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 VI

johnnyskeleton

Hi folks, as Theresa May has won the vote of no confidence and we are heading into Brexit day early next year, I thought for the new thread people might give their summary of their views on Brexit to date before we get into the more day to day discussions.

So what do you think about what has happened so far? Who has come off well, who has come off badly?

Where do you think Brexit is going? What is going to be the likely impact on Ireland, Northern Ireland, the rest of the U.K. and the E.U. respectively?

Both this thread and the Mark V thread will remain open simultaneously for the next day or so and Mark V will be closed as it gets closer to the server busting 10,000 mark. Hopefully we can set down a solid foundation now for a top quality thread to come!

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Infini

Bit cynical wrote: »

However this is the first time any country is leaving the EU, so I don't think you can suggest that it is an established principle. The EU have simply arbitrarily decided that trade will not be discussed while other aspects of the future relationship are being discussed and, as they are the stronger party, that is that. But there's no underlying principle at work here or, if there is, you haven't pointed it out.

This whole WA is meant to be a stepping stone to a post Brexit trade agreement but the simple truth is the English Government can't agree to anything simply because they've allowed this utter farce to go on all the while making ridiculous statements, utter lies at times and threats of various degree's at others. The whole backstop for example isn't just because the EU is trying to make it hard for them to leave it's because they've thrown such ridiculous threats and taunts that the EU simply cannot trust them without it. They want this in legal language and make sure the Brits honor their commitments because they're essentially acting like they can do what they want.

Let's be honest here the way things are going they're gonna be faced with 2 choices in 6 weeks if this keeps up 1) Crash Out or 2) Abandon Brexit in its entirety. One or the other. They've squandered so much time and wasted so much capital on this whole exercise that the simple truth is that the only way this is gonna get solved is being forced to stare down the Barrel of the gun they've pointed at their own heads through their own incompetence.

I could see A50 being cancelled and Brexit cancelled in it's entirety. There would be uproar and humiliation and such in England but to be honest they deserve it for lying, deceiving and basically bullshítting their way through the last 2 and a half years. The Tories are only fit for the trash heap only have to look at Mogg to see a prime example of someone so utterly detached from reality, Boris to see a prime example of human incompetence and oppertunisim and the likes of Arlene who have absolutely no problem speaking for people they dont speak for and are happy to risk 20 years of peace for their narrow-minded ideological shíte.

The other option is they crash out and end up in a situation with no trade agreements, economic chaos and civil disorder that will make the London Riots of a few years ago look like a trial run. I think it will eventually dawn on them at the last minute that crash out ultimately will mean the disintegration of their country within a decade but the simple truth is that only a serious scare and a massive slap to their collective faces will make the majority of Parliament cop on and abandon this. It's only when they're forced to confront the consequences of their folly that they listen but depending on when they act it could be too late for them.

They have an out: Rescind A50 but if they do that's Brexit over with because only a total abandonment will end this.

johnnyskeleton

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think EEA would get through the Commons (and UK) in the morning tbh, but split the Tories, which is why it'd have to come from a non Government group as for all the "National Interest" guff, May is Party ahead of State.

Does EEA membership not require free movement of persons? I think the European Free Trade Area, which is basically Switzerland less the additional agreements Switzerland has made that makes them effectively a member of EEA in all but name and a few differences in free movement, is probably the only thing that could get through the HoC at the moment.

Frank Bullitt

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, from the point of view of the UK, this might be attractive in two ways.

1. It complies at least with the letter of the 2016 vote. I think we here sometimes underestimate the weight this has in UK politics compared to referendums in this country.

2. It provides a bridge between total crash out and potential negotiated trade agreements with other countries. Sure these may be limited in scope while the UK is in the EEA, but better than nothing while better arrangements are sought.

It is correct though that they will have little or no say in EU legislation applied to the UK through the EEA. A small country like Norway won't have much say anyway so they are not losing much by not being in the EU. But the UK is a large country in the EU so influence will be lost.

The unfortunate thing for Ireland, in addition to undesired border checks, would be that the influence the UK had within the EU often worked in our favour. That would be lost.

Can you explain more about this? I wasn't aware of it

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

EEA is all the obligations they have at the moment without any benefits; all free movements, taking EU law. They might be able to make their own third-nation trade deals, but they'd be hindered by single market rules and EFTA.

The only positive for the UK to EEA is... fisheries?

However, from the point of view of the UK, this might be attractive in two ways.

1. It complies at least with the letter of the 2016 vote. I think we here sometimes underestimate the weight this has in UK politics compared to referendums in this country.

2. It provides a bridge between total crash out and potential negotiated trade agreements with other countries. Sure these may be limited in scope while the UK is in the EEA, but better than nothing while better arrangements are sought.

It is correct though that they will have little or no say in EU legislation applied to the UK through the EEA. A small country like Norway won't have much say anyway so they are not losing much by not being in the EU. But the UK is a large country in the EU so influence will be lost.

The unfortunate thing for Ireland, in addition to undesired border checks, would be that the influence the UK had within the EU often worked in our favour. That would be lost.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

However this is the first time any country is leaving the EU, so I don't think you can suggest that it is an established principle. The EU have simply arbitrarily decided that trade will not be discussed while other aspects of the future relationship are being discussed and, as they are the stronger party, that is that. But there's no underlying principle at work here or, if there is, you haven't pointed it out.

It just doesn't make sense - how can they negotiate a trade deal before the withdrawal agreement is agreed? Literally nobody credible (including the UK) is suggesting that it's possible or a good idea to do this.

This is all not even mentioning the fact that the UK needs the implementation period in the WA in order to do trade deals with other countries - which they can't do when in the EU.

Hurrache

These eternal schoolboys whose “weight is out of all proportion” to their numbers are certainly overrepresented among Tories. They have today plunged Britain into its worst crisis, exposing its incestuous and self-serving ruling class like never before.

Nope, not written since the Brexit vote, but written in the 1940/50s (I think) by E.M. Foster in his essay Notes of the English Character on England's colonial expeditions at the time.

A scathing attack on the British government in the New York Times, written by an Indian essayist.

The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class
With Brexit, the chumocrats who drew borders from India to Ireland are getting a taste of their own medicine.
....
....
Britain’s rupture with the European Union is proving to be another act of moral dereliction by the country’s rulers. The Brexiteers, pursuing a fantasy of imperial-era strength and self-sufficiency, have repeatedly revealed their hubris, mulishness and ineptitude over the past two years. Though originally a “Remainer,” Prime Minister Theresa May has matched their arrogant obduracy, imposing a patently unworkable timetable of two years on Brexit and laying down red lines that undermined negotiations with Brussels and doomed her deal to resoundingly bipartisan rejection this week in Parliament.
...
....
From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/sunday/brexit-ireland-empire.html

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well, in the opinion of the currently 28 Member States of the EU and the fundamental underpinning of all EU trade negotiations.

Note even the UK isn't asking for what you're suggesting as they know it's ridiculous.

However this is the first time any country is leaving the EU, so I don't think you can suggest that it is an established principle. The EU have simply arbitrarily decided that trade will not be discussed while other aspects of the future relationship are being discussed and, as they are the stronger party, that is that. But there's no underlying principle at work here or, if there is, you haven't pointed it out.

wiggle16

Sam Russell wrote: »

If only we knew.

We know what those that voted remain wanted - the status quo.

No-one knows what the Leave voted for because they were fed lies, magic unicorns, fake information, and propaganda.

Some voted because of immigration - from wherever.

Some voted for £350 million a week for the NHS - which was a total lie. Some voted to take back sovereignty - but could not explain what particular laws they did not like (not the abolition of roaming charges or credit card charges - they are quite good).

Some voted to take back control of their borders - but are now willing to leave the only border with the EU open.

Some voted leave just because they do not like foreigners - particularly brown ones.

A few might have voted so they could do wonderful trade deals with the rest of the world, and trade under WTO rules - whatever they are. Of course, it would mean turning their back on their largest market and losing over 40 FTA the EU have already done. It might be easier to do trade deals if they had any experience or expertise in trade negotiations.

But they will get blue passports (printed in France).

+++1000% to the above.

The only fair thing to do would be to hold a second referendum (which I cannot see happening, there are too many hurdles to even starting that process) because the current shítshow is not what Britain voted for when they voted to leave. They didn't vote for a hard Brexit. They didn't vote for uncertainty, they didn't vote for backstabbing and the party-before-country political theatre that's been going on.

A huge proportion of the Leave votes were protest votes of one form or another and they were actively and deliberately misled by Boris et al. Boris Johnson being grilled by the Treasury Select Committee (which I believe is the UK equivalent of our PAC) about his carry on during the campaign makes for depressing viewing - all of his claims about the EU and their regulations were demonstrably false and hysterical, and yet he was allowed to continue making them up until the vote. And yet the man was in office until July last.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-35887003/boris-johnson-v-andrew-tyrie-on-eu-coffin-and-lorry-claims

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2015/eu-referendum-evidence-15-16/

All the clap trap from May about delivering on the referendum result is just that, because what is being delivered is no longer what the referendum referred to or was supposed to refer to. Pushing ahead with this when it became clear that the circumstances had changed and what leaving really meant was profoundly undemocratic. So while there is a part of me that feels the UK will get what it deserves if they crash out, there's a part of me that feels sorry for them for being so thoroughly duped.

WomanSkirtFan8

EdgeCase wrote: »

The talk of SF taking their seats is absolute nonsense. It's just not going to happen.

There are the numbers there if you could get the Tory Centre, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, SNP and enough labour centrists.

Personally, I think they're all too entrenched. It's not going to go anywhere.

coupled with the fact that there's no leadership being shown by either side too

intellectual dosser

Bit cynical wrote: »

Can you elaborate a little on this please? What would this risk be? What would the countries see?

I'll try, but I'll say up front this is the just the way I look at it.

Lets say there is a general election in Italy, where there is currently some anymosity towards the EU. The opposition party, in a bid to seize power, states in its election manifesto that it will trigger Article 50 and start trade negotiations with the EU and that at the conclusion of those negotiations it will decide if its best for Italy to revoke A50 or go ahead with leaving the EU. The people, looking to stick it to the establishment vote in this party, who now have a democratic mandate to carry out their manifesto putting the EU in direct confrontation with Italian democracy if they were to challenge Italy's strategy.

This discussion, and then any potential trade negotiations are distracting, and tense, with 'stable' EU members feeling like they are getting a raw deal making negotiations as difficult as possible. Chaos ensues creating chasms within the EU.

Call this situation fantasy, but then so is Brexit!

DrumSteve

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Agreed.

Foster has achieved two feats in her short career as leader of DUP - Brought about the indefinite suspension of the Stormont Assembly in her efforts to cling to power. And it looks like she will create a hard border with the south. That's not to mention the disastrous cash for ash scheme she pioneered.

Say what you like about Paisley Sr, but I don't think he would have ended up in this situation.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

For that reason I could see opting for some sort of CU/EEA thing or requesting an extension of A50 as being more likely.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think EEA would get through the Commons (and UK) in the morning tbh, but split the Tories, which is why it'd have to come from a non Government group as for all the "National Interest" guff, May is Party ahead of State.

EEA is all the obligations they have at the moment without any benefits; all free movements, taking EU law. They might be able to make their own third-nation trade deals, but they'd be hindered by single market rules and EFTA.

The only positive for the UK to EEA is... fisheries?

Macy0161

Bit cynical wrote: »

For that reason I could see opting for some sort of CU/EEA thing or requesting an extension of A50 as being more likely.

I think EEA would get through the Commons (and UK) in the morning tbh, but split the Tories, which is why it'd have to come from a non Government group as for all the "National Interest" guff, May is Party ahead of State.

FreudianSlippers

Sam Russell wrote: »

If only we knew.

We know what those that voted remain wanted - the status quo.

No-one knows what the Leave voted for because they were fed lies, magic unicorns, fake information, and propaganda.

Some voted because of immigration - from wherever.

Absolutely, I don't dispute that - but across all Brexiteers from various parties, a main point has always been (and currently is) why would we accept a deal that makes us worse off (vis-a-vis EU rules) than just Remaining.

For all of the options I previously quoted, I'd hazard to guess that 80% of Brexiteers would vote remain over those options.

Bit cynical

intellectual dosser wrote: »

The EU would run the risk of countries seeing what things would look like if they left the EU.

Can you elaborate a little on this please? What would this risk be? What would the countries see?

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

In your opinion. But I disagree with that. If a country is leaving a trading bloc, there's nothing wrong with discussing future trade arrangements once the country leaves. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if that country was also on the other side of the table, but like I said earlier, that country could be exempted from representation in matters relating to trade while the talks are taking place. The new trading relationship would only come into force, of course, once the country leaves.

It seems your main argument is "because the EU says so and that's that!".

Well, in the opinion of the currently 28 Member States of the EU and the fundamental underpinning of all EU trade negotiations.

Note even the UK isn't asking for what you're suggesting as they know it's ridiculous.

Bit cynical

Macy0161 wrote: »

But quote the rest of what I said! 52% didn't vote for crashing out. Even "no deal" can be split between cliff edge and managed exit.

Sorry, I edited my post a bit after that. Whilst there may be a majority now against Brexit in its current form, a leader of a political party does not want to be the one to go against the 2016 result. I'm sure Corbyn would love TM to back out of Brexit and vice versa but he himself does not and neither does she. The impact of the 2016 referendum is still strong.

For that reason I could see opting for some sort of CU/EEA thing or requesting an extension of A50 as being more likely.

ToBeFrank123

wiggle16 wrote: »

And even thicker skulls.

The DUP is motivated solely by ideology, against the interests of the people they represent - and as you say, that's not even the majority of people in NI. No amount of logic or reason will change their outlook on things. May taking them on was one of her biggest blunders by far, it shut off way too many issues from negotiation.

Their fear of NI's "Britishness" being eroded runs extremely deep for the DUP and their bedfellows. The traditionally Unionist segment of the population is in demographic decline compared to the Nationalist and non-partisan communities. They see this as an existential threat and therefore don't want any change of the current status quo in NI at all and if that means annihilating its economy they'll just close their eyes really tight as they get closer to the cliff's edge.

Agreed.

Foster has achieved two feats in her short career as leader of DUP - Brought about the indefinite suspension of the Stormont Assembly in her efforts to cling to power. And it looks like she will create a hard border with the south. That's not to mention the disastrous cash for ash scheme she pioneered.

Sam Russell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

None of which are really in the spirit of Brexit when it boils down to it. Unless the UK secretly really wants to be a rule-taker from the EU, but that doesn't seem to be what people who voted for Brexit voted for.

If only we knew.

We know what those that voted remain wanted - the status quo.

No-one knows what the Leave voted for because they were fed lies, magic unicorns, fake information, and propaganda.

Some voted because of immigration - from wherever.

Some voted for £350 million a week for the NHS - which was a total lie. Some voted to take back sovereignty - but could not explain what particular laws they did not like (not the abolition of roaming charges or credit card charges - they are quite good).

Some voted to take back control of their borders - but are now willing to leave the only border with the EU open.

Some voted leave just because they do not like foreigners - particularly brown ones.

A few might have voted so they could do wonderful trade deals with the rest of the world, and trade under WTO rules - whatever they are. Of course, it would mean turning their back on their largest market and losing over 40 FTA the EU have already done. It might be easier to do trade deals if they had any experience or expertise in trade negotiations.

But they will get blue passports (printed in France).

Macy0161

Bit cynical wrote: »

However there is the small matter of a referendum that was held in the UK in 2016.

But quote the rest of what I said!

52% didn't vote for crashing out. Even "no deal" can be split between cliff edge and managed exit. The UK Parliament is actually quite reflective - no majority for a single exit route, significant remain minority...

intellectual dosser

Bit cynical wrote: »

In your opinion. But I disagree with that. If a country is leaving a trading bloc, there's nothing wrong with discussing future trade arrangements once the country leaves. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if that country was also on the other side of the table, but like I said earlier, that country could be exempted from representation in matters relating to trade while the talks are taking place. The new trading relationship would only come into force, of course, once the country leaves.

It seems your main argument is "because the EU says so and that's that!".

The EU would run the risk of countries seeing what things would look like if they left the EU. It would also potentially create unnecessary tensions and distractions between an EU member and the EU itself while discussions were ongoing. I think its a necessary policy.

Bit cynical

Macy0161 wrote: »

The single option with the biggest mandate has always been remain!

However there is the small matter of a referendum that was held in the UK in 2016.

No leader wants to be the one to repudiate that.

Macy0161

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

but that doesn't seem to be what people who voted for Brexit voted for.

It's not what some people who voted for brexit voted for. There's no definitive, which is what is reflected in the UK Parliament. It ranges from No Deal to EEA-EFTA and everything inbetween. The single option with the biggest mandate has always been remain!

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Irrelevant - the EU cannot, should not and will not negotiate a trade deal with a Member State of the EU. It's silly to even talk about it.

In your opinion. But I disagree with that. If a country is leaving a trading bloc, there's nothing wrong with discussing future trade arrangements once the country leaves. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if that country was also on the other side of the table, but like I said earlier, that country could be exempted from representation in matters relating to trade while the talks are taking place. The new trading relationship would only come into force, of course, once the country leaves.

It seems your main argument is "because the EU says so and that's that!".

FreudianSlippers

Macy0161 wrote: »

Or customs union and single market - EEA/ EEA-EFTA/ Single Market/ "Norway Plus"

None of which are really in the spirit of Brexit when it boils down to it. Unless the UK secretly really wants to be a rule-taker from the EU, but that doesn't seem to be what people who voted for Brexit voted for.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think it is correct. It refers to a relationship/obligation that extends into the future (2020 and beyond).

We only say it is not a future relationship because it is not part of the official "Future Relationship" talks. But like I say, this division is arbitrary and artificial.

Irrelevant - the EU cannot, should not and will not negotiate a trade deal with a Member State of the EU. It's silly to even talk about it.

wiggle16

Tell me how wrote: »

I wonder how are their ministers treated in the halls and canteen of West Minister when others run in to them.

I suspect many know that they are in the position they are in in solely because of how the chips fell in the last GE and that they are not even representing the majority in their country.

Still, I don't suspect it bothers them. Wilson, Dodds, Paisley, have thick skins.

And even thicker skulls.

The DUP is motivated solely by ideology, against the interests of the people they represent - and as you say, that's not even the majority of people in NI. No amount of logic or reason will change their outlook on things. May taking them on was one of her biggest blunders by far, it shut off way too many issues from negotiation.

Their fear of NI's "Britishness" being eroded runs extremely deep for the DUP and their bedfellows. The traditionally Unionist segment of the population is in demographic decline compared to the Nationalist and non-partisan communities. They see this as an existential threat and therefore don't want any change of the current status quo in NI at all and if that means annihilating its economy they'll just close their eyes really tight as they get closer to the cliff's edge.

Macy0161

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The only way the DUP gets what they want without a hard border is to remain in the EU.

Or customs union and single market - EEA/ EEA-EFTA/ Single Market/ "Norway Plus"

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, the backstop is a fall-back position past 2020 (is it still 2020?) if a trade deal cannot be reached. It's not really correct to call it a discussion of a "future relationship"

I think it is correct. It refers to a relationship/obligation that extends into the future (2020 and beyond).

We only say it is not a future relationship because it is not part of the official "Future Relationship" talks. But like I say, this division is arbitrary and artificial.

Tell me how

gmisk wrote: »

I can tell you now as someone from Norn Iron they will not give a single toss, in fact they will wear it as a badge of honour and it will likely play well to their voting base.
"We showed it to them in westminister yeeeeoh"

It most definitely will, but that is an ever-decreasing base.