Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Capt'n Midnight

^^^^

https://twitter.com/Grybauskaite_LT/status/1073219424025489412

From the President of Lithuania
#Brexit Christmas wish: finally decide what you really want and Santa will deliver

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Who knows her plan but it really seems like it went badly once again for her.

Basically, yes. There was a desire in the Council to give her something that would help her to win Commons approval for the deal. But when invited to identify what that think might be, she had no suggestion to make. So they gave her, basically, nothing.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Basically, yes. There was a desire in the Council to give her something that would help her to win Commons approval for the deal. But when invited to identify what that think might be, she had no suggestion to make. So they gave her, basically, nothing.

Seems like they not only gave her nothing, they took away some of the nice language she could have gotten as well. I think the time for playing nice is over with the EU. She has also ensured the EU is tired of doing her work for her, its not up to them to provide solutions for Brexit.

Peregrinus

funkey_monkey wrote: »

So what does every consider to be Irelands payback to the EU for this support?
Will payback be required?

Well, there's a view that the support Ireland is getting now is itself payback for the support that Ireland gave, at some cost to itself, in the rescue of the European banking system.

But the better view, in my opinion, is that there is no quid pro quo like this. The EU isn't insisting on no-hard-border either to repay an obligation to Ireland or to put Ireland under a future obligation, but simply becaue doing so is consistent with, and an implementation of, the EU's purpose and values, and is congruent with the EU's interests.

One of the EU's values is of course solidarity, and if the UK had tried to engineer a situation in which the EU would be highly motivated to display solidarity with a member state whose vital interests were threatened by the UK they could hardly have done better than they in fact did.

And, yes, there will be times in the future when we are expected to display solidarity with other member states. But the argument will not be "we backed you up over the border; now you owe us"; it will be "solidarity is the whole point of the EU".

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems like they not only gave her nothing, they took away some of the nice language she could have gotten as well. I think the time for playing nice is over with the EU. She has also ensured the EU is tired of doing her work for her, its not up to them to provide solutions for Brexit.

It's Salzburg all over again. Her cloth ears and persistent inability or refusal to acknowlege and address the realities of the situation she has created are really working against the UK's interests here.

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems like May had a good meeting once again.

https://twitter.com/JamesCrisp6/status/1073364321370038273

That is absolutely priceless.

Especially so when you consider how big a deal she made of this in parliament - 'going to the EU to seek assurances that the backstop is temporary!' 'Says it right there in the Withdrawal Agreement Theresa.'

I mean, if the UK must have Brexit, everyone wants to help May get it through, but this has been a dim move. Its painful stuff.

I also think that the land border/GFA have always been the EUs ace in the hole here. WTO rules are a disastrous fallback for UK govt because of DUP support needed (not that they werent ever going to lose the DUP whatever happened) and there simply is no better line to draw for the EU to say "this is non-negotiable" while ensuring the outcome wouldnt pass muster with parliament nor brexiters back in Blighty.

Brexit could never have been delivered. The border is merely the cleanest manifestation of the reality. Why wouldnt the EU have Ireland serve as the filling in the sandwich?

prinzeugen

tuxy wrote: »

What's the deal with constantly having meetings with heads of state of EU countries and trying to go over the head of EU council leaders.

I guess secret meetings and lies to the public is all the Tories know.

Why shouldn't she speak to the heads of state?

Who runs Europe? I always thought it was the heads of the various members. Unless they are now just puppets of the EU administration?

When did Europe become a country and Juncker the head of state?

tuxy

It's a negotiation between the EU27 and the UK. She is doing herself no favours trying to get them to individually turn on agreement the EU27 signed off on in record time. She has had many opportunity to meet these heads of state at EU summits.
The fact that every head of state has just repeated what the other 26 have agreed on says everything.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

I also think that the land border/GFA have always been the EUs ace in the hole here. WTO rules are a disastrous fallback for UK govt because of DUP support needed (not that they werent ever going to lose the DUP whatever happened) and there simply is no better line to draw for the EU to say "this is non-negotiable" while ensuring the outcome wouldnt pass muster with parliament nor brexiters back in Blighty.

Brexit could never have been delivered. The border is merely the cleanest manifestation of the reality. Why wouldnt the EU have Ireland serve as the filling in the sandwich?

Your assumption is that the EU's overriding objective is to frustrate Brexit. This is wrong.

The EU regrets Brexit, but they looked at its political and financial implications early on and decided that they could manage them. And they'd rather do that than keep the UK in the EU against its will, which would be a running sore causing endless grief.

Their objective is not to frustrate Brexit; it's to ensure that Brexit happens on terms which minimise the adverse impact on the EU and its member states. They're not seeking to avoid a hard border in order to frustrate Brexit; they're seeking to avoid a hard border because they don't want a hard border.

Brexit on terms that avoid a hard border is perfectly doable. The problem is that, after the referendum, and after the EU had analysed the situation and adopted and announced its objectives, the UK made decisions which ruled out forms of Brexit which facilitated an open border. In her Lancaster House speech May choose to target a hard Brexit, thereby ruling out continuation of the mechanisms that help to keep the border open. And with her decision to call a general election she made herself dependent on the DUP, thereby ruling out a Brexit involving special status and special terms for Nothern Ireland to keep the border open. These were wholly unforced errors on May's part; there is no way they can be characterised as Macchiavellian scheming by the EU to frustrate Brexit. And, if we really are the filling in the sandwich, it is not the EU which has made us so; it is the UK.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

Why shouldn't she speak to the heads of state?

Who runs Europe? I always thought it was the heads of the various members. Unless they are now just puppets of the EU administration?

When did Europe become a country and Juncker the head of state?

She can speak to the heads of government. In doing so she is in no way try go go above or behind the Council; the heads of government are the Council.

And in theory speaking to the heads of goverment is the right thing to do. Barnier, etc, is not off on a private frolic here; he's working within a negotiating mandate set by the Council. If that mandate is proving problematic for the UK, and the UK wants or needs to go about getting it changed, government-to-government contacts are absolutely the way to go about making that happen.

Note that this doesn't mean that government-to-government contacts are likely to get the mandate changed; just that they are the only way in wich the UK might get the mandate changed. Particularly at this late stage in the game, actually acheiving that is still a pretty long shot.

I think that the problem with May's governent-to-government contacts is not that they are happening; it's that they appear to be very ill-judged. As far as we can tell, the things that May is seeking from the heads of government are not things that it is in their interests to give, or that they are likely to give, or that they have any motivation to give. There is no chance whatsoever that the heads of government will decide that the mandate should be altered so that the backstop becomes time-limited, or can be superseded by a unilateral decision on the part of the UK. May must know this.

There's two possible explanation for what's going on, in my view.

1. May really is completely cloth-eared, and lacks the capacity to understand the positions, interests or perspectives of her negotiating counterparies. She is making a hames of this because she can do no other, basically, and has no understanding of why she is failing.

2. May knows that her efforts will fail, but is nevertheless making the effort so that she can demonstrate to her parliamentary party that they did fail. Her hope at this stage is that parliament will (eventually) accept the deal on the basis that it is the least awful option, avoid great national harm, risk of losing brexit altogether, yadda, yadda, yadda. To do this she has to show that the rival Brexiter strategy of demanding the impossible cannot work, and the way to do this is actually to demand the impossible and then point to the result.

Folkstonian

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, there's a view that the support Ireland is getting now is itself payback for the support that Ireland gave, at some cost to itself, in the rescue of the European banking system.

But the better view, in my opinion, is that there is no quid pro quo like this. The EU isn't insisting on no-hard-border either to repay an obligation to Ireland or to put Ireland under a future obligation, but simply becaue doing so is consistent with, and an implementation of, the EU's purpose and values, and is congruent with the EU's interests.

One of the EU's values is of course solidarity, and if the UK had tried to engineer a situation in which the EU would be highly motivated to display solidarity with a member state whose vital interests were threatened by the UK they could hardly have done better than they in fact did.

And, yes, there will be times in the future when we are expected to display solidarity with other member states. But the argument will not be "we backed you up over the border; now you owe us"; it will be "solidarity is the whole point of the EU".

Yes, solidarity is the whole point of the EU.

That is, of course until it comes to that awkward point at which Berlin is required to acknowledge that the Euro and the single monetary policy are still having a devastating impact on the recovery of the Spanish, Italian and Greek economies, a full decade following the crash.

Too much money to be made among German manufacturers.

Kermit.de.frog

J Mysterio wrote: »

That is absolutely priceless.

Especially so when you consider how big a deal she made of this in parliament - 'going to the EU to seek assurances that the backstop is temporary!' 'Says it right there in the Withdrawal Agreement Theresa.'

I mean, if the UK must have Brexit, everyone wants to help May get it through, but this has been a dim move. Its painful stuff.

I'm worried for her psychological and physical health at this stage!

J Mysterio

Here is Heseltine on Channel 4. He'd break your heart.

https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/1073283410158870529

Kermit.de.frog

Eeeeeek!

According to the Guardian...

The idea of the EU having the target of terminating the Northern Ireland backstop no more than a year after it was put in force had been supported by Germany’s Angela Merkel and Austria’s Sebastian Kurz.

But it was opposed by Ireland, France, Sweden, Spain and Belgium, who voiced doubts that the prime minister would be able to sell the technical concession to hostile MPs in Westminster

kunst nugget

J Mysterio wrote: »

Here is Heseltine on Channel 4. He'd break your heart.

https://twitter.com/Freedland/status/1073283410158870529

The replies to that original tweet from James Cordon are insane...

LeinsterDub

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Eeeeeek!

According to the Guardian...

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/13/may-urges-eu-leaders-to-work-with-her-to-salvage-brexit-deal


Not even a quote from the Germany or Austria. Just dropped in completely without a source and even if you take it as true it was a target not an end. How many brexit targets have come and gone?

First Up

Sand wrote: »

20silkcut wrote: »

The only logic to hard brexiteer/DUP stance is nihilistic chaos. They hate what their countries have become and are happy enough to pull the whole thing down.

I think that is a large part of the vote by 17.4 million for Brexit - a deep dissatisfaction with the UK, and the apparent powerlessness of their political elite to correct course. Brexit offered a way to 'break out'.

But it would be a mistake to confuse the voters with the ERG who have hijacked that vote. The ERG are not sentimental or nostalgic for 1950s Britain: they would despise the government controls and economic planning of that era. They do not respect any British institution which impedes the hardest possible Brexit. They have extremely radical aims - an almost anarchic Singapore-on-Thames. They're not looking to the past, they are exploiting the opportunity to implement their vision of the future. Chaos suits them.

The only bits of 1950's Britain that the ERG cling to are the post-war glow of victory and the solidarity of the Commonwealth.

I've seen or heard nothing from them to suggest they have a thought-out economic or social vision that extends beyond that.

EdgeCase

First Up wrote: »

The only bits of 1950's Britain that the ERG cling to are the post-war glow of victory and the solidarity of the Commonwealth.

I've seen or heard nothing from them to suggest they have a thought-out economic or social vision that extends beyond that.

They've certainly no interest in building out a social democracy, which was a huge part of what defined post-war Britain. You'd lots of public spending on both physical and social infrastructure. If anything 50s Britain would have far more in common with the most of the continent's policies than it has with the US.

Most of these guys are economic libertarians. Their outlook tends to have more in common with the 19th century and trends in the USA than it does with anything in modern Britain.

What's worrying is that in reality the UK population is very centrist and even centre left, as it has a strong expectation of good quality state services and takes a lot of pride in things like the NHS.

The Tories have been keeping all the focus on this EU stuff with a large tinge of playing to xenophobic elements and whipping up fear of 'others' while simultaneously hollowing our and undermining decades of socioeconomically progressive policies. To my measure, they seem worse than even the Thatcherites.

I would also hope at least some of those who voted DUP in Northern Ireland realise that this is what they are enabling by allowing themselves to be played and flattered by a party that just sees them as a means to an end and boorish peasants to be tricked into line. If the DUP think the Tories see them as 'one of us' or even care one jot about them, they are utterly deluded. They just want your temporarily useful votes. Once those votes are no longer useful, the DUP are back to being sneered down at from upon high.

Leroy42

So if I understand this whole thing correctly.

Leo is a fecker for daring to comment on internal HoC issues and should remember his place.

TM should be applauded for going over to the EU and asking them to find a solution to her domestic problems, but if they don't its there fault and if they do then they are being the authoritarian despots that the UK are so desperate to leave?

Have I got that right?

EdgeCase

Think of it like the classic psycho ex from hell: It's all your fault. You interfered too much. You are not doing enough. You failed to mind read. You are always wrong.

No matter what you do you will always be wrong. They proclaim to want to be reasonable but then go on spiteful rants and do spiteful things.

They want you out of their life but still want you to be their best friend, while they see other people and go around telling everyone how much they hate you and what a total moron you are and so on.

Basically the UK is the EU's nightmare ex-partner and I don't think there's any real way of reasoning with that. It will eventually blow over and move on but it's enough to cause serious problems in the short to medium term.

Leroy42

prinzeugen wrote: »

Why shouldn't she speak to the heads of state?

Who runs Europe? I always thought it was the heads of the various members. Unless they are now just puppets of the EU administration?

When did Europe become a country and Juncker the head of state?

She should of course be talking to heads of state, but doing so on the basis that she is trying to get them to work together rather than trying to drive them apart.

And the EU has shown remarkable resolve to try and help TM and the UK through this process. They have held their tongue while all sorts of nasty invective was spouted and even when they did lose there patience in Salzberg they made a notable attempt to repair the damage.

When has the UK tried to do the same? When has TM shown any understanding of the pressures that the heads of the other states are under? She has spent the last two years saying how difficult and stubborn she is. She has continuously failed to deliver any meaningful options, and even failed to meet agreed timelines.

She has pushed each deadline out. Seems to me that one side (the EU) are being very accommodating and willing to talk, whilst the UK still cannot even agree what it is they want but only that they don't want what they already agreed to.

The problem with yesterdays meeting was not that the EU, or the individual heads of state, or not willing to help. It seems from the reporting that TM is still either unable or unwilling to actually put out a position on which she is willing to work on. She seems to have taken the IDS stance that this is a problem that the EU must solve for her and the UK.

First Up

EdgeCase wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The only bits of 1950's Britain that the ERG cling to are the post-war glow of victory and the solidarity of the Commonwealth.

I've seen or heard nothing from them to suggest they have a thought-out economic or social vision that extends beyond that.

They've certainly no interest in building out a social democracy, which was a huge part of what defined post-war Britain. You'd lots of public spending on both physical and social infrastructure. If anything 50s Britain would have far more in common with the most of the continent's policies than it has with the US.

Most of these guys are economic libertarians. Their outlook tends to have more in common with the 19th century and trends in the USA than it does with anything in modern Britain.

What's worrying is that in reality the UK population is very centrist and even centre left, as it has a strong expectation of good quality state services and takes a lot of pride in things like the NHS.

The Tories have been keeping all the focus on this EU stuff with a large tinge of playing to xenophobic elements and whipping up fear of 'others' while simultaneously hollowing our and undermining decades of socioeconomically progressive policies. To my measure, they seem worse than even the Thatcherites.

I would also hope at least some of those who voted DUP in Northern Ireland realise that this is what they are enabling by allowing themselves to be played and flattered by a party that just sees them as a means to an end and boorish peasants to be tricked into line. If the DUP think the Tories see them as 'one of us' or even care one jot about them, they are utterly deluded. They just want your temporarily useful votes. Once those votes are no longer useful, the DUP are back to being sneered down at from upon high.

Again, I think you credit them with too much.

UK resentment of European initiatives and institutions goes back to the early 1950s when they declined the invitation to be part of the European Coal and Steel Community.

They then watched from the sidelines while that alliance between the other WW2 adversaries grow into the EU and prosper while the UK persevered with a pre-war, colonial mentality.

They have never really forgiven Europe for succeeding without them.

First Up

EdgeCase wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The only bits of 1950's Britain that the ERG cling to are the post-war glow of victory and the solidarity of the Commonwealth.

I've seen or heard nothing from them to suggest they have a thought-out economic or social vision that extends beyond that.

They've certainly no interest in building out a social democracy, which was a huge part of what defined post-war Britain. You'd lots of public spending on both physical and social infrastructure. If anything 50s Britain would have far more in common with the most of the continent's policies than it has with the US.

Most of these guys are economic libertarians. Their outlook tends to have more in common with the 19th century and trends in the USA than it does with anything in modern Britain.

What's worrying is that in reality the UK population is very centrist and even centre left, as it has a strong expectation of good quality state services and takes a lot of pride in things like the NHS.

The Tories have been keeping all the focus on this EU stuff with a large tinge of playing to xenophobic elements and whipping up fear of 'others' while simultaneously hollowing our and undermining decades of socioeconomically progressive policies. To my measure, they seem worse than even the Thatcherites.

I would also hope at least some of those who voted DUP in Northern Ireland realise that this is what they are enabling by allowing themselves to be played and flattered by a party that just sees them as a means to an end and boorish peasants to be tricked into line. If the DUP think the Tories see them as 'one of us' or even care one jot about them, they are utterly deluded. They just want your temporarily useful votes. Once those votes are no longer useful, the DUP are back to being sneered down at from upon high.

Again, I think you credit them with too much.

UK resentment of European initiatives and institutions goes back to the early 1950s when they declined the invitation to be part of the European Coal and Steel Community.

They then watched from the sidelines while that alliance between the other WW2 adversaries grew into the EU and prosper while the UK persevered with a pre-war, colonial mentality.

They have never really forgiven Europe for succeeding without them.

First Up

EdgeCase wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The only bits of 1950's Britain that the ERG cling to are the post-war glow of victory and the solidarity of the Commonwealth.

I've seen or heard nothing from them to suggest they have a thought-out economic or social vision that extends beyond that.

They've certainly no interest in building out a social democracy, which was a huge part of what defined post-war Britain. You'd lots of public spending on both physical and social infrastructure. If anything 50s Britain would have far more in common with the most of the continent's policies than it has with the US.

Most of these guys are economic libertarians. Their outlook tends to have more in common with the 19th century and trends in the USA than it does with anything in modern Britain.

What's worrying is that in reality the UK population is very centrist and even centre left, as it has a strong expectation of good quality state services and takes a lot of pride in things like the NHS.

The Tories have been keeping all the focus on this EU stuff with a large tinge of playing to xenophobic elements and whipping up fear of 'others' while simultaneously hollowing our and undermining decades of socioeconomically progressive policies. To my measure, they seem worse than even the Thatcherites.

I would also hope at least some of those who voted DUP in Northern Ireland realise that this is what they are enabling by allowing themselves to be played and flattered by a party that just sees them as a means to an end and boorish peasants to be tricked into line. If the DUP think the Tories see them as 'one of us' or even care one jot about them, they are utterly deluded. They just want your temporarily useful votes. Once those votes are no longer useful, the DUP are back to being sneered down at from upon high.

Again, I think you credit them with too much.

UK resentment of European initiatives and institutions goes back to the early 1950s when they declined the invitation to be part of the European Coal and Steel Community.

They then watched from the sidelines while that alliance between the other WW2 adversaries grew into the EU and prospered while the UK persevered with a pre-war, colonial mentality.

They have never really forgiven Europe for succeeding without them.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: I think we can leave this incarnation of the thread at that. Please feel free to visit the new Mk. VI thread.