backwater, off a major continent.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
FWIW:

I suggested it because the authors were writing about whether there should be a union and what kind, or whether there should be states that were mostly independent, and what the various parties might owe each other, and how to make that work. And they were right in the middle of living that, and working it out.

Our founders weren't at all sure that the American Experiment would work or last. And they had conflicting ideas.

To me, that sounded very much like the EU and Brexit, per this thread.

So I just offered the link. Sometimes, looking at a troublesome thing from an odd angle can help.

YMMV.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

quote:
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.
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.

These trading links make far less sense when we're not producing anything tangible very much. It is basically one-way traffic.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
A very significant part of what exists of UK manufacturing which is integrated into the needs of the manufacturing industry elsewhere in the EU. Making components, or assembling imported components into more complex components, that then get sent elsewhere in the EU for assembly into final products. Or, assembling final products from components made elsewhere in the EU. With a single market and a customs union that is a form of business that makes a lot of sense, allowing small businesses to succeed in specialist markets and supplying the needs of larger manufacturers.

I don't know the figures, it's possible they simply haven't even been collated by anyone. But, there will be some goods that arrive at UK ports and are immediately transferred to the rest of the EU. There will be far more goods that arrive at UK ports, get shipped to a UK business for use in assembling components or finished items which then get sent to the rest of the EU.

Leaving the single market and customs union will kill that whole business model. The addition of tariffs and paperwork will put a lot of businesses out of business, as their costs will be prohibitive.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm sure this is true.

I suppose there must be three options that the Brexiteers believe. Either


In my perception, the archiest Brexiteers talk as if they believe 1, but in practice probably believe 3.

Apparently it isn't possible to tell how much stuff is imported into the UK ports which then go elsewhere in the EU. Because nobody counts.

It doesn't even seem to be possible to distinguish between exports to the EU which originated in the UK and exports which came into the UK for distribution to the rest of the EU. Because nobody counts.

But then I'm also reading that there is some confusion about how much is actually exported to the EU. 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.

Again, there seems to be a faith position from some Brexiteers that these are just pluses and minuses which will cancel each other out. This seems unlikely to me.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.


That's the Rotterdam effect - it skews 2 things (and I say that without prejudice to a Remain/Leave viewpoint:
- it appears to substantially inflate UK trade to EU vs the rest of the world,
- it inflates Dutch import figures.

Basically, a lot of the UK exports to ROW are transhipped onto larger vessels in Rotterdam for onward movement to elsewhere in the globe. This is, and has always been, counted by the EU as a UK export to the Netherlands/rest of EU. Not as a UK export to Australia or wherever it's actually going.

It's been quite a well known phenomenon in UK trade circles for decades, although in the great scheme of things (up til now) of marginal impact - although great interest for those who care about the accuracy of statistics for their own sake.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Other than that, Brexit or no, rather like the current composition of the UN Security Council, you can make a good case that the wrong nations have permanent membership for the 21st century. Like I say though, I'm not sure that's anything to do with Brexit - poignant, maybe, for those who want some poignancy in terms of the timing - but otherwise more of a reflection of the fact that India, for example, just matters more and will continue to do so.

Ironically, the real Little Englanders will probably be very happy with that - for all the easy jibes of Empire fantasy, there's actually more of a whiff of Sinn Féin Amháin ("Ourselves Alone"), "let's just be a 4th division place and keep our heads down" which is less commented on.

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.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
The Government is about to double the amount it will offer as a leaving payment to the EU, 'tis said. Can it be that our Prime Minister is an Enemy of the People?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
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.

Which is stupid. The best defence is to avoid conflict, which is the purpose of the UN and being on the security council.

[ 21. November 2017, 15:10: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
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.

Which is stupid. The best defence is to avoid conflict, which is the purpose of the UN and being on the security council.
Maybe, but they actually *want* to abdicate responsibility or leadership.

In the same way as the anti Tridenters say that eg Spain manages perfectly well without it, it also manages without being on the security council.

There's a strain of the left and right who have got past the "why's it always us?" stage to the "it's not going to be us any more" bit.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
More having your cake and eating it
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."
[brick wall]

[ETA the usual advice to "never read the comments" applies]

[ 23. November 2017, 13:29: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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 (which the government appears to have ruled us out of membership of) or candidate countries. I suppose it's possible that by 2023 the UK will be seeking readmission to the EU, and hence be an eligible candidate country, but I doubt it.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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 can't claim to have read all 236 pages, but on the face of it this seems to suggest the answer is "yes".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
In Glasgow, being City of Culture was a definite step towards renovating the city and it's image. From a perception of being grimy post-industrial urban horridness that tourists past through to get to the Highlands, Glasgow is now the third most visited tourist destination in the UK (behind London and Edinburgh) - from 10's of thousands of visitors per year to millions. There has also been a massive increase in business conventions being hosted in the city. Tourism now employs more people in Glasgow than were employed in shipbuilding at it's peak.

Investment for the City of Culture included refurbishment of many Victorian buildings, including many of the museums and galleries, building a brand new concert hall and other infrastructure.

The investment from being City of Culture fitted neatly into an ongoing programme of urban regeneration - I guess that would probably be part of the judges criteria, would this designation and the investment it would bring result in significant regeneration? Which is still ongoing, the recent Commonwealth Games being another big part of that.

Glasgow's Miles Better.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
<sarcasm> No, no, the grapes are definitely sour. Not worth jumping for... <\sarcasm>

[ 23. November 2017, 15:52: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Wait, what exactly do you mean by that?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
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.

Of course, this is only clear to someone who has heard of Aesop's fables... you're right, I should have explained myself better.

Personally, I agree with Alan.

[ 24. November 2017, 09:49: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I got the reference, thank you. It just wasn't clear to me which camp you thought was adopting a sour grapes attitude.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
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.


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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
<sarcasm> No, no, the grapes are definitely sour. Not worth jumping for... <\sarcasm>

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.

[ 24. November 2017, 15:28: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
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.


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.
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?

Although it's possible that Labour are beginning to come out for soft Brexit, having overcome their fear of electoral disaster. Corbyn was going hard at May this week.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Earlier this afternoon there was a bit of a spat on twitter about customs crossings between the EU and Switzerland.

Some were arguing that SZ didn't have customs posts as it is in Schengen. Well, it turns out that's not quite true. Also, SZ's immigration policy is complicated.

It would be ironic if there would be more powers over customs and immigration should the UK leave the EU.. and then join Schengen. I'm not sure how to parse this information.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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?


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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Curious though, how the Ultras seem to be the tail wagging the dog. I suppose Mrs May dare not expose the Tory divisions too much, although presumably she is inching her way towards the EU agenda on money. Having said that, Ireland looks insoluble, which is why the govt keep saying, 'we need to move on'. Maybe the EU will accept that, if the UK promises £40 billion or whatever.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
The conventional wisdom is that all senior Tories have to Kowtow to hard Brexit as the Tory members are very Brexit-ey and anyone with leadership ambitions has to be acceptable to them.

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. It is possible that she is moving incrementally towards soft Brexit, but it is barely detectable and assumes that soft Brexit is possible, which I doubt very much.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's not very clear what soft Brexit means, is it? I suppose it would involve keeping EU regulations, and therefore avoiding border checks and other checks. I'm not sure why the EU would accept that, as it seems to make the EU redundant.

Well, EEA might be a solution, also rejected at the moment, partly because it involves free movement. So the UK is in zugzwang!
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
quote:
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]

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.]


Link to research (by the EU so potentially biased, but also comprehensive) [edit linked to link as hopefully less work for hosts]

[ 24. November 2017, 17:25: Message edited by: Jay-Emm ]
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Sioni said:
quote:
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.

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...
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Curious though, how the Ultras seem to be the tail wagging the dog.

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.

[Posted before I saw Rocinante's post]

[ 27. November 2017, 09:23: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

As it's impossible to currently get a 'good deal' (given the contradictory caveats from the various parties - sometimes emanating from the same person), they probably assume that a leadership election is reasonably imminent.
 
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :
 
Some investment has been announced this morning that apparently constitutes the government suddenly realising that we should have an industrial strategy.

Firstly it's hard to imagine that they have just cobbled together such arrangements in the last week, and secondly, if only we'd bothered to have an "industrial strategy" for the last forty odd years...
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

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.
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.

Dundee was one of the cities bidding to become a City of Culture. A new museum opens next year, next to the existing Discoveryand there is massive ongoing redevelopment of the waterfront. Winning City of Culture would have brought this transformed area to wider public attention; it would have been worth millions in tourist revenue.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Liverpool's win coincided with a period of renaissance for the city generally. (There was a time under the Coalition when Liverpool had the fastest growing economy outside London despite also suffering proportionally the most drastic cuts in central government funding.)

It would be hard to say how far the city's revival was caused by the win and how far it made the win possible, but it seems unlikely that it had no effect.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
So after months of posturing, the UK government finally agrees to pay its share of unpaid bills and future liabilities.

The footnote to all of this is that the UK contribution has been reduced somewhat to reflect the fact that both its currency and economy have lost value over that time (partly due to the impact of Brexit itself).
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Yes. Now all that has to happen is for the EU to sort out what Britain does for it's European workers (who contribute to its economy) and police Britain's borders for it. I'm sure in some rabbit hole this counts as 'taking back control'.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
As opposed to our hard-earned euros propping up those poor people in Cornwall, the North-East of England, and so on? [Disappointed]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.

[Roll Eyes] 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.
So it should go out via the same route as existing payments to the EU.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So it should go out via the same route as existing payments to the EU.

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.

But, as it's sensible the government will find some other way to do things and make it all so much harder than it needs to be.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
It ain't gonna happen. The DUP have found a way of throwing a spanner into the works with one hand, and shooting themselves in the foot with the other.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
And now David Davis has thrown his spanner into the works in defence of his sometime subordinate, Damian Green, who is now Theresa May's #2.

All very messy. Not what the government nor Mr Plod needs at all.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
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.

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... [Mad]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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?

[ 04. December 2017, 12:45: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

Some of the pensions it will be paying belong to UK citizens, including Farage.
Is Farage going, in a show of principle, to refuse to collect his EU pension? No, to nobody's surprise, he fully intends to collect it.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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?

Simple answer for the Scots is "because you haven't got a land border with the EU"

Meanwhile, all of this could be back off the table if the DUP bring down the govt over it.

Which, with a poll at the weekend giving Labour an 8 point lead, gives them a couple of weeks to get off the fence, come up with a policy that the whole parliamentary Labour party can get behind and persuade the public to vote for, then look forward to their exciting opportunity to be the owners and implementers of Brexit....

[ 04. December 2017, 13:47: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
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.

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.
The knuckledraggers in the Tory party won't see it as anything other than a cowardly abandonment of principles.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Indeed. Not so fast there:
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."


[ 04. December 2017, 16:10: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
As you were, the deal is off. Reports that the DUP said not on your nelly, or whatever the Irish equivalent to a nelly is.

It's exciting, isn't it?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The way France Info put it this morning, the only way Theresa May can succeed in Brexit negotiations is if she commits political suicide for herself and her government. Which is of course immediately not a success.

[ 04. December 2017, 16:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The solution is obvious: the Irish govt should set up a large regular standing order to the DUP. How much? Well, mumble mumble billions in £ or euros.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
M-o-t-h-e-r
f-u-c-k-e-r-s
A pox on their house. Isn't it incredible just how easy it is to be an architect of your own terrible demise.
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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Can someone explain the DUP position to me? I don't understand - they seem to simultaneously want unrestricted cross-border trade with the republic and with the UK.

Surely it is obvious that there is only one way that they can have that: stay in the EU.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm also boggled by the apparent lack of preparation by the British team. Surely, some bright spark would have said, PM, you do realize that a soft Irish border might be opposed by one, the DUP, and two, some of our own Tory nutters? Maybe, somebody should have checked? And why didn't it occur to May herself? The inmates have taken over the asylum, actually, the inmates would probably do a better job.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Ah, maybe I am being naive. A friend suggests that it's all been set up. But why? To show that they're working hard? Or to expose the DUP plus Ultras as wreckers?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
How lonely sits the city that was once full of people!
How like a widow has she become,
she that was great among the nations!
She that was princess among the cities has become a vassal!

On the bright side, when all of this is done and you've become a by-word among the nations of Europe, when your democracy has eroded beyond repair and your people are restless in their satanic mills; at least then you will be able to sing Jerusalem with full conviction.

[ 04. December 2017, 19:03: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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?

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?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Walls?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Some snake bites can be lethal.

Let's hope this one is.

IJ
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Mr Cheesy:
quote:

Can someone explain the DUP position to me?

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:
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.......

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......

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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
I find it interesting that Jeremy Hunt has raised the possibility that Brexit might not happen at all: Link.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find it interesting that Jeremy Hunt has raised the possibility that Brexit might not happen at all

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.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
They want direct rule as long as they hold power.

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:
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.
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?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Euty:
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?

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.

That, however, is the opinion of NI (however speculative) and truly does not matter a jot when the the Republic of Ireland has no appetite currently for such a thing. I really don't believe they would even countenance the possibility right now and I know many politicians here who would be radically opposed to such an idea. The problem is that it has been the argument used by pretty much all of the political parties in NI politics to instil fear even though the whole charade has been constructed for years on a myth.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
With hindsight, Mrs May should have announced that, on the one hand, she had to respect the mandate given by the referendum and, equally, bring a country divided by 51-48 together. So she was going to seek a mandate for this at a General Election. With the Labour Party in the middle of a leadership election she would have smashed it out of the park and with a mandate for soft Brexit, she would have marginalised the ultras.

But no, she had to go down the 'Citizens of Nowhere' route. Well, that worked out superbly.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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

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- )
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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- )

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.

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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Chris Stiles:

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
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Mmm. Well make of this whatever you like.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I find it interesting that Jeremy Hunt has raised the possibility that Brexit might not happen at all

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.
They've changed the article the link points to. How annoying.

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.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
It's so good to know that our beloved Government is 'back in control', isn't it?

Isn't it?

Yes?

IJ
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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."

I'm not sure I believe it, but the i is relatively left of centre and anti-Brexit and their take seems to be that a lot of people are being played.... FWIW the Irish PM didn't exactly help in his press conference yesterday when he said that the two forms of words basically meant the same thing, when the UK govt had (apparently) spent the weekend persuading the DUP that they did, in fact, not...
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
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.

I've avoided this thread. The subject makes me irate enough as it is.

But yes, it is as simple as that. They are. Indeed, that is being over-complimentary.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

[Paranoid] How can this possibly work? There's been no sign at all of rallying round. The government would collapse.

And as I keep saying, I see no way this can be rolled back. Project funding has gone, institutions are leaving the UK, companies are making investment decisions, and the clock is ticking. Wake up UK and do something about it.

[ 05. December 2017, 14:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

I'm not sure I believe it

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Nice comment by Sean O'Grady: 'some Prime Ministers have been destroyed by the Irish Question, and some by Europe. Theresa May is unique in fashioning from the two areas, a lethal cocktail.'
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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.

Mmm. Well make of this whatever you like.
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.

I don't know what would happen if the Electoral Commission do find significant fraud in relation to campaign expenses. If it was an election they have the power to declare the result void and order a by-election, though a fine is more common. If the results of their enquiries reveal major issues about expenses, could they declare the referendum result void and insist on a re-run? That would certainly set a herd of cats among the pigeons.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

The 435K came from the "Constitutional Research Council". Other money came from Vote Leave, possibly including the 33K they spent with AggregrateIQ.

quote:

I don't know what would happen if the Electoral Commission do find significant fraud in relation to campaign expenses.

A possible answer is buried here:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brexitinc/adam-ramsay-peter-geoghegan/did-dups-controversial-brexit-donors-break-law-by-refu sing-

"However, openDemocracy can also reveal that £6,000 is the biggest ever fine charged to an unincorporated association."

At which point, fines just become a cost of doing business.

Over to Simon Wren-Lewis:

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2017/12/if-we-treat-plutocracy-as-democracy.html

With the caveat that the UK is potentially a lot more vulnerable to this kind of influence, as politics runs leaner and the sums involved are piddling in comparison with the sums spent in the US.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Meanwhile, MP Bernard Jenkin - who sits around the negotiating table currently - thinks Enda Kelly is the Prime Minister for Northern Ireland..............words fail...........brain cannot compute..........nothing I can write will make this appear any more stupid............
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Meanwhile, MP Bernard Jenkin - who sits around the negotiating table currently

I'm all for calling out errors, but in what way is Bernard Jenkin sitting around the negotiating table?

[ 06. December 2017, 08:17: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
to be absolutely clear, Bernard Jenkin is a hard-Brexit loon who has been calling for Britain to walk away from negotiations since at least the beginning of October.

He's not a negotiator.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Well that's a relief that he's only an MP then.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well that's a relief that he's only an MP then.

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...

To be clear I think Jenkin is a lunatic, whose interventions are unhelpful - but then I also recognise that's one of the reasons the press give him a platform in the first place. Irish citizens, on the other hand, might lack that context.

I also believe that the UK doesn't have the monopoly on such people.

[ 06. December 2017, 08:37: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
2010 actually - that's a while earlier than I remembered. Who knows where the time goes.....?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well that's a relief that he's only an MP then.

Even idiots deserve representation.
But, there's no reason they need to be represented by idiots.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well that's a relief that he's only an MP then.

Even idiots deserve representation.
But, there's no reason they need to be represented by idiots.
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.*

*by the same token of course, Robert Kilroy Silk was the MP who exempted war widows' pensions from income tax, and Portillo saved the Settle-Carlisle railway line, so I suppose it's difficult *not* to be able to say some good about most people.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
quote:
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.

Do they make fire extinguishers for pants?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Are you serious?

The referendum vote, let alone the formal implementation, is already having an economic impact.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:

I also believe that the UK doesn't have the monopoly on such people.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Betjemaniac:
quote:

I also believe that the UK doesn't have the monopoly on such people.

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.
True, but then I'm not defending them either.

I do wonder though whether armed with google someone couldn't in a couple of hours draw up a bag of quotes by Irish TDs in the last 5 years across a range of subjects that wouldn't make "spectacular idiocy on a scale even unparalleled in Ireland" look a bit like hyperbole.

But then it isn't a competition - legislatures are full of odd people the world over.

[ 06. December 2017, 10:39: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
betjemaniac
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.
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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I'm not sure I agree with that assessment overall, but even if taken at face value there is one important aspect that has gone unchallenged; mainly that a party which has effectively collapsed Stormont (over issues which would have brought them in line with the rest of the UK law and governance which the DUP oppose) and which only represents 36% of the people of Northern Ireland (from the last election figures in 2017) is now dictating exactly what will happen for all the people of Northern Ireland. This is not democracy.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Fletcher Christian, I'm not arguing rights and wrongs here but trying to identify the political facts of life.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Well maybe, but surely the 'political facts' should also take account of such things, not least that in order to get that 36% the DUP essentially employed paramilitaries to do their thuggery, bullying and intimidation in order to achieve it. Regardless of right or wrong, that doesn't seem to me to have anything whatsoever in common with Presbyterianism or Calvin. To keep up the charade that the DUP are somehow a 'Christian' party and possibly Presbyterian in ethos (even though Snarlene is CofI....sadly) is to perpetuate the lie. The DUP use religion in a most insidious and evil manner and sadly the churches have been complicit in that lie and let them run with it to the point that they have been infected with the poison of sectarianism.

To me that is the political reality. Politicians and parties in NI have been allowed to operate in this unlawful and unregulated manner for far, far too long and now what i happening in Westminster is a single NI party getting drunk on power, feeling the euphoria of getting the position they have been given that they know they got through nefarious means and feeling quite legitimised in it. Quite apart from it being a bad day for democracy in general it is also a very bad day for NI. But Westminster seems to be is such a state of disarray that it probably doesn't even matter now.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I see that Davis is now saying that there are no assessments of the economic impact of Brexit. The odd thing is that this doesn't arouse much excitement, when you would think that it would be scandalous.

I wonder if people are so demoralized by the Brexit saga, that nobody can be bothered. Well, there are protests in the Commons, but the govt can shrug them off really. Brexit seems to be sapping the body politic, or enervating it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42249854
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
And now Phillip Hammond is saying that the cabinet hasn't decided what final outcome from Brexit it wants.

Wow. So we're almost halfway through the negotiating period and the government is negotiating (I use the term loosely) without any idea of what it wants at the end of it all.

[brick wall] [Help] [brick wall] [Help]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The impact assessments will only exist once someone observes them. Thus Davis can say that they don't exist, while previously saying they do. Schrodingers Impact Assessments.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
I think all of them know what they *want* - the problems are (a) they don't all want the same thing and (b) they can't agree on a course of action that is actually achievable.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Not only is the phrase "cliff-edge" springing to mind with increasing frequency, it's rushing closer and closer by the minute [Disappointed]

(Unless of course you think the DUP and the Tories have joined Trump in playing five-dimensional chess...)
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
The DUP fiasco has shown how the govt is trying to straddle a wide spectrum of opinion in the Tory part and allies. At one end, you have the hard Brexit crew, who presumably are happy with no-deal, long queues at Dover, and so on; then I suppose at the other end, soft Remainers, who would like to cancel Brexit, or go for the softest deal, keep membership of the single market, and so on.

No doubt there are those in the middle also, but the govt is struggling to find a solution which they will all sign up to. I think one point about 'regulatory alignment' is that it is multiply ambiguous, and can be sold to different groups, with different meanings. But it came unstuck with the DUP.

So I don't know if creative ambiguity can be applied again.
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Isn't it also a big fuck you to the republic?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
But weren't they supporting an open-border for economic reasons? Has something about the cross-border trade situation changed since I read that last year sometime?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Isn't it also a big fuck you to the republic?

That will go down well with their supporters too.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
Stetson
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
You make it sound as though there is some sort of policy of Mrs Mays administration. With an administration totally devoid of policy, everything is not currently the policy.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You make it sound as though there is some sort of policy of Mrs Mays administration.

The policy of May's administration means the policy of May's administration.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

and that is a completely predictable result of the policy in the letter from Stormont that Foster signed:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQZJtnYWkAAMc2k.jpg

quote:

while at the same time keeping it apart from a hard-brexited UK with a border dividing the Irish Sea.

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.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
There is a lot of talk about moving a border and perhaps it needs to be made absolutely clear that the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is not on the move. This is not a united Ireland by stealth and in hope that the people of NI and the RofI are hopefully too stupid to notice it before it's too late. A sea 'border' in respect of trade was mooted in regards to trade. The necessary infrastructure and checks are all essentially there anyway, but it was an attempt at creating a solution to the issue of the Good Friday Agreement and trying to preserve that agreement - which the DUP signed up to. The border between the two countries remains as firm as ever. As far as we know, the agreement being thrashed out in the EU - if the leaks are to be believed - involved partial 'trading posts' at sea but the larger share of movement of goods and especially issues relating to farming practices and produce coming under what looked like it might be a trilateral arrangement at the border between the two countries. This was part of an attempt at keeping border posts and infrastructure at the countries border to a minimum; again, part of the Good Friday Agreement, especially considering that the border was a huge flashpoint issue in regards to the troubles.

NI could have had a 'special status' in a trilateral arrangement which would have hugely benefitted NI, but it looks like that is not to be. Such an arrangement would in no way cut them off from the rest of Britain, other than the geographical aspect of the sea. Nor would it have subjected NI to anything different than UK law. One would hope that regarding food standards for instance, the UK will uphold the same as the EU and not permit things like bleach washed chicken and chlorine injected pork - well, at least one can hope. But the DUP are skilled and trained masters at the scare tactics and will undoubtedly pedal the 'moving to the sea border' line for all its worth. It is however, a lie; a clever lie that plays on the use of a word.

Personally I feel depressed. I'm not sure what I am going to need in the future to visit my family or what they might need to visit me. One member of my family is one of those dirty foreigners Britain wants rid of, so they will likely go back to their country of origin. Already the nastiness of debate has become rancid and painful and they tell me there is a notable shift in society that leaves them feeling not just uneasy, but also unsafe. The whole idea that the Good Friday Agreement might fall apart and we see a return to the troubles of old and a hard border where there are murders of attrition...well words really can't express what I feel about that. I don't live in NI anymore. The ghosts of the dead crawl out of every street, house, pub and hotel when I go there to visit. I can't even contemplate adding to their number through this crass and careless stupidity. I want to be angry and sad and weeping all at once. It is dire beyond comprehension. I can't add anything more to this thread because I find it too upsetting so I'm afraid I must bow out at this point. Part of me lives in hope that there might be a solution. God alone knows I lived for twenty five years in hope before.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

But, they're talking about changing the constitutional status. And, Ulster Unionism has too strong a Presbyterian influence to countenance change.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
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.

In the meantime the House of Lords Select Committee is doing there job properly:
quote:
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.

AFZ

For the record the affliations of the select committee are as follows:
Con 5
Lab 5
Lib Dem 3
Crossbench 6

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

It almost makes me nostalgic for the Gulf War and that "sexed-up" dossier. At least there was a dossier.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Not only do we (collective 'we') elect these morons, we also pay them lots of our hard-earned £££.

O for anarchy, but only under a wise and benevolent Anarch..

IJ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

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?
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.

I can see how playing someone incredibly incompetent would lack the challenge of playing a good player. So, if you're there for the challenge, to improve your game by playing good opponents then you wouldn't want to play a bad player. If you're there for the money, then bring on the bad guy.
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The present lot may be incapable of finding the place to put that poker with both hands, but any government would be struggling. Cameron's government actually went out of its way to steer up shit creek and throw away the paddles.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
As Founder (and sole) Member of the Aethelred the Unready Appreciation Society, may I point out that his late Majesty did indeed acquire his unfortunate soubriquet because of the incompetence of his advisers. Not much change from today, one feels.....

Aethelred 978-1013/1014-1016

He reigned for about 37 years, so he must have done a few things right....

IJ
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

I hate playing cards with people like that. It's so unsatisfying, even if you do win.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Perhaps this chap should be invited to join the Government.

He clearly has the type of skills required.

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I hate playing cards with people like that. It's so unsatisfying, even if you do win.

But, as Alan points out, it's also rather profitable.

I agree with you that there's no pleasure in playing with someone that bad, but if this is how you make a living, you can deal with a profitable but irritating session.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I hate playing cards with people like that. It's so unsatisfying, even if you do win.

But, as Alan points out, it's also rather profitable.
Sometimes. But you never know what they've got, so you can never really go big unless you have an unbeatable hand yourself.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

You have a point there, I once lost a hand of poker to my brother because he didn't know what he was doing.

I correctly surmised that he was bluffing; he was, because he believed he had nothing in his hand. Unfortunately for me, he hadn't appreciated that he had a straight.

[Killing me] [Waterworks]

Perhaps that is the position of HM Government... "We know we're bluffing but maybe we are so bad we actually have a really good hand...????"

If I can push the analogy a bit further; it's kinda like they're playing for a Royal Flush when the Queen of Hearts is already with another player (I'm thinking Stud Poker here) and the UK's position seems to be: "We know that the EU has a Full House, but if we get the Royal Flush, we win!!!!! What do you mean, it's impossible? Wrecker!! Traitor!! Remoaner!!"

[Roll Eyes]

Ok, I have retained my ability to take analogies to far...

AFZ
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

You'll lose sometimes playing against Mr. Random, because sometimes he gets lucky. But on a statistical basis you take his shirt.

Just don't go all-in on a coin flip.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
So some sort of initial agreement has been reached.

On the Irish question, paragraphs 49 and 50 are the key ones.

The undertaking for there to be no hard border seems to require either

1) the EU and the UK achieving a much closer customs/trade deal than has been envisaged so far

or

2) some sort of ad hoc status for NI, possibly subject to approval by Stormont.

2) seems to open the way for NI, if it plays its cards right (and as I previously speculated), to have the best of both worlds by guaranteeing its businesses "unfettered access" to the rest of the UK market and alignment with at least some EU Single Market and Customs Union arrangements.

Thoughts, anyone?

Meanwhile I was watching Donald Tusk's press statement. One of his conditions for a 2-year transition period was that during that time the UK should continue to abide by all EU law, including any new laws. Could the hard-liners ever agree to that?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Of course, I don't know about the detail because I've not read it all - however, it sounds to me like the EU has backed down at the last minute.

Enough ambiguity seems to have been added to the section about NI that it appears to leave open the option of continuing with the current situation across the border - and by extension with the rest of the UK - even if a trade deal is not agreed.

In return it appears that the UK has backed down on the divorce payment, the rights of EU citizens and a limited role for the European courts in terms of advice with regard to the status of EU citizens in the UK in the future.

The problems seem to me to be quite significant. On the British side, I don't at the moment see how the government is going to sell this to the hardest Brexiteers. I can't see how in effect the UK wouldn't be continuing within the Common Market if the UK had to keep regulatory alignment as a price for an open Irish border. I can't see how they're going to accept whatever-divorce-payment-is-necessary or the role for the European court.

But I'm also struggling to see why some of the EU countries would accept this, or even what the point of a trade deal would be if everyone agrees that the Irish border is remaining open anyway.

I'm now wondering if it is just a holding pattern, with the UK just agreeing to something so that the conversation can move on to talking about trade.

It could even be a clever ploy by Mrs May - because there is now an incentive for the Tory Brexiteers to push for a deal, because the back-stop which has been agreed now looks a lot like continuing with the CM.

[ 08. December 2017, 07:22: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
This from Leave.EU on twitter:

quote:
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."
So... um..
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
This from Leave.EU on twitter:

quote:
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."
So... um..
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

For example, people in NI are entitled to live and work and travel to the Republic - and I think by extension citizens of the RoI can continue to do the reverse in the whole of the UK. Which, unless the EU is going to say that rules apply in Ireland that don't apply anywhere else, appears to leave the door open to freedom to live and work for Brits in the EU and EU citizens in the UK. It might not be the EU's "freedom of movement", but it looks a lot like it.

Of course, there is the issue of the UK-RoI customs area. Perhaps the truth is that the RoI is going to end up being treated differently to the rest of the EU.

The UK will be out-but-not-really, the RoI will be in-but-not-really. By necessity there would be a customs border between the RoI and the EU in the same way that there would be between the UK and the UK.
 
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :
 
How can this stick unless "Brexit doesn't mean Brexit?"
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Well, maybe if you can believe six impossible things before breakfast...
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Simple, the government (or the Leave campaign groups during the referendum) refused to define Brexit as what they want to achieve. Now they're free to define it as whatever arrangement they manage to negotiate. Which is a definition that means they can't lose.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.

[ 08. December 2017, 09:14: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

It seems that the DUP has insisted that any deal that applies to NI also applies to the rest of the UK.

Ironically, I think this means that the UK basically retains the various aspects of the CM on the basis that NI keeps them.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

What makes you say that?

Article 50 says:
quote:
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.
That seems to allow room for a special status to emerge for NI.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What makes you say that?

Well this seems to be what the British press is reporting is the position of the DUP.

Arlene Foster quoted in the Express:

quote:

“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.”

This tweet sets out what those points are, including:

quote:
There will be no so-called 'special status' for Northern Ireland


[ 08. December 2017, 09:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
I try and stay away from all this nonsense (Brexit, not the thread - although I try and stay away from that too for the sake of my blood pressure) but have had a look around the bazaars at reaction. Oddly, the most balanced (IMO) have been the FT and ConservativeHome. Oddly because they ought to be the two citadels for remain and leave.

The editorial of the latter makes the excellent point that anyone (in the media or otherwise) giving their searing hot take on what any of it means this morning cannot possibly know. Next week/month/year, maybe.

But the people seizing magpie like on the bits that they think they like, or indeed hate within hours of publication, have potentially got the wrong end of the stick at this point and would do better to have a cup of tea and read a book.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
Having said all that, as a fence sitter who decided on the day to vote remain, I reckon I can live with the shape of this (with the caveats about not knowing exactly how it's going to pan out).

My take from a happy couple of hours trying to understand the shape of reaction (thankfully as part of my job) is broadly:

soft leavers and pragmatic/soft remainers are relatively happy, in the spirit of "just get on with it now"

Hard leavers are unhappy because they think they've been sold out, but at the same time some of their figureheads are happy - so they're a bit leaderless. Farage is agin it, but not all hard leavers are Farage fans.

Hard remainers are unhappy because (as the narrative building seems to see it) Brussels has thrown May a lifeline, making it more unlikely that the govt will collapse, and consequently more unlikely that Brexit will be stopped. How they square that with the Labour Party not being in favour of stopping Brexit (today, anyway) I don't know.

Andrew Neil had a great line last night about how no one saw "weak and stable leadership" coming, but it appears to be what we've ended up with.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

I think she is spinning the text of the joint statement.

As I understand the text, if NI as part of the UK leaves the single market the UK has to maintain near-identical provisions to the single market for NI (which is a near being in the single market as makes no difference):
quote:
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...
The only way this can be avoided, AIUI, is if Stormont comes to a special agreement with Ireland.
quote:
This tweet sets out what those points are, including:

quote:
There will be no so-called 'special status' for Northern Ireland

This appears to fly in the face of at least one option in the agreed text:
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.

 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
All that said I agree with Betjemaniac that this at least buys some time to move forward with the negotiations. Although as Tusk said, there is less time for the harder bits remaining than it took to get to this point.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
but "distinct arrangements" are not a "special status"....

Seriously, I think overall we've basically ruled out a hard Brexit, which is nice. There will more likely as a result of this be a deal of some sort, which most people can live with.

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), and everyone else, fingers crossed and with a great deal of luck, have this morning got quite a good chance of being able to get on with their lives while the loonies on both sides howl at the moon.

In the words of Private Eye, trebles all round.

From my position back on top of the fence, there's many a slip twixt etc, but it's more cheerful up here this morning.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:


Article 50 says:
quote:
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.
That seems to allow room for a special status to emerge for NI.
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.


[ 08. December 2017, 10:05: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

True - but that (IMO) argues strongly for off-the-shelf-with-a-bit-of-fiddling.

I think the options are now Norway or Canada, with either deal being punted forward by Brussels, then some arguing about some bits. Trade derogations if it's Norway, adding in (some) services if it's Canada. The UK may not get what it wants, but I think fully bespoke is off the table. Or it ought to be anyway.

Interesting were the reactions this morning of the people at the centre - relief from Juncker and May, Barnier looked like a broken/angry man. Not sure what that says, perhaps he's just tired. A cynic might suggest that he had his job taken back by EU centre last night, and they've compromised on some things he's spent the last however many months saying the EU weren't going to compromise on... Don't know - I offer that purely as an observation.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.

 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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....
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
More agreement with betjemaniac from me here and I hope he's right about a Norway/Canada solution.

I'll be interested to see Fletcher Christian's take.

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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....

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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Hmm. I note that paragraph about "unfettered access" seems to only specify traffic one way...
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
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....

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.

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.

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),

That can't possibly be what it means though? Can it?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

That can't possibly be what it means though? Can it?

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
we don't know the details of what sectors this will cover.

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.

Off the top of my head I know agriculture's in there, I *think* pharma is, but it was all spelled out in 1998 so it's written down somewhere.

[ 08. December 2017, 10:48: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
You would think it must be at least OK for the EU - otherwise why would they have agreed to it?

... because the alternative is utter chaos in Ireland?

quote:
In which case the outcome seems really rather surprisingly good for everyone? On first impressions?
I'm struggling to see how this is good for the EU.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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?

Do you know, I actually (and cautiously) think it might be.

However, on why the EU would have agreed to it.... it comes back to why the extreme Remainers are so cross this morning. This deal props up Mrs May, and makes Brexit more likely.

The EU is staring at losing 12% of budget contributions, so it's in their interests to ensure that this happens gracefully rather than cliff-edgily, and whilst holding on to as much as posible (in terms of money, and trading arrangements). The last thing they want is a change of PM, with the potential for someone much more hardline coming in, or a change of govt - which would change the whole team and negotiating strategy - but crucially would do so after another delay for an election, etc.

It's in the EU's interests to hold our hand and help us out of the door with the current team in charge, because that way they retain some control over how it happens (and consequently what damage is inflicted on the way).

I'd say that the last bit of "Brexit can be stopped" hope on the Remain side died last night. But, conversely, so did the hard Brexit fantasy of the radical right (and, to be fair, the radical left).

I really hope I'm right.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

Being entirely honest, if the choice were Norway or Canada then even as a (reluctant/pragmatic) remainer, I would take Canada.

[ 08. December 2017, 11:26: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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)

"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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

In the meantime, how do we get Alan not to waste his letter to Santa Claus?
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
The best bit, was when Michel Barnier was asked what the EU ha conceded. He thought for a moment and noted that the EU had not charged the UK for moving the two regulatory agencies that had been hosted in the UK prior to Brexit. This is like watching Omar steal a shed load of heroin from Prop Joe and Cheese and sell it back to them. It would be even more entertaining if it was someone else's country looking like fools.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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)

"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.
well absolutely - but as I said my preference would be for both fringes to do it quietly, and preferably somewhere else!
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
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.

Being entirely honest, if the choice were Norway or Canada then even as a (reluctant/pragmatic) remainer, I would take Canada.
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
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.

[Killing me] [Killing me]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Interesting article in the Irish Times, saying that N. Ireland has been a kind of Trojan horse. In other words, with the commitment to no hard border, then N. Ireland has to follow the republic in terms of trade, and the UK has to follow N. Ireland.

He also asks, what has been the point of the whole thing, but it's too early in the day for such metaphysical conundrums.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-ireland-has-just-saved-the-uk-from-the-madness-of-a-hard-brexit-1.3320096
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Maybe, but it's a fair point.

What the f*ck is all this wretchedness going to achieve?

IMHO, nothing good.....except for massaging the ego of Nigel Garbage and his ilk.

[Projectile]

IJ
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Want to bet that they'll be partying hard in the Irish foreign ministry tonight, the Guinness flowing, and so on? It seems ironic that the Irish border was ignored by many hard Brexiteers, as somehow insignificant, yet in a way it has led to the reverse engineering of the whole thing, apparently.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I noticed an interesting view that this is a presentational deal - in other words, we leave the single market and customs union in name, but carry on obeying the regs and rules of them. This would mean that May satisfies the Ultras by leaving, and satisfies the softies by in effect, staying. If this is correct, it will be seen as quite a coup by her. On the other hand, it may be accidental.

Another view is that the EU decided to keep May on life support for a while. Amusing, if cynical.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
A few things have become clearer to me over the past couple of years.

One of which is how the EU made the Good-Friday Agreement possible. Or at least much easier. The kind of cross-border arrangements that the nationalist community really wanted (and benefited all) whilst remaining fully part of the UK was so easy to acheive when the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom were both soverign nations who had signed upto a series of multi-national cooperation agreements. (Aka the EU).

Another important point here is that no deal is very bad for the UK. Literally planes not being able to fly until specific arrangements put in place (as with so many sectors, the UK, for very good reasons the UK uses EU mechanisms - of course it would be possible to do these things without the EU but they would need to be set up from scratch). No deal is also bad for the EU so it's not in their interests. The key point here is that no deal is far worse for the UK than the EU.

As far as I can see, the current deal is a big climb-down for Theresa May (from her rhetoric) because the default if things not sorted is for the UK to remain in the common market and the customs union for a transition period.

This is really good news for the UK as it seems to ensure that the no-deal fantasy will be avoided.

AFZ
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's either a climb-down or clever presentational politics. We are leaving the single market (but we'll follow its regs).
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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).

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.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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).

Of course, there are plenty of opportunities for the wheels to come off further down the road.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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).

Yes.

It may even be the best outcome?

No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!

Why should we not bleat? What have you got against people who really care for their country airing their views?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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).

Yes.

It may even be the best outcome?

No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!

We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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).

Yes.

It may even be the best outcome?

No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!

We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
True. I hope it keeps the nutbars happy, but I strongly suspect it won't be enough.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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).

Yes.

It may even be the best outcome?

No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!

We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
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.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!

Why should we not bleat? What have you got against people who really care for their country airing their views?
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]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Why should we not bleat? What have you got against people who really care for their country airing their views?

Nothing - provided nobody takes it to be anything more than hot-air. So long as Nigel Cabbage never appears on a BBC programme again.

Surely you can see that there is a level of acute farce when the deal which is agreed (and, let's be honest is the most likely option given that the Tories can't themselves agree what they want out of a trade deal) amounts to remaining within the things that the most ardent leavers wanted out of.

The DUP, who appear to be the most Brexity of Brexiteers seem intent on saying that the UK as a whole is going to leave the CM and CU when this agreement appears to suggest that the default position - because of the DUP's big boots on Monday - is going to be that NI, and because of the DUP's fixation also the rest of the country are staying with something that looks a lot like the current CM.

If that's not madness, I don't know what is. They've forced an agreement that does the exact opposite of what they say they want.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :
 
quote:
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.

Well, might it be a case of their old-fashioned Britishness itself being what makes them so different from the rest of the UK?

I believe the suit-and-bowler outfits that they wear in the parades are meant as some sort of ethnic costume, to show everyone how British they are(like Hawaiians wearing leis, for example). But of course, very few people elsewhere in the UK dress that way anymore. So by being very British as per 1930, they end up being completely un-British as per 2017.

Mind you, I don't know if their legal system, police etc are British in that sense, ie. reminiscent of Britain a long time ago. I'm kind of guessing most of them might assume that to be the case, since(again, extrapolating largely from the clothes), their whole identity seems wrapped up in "We are what the British were like in the past".
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?

I don't think that means what you think it means.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?

I don't think that means what you think it means.
What do you think I think it means and what do you think it actually means (if different)?

[ 08. December 2017, 17:31: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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).

Yes.

It may even be the best outcome?

No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!

We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
True. I hope it keeps the nutbars happy, but I strongly suspect it won't be enough.
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.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!

Why should we not bleat? What have you got against people who really care for their country airing their views?
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):

quote:
I can assure you there is widespread resentment at your activities and a period of silence on your part would be welcome.

 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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).

Yes.

It may even be the best outcome?

No more Ukipper and brexiteer bleating!

We're leaving the jurisdiction of the ECJ (eventually). That alone is more than 'name only', isn't it?
True. I hope it keeps the nutbars happy, but I strongly suspect it won't be enough.
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.
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

There's also something of a contradiction in Farage's argument that no-one's challenged him on (well, not so far as I've seen). If you believe (as I do, and Farage obviously does) that the European Union's powers are far-reaching and its tentacles extend deep into British economic, legal, political, life and so forth, then it's obviously going to be difficult to reverse that in a very short period of time. I don't quite understand how one can argue that the EU is all-powerful and also that you can flick a switch overnight and everything will be ok. But I suppose that, since Farage will never be in power, he doesn't have to square that particular circle.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
If this deal (or proto-deal, whatever it is, the hard bits are still to do)

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.

Now, though, the agreed position appears to be that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. If that is a change, it seems to be something of a climbdown by the EU, but it also seems to be mean the whole thing is in flux. Britain could, presumably, still crash out of the EU with no deal (and no financial settlement, etc.) if Stage 2 comes to nothing.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What do you think I think it means and what do you think it actually means (if different)?

See Sioni's answer up thread. The CJEU would be involved as soon as the UK has a trade deal with the EU.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What do you think I think it means and what do you think it actually means (if different)?

See Sioni's answer up thread. The CJEU would be involved as soon as the UK has a trade deal with the EU.
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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
What do you think I think it means and what do you think it actually means (if different)?

See Sioni's answer up thread. The CJEU would be involved as soon as the UK has a trade deal with the EU.
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?
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

I doubt if most of the people who object to the ECJ actually know what it does (apart from some cargo cult belief that it 'stops us deporting terrorists').
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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?

To the extent that the ECJ ultimately rules on EU standards and they wish to trade with the EU, yes they are
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.

Which I would say is somewhat different to the principle of the primacy of EU law (and being subject to it). 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.

But I accept that the ECJ could conceivably get some role in any final settlement.

[ 08. December 2017, 19:37: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm struggling to see how this is good for the EU.

As long as it's good for Britain I couldn't care less how it is for the EU.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm struggling to see how this is good for the EU.

As long as it's good for Britain I couldn't care less how it is for the EU.
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?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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?

Not much, probably.

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).
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

The DUP, who appear to be the most Brexity of Brexiteers

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

As economist Wren-Lewis noted more than a year ago, the UK had essentially one card - the timing of when to invoke Article 50. That was the only time the UK held any real power in the negotiation. Once A50 invoked, all the power pretty much sits with the EU.

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...

But then May was (and still is) running scared from the right-wing of her party who demanded activation of A50 RIGHT NOW. And hence (as is the case so much at the moment) good governance took second place to political expediency.

It seems to me that the best hope of a good outcome for the UK is that the EU team seem to want a fair deal for the UK... It seems that the EU has forced the UK into accepting a default of single market rules and custom union until things can be sorted. This is a much better deal for the UK than anything HMG has put forward (at least publicly).

I do love irony.

AFZ

[ 09. December 2017, 08:00: Message edited by: alienfromzog ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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).

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).

So far as I see it, there are now three possible outcomes:

1. A comprehensive free trade deal that entails UK-EU regulatory alignment. Freedom of movement as part of this deal will presumably be discussed at Phase II.

2. No deal. The UK maintains EU regulations anyway in order to ensure an open border in Ireland, and thus can't strike trade deals outside Europe unless the other country is happy to accept EU regulatory standards. Goods exported from the UK to Ireland incur no tariffs but there is no guarantee that exports from the UK to Continental Europe won't incur tariffs*.

3. No deal. The UK reneges on the Phase I deal and makes up its own regulations in order to strike trade deals outside Europe. Ireland retaliates by imposing border controls.

I think the EU has now comprehensively ensured that any notional advantages of the no-deal scenario have thoroughly evaporated ...


* In this scenario it would of course be possible to avoid tariffs by sending a container (say) Liverpool to Belfast, Belfast to Dublin, Dublin to Rotterdam but unless tariffs are set at 100%+ I am pretty sure it would be cheaper just to send the container direct to Rotterdam and pay the tariff.

[ 09. December 2017, 08:26: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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...

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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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...

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.
Indeed.
[Roll Eyes]

AFZ
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

Remember that the UK has also made noises about 'regulatory alignment' ( https://archive.fo/pRgYn ) which means that ECJ judgements will apply to more than just exporters.

[ 09. December 2017, 10:18: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

In short, we don't know now any more than we knew before 23rd June 2016 and we are only now, nearly 18 months on making any progress.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
This implies that the company was conducting right-to-work checks with insufficient rigour.
Workers who aren't supposed to be in the country are unable to claim workplace pensions, minimum wages, etc. Therefore there is an incentive to companies to not conduct right-to-work checks, should it be the case that immigration targets perversely prioritise deporting immigrants over punishing the companies that employ them. (Surely not.)

That may not apply to Uber as Uber has its own way to avoid paying workplace pensions, minimum wages, sanction people who wnat to have employment rights, etc.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
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.

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
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
This caught my eye recently:

Illegal migrants are very unlikely to be caught

As long as there is demand for their labour, people will move to meet that demand. Always have, always will. If we allow them to do it legally then we'll know who they are, what they're doing and how much tax they've paid, but instead we've decided to Take Back Control. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's quite noticeable that hardly had the congratulations died down, over the phase one deal, than it starts getting torn to shreds. It seems to resolve nothing, since the next lot of negotiations can change it all, or can lead nowhere, producing a sudden exit. I wonder if the Ultras are still plotting for a hard Brexit?
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Not sure if anyone else has picked up on this, but it looks as though the Government has been defeated in a key vote.

IJ
 
Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :
 
My first reaction is that this is a "shoot-selves-in-feet" moment as far as Remainers are concerned. Chance to vote down final deal at least as likely to be used to oppose "soft" Brexit as to oppose "hard" Brexit. Overall raises chance of no deal.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
You reassure me inasmuch as that was my confused take.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Since it's democracy at action for the end of the process rather than the more logical option of asking the people or their representatives what they want from Brexit before starting the process, the options are limited.

The best option would be for the government to find out what the majority views of Parliament and the people are, and enter negotiations seeking to obtain a deal that will pass with a large majority of MPs voting for it - ideally a free vote on the merits of the deal, not something forced through by the whips.

The other option is for the government to press on with a deal to satisfy a vocal minority in their party. And, then have it rejected by Parliament - probably leading to a no deal as there'll be no time to renegotiate to get something else agreed.

I'm not holding my breath that this government has the nous to do something half way sensible.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm increasingly thinking that a "deal" is not going to be possible because both sides have points beyond which it will be impossible to compromise.

Whether or not the British parliament has a say on a deal is a bit of a red herring - because fairly obviously the EU is not going to agree to something that would be thrown out by the British parliament (or, come to that, all the other parliaments in the EU).

The British negotiators are going to stumble unless they can show something to the domestic electorate which presses the buttons on borders, taking back control etc. But those are the exact things that the EU can't offer without destroying the union. It's a mutually impossible situation. Neither side can offer what they other wants.

The only thing preventing the EU pulling the plug now is Ireland, IMO. But this is a complex problem without an obvious solution - as I said earlier, I think the EU has compromised as far as it can possibly do so with the agreement from last week. But even this isn't acceptable to the rabid bigots who hold the balance of power in London.

In terms of Ireland, it seems to me that quite possibly the best solution would be for the EU to hold the line and force no-deal, in which case last week's agreement would come into force. But I'm not entirely sure who would be hurt more by that scenario, in the absence of other agreements, I can't work out what would happen at the Irish border. I suspect nobody really knows.

Gah, what a mess.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

After hundreds of years of basic British/Westminster rule, how could it be otherwise?

The Queen is their Queen. They wave, and are proud of, their flag - the Union Flag. They sing their national anthem: The Queen. They have British passports and they are British, arguably in a way that those who label their primary national affiliation as 'English' eg, would perhaps struggle to understand. There are several decades of the dead and terrorized in that province to prove that Northern Ireland is British, contains a majority British population (or does it still?) who at least legally, and certainly culturally, not only are but also consider themselves British, and whose security forces and general population have been bombed, killed, shot and tortured for the privilege of upholding that loyalty.

These things are very much associated with our, and therefore your British identity, like or loathe it.

Times are a-changing of course. Quite noticeably young people have been coming back from 'abroad' and realizing that being British isn't particularly special after all. Especially when your fellow Britons don't seem to be aware of the constitution of their own nation, and don't even regard you as British!

More and more Protestants are choosing Irish passports. Milestone symbol that times are changing. In past times, when travelling with mixed school trips you could always tell who were Catholics and who Protestants because only Catholics would've had Irish passports. But now calling oneself Irish is no longer so closely identified with political Republicanism as it was when I was growing up. That's changing big time.

It'll only be a matter of time before those centuries' worth of constitutional attachment to the 'Mainland' lose their grip, and the modern generations create their own sense of where they want to belong. Ironically, Brexit is helping there. The more hard-line the DUP get the more, it seems, moderate Unionism deplores the hard line, and edges closer to friendliness with the 'foreign' country to the south of its border.

The DUP currently does not represent the majority mind of Northern Ireland in certain issues: same-sex marriage and Brexit to name two. And the harder the DUP dig in the filth to keep themselves in power, the more turned-off ordinary non-fundamentalist Protestants get with being identified with Unionism. And perhaps in time with being British, as the Brexit shambles limps pathetically on.

But nevertheless. Make no mistake. The Northern Irish are currently as British as Churchill's backside, whether they like it or lump it, claim it or reject it. We are and have been for a long time very much a big part of British identity.
As per Scotland. As per Wales. (Not sure about England...!)

[Razz]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Considering that this whole EU leaving business was supposed to put a mile wide schism through the Tory Party, they do actually appear to be holding up fairly well.

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?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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?

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.
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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Whether or not that is really true seems to be untested legal theory. And, of course, it is undeniable that a country acting in such a manner would earn itself the permanent title "arsehole of Europe" with all that that implies.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
But neither Tories or Labour would actually try to cancel Brexit, would they? It seems unthinkable to me, barring of course, something disastrous happening. Well, yes, I know that has happened. I mean ultimate Götterdämmerung, e.g. empty shelves in shops, ten mile queues at Dover, aircraft unable to fly.

A very soft Brexit could happen, whereby the UK tracks EU regulations and other stuff. In the old saying, pay no say. What a laaf that would be.

[ 14. December 2017, 15:00: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
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

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.
Weak Sterling since the result of June 16 is already starting to make a difference. Good for some, bad for others. ‘Twas always thus, and will continue to be so once this business is hammered through.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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?

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.
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.
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.

What it could be is the end of the Tory government. Even if it means the incoming (probably Labour) government has to deal with the mess of the Tories trying for an idiotic and unpopular form of Brexit, and leaving the UK with no deal (which doesn't mean no deal in the longer term, just that it will need to be negotiated while there is no transitional arrangement).
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

quote:
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.
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).

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
"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? Of course, you know my view that the official Leave campaign should have defined what relationship they wanted, and campaigned for it before the referendum so we had the opportunity to say whether we want it. At the very least as soon as Mrs May took over her "Brexit Cabinet" should have thought that through from their first meeting, before starting the clock and triggering Article 50. But too have waited so long before even starting to discuss the question is disgraceful.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
Can't argue with that, Alan. Whatever one's view of the theoretical merits of Brexit may be, it's undeniable that the government seems to be doing its level best to bollocks the whole thing up.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I noticed that phrase, 'for the first time', in the papers. It's a weird mixture of farce and horror we are in. We voted on something that hardly anybody understood, least of all the politicians, and they still don't.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
An good comment in the Guardian today.

quote:
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.
Factions are developing and heretics being denounced. Faith and belief are all that matters. Reality doesn’t exist.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
An good comment in the Guardian today.

quote:
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.
Factions are developing and heretics being denounced. Faith and belief are all that matters. Reality doesn’t exist.
Must dig out my copy of "The Crucible".
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Some of the confusion among politicians can be seen in Boris's latest effluvia, saying that we need frictionless trade, but also the ability to determine our own regulations.

But those two things are surely contradictory? In the modern world, nation states don't determine their own rules, but tend to be enmeshed in trade deals with other countries, where regulations are mutually agreed. This is what the EU does, but the Ultras seem to have the fantasy that outside the EU, we can 'plough our own furrow'.

https://behindthepaywallblog.wordpress.com/2017/12/17/boris-johnson-brexit-mustnt-leave-us-a-vassal-state/
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
It's just more "cake and eat it" stuff, for consumption by the Tory faithful.

Anyone who thinks that anybody can just make up their own regulations these days, doesn't have much experience of international trade.

[ 18. December 2017, 14:48: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Imagine a kid at school doing so little preparation for handing a GCSE project in; they’d be mullered by their teachers, rightly so. Seems there’s no problem with it for die-hard Brexiteers when it’s the government rather than a kid, and instead of a project it’s an enormous change to the constitution and status of the entire nation.
(There are not enough of these in the world -> [brick wall]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
And Mrs May keeps stressing the need for a smooth and orderly Brexit. Well, irony is truly dead.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

A TV drama, complete with an "it was all a dream" plot twist plagiarised from Dallas
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
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
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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

With proper bread shops, unions with teeth ...
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

A TV drama, complete with an "it was all a dream" plot twist plagiarised from Dallas
Would be bloody lovely if we woke up and the “it was all a dream” trope reset us to our previous level of mediocrity.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
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.

A TV drama, complete with an "it was all a dream" plot twist plagiarised from Dallas
Would be bloody lovely if we woke up and the “it was all a dream” trope reset us to our previous level of mediocrity.
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".
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

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.

[ 19. December 2017, 14:26: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?

*except I don’t really because we all know that if it all goes pear-shaped, 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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

According to this, it's even more ironic than that.

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

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
That should save the UK government from doing impact studies. Just read what experts are saying ... allow them to get on with actually thinking of a plan before they start negotiations.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now.

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?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Whatever happened to no taxation without representation?

Doesn't really have salience, and wasn't on the ballot paper.

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?
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

But it could always be argued that we had our commissioners, MEP's and our share of civil servants involved in the rule making process. After March 2019 we will have none of them, ie no one representing British interests in the EU. In those circumstances I have no wish to commit to being bound by those rules beyond a transition period which the EU says will end in December 2020. Is this not a democratic deficit of big proportions?
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
PaulTH:
quote:
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.
[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.

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.

[ 20. December 2017, 23:26: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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?

I think this gets to the heart of the disingenuousness of the Brexiteers.

There may well be a lack of democracy in the EU, but control is not just about direct universal suffrage. Britain had far more opportunity to exercise a degree of control (including over voting legislation) over its environment by being at the negotiating table and in the corridors of Brussels and Strasbourg than it has by "taking back control", which as far as I can see means relinquishing what control it had.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The UK already has a democratic deficit, at least in comparison to most other democracies (eg: other EU nations). That is mostly at the local level, since we have such a strong centralised government in Westminster. When it comes down to it, local government is what most people will be more concerned with - the issues most of us have are under local authority control (schools, bin collection, road repairs, planning issues etc), with a system that to a large extent limits local government in what can be done about local issues that affect people. It's a bit better in Scotland, Wales & NI with devolved Parliament/Assemblies giving us additional elected representatives.

But, at local level we have very large local authorities with a relatively small number of councillors. Where I am, South Lanarkshire is a "local" government covering parts of Glasgow, new and commuter towns, former coal mining areas, and a large area of small rural towns. In most countries that would be divided down into smaller areas that can be classified as local communities, with probably an area the size of S Lan (or a couple of such areas) as a second level of government above that.

I've been trying to find some statistics I saw in the spring, in the run up to the local elections, detailing how other countries manage local government (and, failing to find them ... so, from memory). As I recall, in the UK we have somewhere around 1 councillor per 3500 voters (which makes up the vast majority of people we elect - the number of MPs, MEPs, MSPs is small in comparison so doesn't make a big difference to the elected person/voter ratio). The stats I saw showed that in much of the rest of Europe local authorities cover smaller areas, even to small councils for individual villages of a few thousand people. With a much higher number of councillors per capita, many countries having an average below 2000.

Which is only tangentially relevant to EU membership. Except that I do believe we need genuine local government, with increased powers, at the expense of central government that (in the UK) is currently too powerful. The UK, in the current world system, is too large for many things (where we would be better devolving downwards to local and regional government) and too small for others (eg: environmental regulation, where we need trans-national government). There is some areas where being an island makes that a logical governmental entity, but IMO that's not a large area of governmental authority. I'd be very happy with a system of genuine local government, regional governments (maybe even up to the size of the Scottish Government), and then European scale government and drop the largely superfluous government covering the mainland of Britain and associated smaller isles. Of course, for that to work there would also need to be a similar move to dissolve the current French, German, Spanish etc governments.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Presently the country, parliament and the main political parties themselves are hopelessly polarised over Brexit. With the utter chaos of this government, Labour should be 20% ahead, as was Tony Blair in the mid 1990's. But the parties are still neck and neck as they were in June of this year. Some polls give a small lead to Labour, but at least one recently gave the Tories a small lead. May still polls ahead of Corbyn because many people, myself included, would never vote to put men like Corbyn and McDonnell in power. I could never vote for a party which allows Ken Livingstone to remain a member.

But the defects in British democracy don't change my central point. The UK may be offered a Norway or a Canada type future, as Mr Barnier suggests. But 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. 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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

You don't have the right. You are entitled to seek one. But a larger market does not make a deal easier.
quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You don't have the right. You are entitled to seek one.

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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

This.

This is the heart of all of this. Trade agreements are not really about tarrifs. Tarrifs are easy, you can freely reduce of eradicate them at a stroke. Regulational alignment is the hard bit.

Essentially, all countries have regulatory arrangements and only the extreme-free-market people think you don't need them. Let's give one simple example; there are minimum standards for the effectiveness of car brakes. In theory you could not have a standard but just let the market decide - i.e. people would choose to buy safer cars thus pushing up standards. In practice, this doesn't work very well for two reasons: 1) The vast majority of consumers (me included) do not have enough knowledge to know what they're looking for here and 2) in order for me to be safe on the roads, not only do I need car with effective brakes, but I need you to have one as well. Hence in all developed economies, standards exist - and for all other critical parts of cars. And aeroplanes. Across all sectors of the economy there are key standards (usually to do with safety). Now, we can quibble over individual regulations, but no one who actually knows about these things is anti-all regulation.

To trade across borders between jurisdictions you have to do one of two things: either you have border controls with a system of checks to make sure that what you're importing meets the standards or you have a trade agreement between the exporter and the importer to use the same standards.

Trade Harmonisation - as it's called - in turn comes down to essentially one of two approaches; either you go for the lowest common demoninator - bring all regulations down to the minimum (see TTIP) or you agree on standards that protect consumers and are obtainable and then you form a customs union whereby all goods and services produced in that area meet the standards of the whole area and can thus be freely traded.

Interestingly, if you talk to experts on EU law, Britain (as one of the big 3) has always had significant influence on the formation of EU regulations.

The EU, for all it's faults (and there are many) has been astoundingly successful at unifying 28 different nations and cultures in a serious a trading agreements that both protect consumers and enable trade.

So Britain outside the EU has two choices: either we act as though we are still in and that will really help trade or we diverge and struggle to trade with the EU. One would mean minimal loss economically but a huge loss of sovereignty. The other means a very large economic hit.

And all these mythical trade deals with the rest of the world? They come at a sovereignty price because the only way to have a trade deal with anyone is to forego some sovereignty and have mutually agreed rules.

I suppose, I should mention, there is another theoretical possibility - Britain could conquer the world again and impose our rules on everyone...

So, ultimately there is no path to being better off trade-wise outside the EU. Being part of the EU means voluntarily diluting some sovereignty for big gains. (And not that much sovereignty when you're a big power like Britain). The only justifications I can see for leaving that are even remotely conherent, is 1) That full sovereignty is so important that it's worth the cost. (Although, it's vital to note here that the kind of Brexit we are being promised involves ultimately much less sovereignty). or 2) Because you believe that the EU will unravel itself and we need to get out before that happens.

If you are inline with 1 or 2 then I disagree but respect your position. Anything else is just Bollocks. It really, really is.

I don't particularly like the EU but it's so much better than the alternatives...

But apparently it's the will of the (lied to, ignorant, misinformed and not actually a majority) people...

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

AFZ
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I think there is a basic contradiction in the govt position - they have rejected the single market, but want 'frictionless trade'. I don't see the EU accepting this, as it makes the single market pointless!

Having your cake and eating it, indeed. If you want to be a third country, you can't simultaneously ask for special privileges. Cue all the analogies with leaving gym/golf club, but asking if you can use it at weekends.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
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?

Nobody seriously thinks that the UK could stay in the SM without accepting regulation from Brussels.


Nobody except you upthread

quote:


But aren't those who advocate staying in the SM and CU worried about the democratic deficit that will cause?

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).

As alien points out above, once you commit yourself to seeking free trade agreements of any sort you are subject to regulation decided elsewhere (or equally are subject to having local legislation over-ruled elsewhere - the dreaded chlorine chicken problem). The easiest way to replace lost trade with the EU is by making deals with large trade blocks - and in any such deal the larger trade block will have the whip hand.

[ 21. December 2017, 09:43: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I have been present (as interpreter) at discussions about trade in tangible goods between France and the Channel Islands (which are not part of the EU but are - for now - part of the EEA, but which basically get all their stuff from the UK).

The difficulties relate not so much to customs issues (though there are some of these) but to regulatory harmonisation - and that's within what is basically an EU market for a couple of tiny islands. Imagine the headaches if regulations aren't aligned at all for somewhere the size of the UK.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now.

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?
It's not the EU's fault we voted for no representation.
This is a sunk costs fallacy. The fallacy being that because otherwise the effort you've already put in to doing something stupid would be pointless, you keep on doing something even more stupid.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, it's incredible and farcical that the EU is being blamed in some quarters for treating us as a third country. Hang on, that's what we voted for, or at least some of us.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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).
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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).

Firstly I completely agree that this is unbelievably irrelevant.

But I was intrigued by the change - and so did a bit of looking. Whilst I agree with you that if it was important the UK could so easily have agreed to a change of colour from within the EU but this is the council resolution introducing the common passport regulations. I does seem to be something that all members are expected to go along with and it does specify that the passport be burgandy...

Although I note Croatia does not have a burgandy passport...

Of course the much more important point is how safety, security and movement across Europe is massively enhanced by having a common standard and what I really want to know (and is, of course not mentioned in the BBC news report this morning) is if we are changing more than the colour. (And yes, I know there is a redesign underway anyway. That's as irrelevant as the colour; that's cosmetics. It's the standards and security features that are important: Who wants a bet, we're keeping the same EU standards?)

AFZ
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Apologies for the double post (and I really should be doing some work but) The Parliamentary Select Committee has published these documents:
Department for Exiting the European Union Sectoral Analysis

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.

AFZ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Unless the old cardboard covers with pointy edges useful for poking uncooperative border officials while protesting loudly in a suitably plummy voice are restored, it's a sell-out.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
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.

[ 22. December 2017, 08:38: Message edited by: Stejjie ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
And apparently some of it's copy and pasted from Wikipedia.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
[Killing me] [Waterworks] [brick wall] [Votive]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

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.
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).

It did not tell me anything I didn't already know (as an interested amateur) and had no assessment whatsoever of the impact of various post-brexit scenarios, so yep, a complete waste of time.

I also note the redactions which I suspect are fascinating...

AFZ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Spare a thought (again) for the Channel Islands.

quote:
Because Jersey is not part of the EU, the UK will be responsible for representing our interests in their negotiations with the EU.
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.

[ 22. December 2017, 09:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

Excellent Twitter thread. It would all be hilarous if it wasn't so tragic...

How, how, how are we governed by such incompetents????

As I seem to have been saying for years now, propaganda wins... Brexit means taking back control and a brave new world*

AFZ

*It really doesn't; any simple examination of the facts undermines the entire case but apparently that doesn't matter.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
And apparently some of it's copy and pasted from Wikipedia.

The "sexed-up dossier" that got us into Gulf War II looks a sound and reasonable analysis now.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Just wanted to say, I was completely wrong.

It took no time at all for meaningful analysis.

If I - with my utter contempt for the competence of our current government - didn't expect this...

AFZ
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Just wanted to say, I was completely wrong.

It took no time at all for meaningful analysis.

I'll confess to not having read them, but I suspect this:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[Killing me] [Waterworks] [brick wall] [Votive]

is all the analysis required...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Aeroplane is big machine in sky, goes roar roar, and mummy and daddy and me and teddy go to smelly places. But then roar roar and mummy and daddy and me and teddy come home to nice home, not smelly.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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:

"Most firms have headquarters based in London, but banks and banking services are found all over the UK, largely in proportion to population"

"In coastal communities fishing brings employment and economic activity"

"The fleet is very diverse, with considerable variety in the size of vessels, the fish species they catch and their routes to market. The number of businesses does not necessarily equate to the number of vessels; for example, one business may own multiple vessels and some fishing businesses may operate with very few staff."

Is the kind of waffle I expect when someone is desperately trying to fill out space.

I can only assume that either:

- these are the original reports, were put together in a pro-forma manner and are generally representative of the level of thought put into such things at DxEU.
- there were no original reports, and these were put together to cover for Davis' gaffe.
- the original reports were far too damning to be released, so these were written to release after Davis was forced to do so.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Those extracts sound like A-level essays. Maybe they are.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Those extracts sound like A-level essays. Maybe they are.

They look like Year 10 essays to me. Not very good ones either. They would fail A level by a distance.

(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).
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Those extracts sound like A-level essays. Maybe they are.

They look like Year 10 essays to me. Not very good ones either. They would fail A level by a distance.

(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).

Indeed.

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.

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...

What a sorry, sorry, mess...

AFZ
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
alienfromzog:
quote:
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...

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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
alienfromzog:
quote:
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...

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.
Yep, I know. [Disappointed]

But, [Mad] seriously? [Mad]

AFZ
 
Posted by Stejjie (# 13941) on :
 
This is becoming the Brexit that no-one wants, isn't it? I mean, how can anyone - Brexiter or Remainer - claim that this what's unfolding before us is what they'd hoped for when they voted or campaigned in the referendum?

It's not the patriotic, quick exit burning all our bridges that the hard-core Brexiters wanted;
It's not a careful, well-thought out, methodical process aimed at getting the best deal for all - one that might have assauged the fears of at least some Remainers;
And obviously it's not Remaining.

It's just a mess, a huge, incompetent, unsatisfactory mess that surely nobody can be satisfied with. It was probably always going to be that way, TBH, but the stupid, blinkered, useless, self-satisfied, arrogant misguided* way the British have approached this has all but guaranteed that the end result will be a terrible patch-up job that'll probably fall apart within months. And the latest debacle with the sector "analysis" just makes that all the more clear.

* Have I missed anything out?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
alienfromzog:
quote:
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...

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.
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.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'll be happy to drift into a "Brexit by name alone" which doesn't seem so unlikely now.

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?
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":
1) was never true, as in UK history, most, then many, were never represented (unless you hold with the notion that the people of counties and boroughs were represented in Parliament even when they as individuals had no franchise), although much taxed,
2) nor was it ever true in US history as many of those taxed were never represented (unless you hold with the notion that the people of states were represented even when they did not have the franchise), although taxed. Even now, considerable numbers-- some say about 6 million- of the disenfranchised continue to pay taxes, and in any case
3) was more a slogan for those 18th century colonists seeking separation from Britain (Amerexiteers??) than a serious constitutional option.
 
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 
Hmm having had to face the fact that the bit I saw in the independent wasn't satire. I had managed to get my expectation levels too low for the Consumer Goods one.
Were I told it were from 1/7/16 I'd probably be fairly happy with it.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
posted by alienfromzog
quote:
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.

Don't rush to blame Mr Davis.

The report on this in The Times makes it very clear - if it weren't to anyone who knows how government departments work - that these papers (I use that term in the loosest sense) were produced by our magnificent civil service. Mr Davis, or any other minister, can protest all he likes but the papers that ministers are given on whatever subject they need to be briefed may nominally be produced at the behest of the minister or secretary of state but the reality is that they are in fact produced according to a briefing that comes, in the final analysis, from the permanent secretary for the department.

In the case of Brexit, that will have come from the Major Project Authority which (to quote the civil service website
quote:
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

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.

Now, it might be argued that in the case of these risible bits of course-work Mr Davis should have buckled down and done it all himself but that shouldn't be the case.

There may be another discussion here about whether or not the woeful papers have been signed-off as they are as part of some foot-dragging exercise (unofficial of course) by individual civil servants intent on pursuing their own political agenda - although how it might be that this happened when they will have passed through several layers of ever more senior administrators before reaching Mr Davis is a mystery?
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't rush to blame Mr Davis.

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.

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
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That's the general view. He's basically useless because he's basically lazy.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

Indeed? [Disappointed]

Well, that confirms the point that he is responsible for this rubbish.

He should have resigned two weeks ago when it became clear that either he was lying to the committee or that he lied to parliament. Now he should resign on the grounds of incompetence.

But given that on that basis, there wouldn't be much of a cabinet left, I won't hold my breath...

AFZ

P.S. As an interesting aside, I'm no fan of Lord Mandelson but the departments he worked in held him is very high regard... I think that an interesting contrast...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I think people like to focus on passport colours because the sheer magnitude and complexity of the alternative is just too scary to contemplate.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
Except it was actually jet black. The pages were a light blue - I've still got my first one. They sent it back to me after I renewed it. The size was different - the 'new' EU passports were easier as it would fit into your shirt breast pocket, but I think the size is determined by an international body. ( I forget which) We may have sovereignty but so do other people [Two face]
 
Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :
 
quote:
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.

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!

Intolerable!
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
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.

Funny no one asks about the two French phrases written thereon.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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.

Funny no one asks about the two French phrases written thereon.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
If we need to change the passport appearance, then this would be my choice.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The old blue/black passports, however, together with the French on the cover, were imposed by the UN.

It is, however, a sign of our sovereignty that we change from a colour we have decided on ourselves, to one that was imposed upon us from outside.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we need to change the passport appearance, then this would be my choice.

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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
The old blue/black passports, however, together with the French on the cover, were imposed by the UN.

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.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Why is it so hot in here?

And what am I doing in this handbasket?

And WTF is all this fuss about the cover of a bloody passport?

If the Orcs In Charge Of The World get their way, none of us will be able to travel anywhere.

But who'd want to go to the Great Orange Goblin's Usania, anyway?

[Help]

IJ
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
Ooer...just a thought:

Great Orange Goblin = GOG! Isn't he in the Bible somewhere, as a Not Good Thing?

[Paranoid]

IJ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
If we need to change the passport appearance, then this would be my choice.

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.
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.


[Tear]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I've just worked out how Mr Corbyn can win overwhelming support for his manifesto! [Yipee]

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.

[ 23. December 2017, 13:33: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I've just worked out how Mr Corbyn can win overwhelming support for his manifesto! [Yipee]

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.

If he can deliver that without turning us into a Venezuela-esque economic basket case, then I'm game. Full steam ahead!

[ 23. December 2017, 13:37: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
No, no! Blood-and-custard coaches, if you please!
As seen here...

A cheerful combination, although, admittedly, not that easy to keep clean in the days of steam...

IJ
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
No, no! Blood-and-custard coaches, if you please!
As seen here...

Or, much more recently, in Glasgow.
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
IIRC........I think they were chocolate and white here in GWR country........
 
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I think that came a bit later (?1956), just as blood-and-custard was being replaced by (better-wearing) maroon, and theoretically only for named express trains anyway.

And the Southern kept green ... What a good thing the North-east region didn't start painting its carriages tangerine! [Projectile]

[ 23. December 2017, 17:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
I'm surprised that the "leave" supporters are worried about the colour of the passport. Why would they want to travel abroad (assuming we would be allowed in?).
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
I'm surprised that the "leave" supporters are worried about the colour of the passport. Why would they want to travel abroad (assuming we would be allowed in?).

To attend footy matches? Get drunk? Cause mayhem? Insult foreigners? Demand Fish and Chip shops remain open late on The Rivera or at Benidorm? To generally bring shame and disgrace upon a 'Proud and Independent Country'?

I don't know!

Judging from the two fingers up the blue passport signals to the rest of Europe, anyone holding one will have to endure longer queues and more intensive customs searches than will 'normal' burgundy EU passport holders.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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

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?

quote:
(assuming we would be allowed in?).

I think British people visited the continent before 1973...
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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

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?

quote:
(assuming we would be allowed in?).

I think British people visited the continent before 1973...

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.

Secondly, yes, we did travel to the continent before 1973 but that was before we put the Big Finger up at the continental nations.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

Seems a rather harsh way to describe Gisela Stuart.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't rush to blame Mr Davis.

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.

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

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.

I had a quick look through the documents here and can assure you that my old boss would have pulled the Deputy (permanent civil service head of department aside) and would have clearly and calmly asked him why undergraduates had taken over drafting cabinet papers. I would agree with alienfromzog's assertion that Mr Davis is not leading his department but the current UK cabinet configuration is such that nobody might have noticed.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
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.

Seems a rather harsh way to describe Gisela Stuart.
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.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Hezza backs Jezza!

"Corbyn as PM would do ‘less damage’ than Brexit, says Remain fanatic Tory Lord Heseltine

The Europhile said Britain has survived Labour governments in the past as the damage is short-term but leaving the European Union is 'not capable of rectification'." The Sun
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Rejoice! It's all right!! The rich are getting richer!!! The Footsie is up over 300 points since the end of November, over 4% because sterling has been trashed by Brexit. So many international companies HQ in London that their foreign currency income is soaring by doing nothing! Hmmmmmmmm. Dark lining to that silver cloud tho'. The demand for sterling will go up on exchange. Bummer. For the rich.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
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!

Your occasional reminder that thanks to the Brexiteers our government is cosying up to this malicious and dangerous moron for a trade deal.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
So, it's only taken 560 days but finally we have a potential positive effect of Brexit....

Only one, but honesty compels me to admit that the announcement of reforms to farm subsidies to prioritise good environmental management is a genuinely good thing.

But there are 4 caveats to this (I'll let you decide how important each of these is)...

1) This is the first announcement of intent: given all that has been promised previously, the jury is out on what the final policy will look like. There are specific reasons to think that the government may well back-track on today's announcement (see below for some of them) and that's not because I don't trust Michael Gove one inch. I don't, but that's not part of my argument.

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…

3) Such a radical change in subsidy policy is a potentially huge stumbling block to any putative UK-EU trade deal. You know, the one, that David Davis said would be easy… If you don't believe me, look at how farm subsidies (on both sides) has been such a massive problem for EU-USA trade negotiations.

4) The devil is very much in the detail. The headline announcement sounds good but what exactly is the policy?

Given that the net UK contribution to the EU is around £10Bn/year and leaving the EU is going to cost the UK economy somewhere between £50-80Bn/year (and thus likely 20-35Bn in tax revenue) not to mention the (probably insurmountable) problems for Northern Ireland, and a whole host of other things, Brexit remains a stupid idea.

However, I have finally found something to be positive about!!! And it only took 560 days!

AFZ
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Who thinks Michael Gove will still be running environmental policy in 2005?
 
Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :
 
Sorry, that should have read 2025.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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…

OTOH on a political level it may not be a terrible strategy if you adopt their presuppositions.

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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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…

OTOH on a political level it may not be a terrible strategy if you adopt their presuppositions.

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.

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...

AFZ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
As someone who occasionally bills work to the UK is registered for VAT, I've been wondering how long it will be until the implications of Brexit for business VAT transactions - a pretty important tfact of business life, one which takes a big part of our accounting time - will dawn on the UK government.

The answer appears to be about now.
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.”
[Roll Eyes] [brick wall]
 
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
The article sounds a bit odd. Presumably, as a matter of UK law, importers have to pay VAT on imported goods from outside the EU (and then recoup the VAT via on-sale) as per the UK's VAT legislation. So, whether or not importers will have to pay VAT up-front on goods from the EU is simply a matter for that legislation, which could be amended so that this is no longer required. Which means:

quote:
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.
is at best misleading reporting or at worst, bollocks.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
AIUI, an establishment based in the EU exporting something outside the EU (eg Switzerland) does not charge VAT on the bill at all. (At least, that's the way it is for services).

When exporting (again, at least as far as services are concerned) to another EU country (eg the UK at present), VAT is not charged either if the recipient is registered for VAT (although it has to be declared in a piece of accounting of which the net effect is zero).

If the UK maintains some sort of VAT system post-Brexit (and nobody has suggested it's disappearing...) then I suspect for goods at least, they'll want to charge VAT on imports at the time of purchase. That's the only practical way of keeping track.

Even if companies can offset the VAT they pay against the VAT they get in from their customers (paying VAT to the company when they pay their invoices) when the company pays its VAT bill to the tax man(1), post-Brexit it sounds like they will have to pay the VAT for imported goods up-front instead of simply declaring a notional amount. Not only is this more complicated from an accounting point of view, it is going to make a huge dent in their cash flow.

The only ways I can see to avoid this are 1) for the UK not to charge VAT on imports, which would put domestic sellers at at a huge competitive disadvantage compared to imports, unless VAT was abolished altogether 2) keep UK VAT within the EU system(2) (or possibly 3) tweak the rules so VAT on imports is paid at a later date, which is probably what is going to happen, but this would I think be an accounting nightmare).

How am I not surprised the UK government hasn't had a plan to address this to date? [Roll Eyes]

This is complicated(3), which is probably why it hasn't made more news as it's hard to explain, but it is indubitably not trivial.

==
(1) the thing to understand about VAT is that the state basically outsources its collection to companies registered for VAT; for a given month, you send the tax man the difference between all the VAT you've got in by invoicing it and the VAT you paid on your own purchases.

(2) Note that from within the EU-27 system, meanwhile, other things being equal the UK not being in its VAT system will not have any such effect. All I'll need to do is change one piece of boilerplate on my bills and stop having to bother declaring VAT on invoices to the UK in the VIES system. This is a wholly UK headache.

(3) I've probably got some of the above wrong despite being registered for VAT and invoicing both other EU countries and third countries. Open to corrections.

[ 08. January 2018, 05:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Some more thoughts From Simon Wren-Lewis

AFZ
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Goldman Sachs says what I've been saying for some time: Brexit is now (or fast becoming) irreversible.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Goldman Sachs says what I've been saying for some time: Brexit is now (or fast becoming) irreversible.

That's not exactly saying that. It's saying that some companies plans for coping with Brexit are becoming irreversible.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Certainly some UK coverage would suggest that it's all up to the UK government.

But, there is a lot of reporting of businesses and public sector organisations relocating, in part or entirety, to other parts of the EU. Everyone knows there are costs involved in relocation. European institutions have no choice but to move, businesses are doing it because they've determined that the costs of relocation are less than the costs of being entirely outside the EU. As relocation progresses then the costs of reversing that becomes larger, and those relocations become irreversible.

The same applies to individuals, with increasing numbers of people leaving the UK, taking their skills, spending power and tax raising income. All of which retards the economy, and the ability of the UK government to fund services.

It would still be far better for the people of the UK to tell the government to stop this idiocy, and stay in the EU. But, that will be as a poorer member of the EU than before the 2016 vote. Just not as bas as being outside the EU.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

They will blame everyone but themselves and demand an even more extreme set of policies to fix the problems both imagined and real.

The specific form of the referendum has created a decision that can always serve as an excuse, with no one being held to account for delivery.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I admit a part of me is quite entertained by the brewing civil war in the Tory Party. Especially as the whole point of calling a referendum was to prevent that.

Though it would be much better if the Tory Party didn't drag the rest of the country down with their internal squabbling.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.

If Jeremy Corbyn backs a second, better worded, referendum, I think he'll get into government. A fractured Tory Party may not be able to win a vote of no confidence.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

I do not think that they allow things like ideological consistency to freight them. http://archive.is/gEDda

quote:

If Jeremy Corbyn backs a second, better worded, referendum, I think he'll get into government.

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.

I'm also not sure that a second referendum would yield the result some people seem to hope for - unless it was a absolutely resounding win (by much more than 10%) it would leave an open sore and yet more acrimony that would take a generation or more to heal. 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

[In an alternate reading of the history of the last few years, Nick Clegg is a major villain - he bet his party's future on an AV referendum (thus bringing the idea back into the public consciousness), and by establishing the coalition that was the price of the vote supported the austerity policies that led to the pro-Brexit majority).

[ 30. January 2018, 10:16: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
chris

Turkeys may vote for Christmas in the Autumn, but not on December 24.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
chris

Turkeys may vote for Christmas in the Autumn, but not on December 24.

And come December 26th they won't be able to vote
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
chris

Turkeys may vote for Christmas in the Autumn, but not on December 24.

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.

The last referendum had a corrosive effect on the politics of the country, ISTM that electoral law was woefully inadequate in dealing with the media in a situation where there the positions were not drawn across clear party lines, and all sorts of unsavoury organisations emerged into the spotlight as a result.

A second referendum is an easy out for the pro-EU parts of the government who'd rather not make too much noise about it (ie. who would rather put their personal interests above that of country), just as the first referendum was an easy out for the pro-Brexit lot who didn't need to put forward a clear path for leaving the EU (and could thereby use it as the political equivalent of a Rosarch blot test).
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
You need a shift of 3 or 4 in 100. Activating the young voters looks entirely possible. They like Corbyn. All that is required is to get him off his internationalist fence. Given that the real choice is the pocket of the US or Europe, I think he'll find the bottle.

Add to that UKIP's zero credibility.

Looks eminently possible.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You need a shift of 3 or 4 in 100.

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.

IMO, you need a conclusive shift the other way to justify replacing a referendum with a new result - something close to 55-45 in favour of remain would be about the minimum that I think you could claim.

(IMO, the easiest way to get some semblance of a mandate to remain in the EU would be a no confidence vote followed by a new election. Have Labour commit to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU as their leading manifesto promise, and see what happens.)
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

My point was approximately what LC said above - you'd need a significant shift.

Ignoring Corbyn for a moment - there is no high profile Tory willing to front a campaign to stay in the EU - none. At that point in the minds of a large number of people it turns into a referendum on the government.

And UKIP may be a busted flush - but largely because their voters returned to the Tory fold as they went full Brexit. And many of the same arguments apply to Farage as to Trump - he still remains reasonably popular in the circles which always found him popular, regardless of how he is seen elsewhere.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yep and I think that's what Corbyn's playing for.

Also, whilst he's constantly criticised for everything including being bad at politics... there is a timing thing here: 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. OTOH, let the Brexiteers destroy themselves in the Tory party, hold the line that Common Market / Customers union decisions will be based on best interests and then you have the option of knowing quite what the final deal will look like and being able to say to the country: "This is the final deal, it's awful, don't you think we should stay?"

I cannot see any other path to avoid Brexit. Whilst Corbyn might not be able to pull that off, the 'Why doesn't he just come out against Brexit now' argument is really bad tactics. Not least because for a lot of the country who's struggling they don't want to hear about Brexit but about the things that are affecting their lives right now. (Yes, I know that Brexit is really, but that's beside the point...)

The thing that gives me hope is that the fudge* that saved the NI/ROI border in the first stage agreeement means that if they government fuck this up (as they probably will), then the default is that the UK stays in the common market and the customs union. Not as good as staying in the EU but the a hard brexit is now unlikely.

AFZ

*BTW, if you followed this closely you may have noticed that just when May desperately needed a political win, the EU constructed this agreement and gave it to her. Mostly 'coz they were acting in their own (and specifically Ireland's) interests but it happened to help May as well. I nearly choked when she claimed it as a great job by her and Davis but there you go...
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.

BTW I agree with everything said about using referenda to determine policy. Representative democracy may very imperfect, but it's better.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Either way you'd would be left with a huge political mess to clean up afterwards.

Assume the current government ran the referendum, if 'Leave' won again the government would collapse and there would be a leadership election. If 'Leave' lost on such a tiny margin, then it may well collapse anyway and you'd have the mother of all political stinks being kicked up by the ERG and their friends in the press.

Of course in the scenario that a Labour government ran the referendum you'd get a cohort of self proclaimed centrists trotting out the line that Labour should/shouldn't have listened to what all right thinking people think anyway/the public and what was needed was a more centrist 'statesmanlike' government like that of Cameron. (Broadly speaking I think alienfromzog is correct, though I think Corbyn is either slightly more euro-skeptic and/or running slightly worried at the thought of losing a bunch of seats in the North of England should he go for Remain too early).

I mean given what we know now, the referendum should contained three options - a middle option of staying in EFTA and leaving the EU, which would have split off some of the pub-bore contingent while in the worst case leaving the UK in a better situation than it looks like will transpire now.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
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. I suspect that the majority of Labour voters who voted for Brexit could be persuaded that Corbyn would be more on their side in the EU than May would be outside.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

I think you are right. I think the following analysis is probably more correct than wrong:

https://medium.com/@marwood_lennox/the-labour-party-and-the-north-of-england-a-statistical-analysis-aka-the-discourse-must-di e-a1be42097c28

Nevertheless I think that there are MPs in northern constituencies who believe the opposite (with various degrees of sincerity over 'we must listen to the things that hardworking people who are prevented from saying things are saying repeatedly')

[ 30. January 2018, 22:10: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
I don't think it Machiavellian, just practical. I agree Cornyn isn't particularly pro-EU, just anti-damaging Britain.

I'm interested in the analysis above about Labour seats.

It's not that I think Cornyn loves the EU, it's more that as things unwind, it will be easier to take the country along with the right timing. The problem is the 2 year time limit of A50, but realistically I don't think that holding an anti-Brexit position at this point would achieve anything.

AFZ
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

Absolutely.

I may be completely wrong in my analysis but there is a democratic issue - the country has voted and that needs to be taken seriously. However my point is this; consider the two following positions:

1) Anti-Brexit.
Easy to justify on the basis of the evidence but there is a big argument about democratic legitimacy of that as government policy. And whilst polls show some shift most people hold the same pre-referendum positions and a number of people who voted Remain, also believe the referendum result should be respected. (For the record, that's not me, but it's complicated).

I don't see that holding this position will help electorally or be good for governing effectively. Much as I wish otherwise.

2) Anti-damaging Brtain
Ultimately, you and I both know this will, in the end mean the same thing as being anti-Brexit but if you hold the position consistently and communicate it effectively (yes, I know). Then as it become clearer and clearer how bad Brexit is (to the majority who don't engage in politics anything like as much as we do...) then I do think it becomes democratically possible to stop Brexit without a constituional crisis. I suspect that a second referendum framed on this is what leaving will actually look like would be needed after a Labour election win (coalition or majority).

Now you could argue that 2 remains unlikely - and you may be right - but I am convinced that it is the only way to stop Brexit. 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.

As I said, I may be wrong in my analysis but that's how I read the current situation.

It would also probably come down to the EU being generous with Britain with timescales and things but in the advent of a new government, I don't think that would be a problem. Most of the EU whilst very annoyed with the UK doesn't actually want us to leave.

YMMV

At the risk of repeating myself, all of this mess is created by how badly handled the whole referendum was by Cameron. No super-majority, no turnout requirement and no restrait on his own party campaigning factually. And those things weren't there because the purpose of the referendum was not good governance or helping to resolve a complicated issue that divides the country; the purpose was to keep the Conservative party together. It is, of course, abhorent that a governing party would do such huge damage to the country for internal party reasons but we are where we are. I don't think the Labour party can play it any other way at the moment.

I suspect at PMQs today, Corbyn will demand to see the impact assessments...

AFZ
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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'.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The economic impacts are going to be seen over the long term - it's not about Armageddon tomorrow - it's always been about the UK being poorer in comparison to its peers in 5/10 years time. Absent an immediate example of incompetence, that is going to be very difficult to get across - and currently the UKs poor relative growth is being ameliorated by a global period of growth.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I do appreciate that was where the Remain campaign went wrong. Too much stress on negative predictions.

On the other hand, time has moved on. And self-interest appeals may get greater 'purchase' as 'Christmas for turkeys' draws nearer.

I think that could be coupled with an appeal to the young about the positive value of the present open borders to them, both for travelling and career opportunities. 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. Often doing work which UK citizens seem reluctant to take on.

But I think it has to be combined with the long term economic interest. And some combatting of the BS propagated by the anti-Europe press. Fake news?

If the die is cast, the Norway option is the least bad.

[ 31. January 2018, 10:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

.. and you'd need a three act bill to pass + a referendum to run before April of next year?

[ 31. January 2018, 10:20: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Fair enough. I guess I'm just frustrated by the seeming irrevocability of this stupid course.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I've long been resigned to the irrevocability of Brexit. What has me climbing the walls right now is government, by the same party that triggered it, being so utterly hamfisted and myopic in "administrating" it.

[ 31. January 2018, 11:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
That too!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Fair enough. I guess I'm just frustrated by the seeming irrevocability of this stupid course.

I would really like to be wrong, but at this point I don't think the answer is going to lie in another referendum.

Probably the only chance to completely reverse Brexit is a charismatic politician with the actual courage of their convictions (and yes, I am aware of the irony there). 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 (as opposed to the London Bridge scenario that is very probably going to lead to a revanchist nationalism sometime in the next 5-10 years).

[ 31. January 2018, 11:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

[ 31. January 2018, 11:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It is quite amusing that the impact assessments touted by Davis, turned out to be fictitious, but the real one, recently leaked, turns out to be too negative for the government.

No, I tell a lie, there was a statement in the first lot, that fishing is concentrated in coastal towns. This has sent shock waves through the EU, as they'd thought it was focused on motorway service areas.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I thought it was concentrated in financial institutions. Oh, sorry, that was phishing.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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

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.
This is true but.

It's true that ECJ jurisdiction is a sticking point for the headbangers. However the wording of the first stage agreement defaults to that in the absence of any properly agreed system that protects the inter-Ireland border. Which is impossible.

Thus I think a soft, soft Brexit is likely. I think the headbangers will thus collapse the government...

AFZ
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
I think a soft, soft Brexit is likely. I think the headbangers will thus collapse the government...

Yes they will. The question is - when?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

Presumably, Hammond is articulating this point of view, which is of course, opposed by the nutters. May is trying to balance between them, and has opposed the single market, but surely she can see that a hard Brexit could be ruinous?

I suppose she might try to slip a softish Brexit through under false colours somehow.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Doing work for the government isn't a very secure basis for big business. Carillion has collapsed. Capita is in trouble ...
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

Like what? Outside the imaginations of the pages of the Spectator, that is.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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?

Like what? Outside the imaginations of the pages of the Spectator, that is.
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.)
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.)

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.

As SS points out, both the parties had fairly lacklustre politicians, and it's indicative of ones prejudices to criticise the political leader who was rather more active than others on the Remain side - including those on the front bench of the government at the time. What can be said is that Corbyn and his team are instinctively against the grid-politics style of the Blair/Cameron governments and that this sometimes reveals itself in odd acts of incompetency (releasing things after press deadlines and so on - though this seems thankfully to have been mostly fixed)
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
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.

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.
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
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

You can see this kind of thinking in parts of finance, having resigned themselves to Brexit in some form, they'd prefer the UK to be out of any kind regime of regulatory alignment with the EU because it gives them an offshore outpost near the EU whose legislation they can easily influence [even while they move some of their operations to places like Frankfurt]. This isn't necessarily the boon to the rest of us that people like JRM portray it as - but then he's pro-rentier so that's not a surprise.

[ 01. February 2018, 11:15: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Oh, as you were:

Brexit: Theresa May to fight EU transition residency plan

The only way she can get that is to have no transition period, so it's Hard Brexit again..

On previous evidence, the Brexiteers will huff and puff for a while, then cave in, blaming EU intransigence. The announcement seems to be playing well with its intended audience, the Tory headbangers.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The cave in will come later. Quietly, possibly with some smoke and mirrors.

The Irish Border will re-emerge as an insoluble problem.

If we are lucky, we'll get the Norway solution, by transitional stealth, and 'considered reappraisal'.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Barnier saying that trade barriers are unavoidable, once you leave customs union and single market. This is by definition really. I suppose the idea of frictionless trade is a kind of magical solution then. The other issue is Ireland, where a hard border becomes inevitable.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm now going to show my ignorance, but I genuinely don't understand how Brexit is going to work.

Some Brexiteers say that products are going to get cheaper. OK, so maybe that's true. Maybe we can get rid of the EU redtape and we can import things without tariffs from cheaper places like China and India. Maybe some of this stuff is going to be things that we would otherwise produce expensively in the UK and EU. Maybe there will be no need to have expensive farms and factories, we can instead get the same things produced more cheaply elsewhere.

Ok. So that's fine... provided that we are a wealthy consumer society, everyone else will want to trade with us, if we've got money to throw around.

But surely we only have money to throw around if we have something to sell back to the rest of the world. So what is that? Currently it is said to be financial services - but how much of our current economy is based on being able to access the EU? If we can't get a Brexit deal which at least gives access to financial services, what have we got to sell?

And then there are all the other social problems. Let's suppose somehow, by magic, we retain our financial services role. What is going to replace all the jobs in agriculture and manufacturing that are lost when it becomes pointless to compete with cheap imports? Is the idea that somehow these jobs will be replaced with jobs in the import industries?

Or maybe the idea is to become some kind of massive tax haven. If we make it cheaper to operate businesses here, then maybe the idea is that it'd be ridiculous for any bank or financial institution to be based anywhere else. Maybe we can stick two fingers up at the EU and there is nothing they can do about it as we reduce corporation taxes and give out financial bungs and grants.

What else could be the plan?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I suppose the thinking is that negotiating with the EU is difficult because they have lots of conditions to protect the internal market and production. Presumably there are a range of things that China could produce and export to the EU that the EU doesn't want because it'd affect particular producers. Most obviously certain foods could presumably be produced cheaply elsewhere but are restricted from entering the market.

Also there must be some idea of give-and-take. A trade deal between the EU and (say) China is tricky because the EU wants to ensure it can sell into the Chinese market in the same way that the Chinese producers can sell into the EU.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

A "great trade deal" seems to me to be solely about EU products continuing to enter the UK - and once here hopefully competing with products from China and elsewhere.

They seem unbothered about the rules of the common market because they seem to think that British exports are basically not very important anyway. If our export products don't meet EU standards, no Biggie, we just stop exporting that product to the EU. If EU producers want to try competing in our market with all the weight of tape and pointless rules, let them try.

In this model, it appears that the Brexiteers believe that everyone wants to access our consumer market. The Irish border doesn't matter because we will keep it open (so the Irish don't moan), if necessary we will keep alignment in a few areas like agriculture to keep everyone happy. According to this model, British production doesn't matter (and probably by extension Irish production doesn't matter either) so cross-border trade is going in time to be of imported consumer products and local production will inevitably dieoff - and if the EU wants to waste their time trying to prevent third party country products reaching the rest of the EU via NI, that's their problem.

Of course this is delusional and not how the EU works.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

As for "frictionless" trade, that's a synonym for "going downhill fast".
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Predictions of post-Brexit prosperity all seem to boil down to cheap imports. Patrick Minford draws a parallel with the abolition of the corn laws in the 1840's, which lowered the price of food and - he asserts - enabled the industrial revolution.

The fault with this, ISTM, is that (a) the industrial revolution was well under way by the 1840's, and (b) we have no comparable industrial base today. Even Minford admits that hard Brexit will probably doom what's left of our manufacturing, and large swathes of our agriculture. Combined with the probable loss of much of our financial services business, it is unclear to me how we will earn the money to pay for even cheap imports outside the EU.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
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.

Which is now irrelevant as we have no colonies to exploit and no manufacturing base.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

.. and driven by a very strong system of Imperial preference.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Everybody has been complaining about the lack of information coming from the govt about Brexit. But surely this is because of one thing - that the Tories are split, and Mrs May is trying to ride two horses at once. She is trying to reconcile the hard-liners, who either want no deal or a hard Brexit, and the soft Brexit people.

Of course, she will never admit to this, as far as I can see, but waffles on about getting the best deal. But her aim is to hold the Tory party together, and remain in power. That is the priority, isn't it?

Hence, if there are negative predictions about Brexit, they have to be ignored or denied. We are now at war with Eastasia.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
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.

We have always been at war with Eastasia. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :
 
I am not an economist, obviously, I am just a consumer. My experience recently was buying a pair of door handles from B&Q which fell apart before I even installed them. I got refunded. The B&Q product was made in China. I replaced the door handles with an identical styled pair manufactured in the UK at only 20% more expense. How is it that B&Q can import substandard Chinese reproductions under current EU regulations. Does this mean we will have even more defective counterfeit goods from China after bWreck-Zit actually happens?
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There aren't EU regulations governing everything. General regs re: safety and environmental protection - but, probably no regulations governing door-nob quality.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

There may however be EU directives specifying refunds and replacements for faulty goods, so you might lose that instead.

Information about food is mostly from EU directives, so we could lose a lot of food safety information, which I'm sure everyone appreciates except grocers of all sizes.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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.

He reminds me now of Osborne's play, The Entertainer, made famous by Olivier, a kind of sad old actor, going through the old routines.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Take back control eh? Not of your railways:
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.

 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
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.

Boris' whole schtick seemed to be a call to Remainers to consider the benefits of leaving the EU.

Which is all very well, if anyone could actually tell us what they were. Apparently the main benefit is that we can negotiate our own trade deals and control our borders.

But we don't have any trade deals. And if we close borders then (a) Ireland is screwed and (b) the industries where there are labour shortages are screwed.

So he's basically asking us to believe things are going to be aOK after Brexit despite proving zero idea how it could possibly be so. A made up number about the NHS and a bunch of trade deals we don't have whilst royally pissing off our biggest market and closest neighbours.

Yeah, sounds great Boris.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
When are nostalgic Remainer/second referendum/undo Brexit types going to notice that the UK won't have any MEPs after 2019?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Well we won't be in the EU, so of course we won't have any MEP's [Confused]

At least us nostalgic Remoaners are facing up to reality. Davis is STILL flogging circular unioorn cakes with corners that are never gone however much you eat:

David Davis rejects Mad Max style dystopia claims

Apparently we're going to have frictionless trade and recognise each others' standards. Cars made in Austria will need only a quick check to be sold anywhere in the EU.

"Such mutual recognition will naturally require close, even-handed co-operation between these authorities and a common set of principles to guide them."

So that would be what we have now, then.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I agree Davis is well into unicorn territory.

But do you speak for all Remoaners in your admission that Brexit cannot be rolled back? I'm not so sure.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I think Brexit will be rolled back, but probably not in my lifetime.

I hope the following decades will be the time when Britain finally learns the hard lesson that there is nothing very special about these damp, wind-swept islands off the northwest coast of Europe.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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?

I know that, and the consolation is that no UKIP members will receive a penny/cent from the European Parliament.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I agree Davis is well into unicorn territory.

Have those advocating Brexit ever been anywhere other than unicorn territory?

quote:
But do you speak for all Remoaners in your admission that Brexit cannot be rolled back?
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).

A roll-back (even if enacted now) won't change the relocation of EU institutions from the UK, the expense of finding new locations has already been made and they've practically started to pack boxes. Many businesses in the process of relocating some of their business to other parts of the EU will probably continue to do so. Research scientists who haven't applied for EU funding are going to have to wait until the next funding round to get back in. Universities who have seen a drop in student numbers won't fill empty places mid term. Talented people who have already moved to other EU nations won't immediately come back (if at all). The damage already made to our economy won't rapidly recover, leaving us trailing behind the EU growth curve (which will be true if we don't roll-back as well), at least until the next global recession. The rest of the EU will be a lot less likely than in the past to give the UK generous rebates or other privileges as a long standing senior member state.

A roll-back will never be a full-roll back. The election of MEPs is a long way short of insurmountable.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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

See, I think, regretfully, that this is as far into unicorn territory as Davis.

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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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

See, I think, regretfully, that this is as far into unicorn territory as Davis.
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.

quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
If I were to pick somewhere in the UK where I thought it most likely that at least most of the benefits of the EU could be retained or quickly recovered, it would be Northern Ireland, but I think it would be a Russian roulette type gamble.

The province could be a big winner as some sort of "special administrative region" in the short or medium term, or a big loser; I think there is as much if not more chance of it becoming part of the EU again than Scotland in the long term, via a reunited Ireland.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The major problem I see here is that Scotland will never be allowed to join. As was not made clear in the referendum, new members can only join the EU by unanimous consent. Spain will veto for their own internal reasons but a veto nonetheless.

So, I don't think an independent Scotland within the EU is likely.

AFZ
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

The transition could well be extended at this rate - and the one thing the past few years have taught us is that the unexpected can still happen. Yes, it's a slim hope - but it's still hope.

... and "Remoaner" is un-necessary, ISTR you don't like political nick names generally.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
... and "Remoaner" is un-necessary, ISTR you don't like political nick names generally.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
To your points...

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Depends on what you mean by 'rolled back'

I mean it in the IT sense:
quote:
an operation which returns the database to some previous state
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:
The transition could well be extended at this rate
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.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Yes, I'd agree that's impossible - if only because all parties have changed in the interim.

quote:

quote:
The transition could well be extended at this rate
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.

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:

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.

Absolutely, but these paths are even more remote and even less viable.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

Besides, even if such a solution appears less brutal than a cliff-edge Brexit, I think it's really just putting off the problem, making things more muddled and, in the long term, worse. Nobody likes uncertainty, businesses least of all. The real failure of the UK government is to grasp the nettle.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
AIUI, under WTO rules a transition period cannot be indefinite, and IIRC it's limited to no more than 10 years. But, I don't think anyone wants a transition period that long. The current proposal is a necessity because the details of what the UK government wants from Brexit had not been defined in detail prior to setting the clock running when they triggered Article 50 - leaving what was already a very short period to negotiate for that position impossibly short since they needed to work out their negotiating position within that period as well. Of course, the UK government should have defined what they wanted from Brexit before calling a referendum, let alone triggering A50, which is water long since under the bridge.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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?

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?

Or how about if the UK simply declared that it was expecting to continue trading with countries on terms agreed when it was part of the EU. Can it do that? Just say that we're not part of the EU but we are going to consider (say) the trade deal with Mexico as binding and continue on with it.

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?

Of course this could be impossible to do; after Brexit, the UK is hardly going to want to continue with third country trade deals which explicitly state that they're going to be conducted under the auspices of common EU rules.

But anyway, I'd be interested if anyone can point me to something to help my understanding of trade deals.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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?

In my (limited) understanding, this turns the UK into Singapore: a free trade zone.

The problem is that this might be great news for EU exporters, but doesn't stop the EU or anywhere else imposing tariffs on UK exports.
quote:
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?
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.

Somebody will no doubt be along soon to tell me I'm wrong.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

Tariffs are easy, regulations are tricky. You can raise or lower tariffs pretty much at will. They do feature in trade deals as nations agree to the same tariff levels and hence avoid a competitive advantage for one side or the other. But, as I said, that's the easy bit.

This is the example I tend to use but it applies to all sectors of the economy.

Let's say you want to buy a car. How do you know that the car is safe? For example, do you know if the brakes will work to an acceptable level?

The answer is yes, in the UK (as in other developed countries) there are minimal legal standards for brakes. This is an example of a regulation that manufacturers have to meet. The free-market zealots will tell you that no law is needed as in a perfect market, consumers will only buy the safest cars and thus drive up standards.

This is nonsense for two main reasons; firstly most consumers (myself included) would have no idea of how to tell if the brakes work well enough or not. (Asymmetry of information). Moreover, people need transport and do not always have absolute freedom in terms of how much they can afford but if you buy a cheap car with dodgy brakes, it's also me that you are putting in danger.

Hence developed countries all have regulatory frameworks for product safety. I don't know how many regulations car manufacturers have to meet but I bet it's dozens.

So, let's say you are a car maker in Britain and you want to sell cars in Britain. That's easy, just meet the legal standards for the UK and you're fine. Moreover Acne Inc of Mexico cannot make cars there and sell them in the UK without meeting the same standards.

But I also might want to sell my cars in Germany or France. But their rules are slightly different, which means I have to manufacture cars to 3 different sets of rules, this adds a lot of cost to me. Economists will tell you how it's not a zero sum game and more trade makes everyone (on average) better off. Hence it makes sense for Britain, France and Germany to have some sort of trade agreement about what standards we will use for cars. Thus a car built in any of the three countries is made to same standards and can be sold in any of the three. That's a trade deal (in this case on car specifications). And yes, there are variations between countries within these rules - look at which side the steering wheel is on...

In essence (as far as I understand it), there are essentially two approaches to this: 1) You go for the lowest common denominator (cut red tape!!! or 2) you cooperate to come up with rules that everyone agrees on. It takes more time to do 2) but it benefits consumers considerably. It has other advantages as well - by having agreed standards across the 3 countries, you have economies of scale in terms of implementation and testing. In the past decade there has been much talk about EU-US trade deals and much of it is to do with the US wanted the EU to lower food-safety standards to US levels (this is an example of 1.) - to which the EU said no (eventually).

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.

Two important points of note here: 1. Britain, France and Germany collectively dominate the EU; with veto powers on many issues and qualified majority voting on others, almost nothing happens in the EU unless Britain, Germany AND France want it to. 2. Any trade deal - by definition - means a dilution of sovereignty. We don't get to tell the other 27 what the standards for car brakes should be - the EU wide standard is one we all agreed on and all have to abide by if the system is going to work.

So, anyone who tells you we are leaving the EU to regain our sovereignty and to have free-trade deals with the rest of the world (often in the same breath) is either a fool or a liar.

AFZ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
is either a fool or a liar.

or, both.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
is either a fool or a liar.

or, both.
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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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)

So the scenario of the UK dropping tariffs to EU products unilaterally - outside a formal bilateral arrangement would not be possible.

quote:

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?

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
For learning more, these may not be bad places to start:

https://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/what-is-free-trade.html
http://www.norgroveblog.co.uk/2017/08/brexit-why-unilateral-free-trade-and.html

[Norgrove is a leaver, but appears to be trying to spin himself as a reasonable leaver - in spite of heading up the campaign that screamed that 'The TURKS ARE COMING!!!111!!!']
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

And yet this appears at this point to be the published position of the UK government:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/21/brexit-transition-period-open-ended-uk-eu-position-paper

I assume the driving forces are the fear that a cliff-edge transition will have an impact on how the negotiations are carried out and a fear that the some issues won't be uncovered until very late in the day.
 
Posted by Callan (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
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.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Another substantial proportion of EU regulations exist because the UK pushed for them. Because we are the EU, it's not some external body dictating things to us.
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:

quote:
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.
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.
I'm pretty sure the WTO itself doesn't have anything like product safety standards.

This page on the WTO website describes the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement:
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
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.

I don't think that word means what you think it means [Biased]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I've stayed off this thread for a bit because I found it too depressing and the issues too close to home to post sensibly. I've watched from afar while the place of my birth slowly tears itself apart and returns to the kind of entrenchment I remember as a teenager. The Brexiteers scoffed at the scare stories of the Remoaners but now seem to take a positive delight in declaring the Good Friday Agreement as dead. The deal with the devil still stands with a party holding the reigns that didn't even get elected to the position. The rule of democracy seriously eroded and the devolved institutions undermined and in tatters, now vacant and defunct. The fracture lines of society in Northern Ireland have never been so clear, cemented by despair and growing anger. All the while, the Tories mutter back and forth about fantasy trade deals. Speeches are made with no mention of how they might rescue a slide into terrorism and civil unrest. The ignorant belief that peace just happens rather than something that must be worked at in order to sustain seems to hold blind sway. Still we have no idea how a border might work in a land where a past border poisoned two nations. Nobody has a clue. Nothing concrete decided; just lots of talk of imagined trade deals. 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. Meanwhile we all join the politicians and dither over cold economics while the social aspects rot and fester.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
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, the attitude towards the GFA (if what I am reading about it is correct), goes beyond that towards insanity and irresponsibility.

I suppose the reasons for this attack on GFA are not all that hard to find, since it scuppers a hard Brexit. No doubt you can add to that a kind of English xenophobia - why worry about Ireland? But of course, N. Ireland is British. Oh well.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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,

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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).

They are being allowed to run with the policy because of the incompetence of the current government coupled with the sheer venality and sophistry of the various Brexiters.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
I think this from the Independent yesterday is good on the Oxfam brouhaha.

I still think the whole thing is being worked up by the government and the Brexiteer media for the pernicious purposes I've already mentioned.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Err, I don't see an immediate connection with Brexit. Are you sure you didn't mean to post on the George Bell thread? [Confused]
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Or "Aid workers and Prostitution"?

I'm also puzzled!
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
I think Enoch's point is that these whipped-up scandal stories are part of a distraction operation.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
I'm going to expose my ignorance but I'm realising that I don't completely understand the relationship between customs checks and regulatory alignment.

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.

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?
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
Based on my own experience from long ago (I worked for a while for a company which exported electronic products), most of the work to prove regulatory alignment goes on behind the scenes.

As a production engineer, I would prepare extremely detailed reports on the characteristics of the devices in question (they were custom-made) which I would then fax (this was pre-email) to the company's agent in, say, the U.S., who would put the data in the form required by U.S. customs to prove that the product was safe and compliant so that it could cross the border.

I was a technical person and never personally involved in the paperwork and bureaucracy, but there seemed to be a lot of it.

AIR, even in those days the process of exporting to Europe was considerably easier as the company was inspected and certified as complying with the agreed standards for that industry.
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
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,

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.
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.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

quote:
checks on the US-Canada border take a matter of minutes.
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.

quote:

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?

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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?

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.

For the most part, what's checked at this border is paperwork, in the case of goods with differing tariffs, they also may have duty applied to them.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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].
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Exactly, chris. It all hangs together only if there is a consistent, trustworthy, arbiter. Take that away and it's not clear how anything works (other than significantly more slowly).

The totemic, dogmatic, sticking points of Brexiteers get in the way every time.

[ 24. February 2018, 19:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :
 
quote:
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?

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:
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.


 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
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*

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.

Unless cross-border trade happens within a customs or free trade agreement, a few minutes at the border is a joke.

I grew up on the border and can assure you that all sorts of other shipments, as well as the movement of people, take well more than a few minutes. The last times I crossed the border, once at Ogdensburg and the other time at Cornwall, one line of trucks went sailing through, and the other would be taking several hours and was backed up considerably-- most of the trucks were going to be thoroughly checked for cocaine and firearms (as a side issue, many US truckers lose their handguns at the border).

Major points such as Niagara Falls and Windsor in Ontario, and Surrey in BC, do not go that smoothly, and border-crossers on busy weekends should set an hour aside and sometimes more.

Unless there is a customs union, or unless the two states agree to pretend that there be no border (as UK citizenship law pretends that Irish citizens are not foreigners), the crossing at Newry will soon feature six-plus lanes, a very large parking lot, and jobs for many many many customs officers.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
That enables the Brexiteers to claim that leaving the EC has created jobs, just as they said it would!
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It might be good if they started actually creating those jobs though. The Netherlands has it right, there will need to be more border staff and it will take time to train them (and, there's a limit to how many people they can take through training at a time). The exact number will depend on what form of Brexit our government eventually goes for, the timing will probably depend on the duration of the transition period.

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.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
That enables the Brexiteers to claim that leaving the EC has created jobs, just as they said it would!

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.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Thanks to all. I think that clears up not only my question but the follow-up questions I'd thought of as well.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

(If this is Mr Davis' reasoning then I think I have just proved he is lying when he says he wants British regulatory standards to be in a race to the top. I'm sure the whole thread is shocked to hear this.)
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It looks as if Labour are going to support a customs union, (but not the customs union, I suppose), and some journos are speculating that May could get defeated, if enough soft Tories line up with Labour.

But the term 'customs union' is now very elastic. It could mean high obligation and high access, a la Norway, or low obligations and low access (Canada). May wants low obligations and high access, I suppose, which will not wash.

Of course, it's not impossible to have a customs union with EU, I think Turkey does, details unknown.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

Sure, as long as either set perfectly overlaps the other.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, it's not impossible to have a customs union with EU, I think Turkey does, details unknown.

Here are the "menu options" as I understood them last July. Turkey is option 4:
quote:
in a customs union with the EU (...); no single market or 'four freedoms', no ECJ, but no third-party free trade deals allowed

 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
This week's Economist makes the case for membership of the EEA (option 2 in my linked-to list: Norway, notably) but then you need at least some sort of a border with NI.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Brexit and Montenegro
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Brexit and Montenegro

From that:
quote:
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.
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.

While it could end up suffering the most, Northern Ireland could conceivably have the closest thing to EU membership likely after Brexit.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
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
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
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

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.

Obviously, Labour is making a move against May, hoping that the govt will be squeezed by her own soft Brexiteers. Then again, the pro-Brexit lobby will hope to tarnish Corbyn as selling out the referendum. Result? - no idea.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
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

#CorbynnSpeech is trending on Twitter but it's not very informative. Some Extreme mud-slinging.

As I intimated a few page ago, I think Corbyn and the Labour leadership have adopted an incrementalist strategy.

Corbyn was accused of 'undermining Brexit.' The point is that Brexit undermines itself and in order to have any hope of moving forward in a sensible way, the Brexit lunacy needs to be seen for what it is. There is no doubt that Rees-Mogg and Davies and Boris and Farage etc. etc. will look to scape goat everyone and everything and will never admit to the damage of Brexit.

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. Since December it's been clear that the customs union is vital for Northern Ireland - by saying so now, hopefully Corbyn can bring people with him.

Similarly, He will come out for staying in the single market at some point.

This is a political high-wire act with no guarantee of anything...

YMMV

AFZ
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
It's a small step towards the inevitable. The EU is too important an organisation not to be a full member of. The more the government and opposition consider the options then the more they will realise what an impossible mess anything other than retaining full EU membership will be. Though both have bought into the story that a glorified anti-democratic opinion poll is a meaningful measure of the will of the people. So, we're going to scramble around for a crap solution to squaring a circle, try to head towards a least-bad negotiating position and then find that it's impossible for the EU to accept it.

Meanwhile the Tory Party will implode. Labour won't be far behind. The country will be in an economic mess and we'll be facing a general election with several new political parties - a pro-EU Conservative, an anti-EU Conservative with really rabid anti-EU revitalising UKIP (or forming an alternative far-right party if UKIP are irredeemable), with a pro-EU Labour and an anti-EU Labour. Many "safe" Labour and Conservative seats will go to one of the splinter parties from those two, the LibDems and Greens will pick up seats, several smaller parties will do well. There'll be no clear winner, a hung-Parliament to beat all hung-Parliaments and a Constitutional crisis. But, Phoenix-like a new political system will rise from the ashes, the country will need to learn that Government will need to be on a broad consensus across parties, the days of one party so dominating that they can plunge the country through a pointless and stupid referendum to resolve internal party bickering will be gone. It may be the end of the United Kingdom as regional parties are formed and hold the balance of power, maybe a genuine federal nation as power is devolved outwards, maybe independence for nations or even regions. So, there is light at the end of the tunnel.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.

This is an issue when you can garner the limits of someones knowledge by the point at which they start quibbling over different articles, or the use of new terminology to differentiate from existing arrangements/deals. In that sense Corbyn isn't unique - and there was a fair amount of fudge in his speech.

On the other hand he has forced the most ardent Brexiters to defend their own positions in terms they are likely to regret (Boris Johnson and Rees Mogg), with Rees Mogg raising the spectre of a TTIP like deal with the US that threatens the NHS.

He's also created some space between the business community and the Tory party in the minds of the public - which may well be useful electorally.

quote:

This is a political high-wire act with no guarantee of anything...

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.

Brexit is a by product of UKs toxic media which exists to turn outrage into cash - the UK may by good fortunate escape this particular predicament, but I have no doubt that it'll continue to weld together bandwagons of ever more nasty nutters.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
[W]ith Rees Mogg raising the spectre of a TTIP like deal with the US that threatens the NHS.

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)?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Because you think the UK without the EU will be able to negotiate a better one?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Because you think the UK without the EU will be able to negotiate a better one?

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
If the UK had remained in the EU it would have been able to add its voice to those around the table.

As far as I understand it, the TTIP is dead in the water due to objections from EU Member States.

Of course, being part of the EU means not always getting what you want, and it is perfactly true that if you are one party in a bilateral trade deal you are free to define your negotiating position unilaterally* without interference from pesky foreigners.

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.

==

*just as we see from the ease at which the UK government has been able to swiftly and clearly set down its unilateral negotiating position with the EU-27 [Killing me]

[ 26. February 2018, 21:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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.

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.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Yes, I get that, but the problem I have with this is the "cake" aspect of this argument.

The hard Brexit logic revolves around the (as far as I can see it) myth that after it breaks free from a cumbersome customs union and single market, third countries will be positively begging the UK with its economic powerhouse to negotiate trade deals with them on terms favourable to the UK.

This to me has a whiff of the 1960s and the Commonwealth about it - not to mention the virtual disappearance of the UK manufacturing industry since those days.

From my perspective the UK has an incredibly hard time coming to terms with the fact that it doesn't occupy the world class it once did. The best way for the UK not to have deals "imposed" on it in today's world is to be part of a bigger trading bloc.

[ 26. February 2018, 21:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
Oh, and before you start refusing to sign too many trade deals, consider, for instance, that the UK imports 38% of the food its inhabitants eat.
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
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.

To follow your thinking, how on earth do Canada and Australia survive in the modern world?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

To follow your thinking, how on earth do Canada and Australia survive in the modern world?

By being part of larger trade blocs and being resource rich.

Also by having economies that do not depend on massive exports of services [and as a data-point value of services that are bundled with UK manufacturing exports are greater than the value of the manufacturing exports alone].

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

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.
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
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.

How long should it take to learn whether or not to put Davis, Fox, and Johnson on the case?
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
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.

How long should it take to learn whether or not to put Davis, Fox, and Johnson on the case?
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.

The appointments of which you speak as well as the post you respond to are illustrative of this tendency.

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."
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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."

Um, isn't that option called "membership of the EU"?

Or is it called "membership of the EU without paying?"

[Confused]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
There was also something about not having regulations imposed on us, but being involved in defining those regulations. Which is even more like EU membership - rather than, say, the Norway model.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Um, isn't that option called "membership of the EU"?

Or is it called "membership of the EU without paying?"

Or EFTA or something, but still, you don't understand. David Davis 'gave them his word'.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
The word of a politician. Yeah, worth as much as the three pound note in my pocket.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The word of a politician. Yeah, worth as much as the three pound note in my pocket.

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.

For those who want a softer Brexit, it also creates a reason for voting down a deal they don't like later on.
 
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The word of a politician. Yeah, worth as much as the three pound note in my pocket.

Frankly, I would rather a politician betraying a promise rather than have them betray their constituents.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
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.

OK, who at the European Commission is reading the Ship?
 
Posted by Anglican't (# 15292) on :
 
quote:
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

Matt has it, I think.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.

OK, who at the European Commission is reading the Ship?
Obviously not Theresa May [Disappointed]

It remains to be seen whether, as Barnier asks, she can come up with any workable alternative.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62 on 1st February:

The Irish Border will re-emerge as an insoluble problem.

And it has.

[ 28. February 2018, 12:12: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Rocinante (# 18541) on :
 
It hasn't so much re-emerged as an insoluble problem, as it just IS an insoluble problem but for much of the time the brexiters manage to divert attention from it with some tomfoolery or other.

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.

[ 28. February 2018, 13:30: Message edited by: Rocinante ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
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.

It's a very old government policy, going right back to William the Bastard.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Government policy is to not give a shit about anyone, except themselves and the international financiers set to make a killing from the wreckage of our country.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0