nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for discussing the departure of the UK from the EU. I will move some posts over shortly.

New posters, please read the forum charter before posting.

Regards,

The Politics Mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Thomas__.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Econ_ wrote: »

‘

I think that is the road they are trying to go down. It is no wonder the EU won’t accept this as it creates the potential for there to be a complete mess with the border if the UK backs out of their ‘voluntary commitment’ at any point in the future.

And by if you mean when? Because in the last year we've see how much the UK's word is worth.

I am convinced that the UK, that means this present UK govt, is heading for a crash out of the EU with a hard Brexit cos that is all they wanted and all the talk and negotiations are just a side show to pass the time. Otherwise they could have proved themselves reliable and more to the point, reasonable. It is because of the performance of this present UK govt (I always use 'present' cos I still hope that Mrs May will be overthrown before the Brexit negotiations are complete) that the word of the UK counts for nothing and can't be trusted.

ArthurDayne

More and more I am starting to reconcile myself with the understanding that Brexit is the 'bleeding' that Euroscepticism needed.

What is transpiring is precisely what we 'Remoaners' predicted -- that beneath all the bombast and symbolism of sovereignty, immigration, bureaucracy and 'taking back control' -- the Brexit process, without any plan, would flounder in the reality of the legal, financial and political technicalities. The British are being given a national education on the nature of their country's relationship with the EU (and Ireland) -- that it is complex and sometimes seemingly bureaucratic precisely because we live in a part of the world which has the unique distinction of having a whole host of wealthy and powerful sovereign states squeezed into a relatively small peninsula. People harp on about bendy bananas and cubed butter, but when you actually look at the Treaty provisions on the Free Movement of Goods and the European Court case law, you see that sometimes the apparent bureaucracy actually works and has a very rational basis for the proper and harmonious functioning of European economies.

It's all becoming very strange now and all the constant talk has rendered little manifest progress, but I am now thinking that Brexit is perhaps exactly the shock treatment which the UK (or rather the south-eastern constituents of the UK) needed to finally face up to the scapegoatism which is inherent in the Eurosceptic school of thought and the recalibration of the British national identity in the wake of its diminished global influence.

Sam Russell

Thomas__. wrote: »

I am convinced that the UK, that means this present UK govt, is heading for a crash out of the EU with a hard Brexit cos that is all they wanted and all the talk and negotiations are just a side show to pass the time. Otherwise they could have proved themselves reliable and more to the point, reasonable. It is because of the performance of this present UK govt (I always use 'present' cos I still hope that Mrs May will be overthrown before the Brexit negotiations are complete) that the word of the UK counts for nothing and can't be trusted.

You could expand on that view - the UK keep to their cakeist utterances until push comes to shove and then capitulate, or at least attempt to hide the truth (lie), or kick the can down the road.

Will they face the chaos that a crash out would cause, with aircraft on the ground and lorries parked on the M2 and M25? We will see, but the EU are calling them out at the moment so it is put up or crash out for the UK - decide now not in 11 months time.

Econ_

By the way, I don’t think there’s any real prospect of the U.K. crashing out. I don’t think parliament will let it happen - if push comes to shove they’ll pass an amendment to extend article 50. And if that fails on account of the EU not wanting to drag it out, I think it’s more likely that parliament will push through a referendum to withdraw article 50 permanently rather than accept no deal.

Basically, parliament has a lot of power in this when it comes down to it and I can’t see many of them wanting to risk their political careers on the back of crashing out of the EU.

Thomas__.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

I am convinced that the UK, that means this present UK govt, is heading for a crash out of the EU with a hard Brexit cos that is all they wanted and all the talk and negotiations are just a side show to pass the time. Otherwise they could have proved themselves reliable and more to the point, reasonable. It is because of the performance of this present UK govt (I always use 'present' cos I still hope that Mrs May will be overthrown before the Brexit negotiations are complete) that the word of the UK counts for nothing and can't be trusted.

You could expand on that view - the UK keep to their cakeist utterances until push comes to shove and then capitulate, or at least attempt to hide the truth (lie), or kick the can down the road.

Will they face the chaos that a crash out would cause, with aircraft on the ground and lorries parked on the M2 and M25? We will see, but the EU are calling them out at the moment so it is put up or crash out for the UK - decide now not in 11 months time.

The UK govt is careless, has been since BrexitRef and will be to the end of the negotiations. They have wasted too much time since and their suggestions and demands were that insane and unreasonable that they had to be rejected by the EU. Every warning, not just from the EU but also from their domestic experts (which the Brexiteers hate as much as the EU) have either been dismissed or simply ignored.

I had never thought of such a muppet show like incapable and illusioned UK govt like this one to ever surface. They put their whole economy and the existence of millions of their people at risk and think that somehow it won't be that bad to leave the EU without a deal, still thinking that once they are out, plenty of non-EU countries will queue up for getting trade deals with them. Even the response from economical strong CoN countries like Canada and Australia was rather low to feed the expectations of the Brexiteers that all will be better outside of the EU. The two mentioned countries have other interests and trade ties with other countries more closer to them than the UK. They want to head for their economical suicide and catrastrophe and they will get it. Too strongheaded to realise that before it is too late.

I reckon with a Scottish IndyRef2 when the UK leaves the EU without a deal and I estimate that the mood in Scotland regarding Independence will swing to an overall majority, just for the sake to avoid the consequences for Scotland that come with the post-Brexit 'era'.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

He will be. "Head of the Commonwealth" is a title with no powers or functions attached. The Commonwealth as an organisation can function perfectly well without a "Head". The only point of having a "Head" is to give the British monarch a role in the Commonwealth; the title was introduced when India became a republic, and for the first time the Commonwealth included a member which did not have the British monarch as head of state. Being "Head" of the Commonwealth gives the Queen a connection to each member state which doesn't depend on her being Queen of it.

I think this announcement is timely, given the mention of the 'Commonwealth' recently, particularly in relation to the poor treatment received by the 'Windrush' people who derive from 'Commonwealth' countries.

Peregrinus wrote:

If the British monarch isn't the Head of the Commonwealth, there is literally no point at all to having a Head. So the choice isn't so much "should it be the British monarch or someone else?" but "should the Commonwealth have a head or not?"

Agree. The other question is 'should there be a 'Commonwealth' anymore? Is it relevant? Do the citizens of the Commonwealth derive any benefit from being in it?

Brexit has just opened a massive bag of worms in so many ways.

murphaph

Econ_ wrote: »

By the way, I don’t think there’s any real prospect of the U.K. crashing out. I don’t think parliament will let it happen - if push comes to shove they’ll pass an amendment to extend article 50. And if that fails on account of the EU not wanting to drag it out, I think it’s more likely that parliament will push through a referendum to withdraw article 50 permanently rather than accept no deal.

Basically, parliament has a lot of power in this when it comes down to it and I can’t see many of them wanting to risk their political careers on the back of crashing out of the EU.

I haven't seen any indication from the HoC that this could come to pass. The Lords seems more sensible but ultimately is subservient to the lower house.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

Interesting story on Bloomberg this morning.

Essentially, the report says the UK has signalled that it is going to accept the EU take on "regulatory alignment" for NI, provided that this can be extended to the whole of the UK, to avoid an intra-UK regulatory border.

This would in some ways be a huge climbdown by the UK, effectively subjecting the whole of the UK to the EU regulatory regime for goods (as well, of course, as keeping the whole of the UK in the customs union - the Bloomberg article doesn't say so, but I think this is implicit in the UK's proposal).

However the report also says that the EU is going to reject this.

It doesn't say why, but presumably it's because the EU would see it as cherry-picking - in effect, the UK remains in the single market for goods, but not for services or labour. They are willing to allow a modest degree of cherry-picking to facilitate an open border in Ireland, provided this is confined to the border region (i.e. to NI), but they will not allow the whole of the UK to benefit from this cherry-picking.

And May would characterise this as 'UK - frustrated - making a concession to the bullyig EU, to save NI and preserve the Union', while really, they are thinking 'this could be our chance to save the Union and the UK economy'.

EdgeCase

It's quite funny in some ways both Irish political traditions have her on the ropes.

On the one side, if she causes a Northern Ireland border, the Irish Government will veto any trade deal.
On the other side, if she attempts to cause any border between Northern Ireland and Britain, she'll have the DUP pulling the plug on her minority government.

Effectively, she has to deliver the status quo for Northern Ireland, as she's absolutely no other options except to cause mayhem in Northern Ireland and cost the UK billions with no EU trade deal.

If nothing else, it's showing the GFA is working to protect both communities interests in NI and also it should show the UK that you actually have to honour major international treaties you signed up to, or there are major economic and political consequences to breaking those agreements.

There's still a notion in the UK that the Northern Ireland Peace Agreement can just be unilaterally overridden or torn up without any political fallout. It's proving to to be anything but the case.

In a way, by extension to the fact that Ireland is a member of the EU, the EU has more or less taken on a role in standing behind the GFA as it's in one of its members core interests. That border is also one of the key examples of how the EU's structures allowed two communities to find a solution to a centuries old mess.

ambro25

Econ_ wrote: »

I don’t think parliament will let it happen - if push comes to shove they’ll pass an amendment to extend article 50.

They do not have that power or prerogative. That is solely the EU’s.

Econ_ wrote: »

And if that fails on account of the EU not wanting to drag it out, I think it’s more likely that parliament will push through a referendum to withdraw article 50 permanently rather than accept no deal.

That one is allegedly more do-able, but only through the EU sanctioning the requisite fudge. So again the EU owns the balance of power.

May effectively stripped Parliament of powers in relation to Brexit by default, when she deposited the Art.50 notification: from that point forward, the EU was always going to have the advantage no matter what, even if all it did was simply wait out the clock, because Parliament does not have jurisdiction over the TEU and it’s effects.

This is why all the noises about a Parliament vote against a government-negotiated deal restoring the situation to status quo ante (U.K. back in EU by default) weren’t worth entertaining or engaging about, and still aren’t, no matter what journos and politicos may proclaim: a Parliament vote against that deal, means an exit in March 2019 without any deal, ie a hard Brexit, if there is insufficient time to tweak the deal and re-vote.

By October 2018, that is, to ensure it is also voted by all the other democratic representative assemblies in the EU (which thus have, effectively, just as much power as Parliament in that respect) in good time by March 2019.

All the above long-known to longtime thread followers, but worth reiterating as a refresher.

J Mysterio

ArthurDayne wrote: »

More and more I am starting to reconcile myself with the understanding that Brexit is the 'bleeding' that Euroscepticism needed.

What is transpiring is precisely what we 'Remoaners' predicted -- that beneath all the bombast and symbolism of sovereignty, immigration, bureaucracy and 'taking back control' -- the Brexit process, without any plan, would flounder in the reality of the legal, financial and political technicalities. The British are being given a national education on the nature of their country's relationship with the EU (and Ireland) -- that it is complex and sometimes seemingly bureaucratic precisely because we live in a part of the world which has the unique distinction of having a whole host of wealthy and powerful sovereign states squeezed into a relatively small peninsula. People harp on about bendy bananas and cubed butter, but when you actually look at the Treaty provisions on the Free Movement of Goods and the European Court case law, you see that sometimes the apparent bureaucracy actually works and has a very rational basis for the proper and harmonious functioning of European economies.

It's all becoming very strange now and all the constant talk has rendered little manifest progress, but I am now thinking that Brexit is perhaps exactly the shock treatment which the UK (or rather the south-eastern constituents of the UK) needed to finally face up to the scapegoatism which is inherent in the Eurosceptic school of thought and the recalibration of the British national identity in the wake of its diminished global influence.

Excellently well put. I think its also been instructive for far right parties in countries like France, Italy, Austria, Hungary etc... And for EU citizens more generally.

nuac

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If that happens we will have a ringside seat to the UK devouring itself.[/QUOTE

May be ominous for the Republic's economy also

An Claidheamh

Peregrinus wrote: »

He will be. "Head of the Commonwealth" is a title with no powers or functions attached. The Commonwealth as an organisation can function perfectly well without a "Head". The only point of having a "Head" is to give the British monarch a role in the Commonwealth; the title was introduced when India became a republic, and for the first time the Commonwealth included a member which did not have the British monarch as head of state. Being "Head" of the Commonwealth gives the Queen a connection to each member state which doesn't depend on her being Queen of it.

If the British monarch isn't the Head of the Commonwealth, there is literally no point at all to having a Head. So the choice isn't so much "should it be the British monarch or someone else?" but "should the Commonwealth have a head or not?"

Thing is the British strung their colonies along, telling them that after the Queen of England, there would be an elected head, presumably from among the countries - sort of like democratically...

Seemed quite repulsive seeing all the pms eg Trudeau a supposed modernist and African and Asian leaders ,etc bowing to their monarch, justifying their occupation, in the British news recently.

Furthermore, it just proves Britain just cannot accept being an equal member of anything.

J Mysterio

EdgeCase wrote: »

In a way, by extension to the fact that Ireland is a member of the EU, the EU has more or less taken on a role in standing behind the GFA as it's in one of its members core interests. That border is also one of the key examples of how the EU's structures allowed two communities to find a solution to a centuries old mess.

I think the EU may be party to the agreement also.

EdgeCase

J Mysterio wrote: »

I think the EU may be party to the agreement also.

It's not actually. It's a bilateral agreement between two countries lodged with the United Nations, but the GFA does make reference to the EU.

And locally the Ulster Unionist Party, Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Alliance Party, the Progressive Unionist Party, the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, the Ulster Democratic Party and Labour are all formally signatories to it.

Notably the DUP isn't.

It's also ratified by two referenda : Northern Ireland 71.12% (turnout 81.14%) in favour and Republic of Ireland 94.39% (turnout: 56.26%) in favour.

I'm increasingly getting the sense that Brexit will just unravel due to "incompatibilities with reality".

Nody

Econ_ wrote: »

By the way, I don’t think there’s any real prospect of the U.K. crashing out. I don’t think parliament will let it happen - if push comes to shove they’ll pass an amendment to extend article 50. And if that fails on account of the EU not wanting to drag it out, I think it’s more likely that parliament will push through a referendum to withdraw article 50 permanently rather than accept no deal.

Basically, parliament has a lot of power in this when it comes down to it and I can’t see many of them wanting to risk their political careers on the back of crashing out of the EU.

Here's the problem with your scenario.

1) We're in October this year and no deal is on the table (remember the extension is tied to the deal as well). Now what happens?
2) Parliament votes to not accept the deal May has failed to negotiate and demands a new referendum; problem is May does not want a vote (which is not legally binding anyway even if it went ahead) nor is she capable of agreeing one without losing her PM position (which she'll do anything to hold on to no matter what)
3) May now stalls out for 6 months and voila; Brexit has happened

There is no way to stop Brexit short of a new general election and a new PM being selected which May will never in a million years call again after the last fiasco. The hardcore Brexit wing has 66 seats which is more than enough to vote out any Tory PM who does not pander to them; ergo even if May goes and a new Tory PM is elected the hardcore wing will keep voting them out until they get what they want.

The problem here is very simple; there is a huge difference in what needs to happen to cancel Brexit vs. having a crash out Brexit. To cancel Brexit there needs to be a new UK government with someone who wants to cancel it (i.e. both May and Corbyn are out) in a general election which May would for some reason call. Compared to a brexit crash out which only requires that nothing is agreed for the next 6 months or so (since anything to be ratified has to be ready by October). The second is way easier to achieve esp. with the hardcore group of 66 tories ready to vote down what they don't like along with the 10 DUPs holding the government up as is. Hence due to the balance of power the most likely scenario is a crash out by UK due to incompetence which no one wants and only UK can prevent but will fail to do due to lack of understanding, personal gains and simply outright stupidity.

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

there is a huge difference in what needs to happen to cancel Brexit vs. having a crash out Brexit.

You are assuming that the Brexiteers and DUP actually want the UK to catch fire and sink into the sea playing Rule Britannia. I don't think so.

May will drive the leave bus right to the edge and when they get a good look over the cliff, she'll call their bluff and accept what is on offer from the EU.

swampgas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are assuming that the Brexiteers and DUP actually want the UK to catch fire and sink into the sea playing Rule Britannia. I don't think so.

May will drive the leave bus right to the edge and when they get a good look over the cliff, she'll call their bluff and accept what is on offer from the EU.

Possibly. The problem is the edge of the cliff may be a lot closer than May thinks.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are assuming that the Brexiteers and DUP actually want the UK to catch fire and sink into the sea playing Rule Britannia. I don't think so.

May will drive the leave bus right to the edge and when they get a good look over the cliff, she'll call their bluff and accept what is on offer from the EU.

Perhaps the Leave bus has no brakes or has a fault in the steering that forces it to go right, and then further right - right over the cliff.

It is a mad strategy they are pursuing.

Nody

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You are assuming that the Brexiteers and DUP actually want the UK to catch fire and sink into the sea playing Rule Britannia. I don't think so.

May will drive the leave bus right to the edge and when they get a good look over the cliff, she'll call their bluff and accept what is on offer from the EU.

Seeing how May was the one created the red lines in the first place and multiple Brexiteers (and let's be honest here DUP are the most extreme version that comes of them) would happily do so for personal gains; remember all it takes for a hard crash is that nothing is agreed for 6 months. That is not a lot of time to turn the M/S Titantic around esp. not when you got an incompetent government with a weak leader at the helms. Hence I'm not suggesting that the hard crash will be due to an active attempt to crash out but more so failure by the UK government to get anything in place (because I can't see them ever accepting the current deal due to NI). Remember for every Tory that might want to remain there are plenty of Labour who want out as well to compensate and all that is required is a failure to agree on how to do the new deal...

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

That is not a lot of time to turn the M/S Titantic around esp. not when you got an incompetent government with a weak leader at the helms.

Barnier has already signalled that the Single Market is still open until 2020, all they have to do is change their minds.

EdgeCase

What's worrying me is that there's very little evidence of any progress at all.

It's like:

1 UK presents cherry picking list.
2 EU says no cherry picking!
3 UK re-spins cherrypicking as 'managed divergence' or something equally ridiculous.
4 Go to step 1.
(repeat until you feel queasy or bang your head off the desk.)

J Mysterio

All the self referencing and smugness really bothers me aswell. "As I set out in my Florence speech..." , like it was some magnum opus.

There's just very little room for debate it seems, and the UK Gov continue to paint itself into a dark, dreary little corner. Brexit means Brexit.

EdgeCase

J Mysterio wrote: »

All the self referencing and smugness really bothers me aswell. "As I set out in my Florence speech..." , like it was some magnum opus.

There's just very little room for debate it seems, and the UK Gov continue to paint itself into a dark, dreary little corner. Brexit means Brexit.

Well, I suppose it sounds better than if it were her Slough Shopping Centre speech. It does come across as very pompous though.

My view of it is that there's no hope of the Government in the UK doing anything about this. It will either fumble on until there's no deal and a major economic crisis.

It's really up to Westminster to press Ctrl-Alt-Del on Brexit.

You also have to realise that we are looking into the 'Brexit Bubble' from outside. There's no sense of urgency about this in the mainstream of English debate. The comparison I keep seeing is with the mentality of group think that was in Ireland before the financial crisis, where you'd politicians and others making totally uniformed but confident statements about the robustness of the economy and the economic situation.

It's different in the sense this is driven by nationalism and jingoism, but it's the same kind of super-confident, ignore all advice, uniformed, factless statements.

My concern is that there simply isn't going to be any change until that bubble bursts and I think that will happen when you get a run on the economy when it looks like a hard Brexit is inevitable. We are getting to the point that's not beyond the realms of possibility.

Econ_

ambro25 wrote: »

They do not have that power or prerogative. That is solely the EU’s.
That one is allegedly more do-able, but only through the EU sanctioning the requisite fudge. So again the EU owns the balance of power.

May effectively stripped Parliament of powers in relation to Brexit by default, when she deposited the Art.50 notification: from that point forward, the EU was always going to have the advantage no matter what, even if all it did was simply wait out the clock, because Parliament does not have jurisdiction over the TEU and it’s effects.

This is why all the noises about a Parliament vote against a government-negotiated deal restoring the situation to status quo ante (U.K. back in EU by default) weren’t worth entertaining or engaging about, and still aren’t, no matter what journos and politicos may proclaim: a Parliament vote against that deal, means an exit in March 2019 without any deal, ie a hard Brexit, if there is insufficient time to tweak the deal and re-vote.

By October 2018, that is, to ensure it is also voted by all the other democratic representative assemblies in the EU (which thus have, effectively, just as much power as Parliament in that respect) in good time by March 2019.

All the above long-known to longtime thread followers, but worth reiterating as a refresher.

If you listen to people close to parliament that actually know what they’re talking about they’ll tell you that if the deal is voted down by parliament - there is no way that’ll be an automatic no deal, despite whatever the government says before hand. The institute for government did a report on the scenario and interviewed Tory MP Dominic Grieve (a guy who knows what he’s taking about - it was his amendment that secured parliament having a vote on the deal) and he is adamant that the govt is talking complete nonsense on this. Amendments can be made and the govts hands could be forced at multiple stages around October.

I agree that of course the EU hold the balance of power as they’d have to agree to pause article 50 - but if you listen to certain people who have discussions with Barnier and officials in Brussels, they will tell you (Nick Clegg - worked with the EU commission) that it is highly likely the EU would accommodate such a situation.

Professor Moriarty

EdgeCase wrote: »

What's worrying me is that there's very little evidence of any progress at all.

It's like:

1 UK presents cherry picking list.
2 EU says no cherry picking!
3 UK re-spins cherrypicking as 'managed divergence' or something equally ridiculous.
4 Go to step 1.
(repeat until you feel queasy or bang your head off the desk.)

Interesting thought on that in The Guardian. May & Co are deliberately putting forward suggestions that they know will be shot down by the EU. This will eventually allow her to tell the cabinet that they have only two options, a soft or hard Brexit as the EU won't countenance anything else. Makes sense when you think how, in the past week, The Telegraph has been floating the idea that a customs union might be inevitable.

EdgeCase

To be honest, I think that's just someone desperately trying to find a cunning plan that isn't there and hoping that it really can't be as ridiculous as it looks.

Sadly, there's no real evidence of any strategy from the UK on this.

Professor Moriarty

EdgeCase wrote: »

To be honest, I think that's just someone desperately trying to find a cunning plan that isn't there and hoping that it really can't be as ridiculous as it looks.

Sadly, there's no real evidence of any strategy from the UK on this.

No, there's never been a strategy. Not least because Leave was never meant to win. This strategy is damage limitation. It's intended to promote the idea that 'We tried our best but the dastardly EU wouldn't play ball so our hands are tied.'

ancapailldorcha

EdgeCase wrote: »

Sadly, there's no real evidence of any strategy from the UK on this.

The strategy to me seems to be trying to find the best way to reconcile the desires of Leave voters with those of the British economy. The problem is that Leave voters didn't actually vote FOR anything, just to leave the EU with no mandate whatsoever for any one set of terms. The result is a government trying to get the best access to the single market possible which will be objectively inferior to the status quo while keeping within the red lines. As if this weren't enough, there's also the border issue in Northern Ireland which is nowhere close to being resolved while the Conservatives continue to achieve nothing tangible.

Leroy42

So why create the red lines in the 1st place? Surely setting out the stall from the very start on such a basis was asking for trouble?

What other negotiations do people enter with such closed minds, and publicly touting them as well.