EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

This is correct.

There is, according to current polling, a slight edge for Remain - but that was true three years ago. Another Referendum will solve nothing, and it will feed into the anti-democratic mythos of the EU. If the people give the wrong result in a vote, make them vote again.

What would the question even be?

Take the Deal or leave without one?

Take the Deal or stay?

Two Referendums?

I'm sure Beskar would suggest a three-option referendum but that would be an utter disaster.

There was one side with concrete promises last time, and one side with the freedom to promise whatever they want, without the responsibility of having to keep their promises.

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/pri_65783723.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C360

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." - Nigel Farage, May 2016. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017)

[rory_20_uk]

There was one side with concrete promises last time, and one side with the freedom to promise whatever they want, without the responsibility of having to keep their promises.

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/pri_65783723.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=540%2C360

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." - Nigel Farage, May 2016. (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017)

Not really.

The EU now is not the same EEC that the population last had the chance to vote on in the 1970's. Each treaty changing things. True, this wasn't promised as much as not mentioned.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Not really.

The EU now is not the same EEC that the population last had the chance to vote on in the 1970's. Each treaty changing things. True, this wasn't promised as much as not mentioned.

~:smoking:

The Remain side in 2016 had an EU that was tangible, with a complete set of rules and rights. The promises would not only be kept, they have already been kept, and were there for everyone to check up on should they wish, and for everyone to hold to account. Where's the equivalent on Leave's side? Is the promise on the bus going to be kept? What about Farage's promise in May 2016 to keep campaigning should the result be 52-48 in favour of Remain? BTW, if we leave with no deal, would you say that this was what you voted for, and accept responsibility for the results?

[rory_20_uk]

The Remain side in 2016 had an EU that was tangible, with a complete set of rules and rights. The promises would not only be kept, they have already been kept, and were there for everyone to check up on should they wish, and for everyone to hold to account. Where's the equivalent on Leave's side? Is the promise on the bus going to be kept? What about Farage's promise in May 2016 to keep campaigning should the result be 52-48 in favour of Remain? BTW, if we leave with no deal, would you say that this was what you voted for, and accept responsibility for the results?

The Remain side were equally talking about the future not the past. There is not a complete set of anything - the laws and institutions change. Unless you would like to apply this "oh it's not tangeable" to everything. Such as the Euro, admitting Eastern Europe, starting a EU Armed Forces, EU Diplomats...

Hold to account? Don't make me laugh. The EU budget has rarely (if ever) been passed by the auditors. Several members of the Euro break the rules of GDP debt and nothing happens. Greece committed fraud to join and no one seems to care. The ECB massively increased its remit... The list goes on and on.

The no deal vote was taken over 2 years ago. It was pretty obvious to me from day one that there would be nothing from the EU since they can not let people leave and not be worse off - else why pay the protection money? If a system would work with common standards and free trade people might ask all sorts of questions - like why we need so many highly paid bureaucrats!

But the whole two years have been pissed away - a massive amount of time that issues could have been assessed and mitigated. Now we might need another 2 more...

So I am responsible for the fact of leaving, not the process to date of leaving.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The Remain side were equally talking about the future not the past. There is not a complete set of anything - the laws and institutions change. Unless you would like to apply this "oh it's not tangeable" to everything. Such as the Euro, admitting Eastern Europe, starting a EU Armed Forces, EU Diplomats...

Hold to account? Don't make me laugh. The EU budget has rarely (if ever) been passed by the auditors. Several members of the Euro break the rules of GDP debt and nothing happens. Greece committed fraud to join and no one seems to care. The ECB massively increased its remit... The list goes on and on.

The no deal vote was taken over 2 years ago. It was pretty obvious to me from day one that there would be nothing from the EU since they can not let people leave and not be worse off - else why pay the protection money? If a system would work with common standards and free trade people might ask all sorts of questions - like why we need so many highly paid bureaucrats!

But the whole two years have been pissed away - a massive amount of time that issues could have been assessed and mitigated. Now we might need another 2 more...

So I am responsible for the fact of leaving, not the process to date of leaving.

~:smoking:

Remain had something current to hold up. Such as the single market, which did not exist the last time there was a vote. The loss of access to which has led to the exodus of manufacturing. It remains to see what will happen to customs. One of the ministers has mooted a solution that will severely damage agriculture.

[rory_20_uk]

Remain had something current to hold up. Such as the single market, which did not exist the last time there was a vote. The loss of access to which has led to the exodus of manufacturing. It remains to see what will happen to customs. One of the ministers has mooted a solution that will severely damage agriculture.

So it is fine for the EU to change things but not for the UK to leave.

You not going to refute any aspect of what I mentioned? Perhaps those who wished to remain want to leave the corruption the EU has at its heart.

So when things in the future will be bad they are fact, and when things will be good they are fiction.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So it is fine for the EU to change things but not for the UK to leave.

You not going to refute any aspect of what I mentioned? Perhaps those who wished to remain want to leave the corruption the EU has at its heart.

So when things in the future will be bad they are fact, and when things will be good they are fiction.

~:smoking:

What good things are there in Brexit? List them. And on corruption: can you explain how that company with no ferries got a multi-million contract to transport supplies across the Channel? Does corruption only exist in the EU? Or do you only apply your standards to the EU, but not Westminster? Unlike you, I apply my standards to all sides.

[Pannonian]

Just seen a government poster warning people planning to drive in the EU after 29th March on what to do if there is no deal. Someone put a sticker over it, saying "Ban Islam". That's the Brexit argument for you. Blaming the EU for things that have nothing to do with it, not having any constructive solutions, but only wanting rid of things and laying the blame on the EU. Like those geniuses who say they voted to leave the EU because they want to stop Muslims from coming here.

[Furunculus]

This is just bile now, pannonian.

invective and rage is poor sustenance for a heAlthy and happy mind.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Calm, down, this is not constructive, or healthy - both of you.

The fact is that one side of the Referendum was advocating Status Quo because "it's good for our economy" whereas the other side was nowhere near the levers of power and therefore would not be the ones effecting change even if "they" won.

The main reason Leave won is actually that they had the better narrative, the more hopeful narrative. The Remain side was arguing for the economic benefits of the EU which most leave voters don't see. For example, Cornwall has an economy which has been in perpetual recession since the closing of the last tin mines thirty years ago - except for the tourism sector. No mines, fewer fishing boats every year, the price of lamb and beef not keeping up with the costs of running a farm... and the only hope for your children is to be tour guides for rich Londoners and Europeans who want to see the !quaint" wreckage of your economy.

No wonder they votes Leave, same with the Welsh and Northern England. The fact is, the British Government has failed these people for half a Century, first by nationalising their industries and driving them into the ground, then by cutting off the Government life-support and devastating their communities. Pretty much all of this happened AFTER we joined the EU, and EU rules makes Government intervention in this area difficult. Sure, EU "structural" money has gone into these regions but these people want more than a bus root, or a new footbridge - they need real, worthwhile jobs.

For miners leaving the EU opens up the prospect of easier emigration to the Commonwealth, particularly Canada and Australia, where there are active, profitable, mines. For Trawlermen the end of the CFP means British waters plied only by British boats, which means more fish per boat. Further, a hard Brexit holds out the hope of a reduction in cheap EU fish imports. For British Farmers the issue is largely the same, no CAP, no cheap Danish Bacon.

The economic argument only works if you're doing well. I was reminded just how much better London is doing when I visited last week, Exeter looked decidedly shabby and run down when I came back. Despite that, Exeter is (in UK terms) doing very well and just behind London.

As for the current impasse - it's really very simple. Nobody believe we can resolve the Irish border question in the short term, which means the Backstop WILL be triggered and remain in place until a solution is found, during which time the UK will be stuck in "Limbo" which will mean no trade deals, no investment. The British Parliament cannot be expected to assent to a Treaty which binds the UK in perpetuity to the EU because, as nted, we are a Law Abiding nations and once we sign that Treaty we will not, in fact, repudiate it.

So, we (the British) need either a time limit or an exit mechanism to prevent perpetual Limbo once negotiations break down. Meanwhile the EU refuses to countenance a Hard Border in Northern Ireland (which the British also don't want) and thereby want to make sure we CAN'T exit the agreement.

As a result of these two diametrically opposed positions May's deal, is, and always was, a non-starter. The paradox here is that it is now the EU's refusal to move which will ensure a hard border in about wo months time (it won't happen on day one) rather than in, say, five years' time if they agreed to a time limit.

If the EU were sensible they would offer the UK a five-year limit on the backstop (subject to votes on extension) which begins AFTER the Withdrawal period, i.e. seven years from now. The Backstop would also only apply to Northern Ireland. In seven years time we might have a Border Poll, or a different referendum on the Irish Question, or people might just get used to the new arrangement and decide to keep it after all.

Right now it is the EU being intransigent, claiming we haven't "said what we want" when everybody knows that "we" want either a time limit or exit mechanism. If this leads to the UK crashing out because the EU will not offer a deal Parliament can reasonable accept (the current one is not reasonable in light of our political settlement) then the EU will be responsible for the failure.

Fact is, the British Government negotiated a Deal, Parliament killed it, all the current delaying tactics are designed to alter something in that arithmetic, because as things stand no number of "reassurances" will get this deal through the Commons, or the Lords.

[Montmorency]

If the EU were sensible they would offer the UK a five-year limit on the backstop (subject to votes on extension) which begins AFTER the Withdrawal period, i.e. seven years from now. The Backstop would also only apply to Northern Ireland. In seven years time we might have a Border Poll, or a different referendum on the Irish Question, or people might just get used to the new arrangement and decide to keep it after all.

If it's sensible, why hasn't Parliament or the government advanced it to the EU? Or did they and the EU refused?


Right now it is the EU being intransigent, claiming we haven't "said what we want" when everybody knows that "we" want either a time limit or exit mechanism. If this leads to the UK crashing out because the EU will not offer a deal Parliament can reasonable accept (the current one is not reasonable in light of our political settlement) then the EU will be responsible for the failure.

There's this sense that Leavers believe only the EU has agency.

[Pannonian]

Right now it is the EU being intransigent, claiming we haven't "said what we want" when everybody knows that "we" want either a time limit or exit mechanism. If this leads to the UK crashing out because the EU will not offer a deal Parliament can reasonable accept (the current one is not reasonable in light of our political settlement) then the EU will be responsible for the failure.

Fact is, the British Government negotiated a Deal, Parliament killed it, all the current delaying tactics are designed to alter something in that arithmetic, because as things stand no number of "reassurances" will get this deal through the Commons, or the Lords.

A time limited backstop is not a backstop. The backstop is needed because the UK government has been telling domestic audiences that they do not intend to honour promises given to the EU. Such as May negotiating an agreement, then a couple of days later the Brexit minister saying that they can unilaterally go back on this promise. That was after May needed to press forward, and the EU27 gave her the wherewithal to press forward, and then Davis tells the domestic press that the UK government does not intend to keep the promises made.

The EU have already offered a number of solutions for May to choose from. There's a graph showing what solution is possible with each set of demands from the UK government. It only has to decide what it wants, look up the appropriate line on the graph, and there is a solution from the EU to suit its needs. The problem is there is no agreement in Parliament for any solution. That's not the EU's problem, nor is it within their power to solve it. Leavers have often complained about the EU encroaching on national sovereignty, with complaints about ever closer union and all that. Finding an agreement within Parliament is not the EU's business. That's the business of the UK government. And I don't see why you're complaining that the UK government has negotiated a deal but it's Parliament's fault for not passing it. Why does Parliament have to pass it, if it does not agree? Should the UK government just override Parliament?

[Husar]

Right now it is the EU being intransigent, claiming we haven't "said what we want" when everybody knows that "we" want either a time limit or exit mechanism. If this leads to the UK crashing out because the EU will not offer a deal Parliament can reasonable accept (the current one is not reasonable in light of our political settlement) then the EU will be responsible for the failure.

The internal British problems with accepting a deal that is acceptable for the EU are not the EU's problem or fault. You sound as if the internal British needs and wishes should somehow trump the internal needs and wishes of the EU, like the EU should just give Britain a deal that is bad for the EU just to make Britain happy because Britain's happiness is "obviously" more important than the happiness of the EU.

Or as Monty said, you can offer another deal that is acceptable to the EU. If you can't find one, the EU will accept a no deal Brexit. Apparently you have a problem with that, so you have to find a solution to your problem. It's not other peoples' job to find solutions to your problems in the competitive environment that you want to create with Brexit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The internal British problems with accepting a deal that is acceptable for the EU are not the EU's problem or fault. You sound as if the internal British needs and wishes should somehow trump the internal needs and wishes of the EU, like the EU should just give Britain a deal that is bad for the EU just to make Britain happy because Britain's happiness is "obviously" more important than the happiness of the EU.

Or as Monty said, you can offer another deal that is acceptable to the EU. If you can't find one, the EU will accept a no deal Brexit. Apparently you have a problem with that, so you have to find a solution to your problem. It's not other peoples' job to find solutions to your problems in the competitive environment that you want to create with Brexit.

It's not that the EU should necessarily bend to Britain's wants or needs, it's that they are currently pretending those needs don't exist.

A British Parliament cannot sign a treaty in good faith if it commits a future Parliament to be bound by a provision of that treaty in perpetuity. This is especially the case if said provision is meant to be temporary but everyone expects it to end up being semi-permanent.

Parliament has indicated it will not accept the treaty negotiated by the Government. The sticking point is the Backstop, the EU wants a perpetual one, the UK wants one it can withdraw from. The middle ground here is a long-ish time limit to the backstop with an option to extend.

In the UK Parliament, not the Government, is Sovereign. The Government serves under the sufferance of Parliament, not the other way around. Under other circumstances we would now be having an election, the only thing stopping that is the impending Brexit.

The leaders of the EU, though not necessarily the Member States, are acting like it's Theresa May's responsibility to get Parliament behind the deal but she can't and they won't.

So, the EU has two options, offer the UK Parliament something it will accept, or accept No Deal and stop going on about it.

Theresa May can absolutely be held responsible for giving Tusk and Junker the impression she was ever in control of this process, because she never was. Frankly, I don't think Tony Blair could have got THIS deal through Parliament in 1997, so there's really no hope now.

The leaders of the EU absolutely DO need to appreciate the constitutional position of the UK and what that makes possible or impossible.

[Pannonian]

It's not that the EU should necessarily bend to Britain's wants or needs, it's that they are currently pretending those needs don't exist.

A British Parliament cannot sign a treaty in good faith if it commits a future Parliament to be bound by a provision of that treaty in perpetuity. This is especially the case if said provision is meant to be temporary but everyone expects it to end up being semi-permanent.

Parliament has indicated it will not accept the treaty negotiated by the Government. The sticking point is the Backstop, the EU wants a perpetual one, the UK wants one it can withdraw from. The middle ground here is a long-ish time limit to the backstop with an option to extend.

In the UK Parliament, not the Government, is Sovereign. The Government serves under the sufferance of Parliament, not the other way around. Under other circumstances we would now be having an election, the only thing stopping that is the impending Brexit.

The leaders of the EU, though not necessarily the Member States, are acting like it's Theresa May's responsibility to get Parliament behind the deal but she can't and they won't.

So, the EU has two options, offer the UK Parliament something it will accept, or accept No Deal and stop going on about it.

Theresa May can absolutely be held responsible for giving Tusk and Junker the impression she was ever in control of this process, because she never was. Frankly, I don't think Tony Blair could have got THIS deal through Parliament in 1997, so there's really no hope now.

The leaders of the EU absolutely DO need to appreciate the constitutional position of the UK and what that makes possible or impossible.

The deal's parameters were set by May's red lines. The EU published a graph a couple of years ago showing what solutions were possible given various demands. Take May's self-imposed red lines, look it up on the graph, and you have the May agreement. The details were determined by May, not the EU. If she wants the details to be different, all she has to do is make different demands, and look up the relevant solution on the graph. If the solution isn't acceptable to Parliament, that's all down to her. The EU didn't set those red lines. The EU set out the possible solutions a couple of years ago. After May made the agreement, the EU said the details were set, and absent any change in position from the UK, the details would not change. The EU hasn't been back at May to pretend to change the agreement; it's been vice versa. EU officials have repeatedly complained that her new meetings are a waste of time, as she hasn't changed her position, and thus there will be no change of details.

BTW, the backstop is there because the UK wants to unilaterally end the GFA, a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI. The backstop does have a mechanism for ending: the technological solution that the UK government has promised would handle the cross-border trade. Once that has been realised, there is no need for a backstop. The UK government doesn't like it because there is no technological solution, and its promise is empty. The EU is insisting on the backstop because the RoI holds the UK to its treaty, and the UK government has proved to be untrustworthy, cf. David Davis talking to the domestic press. How is it the EU's fault that the UK government intends to break its promises?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, the UK does NOT want to end the GFA, it just doesn't want to be perpetually shackled to the EU.

The EU's "graph" is emblematic of its "take it or leave it" position.

That's fine, but that's not really negotiation.

Take a look at your own logic here - the EU wants the UK to sign a Treaty because the UK is untrustworthy and liable to break it's promise.

If that's true there's no value in the Treaty. As I recall, David Davis said that what was in the initial agreement could always be reworked further down the line because it was not the final deal and they were still negotiating. A sentiment expressed to reassure the people of Britain we weren't going to be trussed up like a lamb to slaughter.

Anyway, David Davis resigned months ago - prior to the the signing of the final agreement.

No, the EU wants a perpetual Backstop because everybody knows we aren't getting a trade deal any time soon. The UK isn't going to institute a border in Ireland in the short term, not least because it can't. The EU, however, is ideologically committed to its Market - which is why we had to screw over the Commonwealth to join. The EU needs the UK inside that market or it needs a hard border between the UK and the market.

The EU will either impose a border in Ireland or (more likely) one between Ireland and mainland Europe, because they already have the infrastructure. The nasty truth is that the EU will shut Ireland out of the Common Market rather than agree to a time-limited Backstop.

So, we crash out.

[Pannonian]

No, the UK does NOT want to end the GFA, it just doesn't want to be perpetually shackled to the EU.

The EU's "graph" is emblematic of its "take it or leave it" position.

That's fine, but that's not really negotiation.

Take a look at your own logic here - the EU wants the UK to sign a Treaty because the UK is untrustworthy and liable to break it's promise.

If that's true there's no value in the Treaty. As I recall, David Davis said that what was in the initial agreement could always be reworked further down the line because it was not the final deal and they were still negotiating. A sentiment expressed to reassure the people of Britain we weren't going to be trussed up like a lamb to slaughter.

Anyway, David Davis resigned months ago - prior to the the signing of the final agreement.

No, the EU wants a perpetual Backstop because everybody knows we aren't getting a trade deal any time soon. The UK isn't going to institute a border in Ireland in the short term, not least because it can't. The EU, however, is ideologically committed to its Market - which is why we had to screw over the Commonwealth to join. The EU needs the UK inside that market or it needs a hard border between the UK and the market.

The EU will either impose a border in Ireland or (more likely) one between Ireland and mainland Europe, because they already have the infrastructure. The nasty truth is that the EU will shut Ireland out of the Common Market rather than agree to a time-limited Backstop.

So, we crash out.

Do you want WTO rules?

Also, any evidence for the bolded assertion?

[Montmorency]

The leaders of the EU absolutely DO need to appreciate the constitutional position of the UK and what that makes possible or impossible.

Look, it sounds to me like you're saying the EU negotiators should appreciate some unspoken constitutional position of the UK, but the UK's own government need not.

If this is so obvious, shouldn't the government acknowledge it? Has it been mentioned in Parliament? If not, maybe it's not so obvious?

The only possible misunderstanding on my part I see is if these points were raised in the negotiations but the EU rejected them. Is that the case?

[Husar]

The leaders of the EU, though not necessarily the Member States, are acting like it's Theresa May's responsibility to get Parliament behind the deal but she can't and they won't.

Well, then maybe the UK should either send someone who actually knows what the parliament wants or the parliament should go and negotiate with the EU. Now you're acting like it's the EU's fault that Britain is unable to send a negotiator who actually has the power or knowledge to negotiate an actually acceptable deal. Again, this is an internal problem of the UK.

If the EU finds a temporary component of the deal unacceptable, then it has the right to find that temporary component unacceptale. If no deal can be found that is acceptable for both parties, then there cannot be a deal, don't see the problem there. If your parliament cannot accept terms that the EU is unwilling to change, you get the choice to leave without a deal or to stay. The EU is not obliged to make a deal with you in any way. There are other countries on the planet that the EU doesn't have a deal with, North Korea is probably one. Noone would say the EU has a moral obligation to give North Korea a fair deal.

[Beskar]

Also, any evidence for the bolded assertion?

Reminds me of a conservative talking point about the Backstop which was on about how the Backstop is to the benefit of Ireland due to it having access to the rest of the EU via the United Kingdom. Thus the EU should give into the UK demands rather than the UK give into the EU demands on the Ireland Backstop situation as it punishes the EU/Republic of Ireland more than vice-versus.

[CrossLOPER]

Ban the UK.

[Pannonian]

Reminds me of a conservative talking point about the Backstop which was on about how the Backstop is to the benefit of Ireland due to it having access to the rest of the EU via the United Kingdom. Thus the EU should give into the UK demands rather than the UK give into the EU demands on the Ireland Backstop situation as it punishes the EU/Republic of Ireland more than vice-versus.

Brexiters say that the EU needs us more than we need them, then in the same breath say that the EU are bullying us. See the above PFH post where he says that Cornwall has suffered from decades of underinvestment from the UK government, admits that the EU has diverted money there, then underplays said investment by saying it's not really effective. EU funding takes the form of matching private investment with EU-allocated public investment. The EU does not decide to invest in useless things. Someone local has to have decided to raise funding, then apply to the EU for funding which is then granted. And if it's up to Westminster, this funding wouldn't even be granted, hence the decades of underinvestment before the EU started investing in the poorest areas across the EU. Incidentally, within a week of the referendum, Cornwall county council immediately wanted reassurance that the EU's funding would be replaced by Westminster.

It boggles my mind how many Brexiteer arguments fail basic knowledge or even internal logic.

[Furunculus]

BTW, the backstop is there because the UK wants to unilaterally end the GFA, a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI.

"Hi Donald!" *waves*

PFH is absolutely right: being stuck forever is unacceptable. We either solve that problem or we have no deal.

Fingers crossed that Cox can get the EU to provide that assuarance, i'm willing to be persuaded...

[rory_20_uk]

Ireland has never stated exactly what the legal issues are with Brexit and the Good Friday agreement beyond that Terrorists might commit terrorism if they're upset. Oh yes, we refer to it as "destabilising peace". Oddly enough the only time we give equal treatment to Terrorists.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Do you want WTO rules?

Also, any evidence for the bolded assertion?

I do not really want WTO rules, though crashing out would be better than May's deal in the Medium or Long Term even if it might be less painful in the Short Term.

I'll go digging for evidence but it might be a few days, I'm supposed to be writing a paper.


Look, it sounds to me like you're saying the EU negotiators should appreciate some unspoken constitutional position of the UK, but the UK's own government need not.

If this is so obvious, shouldn't the government acknowledge it? Has it been mentioned in Parliament? If not, maybe it's not so obvious?

The only possible misunderstanding on my part I see is if these points were raised in the negotiations but the EU rejected them. Is that the case?

What is the foundation of the US Constitution? Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The foundation of the British Constitution is Parliamentary Sovereignty - this is a known fact.


Well, then maybe the UK should either send someone who actually knows what the parliament wants or the parliament should go and negotiate with the EU. Now you're acting like it's the EU's fault that Britain is unable to send a negotiator who actually has the power or knowledge to negotiate an actually acceptable deal. Again, this is an internal problem of the UK.

If the EU finds a temporary component of the deal unacceptable, then it has the right to find that temporary component unacceptale. If no deal can be found that is acceptable for both parties, then there cannot be a deal, don't see the problem there. If your parliament cannot accept terms that the EU is unwilling to change, you get the choice to leave without a deal or to stay. The EU is not obliged to make a deal with you in any way. There are other countries on the planet that the EU doesn't have a deal with, North Korea is probably one. Noone would say the EU has a moral obligation to give North Korea a fair deal.

All good points.

So, let's agree that the EU is willing to allow a hard border in Northern Ireland and stop pretending otherwise, then. This does rather raise the question of why the EU will refuse to agree a managed transition to a hard border if it's willing to allow one by default.

One hopes that a long-term result of this debacle will be the weakening of the Government in favour of Parliament, to prevent something like this happening again.

[Husar]

This does rather raise the question of why the EU will refuse to agree a managed transition to a hard border if it's willing to allow one by default.

What sort of managed transition are we talking about? There is no managed transition at any other broder, or is there? What would a managed transition change and why do you want one? IIRC the EU was willing to negotiate a transition phase for the entire Brexit thing, what became of that? I will admit I didn't read May's deal, maybe it's already in there.
The ball is in your court though since you want to leave and you are the ones who have to come up with a solution for your country. Perhaps the EU refuses the managed transition because Ireland doesn't want that? Maybe it's the attempt to pressure the UK into a deal without any transitions. If you don't accept the deal, they can blame you for the border being there. This is how politics are played if you "cancel the friendship" I guess. Wasn't my idea... :shrug:

[Beskar]

You know, there is the legal grey area section. The UK can simply choose not to enforce the border at Northern Ireland. This means there are no checks in and out on the Northern Ireland side of it.

It would put all the responsibility upon the EU/Republic of Ireland if they want to enforce it.

[Pannonian]

You know, there is the legal grey area section. The UK can simply choose not to enforce the border at Northern Ireland. This means there are no checks in and out on the Northern Ireland side of it.

It would put all the responsibility upon the EU/Republic of Ireland if they want to enforce it.

If the UK does not enforce tariffs with the EU, then by WTO rules it cannot enforce tariffs with any other country. Which means other countries can import tariff free into the UK, but are free to impose whatever tariffs they want on UK exports. This is effectively what Liam Fox (trade minister) has suggested will happen. Michael Gove (agriculture minister) has told farmers this will not happen, as imports would thus undercut UK produce but UK produce will be uncompetitive abroad, meaning severe damage to the UK agriculture industry. I'm not sure what the latest line is, but that's two contradictory positions from the UK government in the space of a week. When the EU complains about the UK government not knowing what it wants, this is an example of it, saying mutually exclusive things to different audiences. And in case any Leaver wants to blame the EU for this, this is two cabinet ministers talking to UK audiences.

[Pannonian]

Do Leavers have any opinion on US demands for lower standards of food safety (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/01/us-seeks-greater-access-to-uk-food-markets-after-brexit-trade-deal)? Remainers said this would happen, as this is usually the first demands of any US government in negotiations with weaker countries/blocs, but this was poh-poohed as Project Fear, and the US would cut the UK in on a good deal. Now the US government is formally making these demands if the UK wants a UK-US trade deal.

[Furunculus]

Do Leavers have any opinion on US demands for lower standards of food safety (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/01/us-seeks-greater-access-to-uk-food-markets-after-brexit-trade-deal)? Remainers said this would happen, as this is usually the first demands of any US government in negotiations with weaker countries/blocs, but this was poh-poohed as Project Fear, and the US would cut the UK in on a good deal. Now the US government is formally making these demands if the UK wants a UK-US trade deal.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053791272&viewfull=1#post2053791272


in principle I don't have a problem with chlorine washed chicken or hormone grown beef on a food safety basis. this is mainly because unless an area of activity is subject to catastrophic harm, over a time period that cannot be easily dealt with within the normal political horizon, then I prefer regulating based on demonstrable harm rather than the precautionary principle. food standards is a separate point entirely, but there is no food safety issue.

[Furunculus]

It is not because it is a disaster, it is because your idea of a oz/ca market economy won't occur.


Why ever not?


That is easy. Who is going to implement this?
Even if you think the Conservatives would, would they have the political capital to institute such changes given no other political party would support them in it?
As for Jeremy Corbyn... I have a strong feeling that is a no.


Is a Oz/CA style market economy so extreme?

Osborne's plan was to take spending as a proportion of GDP down from 43% (about the same as Germany), down to 37%, and that program was down to about 38.5% in late 2017 before the "end of austerity" was announced.

Oz/Ca are in the mid thirties, which is but a hop and jump away further on from Osbornes plan.

It would be a terrible shock to a continental social democracry, but really not much lower than the historic norms this country was used to before Brown's firehose welfare spending.

But I say this in reference to no-deal, when it would be flat out necessary.
The quid-pro-quo you're offered right now with May's deal is that we'll hover around 40% of GDP on the edges of euro-style social democrary...

[Beskar]

Is a Oz/CA style market economy so extreme?

I thought you were implying further than simple lowering of spending as per GDP. As in, privatisation of the NHS and other institutions.

As for the latter, Austerity has hit this country hard and services are seriously suffering the effects of this. It is sad to see on the ground level when people are desperate for help and the answer they get is "no" due to no funding.

[Furunculus]

Free at the point of use does not mean government needs to run all of it.

we arent far off now. just one more push to 33% of gdp, comrades! ;)

but, if that is unpalatable ,then all you need do is relax and think of may...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What sort of managed transition are we talking about? There is no managed transition at any other broder, or is there? What would a managed transition change and why do you want one? IIRC the EU was willing to negotiate a transition phase for the entire Brexit thing, what became of that? I will admit I didn't read May's deal, maybe it's already in there.
The ball is in your court though since you want to leave and you are the ones who have to come up with a solution for your country. Perhaps the EU refuses the managed transition because Ireland doesn't want that? Maybe it's the attempt to pressure the UK into a deal without any transitions. If you don't accept the deal, they can blame you for the border being there. This is how politics are played if you "cancel the friendship" I guess. Wasn't my idea... :shrug:

There is supposed to be a two-year transition period, which was meant to be the time when we sorted out the "Irish question" and our future relationship with the EU in detail.

However, because of the EU's intransigence over the Backstop that grace-period where we are essentially a non-voting member of the EU may not come into effect.

This is why I say the EU should be willing to allow the possibility of a hardening of the Irish border with a timed backstop (five-seven years from now) if they're willing to default to one in four weeks.

The Insistence there can "never" be a hard border is currently driving us towards a hard border NOW.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Free at the point of use does not mean government needs to run all of it.

we arent far off now. just one more push to 33% of gdp, comrades! ;)

but, if that is unpalatable ,then all you need do is relax and think of may...

Ideologically driven GDP-spending targets are bad. The Conservative Program or Austerity went about twice as far as it should have given the economic circumstances at present. 35% of GDP is workable for a booming economy, but our economy is not booming.

At present most departments other than the NHS are chronically under-funded for what they actually need to do.

Further, privatisation has failed to drive down costs for the Government in providing services because Private Sector Healthcare needs to make profits and those profits mean that the net cost of providing those services privately is higher, not lower. That's not to say the NHS isn't a money sink, but a lot of it is debt and over-paid administrators. The latter could be resolved be enacting pay-caps for senior staff, the former by tranfering NHS trust debt to Central Government.

[Husar]

This is why I say the EU should be willing to allow the possibility of a hardening of the Irish border with a timed backstop (five-seven years from now) if they're willing to default to one in four weeks.

The Insistence there can "never" be a hard border is currently driving us towards a hard border NOW.

Maybe the EU's stated goals are not its real goals. Unless you know that, it's hard to say they're being illogical. I somehow doubt that their negotiators haven't figured this out.

[Furunculus]

The goal is clear; regulatory capture in goods, services, and flanking policies.

[Pannonian]

Ideologically driven GDP-spending targets are bad. The Conservative Program or Austerity went about twice as far as it should have given the economic circumstances at present. 35% of GDP is workable for a booming economy, but our economy is not booming.

At present most departments other than the NHS are chronically under-funded for what they actually need to do.

Further, privatisation has failed to drive down costs for the Government in providing services because Private Sector Healthcare needs to make profits and those profits mean that the net cost of providing those services privately is higher, not lower. That's not to say the NHS isn't a money sink, but a lot of it is debt and over-paid administrators. The latter could be resolved be enacting pay-caps for senior staff, the former by tranfering NHS trust debt to Central Government.

The last paragraph is one of the demands made by a US government for any UK-US trade deal. Along with food and production standards aligned with the US. Another demand is that the GBP should not be manipulated to improve trade; does the EU demand this kind of fiscal control in our current position? In all likelihood, if we want non-standard relations with the US, we will have to submit to a realignment to standards that we're not used to, or want (apart from the ideologues). Unlike the ECJ which has backed us in the overwhelming majority of cases (95%), any disputes with the US will be resolved as per who can afford to take the most damage, meaning we will lose out every time (cf. Bombardier). And unlike in the EU, where we are represented at local and national levels (via MEPs and commissioners), we won't have a say in the standards to which we have to conform.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe the EU's stated goals are not its real goals. Unless you know that, it's hard to say they're being illogical. I somehow doubt that their negotiators haven't figured this out.

That view gives credence to those who believe the Backstop is a "trap" designed to yoke the UK to the EU in an unfavourable position until we give up and re-join, sans Rebate.

Whichever way you slice it, this is a bad deal and Parliament is right to reject a Backstop with no time limit and no exit clause.


The last paragraph is one of the demands made by a US government for any UK-US trade deal. Along with food and production standards aligned with the US. Another demand is that the GBP should not be manipulated to improve trade; does the EU demand this kind of fiscal control in our current position? In all likelihood, if we want non-standard relations with the US, we will have to submit to a realignment to standards that we're not used to, or want (apart from the ideologues). Unlike the ECJ which has backed us in the overwhelming majority of cases (95%), any disputes with the US will be resolved as per who can afford to take the most damage, meaning we will lose out every time (cf. Bombardier). And unlike in the EU, where we are represented at local and national levels (via MEPs and commissioners), we won't have a say in the standards to which we have to conform.

The EU rejected Italy's budget despite that budget being within the required limits of government deficit. Germany previously breached the same rules and was not sanctioned but the EU chose to undermine the democratically elected Italian Government who were operating within rules Germany broke and demand more austerity - i.e. a further reduction is Italian Government spending as a proportion of GDP.

Italy is now back in recession as the result of an un-competitive economy and chronic under-spending leading to crumbling infrastructure - and I mean literally crumbling roads and bridges here.

The EU is calibrated to benefit the largest Northern European economies, principally Germany, Britain and a Northern France (Southern France gets shafted), it does not work nearly so well for the Mediterranean.

[Pannonian]

That view gives credence to those who believe the Backstop is a "trap" designed to yoke the UK to the EU in an unfavourable position until we give up and re-join, sans Rebate.

Whichever way you slice it, this is a bad deal and Parliament is right to reject a Backstop with no time limit and no exit clause.



The EU rejected Italy's budget despite that budget being within the required limits of government deficit. Germany previously breached the same rules and was not sanctioned but the EU chose to undermine the democratically elected Italian Government who were operating within rules Germany broke and demand more austerity - i.e. a further reduction is Italian Government spending as a proportion of GDP.

Italy is now back in recession as the result of an un-competitive economy and chronic under-spending leading to crumbling infrastructure - and I mean literally crumbling roads and bridges here.

The EU is calibrated to benefit the largest Northern European economies, principally Germany, Britain and a Northern France (Southern France gets shafted), it does not work nearly so well for the Mediterranean.

So why are we leaving, when it's geared towards us? Note the list of things that the US is demanding of us. Call me selfish, but I'd rather not penalise us just because there might be an argument of unfairness against Italy. I don't want there to be unfairness against us. Outside the EU, and desperate for an agreement with the US to justify Brexit, that is what we'll get. In addition to the US looking to screw us over, Japan and anyone else who thinks they can get more is postponing agreement with us while they think of additional demands they can make post-Brexit.

Also, Italy are in the Eurozone. We are not.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So why are we leaving, when it's geared towards us? Note the list of things that the US is demanding of us. Call me selfish, but I'd rather not penalise us just because there might be an argument of unfairness against Italy. I don't want there to be unfairness against us. Outside the EU, and desperate for an agreement with the US to justify Brexit, that is what we'll get. In addition to the US looking to screw us over, Japan and anyone else who thinks they can get more is postponing agreement with us while they think of additional demands they can make post-Brexit.

Also, Italy are in the Eurozone. We are not.

We're leaving because the EU is badly designed, ill thought-out and driving its members towards economic stagnation and possibly Fascism. The Treaty of Rome commits EU members to "Ever closer Union" which means we would eventually have to join the Euro or leave the EU. In any case, the Euro was just used as a stick to beat an Italian Government that was ideologically non-compliant. The Germanic States control the EU and they increasingly demand that the Mediterranean States align economically and ideologically, rather than trying to find a compromise that works for everyone.

The Backstop is the same, the Germanic leaders of the EU require the UK to comply, or No Deal.

[Pannonian]

We're leaving because the EU is badly designed, ill thought-out and driving its members towards economic stagnation possibly Fascism. The Treaty of Rome commits EU members to "Ever closer Union" which means we would eventually have to join the EU or leave the EU. In any case, the Euro was just used as a stick to beat an Italian Government that was ideologically non-compliant. The Germanic States control the EU and they increasingly demand that the Mediterranean States align economically and ideologically, rather than trying to find a compromise that works for everyone.

The Backstop is the same, the Germanic leaders of the EU require the UK to comply, or No Deal.

Why would there be a back stop if we're in the EU? Also, the requirement for a back stop only began after May got assurances to allow talks to move forward, then the next day Davis told UK media that the UK government had no intention of keeping its promises. The EU 27 were content to allow the UK government to progress with informal understandings, but the UK government then said that it had no intention of keeping its end of the bargain. As one of the EU ministers said after that, they can read the UK press as well. If you don't like the back stop, blame the UK government for telling different lies to different audiences and assuming each is unaware of the lies being told to the other audience.

And BTW, given your evident dislike of the Germanic leaders of the EU, it's Merkel who's been keeping things cordial between the EU 27 and the UK. A fair few others have complained plenty about the UK.

Oh, and what do you mean by the EU driving its members towards Fascism? It's the UK who's said that they're leaving the EU because of immigration.

[Furunculus]

Whichever way you slice it, this is a bad deal and Parliament is right to reject a Backstop with no time limit and no exit clause.




but solve that problem, and the Withdrawal agreement (with the backstop) would become tolerable?




Oh, and what do you mean by the EU driving its members towards Fascism? It's the UK who's said that they're leaving the EU because of immigration.

You confusing cause with effect.
Despite being among the most tolerant of immigration (by some measure!) we did indeed have 'a problem' with immigration.
Now that there will be control of immigration that 'problem' has further subsided.
And our hard-right and populist right parties have atrophied as a result.

Across the channel on the other hand....

Where 'the problem' with immigration has not been addressed, the hard right and populist right are now either:
a) In power
b) The official opposition
c) Threatening to eclipse mainstream parties in terms of vote share and/or MP's

PFH is absolutely correct.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...The Backstop is the same, the Germanic leaders of the EU require the UK to comply, or No Deal.

My thoughts all along are that the unspoken goal of the EU was to pressure the UK into reversing the Brexit decision. Failing that, the goal is to punish them harshly enough (with exquisite politeness) so that no other nation would attempt to withdraw.

From the EU perspective, which rests on the centerpiece that the union will be collectively empowering to all members, this is a fairly rational course of action. If anything, England (which never adopted the Euro or seemed willing to 'toe the line' on greater and greater integration with the rest of Europe, makes for the ideal "example" choice, as Arouet phrased it, pour encourager les autres.

[Montmorency]

That view gives credence to those who believe the Backstop is a "trap" designed to yoke the UK to the EU in an unfavourable position until we give up and re-join, sans Rebate.

Whichever way you slice it, this is a bad deal and Parliament is right to reject a Backstop with no time limit and no exit clause.

Assume this is all sound analysis. You still haven't explained why the UK government or Parliament don't broach the question. If the EU is bluffing and wants to fetter the UK, and there is one simple trick to avert it or expose the EU, by advancing your backstop conditions, then how is it the EU's onus to call their own bluff rather than the UK's?


but solve that problem, and the Withdrawal agreement (with the backstop) would become tolerable?
You confusing cause with effect.
Despite being among the most tolerant of immigration (by some measure!) we did indeed have 'a problem' with immigration.
Now that there will be control of immigration that 'problem' has further subsided.
And our hard-right and populist right parties have atrophied as a result.

Across the channel on the other hand....

Where 'the problem' with immigration has not been addressed, the hard right and populist right are now either:
a) In power
b) The official opposition
c) Threatening to eclipse mainstream parties in terms of vote share and/or MP's

PFH is absolutely correct.

I hate to break it to you, but expect the far-right hiatus to end once Brexit is implemented and the aspects of British immigration they despise still persist...

[Furunculus]

In the realm of the speculative all these i can usefully respond with is; we shall see.

objective fact:
the uk has a more positive view of immigration (as a process), and immigrants (as people), than almost any other eu nation.
the salience of immigration has declined since the referendum .
the uk has zero hard right mp's in its parliament.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why would there be a back stop if we're in the EU? Also, the requirement for a back stop only began after May got assurances to allow talks to move forward, then the next day Davis told UK media that the UK government had no intention of keeping its promises. The EU 27 were content to allow the UK government to progress with informal understandings, but the UK government then said that it had no intention of keeping its end of the bargain. As one of the EU ministers said after that, they can read the UK press as well. If you don't like the back stop, blame the UK government for telling different lies to different audiences and assuming each is unaware of the lies being told to the other audience.

And BTW, given your evident dislike of the Germanic leaders of the EU, it's Merkel who's been keeping things cordial between the EU 27 and the UK. A fair few others have complained plenty about the UK.

Oh, and what do you mean by the EU driving its members towards Fascism? It's the UK who's said that they're leaving the EU because of immigration.

I don't dislike Germanic people, I'm about as Germanic as it gets. The point is merely that the Germanic nations (including the UK) have the economic clout and they use this to impose their Germanic worldview on everyone else.

The UK is leaving the EU (in part) because people want control of immigration, not to stop immigration. The UK is actually quite welcoming of immigrants on the whole but people feel that whoever they vote for under the EU they will be told to accept more immigrants. Of course, in reality this started under Tony Blair and was a Labour policy, to increase immigration from inside and outside the EU so as to alter British demographics, to make the country overall younger and less... British.

A Cynical strategy designed to increase Labour's vote share.

I'm going to need you to dig up David Davis' quote if you're going to keep referring to it because my recollection was that he said he expected to be able to renegotiate the Irish question, because there hadn't yet been a legal agreement.


but solve that problem, and the Withdrawal agreement (with the backstop) would become tolerable?

I don't see why it shouldn't be tolerable.


Assume this is all sound analysis. You still haven't explained why the UK government or Parliament don't broach the question. If the EU is bluffing and wants to fetter the UK, and there is one simple trick to avert it or expose the EU, by advancing your backstop conditions, then how is it the EU's onus to call their own bluff rather than the UK's?

The UK Government told the EU, over and over again, that Parliament would not accept a perpetual Backstop, there needed to be a unilateral exit mechanism, or a time limit. The EU said this was not acceptable and basically wore May down until she agreed.

The truth is, the EU won't budge, so May is putting the votes further and further back in the hope tha Parliament might blink, but it's voted the deal down once by an historical margin, so it will be inclined not to reverse its decision. Remember, there's going to be an election in a few years, and nobody wants to be seen to be "giving in" to the EU, especially when everyone expects now that if the Backstop IS activated we'll end up trapped in it.


I hate to break it to you, but expect the far-right hiatus to end once Brexit is implemented and the aspects of British immigration they despise still persist...

Why? Dissatisfaction with the EU is THE main driver for people to vote for far-right politicians. People don't usually vote for extreme ideologues, they only do so when desperate. Within the "Mainstream" political establishment in every European country every party is essentially pro-EU. All are in favour of "Ever Closer Union", the difference is merely the speed of progress.

So, if you want to STOP the Ever Closer Union because you don't want more integration then you only have the fringe Left and fringe Right.

[Montmorency]

The UK Government told the EU, over and over again, that Parliament would not accept a perpetual Backstop, there needed to be a unilateral exit mechanism, or a time limit. The EU said this was not acceptable and basically wore May down until she agreed.

OK, so you're saying the negotiators did ask and the EU refused.


Why? Dissatisfaction with the EU is THE main driver for people to vote for far-right politicians. People don't usually vote for extreme ideologues, they only do so when desperate. Within the "Mainstream" political establishment in every European country every party is essentially pro-EU. All are in favour of "Ever Closer Union", the difference is merely the speed of progress.

So, if you want to STOP the Ever Closer Union because you don't want more integration then you only have the fringe Left and fringe Right.

I think you're mistaken in your etiology. The UK is lucky to have the EU as a scapegoat, but in reality the whole structure of the modern world and life is to blame here. Around the world, the weakening of states and the strengthening of markets, coupled with increasing expectations placed on states by their citizens and the increasing insecurity of individuals and communities within the market economy, is what is driving reaction.

The reason European governments got away with increasing integration through technocratic means in the late 20th century is because very few people care (unlike Furunculus) about abstract ideological debates surrounding European governance. When it doesn't live up to its promise, it's an easy lodestone for general discontent. In other words, the EU's fault is in being unable to prevent the conditions for reaction. To label it the source is to have things on their head.

In the UK's case, once Brexit is implemented and immigration continues apace (with a greater proportion of non-whites), when Britain is not returned to a position of global pre-eminence, when crumbling communities are still crumbling, when the future is uncertain - once the breath bated for Brexit is released, the anger will re-emerge, and the far right will still have a claim to stake in that anger.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, so you're saying the negotiators did ask and the EU refused.

Yes, and now they have given up:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/03/exclusive-attorney-general-abandons-time-limit-unilateral-exit/

So the deal will be rejected again, there'll be some form of extension quickly agreed, then more profitless arguing whilst Europe and the UK commence rearmament. (I am being flippant, it's how we British cope with frustration.)


I think you're mistaken in your etiology. The UK is lucky to have the EU as a scapegoat, but in reality the whole structure of the modern world and life is to blame here. Around the world, the weakening of states and the strengthening of markets, coupled with increasing expectations placed on states by their citizens and the increasing insecurity of individuals and communities within the market economy, is what is driving reaction.

The reason European governments got away with increasing integration through technocratic means in the late 20th century is because very few people care (unlike Furunculus) about abstract ideological debates surrounding European governance. When it doesn't live up to its promise, it's an easy lodestone for general discontent. In other words, the EU's fault is in being unable to prevent the conditions for reaction. To label it the source is to have things on their head.

In the UK's case, once Brexit is implemented and immigration continues apace (with a greater proportion of non-whites), when Britain is not returned to a position of global pre-eminence, when crumbling communities are still crumbling, when the future is uncertain - once the breath bated for Brexit is released, the anger will re-emerge, and the far right will still have a claim to stake in that anger.

Perhaps, or perhaps things will improve enough that that won't happen.

As Furunculus says, there are no Far-Right MP's in our Parliament, and there never have been. On the other hand, the dynamics of the EU Parliament have caused the Conservatives to associate with the Far Right because they are the only ones on the mainland who are remotely Eurosceptic. That's why we send our crap Politicians to Europe, you see, in case they suffer that sort of contamination. Nick Clegg was the exception, but then he was a Lib Dem.

[Pannonian]

I don't dislike Germanic people, I'm about as Germanic as it gets. The point is merely that the Germanic nations (including the UK) have the economic clout and they use this to impose their Germanic worldview on everyone else.

The UK is leaving the EU (in part) because people want control of immigration, not to stop immigration. The UK is actually quite welcoming of immigrants on the whole but people feel that whoever they vote for under the EU they will be told to accept more immigrants. Of course, in reality this started under Tony Blair and was a Labour policy, to increase immigration from inside and outside the EU so as to alter British demographics, to make the country overall younger and less... British.

A Cynical strategy designed to increase Labour's vote share.

I'm going to need you to dig up David Davis' quote if you're going to keep referring to it because my recollection was that he said he expected to be able to renegotiate the Irish question, because there hadn't yet been a legal agreement.



I don't see why it shouldn't be tolerable.



The UK Government told the EU, over and over again, that Parliament would not accept a perpetual Backstop, there needed to be a unilateral exit mechanism, or a time limit. The EU said this was not acceptable and basically wore May down until she agreed.

The truth is, the EU won't budge, so May is putting the votes further and further back in the hope tha Parliament might blink, but it's voted the deal down once by an historical margin, so it will be inclined not to reverse its decision. Remember, there's going to be an election in a few years, and nobody wants to be seen to be "giving in" to the EU, especially when everyone expects now that if the Backstop IS activated we'll end up trapped in it.



Why? Dissatisfaction with the EU is THE main driver for people to vote for far-right politicians. People don't usually vote for extreme ideologues, they only do so when desperate. Within the "Mainstream" political establishment in every European country every party is essentially pro-EU. All are in favour of "Ever Closer Union", the difference is merely the speed of progress.

So, if you want to STOP the Ever Closer Union because you don't want more integration then you only have the fringe Left and fringe Right.

There is a way for the UK to end the back stop, that the EU has agreed to, that the UK has stated. All the UK has to do is to install the technological solution that it says it will do, and there is no need for a hard border, and the EU has agreed that the need for a back stop will be over. This is what the UK government has promised will happen. Why this worry about a perpetual back stop? The UK government just has to do what it's promised it will do.

Unless, of course, the UK government has, yet again, made promises it has no intention of keeping.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is a way for the UK to end the back stop, that the EU has agreed to, that the UK has stated. All the UK has to do is to install the technological solution that it says it will do, and there is no need for a hard border, and the EU has agreed that the need for a back stop will be over. This is what the UK government has promised will happen. Why this worry about a perpetual back stop? The UK government just has to do what it's promised it will do.

Unless, of course, the UK government has, yet again, made promises it has no intention of keeping.

Mayhap we fear the EU will declare our solution "inadequate"?

The lack of trust cuts both ways.

[Pannonian]

Mayhap we fear the EU will declare our solution "inadequate"?

The lack of trust cuts both ways.

Why doesn't the UK government declare the solution for all to see? I've seen many statements from the UK government about a solution, but it's never detailed what it is. I've seen many statements from the civil service about how there are no adequate solutions though. That's the UK civil service BTW saying that all solutions are inadequate. Not the EU saying that. The EU has already gone some way to help the UK, by solving the problem of permits for this year, that by rights should have been our problem to solve as a third country. Even ignoring the problem of frictionless trading that exiting the single market will cause (which has led to the exodus of car manufacturing), there are customs problems from our treaty with the RoI, and even if the EU helps us in that too, with the WTO.

Which customs regime will we enforce? Our trade minister says we will not enforce tariffs at the border, in practice meaning we will not enforce tariffs at all. Our agriculture minister says we will be enforcing the full customs regime. Both can't be right. Which is it? This already assumes that the EU will allow us to do whatever we like, as they've already helped us with everything else. This is a WTO issue, and a civil service issue. Are we going to have a referendum next about leaving the WTO?

[Husar]

the uk has zero hard right mp's in its parliament.

This only proves that 45% of the country aren't represented in parliament under FPTP. ~;p

[Furunculus]

the euro - a sterling success?

https://www.cep.eu/en/eu-topics/details/cep/20-years-of-the-euro-winners-and-losers.html

[rory_20_uk]

Why doesn't the UK government declare the solution for all to see? I've seen many statements from the UK government about a solution, but it's never detailed what it is. I've seen many statements from the civil service about how there are no adequate solutions though. That's the UK civil service BTW saying that all solutions are inadequate. Not the EU saying that. The EU has already gone some way to help the UK, by solving the problem of permits for this year, that by rights should have been our problem to solve as a third country. Even ignoring the problem of frictionless trading that exiting the single market will cause (which has led to the exodus of car manufacturing), there are customs problems from our treaty with the RoI, and even if the EU helps us in that too, with the WTO.

Which customs regime will we enforce? Our trade minister says we will not enforce tariffs at the border, in practice meaning we will not enforce tariffs at all. Our agriculture minister says we will be enforcing the full customs regime. Both can't be right. Which is it? This already assumes that the EU will allow us to do whatever we like, as they've already helped us with everything else. This is a WTO issue, and a civil service issue. Are we going to have a referendum next about leaving the WTO?

The Civil Service - a career where after two years to sort something out they can turn around and say "It was hard. We've not done anything. It will break." And then be declared as doing a great job.

I can't recall the EU providing outcomes to any of the other updates over the years - merely that the documents need to be signed. If the populace say no (such as Ireland or Denmark) change the goalposts slightly and rerun; or better yet, change the name and state there's no need at all (France).

~:smoking:

[Husar]

the euro - a sterling success?

https://www.cep.eu/en/eu-topics/details/cep/20-years-of-the-euro-winners-and-losers.html

Another neoliberal think tank. :laugh4:

No, I'm not making it up, they literally are based on Hayek's ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Ordnungspolitik

Oh yeah, content, maybe when I have some free time and feel like reading a boring article. The methodology seems a bit nebulous though. I guess we don't have a better one, but it's still guesswork and can probably be manipulated in either direction by the one performing the study (just so happens to be a neoliberal here). So the hard numbers aren't quite as hard as they seem.

[Pannonian]

I posted this a few pages back. I'm sorry if I've erroneously misled anyone as to which manufacturers are remaining in the UK after Brexit. I have to admit, mea culpa. I didn't have access to the information that I do now.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzw_kckWoAAiqGA.jpg

Correction: Toyota should have a cross over it too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why doesn't the UK government declare the solution for all to see? I've seen many statements from the UK government about a solution, but it's never detailed what it is. I've seen many statements from the civil service about how there are no adequate solutions though. That's the UK civil service BTW saying that all solutions are inadequate. Not the EU saying that. The EU has already gone some way to help the UK, by solving the problem of permits for this year, that by rights should have been our problem to solve as a third country. Even ignoring the problem of frictionless trading that exiting the single market will cause (which has led to the exodus of car manufacturing), there are customs problems from our treaty with the RoI, and even if the EU helps us in that too, with the WTO.

Which customs regime will we enforce? Our trade minister says we will not enforce tariffs at the border, in practice meaning we will not enforce tariffs at all. Our agriculture minister says we will be enforcing the full customs regime. Both can't be right. Which is it? This already assumes that the EU will allow us to do whatever we like, as they've already helped us with everything else. This is a WTO issue, and a civil service issue. Are we going to have a referendum next about leaving the WTO?

Nobody believes a solution exists, some believe one may exist in a year or two. That's not the point, for Parliament at least.


I posted this a few pages back. I'm sorry if I've erroneously misled anyone as to which manufacturers are remaining in the UK after Brexit. I have to admit, mea culpa. I didn't have access to the information that I do now.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzw_kckWoAAiqGA.jpg

Correction: Toyota should have a cross over it too.

It should be pointed out that the Japanese were always going to leave the UK once their Japanese-built models had tarrif-free access to the EU. To pretend otherwise is not only foolish but an insult to the integrity of Japanese corporations who will always build it in Japan if feasible.

So that leave Mini, Ford and Airbus. Irrc Airbus had one foot out the door before Brexit and Ford are under pressure to return production to the US because of Trump's trade policies.

[Pannonian]

Nobody believes a solution exists, some believe one may exist in a year or two. That's not the point, for Parliament at least.



It should be pointed out that the Japanese were always going to leave the UK once their Japanese-built models had tarrif-free access to the EU. To pretend otherwise is not only foolish but an insult to the integrity of Japanese corporations who will always build it in Japan if feasible.

So that leave Mini, Ford and Airbus. Irrc Airbus had one foot out the door before Brexit and Ford are under pressure to return production to the US because of Trump's trade policies.

Honda were going to switch to electric but decided to leave altogether.

BTW, you mentioned control of immigration in an earlier post. The UK government has always had control of immigration. It's just decided not to exercise it. Most immigration to the UK is from outside the EU. Even within the EU, EU citizens migrating here for work do not have rights to services.

Edit: Vauxhall have now postponed decisions until after Brexit. Is that the fault of the EU-Japan treaty as well?

[Pannonian]

Why doesn't the UK government declare the solution for all to see? I've seen many statements from the UK government about a solution, but it's never detailed what it is. I've seen many statements from the civil service about how there are no adequate solutions though. That's the UK civil service BTW saying that all solutions are inadequate. Not the EU saying that. The EU has already gone some way to help the UK, by solving the problem of permits for this year, that by rights should have been our problem to solve as a third country. Even ignoring the problem of frictionless trading that exiting the single market will cause (which has led to the exodus of car manufacturing), there are customs problems from our treaty with the RoI, and even if the EU helps us in that too, with the WTO.

Which customs regime will we enforce? Our trade minister says we will not enforce tariffs at the border, in practice meaning we will not enforce tariffs at all. Our agriculture minister says we will be enforcing the full customs regime. Both can't be right. Which is it? This already assumes that the EU will allow us to do whatever we like, as they've already helped us with everything else. This is a WTO issue, and a civil service issue. Are we going to have a referendum next about leaving the WTO?

It seems the government will be taking the Fox route rather than Gove's. Cut tariffs on nearly everything. That means severe damage to agriculture and manufacturing, as imports will be exempt from additional charges, and with lower costs or scaled up economies, undercut domestic production. Exports will be subject to these charges, and will be uncompetitive. And there will be no need for trade deals, as other countries will have all they want without any need to further negotiate.

London, with its economy concentrated in services, may suffer less damage. PFH's Devon would probably suffer rather more. Especially as the EU will no longer be investing in these areas, and Westminster has never felt much urge to. Less funding, more unemployment, worse economy. This was why neighbouring Cornwall, in the week following the result, immediately sought reassurance that Westminster would replace EU funding with domestic. They knew the track record of Westminster, and feared it would do its usual and neglect the south west. And so it seems it will.

[Furunculus]

The UK government has always had control of immigration. It's just decided not to exercise it.
Not for the first time - it would require ending the universal model where eligibility is assumed without need to prove, an attitude that fits an individualist society. This is not how things work in Finland, where living is not possible without demonstrating compliance with multiple institutions for a whole host of everyday activities. But they are a collectivist society, and seem quite happy with that choice.


Most immigration to the UK is from outside the EU. Even within the EU, EU citizens migrating here for work do not have rights to services.
As you would expect when the EU minus UK equals about 6% of world populations, with the RoW make up the other 92%. Again, when you have an individualist society where your obligation end with a cash in hand payment, this cannot be enforced. We are not a collectivist society to tolerate this, and nor to do i want the UK to become one.


Edit: Vauxhall have now postponed decisions until after Brexit. Is that the fault of the EU-Japan treaty as well?
The Vauxhall plants has been marginal for many years now, with everyone getting nervous every time the parent company was bought out again.

[Montmorency]

Dispute over the circumstances of foreign investment in the UK, and whether or what it has to do with Brexit as opposed to baseline conditions in the country, reminds me of an interesting reading that has kind of slipped by the wayside here over the past 2 years: the UK economy has been and will be declining long-term, and at best Brexit will do nothing to remedy this. Enjoy late capitalism chaps.




Another neoliberal think tank. :laugh4:

No, I'm not making it up, they literally are based on Hayek's ideas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiftung_Ordnungspolitik

Oh yeah, content, maybe when I have some free time and feel like reading a boring article. The methodology seems a bit nebulous though. I guess we don't have a better one, but it's still guesswork and can probably be manipulated in either direction by the one performing the study (just so happens to be a neoliberal here). So the hard numbers aren't quite as hard as they seem.

I thought the European Union, or European market alignment more generally, is partially based on the ideas of Hayek and the other neoliberals who gained influence in the second half of the 20th century. The main tensions between the EU and some categories of liberal today are that the European Union does more than facilitate a common economy (or, maintaining a common economy turns out to involve broader policy intervention than idealized), and that most market lovers are ultimately, unlike Hayek, more nationalist than liberal.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems the government will be taking the Fox route rather than Gove's. Cut tariffs on nearly everything. That means severe damage to agriculture and manufacturing, as imports will be exempt from additional charges, and with lower costs or scaled up economies, undercut domestic production. Exports will be subject to these charges, and will be uncompetitive. And there will be no need for trade deals, as other countries will have all they want without any need to further negotiate.

London, with its economy concentrated in services, may suffer less damage. PFH's Devon would probably suffer rather more. Especially as the EU will no longer be investing in these areas, and Westminster has never felt much urge to. Less funding, more unemployment, worse economy. This was why neighbouring Cornwall, in the week following the result, immediately sought reassurance that Westminster would replace EU funding with domestic. They knew the track record of Westminster, and feared it would do its usual and neglect the south west. And so it seems it will.

We're all screwed down here anyway, it doesn't matter.

I imagine liberalisation would be a short term thing. In any case, incoming products would probably still be subject to UK food standards, even if they aren't subject to tariffs and this will reduce the impact somewhat. Wealthy people only buy from the UK and the Commonwealth unless it's speciality products like French dairy.

Cheap imports of meat, provided it's safe, might even benefit society.

[Pannonian]

We're all screwed down here anyway, it doesn't matter.

I imagine liberalisation would be a short term thing. In any case, incoming products would probably still be subject to UK food standards, even if they aren't subject to tariffs and this will reduce the impact somewhat. Wealthy people only buy from the UK and the Commonwealth unless it's speciality products like French dairy.

Cheap imports of meat, provided it's safe, might even benefit society.

That's one of the demands made by the US. Change to US standards, and removing of labelling so that people cannot choose against foods of US origin.

So what is the point of leaving the EU?

[Pannonian]

"We'll have to run it down" (https://mobile.twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1056568783400243201) - Patrick Minford, the Brexiteers' favourite economist, on the car manufacturing industry post-Brexit.

As with the manufacturing industry, so the logic follows for agriculture as well, with the measures chosen.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's one of the demands made by the US. Change to US standards, and removing of labelling so that people cannot choose against foods of US origin.

So what is the point of leaving the EU?

The public doesn't want chlorine-washed chicken, or fatty corn-fed beef. There was a minor outcry late last year when it was discovered such industrial farming practices were being used in Britain - something the EU is no defence against.

Trade with the US is valuable but it's not attractive ideologically or practically for a variety of reasons. After all, the US is very much the black sheep of the family.

[Pannonian]

The public doesn't want chlorine-washed chicken, or fatty corn-fed beef. There was a minor outcry late last year when it was discovered such industrial farming practices were being used in Britain - something the EU is no defence against.

Trade with the US is valuable but it's not attractive ideologically or practically for a variety of reasons. After all, the US is very much the black sheep of the family.

So how does the food situation work? Minford stated in 2012 that his ideas would lead to running down the car manufacturing industry. In 2019 we now see that this is the case. The same logic, applied to agriculture, will also lead to running down agriculture. Those measures are now being planned for. If we don't produce our own food, and we already don't produce enough to feed ourselves, where does it come from? If US standards won't be tolerated, where does food that meets our current standards come from? Currently, the answer is the EU 27. But you voted to take us out of the EU, and you said that you don't want us to be "trapped in the customs union". So how does the food situation work?

And your statement that the EU is no defence against this, or the horse meat scandal. There's a difference between that and the US. Here, the horse meat scandal was possible because people were breaking the law. It's illegal here, and the people involved were punished when this came to light. US standards that you disapprove of are legal in the US, and if the US lobbyists get their way, they will be legal here. And our trade minister (who's going to get his way on the customs regime) supports them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So how does the food situation work? Minford stated in 2012 that his ideas would lead to running down the car manufacturing industry. In 2019 we now see that this is the case. The same logic, applied to agriculture, will also lead to running down agriculture. Those measures are now being planned for. If we don't produce our own food, and we already don't produce enough to feed ourselves, where does it come from? If US standards won't be tolerated, where does food that meets our current standards come from? Currently, the answer is the EU 27. But you voted to take us out of the EU, and you said that you don't want us to be "trapped in the customs union". So how does the food situation work?

And your statement that the EU is no defence against this, or the horse meat scandal. There's a difference between that and the US. Here, the horse meat scandal was possible because people were breaking the law. It's illegal here, and the people involved were punished when this came to light. US standards that you disapprove of are legal in the US, and if the US lobbyists get their way, they will be legal here. And our trade minister (who's going to get his way on the customs regime) supports them.

The exit negotiations are different to what comes after - the defence that "people voted for this" ends when we exit the EU. I don't believe we will end up accepting the US' poor food standards. Having said that, I also didn't believe we'd be dragged out of the EEA.

Anyway, negotiations have failed to make any progress, again.

[Pannonian]

The exit negotiations are different to what comes after - the defence that "people voted for this" ends when we exit the EU. I don't believe we will end up accepting the US' poor food standards. Having said that, I also didn't believe we'd be dragged out of the EEA.

Anyway, negotiations have failed to make any progress, again.

Our trade minister supports normalising standards with the US. According to reports, on the issue of customs, the government has taken Fox's side on nearly everything. Cut tariffs on imports. That leaves no leverage for trade talks. And we've seen with Bombardier that the US is more than willing to screw us over for domestic political advantage. So if we want to sell to the US without exorbitant tariffs (and the US doesn't need anything we sell, so they're free to price us out of their market), then we need to accept their demands. Which our trade minister supports. And our government tends to support our trade minister.

The choice is between maintaining tariffs, protecting our domestic industry, and cutting tariffs, allowing cheap imports. The Brexiteers' favourite economist stated in 2012 that the car industry will be run down as a result of Brexit, deeming it an acceptable price. This has indeed happened, despite your pointing to other factors as an excuse (Minford said it in 2012, long before the EU-Japan agreement). The same logic will also do for agriculture, if the same measures are taken. Reports say that those same measures are being prepared. Furunculus on here has also said that it would be an acceptable price.

[Furunculus]

Except the indication is that the ten percent is mainly agriculture and integrated supply chains such as cars.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The public doesn't want chlorine-washed chicken, or fatty corn-fed beef. There was a minor outcry late last year when it was discovered such industrial farming practices were being used in Britain - something the EU is no defence against.

Trade with the US is valuable but it's not attractive ideologically or practically for a variety of reasons. After all, the US is very much the black sheep of the family.

lol

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

lol

It doesn't mean we don't love you, we're just not sure if we should leave you the house keys over the weekend.

[Strike For The South]

The problem is not the chlorine, the problem is how they are kept before they are slaughtered. American producers are much more "cost sensitive" and that comes at the expense of animal welfare, often shockingly so.

[rory_20_uk]

Link (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47440562)

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The problem is not the chlorine, the problem is how they are kept before they are slaughtered. American producers are much more "cost sensitive" and that comes at the expense of animal welfare, often shockingly so.

Battery farming is banned in the EU. It's standard in the US. One of the demands by US lobbyists for any US-UK trade deal is opening up UK markets to US farm products, complete with changing labelling requirements so that customers won't be able to discriminate against US products even if they have doubts about its safety.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Battery farming is banned in the EU. It's standard in the US. One of the demands by US lobbyists for any US-UK trade deal is opening up UK markets to US farm products, complete with changing labelling requirements so that customers won't be able to discriminate against US products even if they have doubts about its safety.

We still import battery farmed eggs and the EU still allows for "Colony Cages" which are only marginally better.

UK animal welfare standards far outstrip those of the rest of the EU yet we still import Danish Bacon and eggs from the Eastern European countries in the EU which may not be compliant with the 1999 directive.

The poor EU welfare standards are why everything in British supermarkets is tagged with "British" and "free range" whenever possible - it's a selling point. The only way I can see us importing Chlorine washed-chicken is if we added a label that said "washed without chlorine".

[Pannonian]

We still import battery farmed eggs and the EU still allows for "Colony Cages" which are only marginally better.

UK animal welfare standards far outstrip those of the rest of the EU yet we still import Danish Bacon and eggs from the Eastern European countries in the EU which may not be compliant with the 1999 directive.

The poor EU welfare standards are why everything in British supermarkets is tagged with "British" and "free range" whenever possible - it's a selling point. The only way I can see us importing Chlorine washed-chicken is if we added a label that said "washed without chlorine".

Part of the US demands is changes in labelling rules so that produce from the US cannot be distinguished from produce from elsewhere. Our trade minister, who has got his way in nearly everything concerning tariffs, favours aligning with the US. If May remains, the evidence so far indicates this is what we will do. If May is replaced by another Tory PM, they will certainly be ERG, and this is certainly what we will do (as Furunculus has been arguing, this is part of the point of Brexit, to re-align the UK from Europe to the US). If the EU isn't up to our standards in animal welfare; well, they're still closer to us than the Americans are, and as you'd stated, the EU allows us to post higher standards and allow customers to discriminate based on this. The Americans won't, and logic and evidence suggests we will comply post-Brexit.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Part of the US demands is changes in labelling rules so that produce from the US cannot be distinguished from produce from elsewhere. Our trade minister, who has got his way in nearly everything concerning tariffs, favours aligning with the US. If May remains, the evidence so far indicates this is what we will do. If May is replaced by another Tory PM, they will certainly be ERG, and this is certainly what we will do (as Furunculus has been arguing, this is part of the point of Brexit, to re-align the UK from Europe to the US). If the EU isn't up to our standards in animal welfare; well, they're still closer to us than the Americans are, and as you'd stated, the EU allows us to post higher standards and allow customers to discriminate based on this. The Americans won't, and logic and evidence suggests we will comply post-Brexit.

These are not unreasonable points on the face of it. However, I think it's much more likely we won't agree a food deal with the US - they're unlikely to reciprocate and allow our unpasteurised cheese and yogurt.

The Tories are currently finding that they cannot agree a deal with the EU, despite again giving ground - no longer asking for an exit mechanism, now asking for arbitration on the exit. The EU says they need to come up with something else reasonable.

I.E., roll over and take the deal, the only thing the EU ever considers reasonable (ask the Greeks).

So, if May can't get her Brexit deal through Parliament do you really think she or another Tory can get a US Trade deal with a side of chlorinated chicken through Parliament?

They cannot - not only will rural Tories not vote for it, nor will Urban Tories who shop at Waitrose (rural Tories probably have a butcher on retainer).

May is not in control, the ERG is not in control (and may not even survive Brexit). This is not Tony Blair's Parliament, it is restive and anything but pliable.

[Pannonian]

These are not unreasonable points on the face of it. However, I think it's much more likely we won't agree a food deal with the US - they're unlikely to reciprocate and allow our unpasteurised cheese and yogurt.

The Tories are currently finding that they cannot agree a deal with the EU, despite again giving ground - no longer asking for an exit mechanism, now asking for arbitration on the exit. The EU says they need to come up with something else reasonable.

I.E., roll over and take the deal, the only thing the EU ever considers reasonable (ask the Greeks).

So, if May can't get her Brexit deal through Parliament do you really think she or another Tory can get a US Trade deal with a side of chlorinated chicken through Parliament?

They cannot - not only will rural Tories not vote for it, nor will Urban Tories who shop at Waitrose (rural Tories probably have a butcher on retainer).

May is not in control, the ERG is not in control (and may not even survive Brexit). This is not Tony Blair's Parliament, it is restive and anything but pliable.

The government is about to reduce or lift tariffs on most things, in an effort to at least stave off food shortage. This doesn't need to go through Parliament; it is a unilateral action derived from the Executive's authority. The side effect of this is shorting agriculture, as importers don't have to pay tariffs on things coming into the UK (even in areas where we produce our own), while exporters will have to pay tariffs on stuff going out (thus making our produce more expensive for the same thing). Gove specifically promised UK farmers that this would not happen for this reason, while Fox said that the government will do this. Reports are that the government will do as Fox has promised, not as Gove as promised. Parliament doesn't need to vote on this; the PM will just announce this will happen and that will be it.

With Brexit goes all the trade agreements that were made via the EU. We want to roll over current trading rules with the non-EU countries, but nearly everyone else disagrees; Japan backed out of talks because they reckoned they could get more concessions from us. As with Japan, so it will be with the US, who are bigger (we're the only idiots actively making ourselves smaller and weaker). The US government has invited lobbyists to nominate what they want from the UK in return for a US-UK trade agreement, and they have begun to push the UK government on some of these areas; a US diplomat this week got into a dispute over our concerns over food safety. Without any agreements, we will be trading on WTO base rates; no one trades on those terms, as virtually any agreement, which we will not have, is better. And if we want better trading terms than these, we will need to secure agreements with these other countries/blocs. And despite all your ire at the EU, they've been the most accommodating of our requirements, even after the referendum and all the nonsense during negotiations. Everyone else, including the Americans which our rulers are so fond of, won't budge an inch, and are looking to screw us over as much as they can (eg the US lobbyists' demands). Furunculus recently posted a link to an EU measure that allows our lorry drivers to continue under current conditions for the rest of the year. I think he took this to mean vindication of his belief that we won't starve as a result of Brexit. I take it as an illustration of just how tolerant the other Europeans are of us; they're going out of their way to allow us this, when the rules state that we are entitled to just 5% of that traffic.

This isn't contingent on any Parliamentary vote. It is the result of your vote to Leave, and the government's implementation of that result. Without any extension, it will start on 1st April, less than a month from now. Where I live and where I work may be less affected by this. Where you live will likely be strongly affected though. This was why I voted Remain, and what's transpired since has only confirmed my thoughts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The EU has not budged an inch, not in practical terms, just warm words. Right now they aren't budging an inch, are they?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47487320

Let's remember, it wasn't just me who voted to leave.

Are we in a bad place right now? Yeah, kinda. Is it going to be worth it?

Maybe, maybe not.

[Pannonian]

The EU has not budged an inch, not in practical terms, just warm words. Right now they aren't budging an inch, are they?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47487320

Let's remember, it wasn't just me who voted to leave.

Are we in a bad place right now? Yeah, kinda. Is it going to be worth it?

Maybe, maybe not.

They're allowing all our drivers to continue in the EU under current conditions until the end of the year. How is this not budging an inch? Around 30k trucks deal with our cross-channel trade. We're entitled to 1.5k passes after Brexit. They've effectively given us the other 28.5k for the rest of the year. But as Brexiters are wont to do, you don't give the EU credit for what they do, but blame them for what they don't.

If the EU really doesn't want to budge an inch, our cross-channel trade, which is the route by which most of our food imports come, would be cut by 95%. And Brexit happens in that time of year that used to be known as the hunger gap, the period between exhausting winter stockpiles and before the summer harvest. The NFU warned about this. And the EU have acted to alleviate the problem, at least for this year. When they had no requirement to do so. Yet you say that they have not budged an inch.

You disclaim responsibility for the result by saying that it wasn't just you that voted to leave. Well it certainly isn't my responsibility. I voted to remain based on the arguments that have been proven to be absolutely accurate, both in the evidence backing these arguments in the first place, and how things have transpired since. Leave lied and broke rules every step of the way. Yet Leavers still accept no responsibility for what they've caused, and continue to blame the EU for everything.

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." - Nigel Farage, 17th May 2016 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You disclaim responsibility for the result by saying that it wasn't just you that voted to leave. Well it certainly isn't my responsibility. I voted to remain based on the arguments that have been proven to be absolutely accurate, both in the evidence backing these arguments in the first place, and how things have transpired since. Leave lied and broke rules every step of the way. Yet Leavers still accept no responsibility for what they've caused, and continue to blame the EU for everything.

I never said it wasn't my responsibility, I merely pointed out that it was not solely my responsibility.

[Pannonian]

I never said it wasn't my responsibility, I merely pointed out that it was not solely my responsibility.

And are you going to admit that, far from not budging from inch as you'd said, the EU has gone beyond what they need to do in order to help us, unlike just about everyone else? I'd also like an explanation for why you don't want us to be "trapped inside the customs union". Given what the US among others demands from us, how does it benefit us to be outside the customs union? Or is it another of those arguments whereby theoretical sovereignty, in practice exercised by a few rich politicians for their even richer friends, is worth ruining the country for? NB. prominent Leavers, Rees Mogg and Farage among them, have already made provisions to move themselves and/or their money abroad, into the EU. Whatever they say, that's what they're doing.

[Strike For The South]

Battery farming is banned in the EU. It's standard in the US. One of the demands by US lobbyists for any US-UK trade deal is opening up UK markets to US farm products, complete with changing labelling requirements so that customers won't be able to discriminate against US products even if they have doubts about its safety.

The cages aren't that better in the EU. I'm not going to defend industrial agriculture but I will say that the EU, while better, is not head an shoulders above the States. The product in the supermarket is nearly identical (relative to price). Its an animal welfare issue (that I care about) but not a health and safety one. It is being framed as one to move the proverbial needle.

I will say that the food I have eaten in England has nearly always been good. I'm a sucker for a ploughmans lunch.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And are you going to admit that, far from not budging from inch as you'd said, the EU has gone beyond what they need to do in order to help us, unlike just about everyone else? I'd also like an explanation for why you don't want us to be "trapped inside the customs union". Given what the US among others demands from us, how does it benefit us to be outside the customs union? Or is it another of those arguments whereby theoretical sovereignty, in practice exercised by a few rich politicians for their even richer friends, is worth ruining the country for? NB. prominent Leavers, Rees Mogg and Farage among them, have already made provisions to move themselves and/or their money abroad, into the EU. Whatever they say, that's what they're doing.

They've not budged an inch on the issue that's stalled negotiations, that's what matters at this point.

You can see why May is running down the clock, because in the end the EU will send her back to Parliament with the same deal in the expectation MP's will pass it this time.

What's the definition of insanity again? And who here is actually insane?

As to the Backstop - the point is not to avoid being in a Customs Union with the EU, the point is to avoid being trapped in one before we've even begun negotiations on our future Trade Relationship. If the UK is legally trapped in the Backstop with no recourse then there's no point in the EU negotiating - it can just leave the UK trapped ad infinitum.

[Pannonian]

They've not budged an inch on the issue that's stalled negotiations, that's what matters at this point.

You can see why May is running down the clock, because in the end the EU will send her back to Parliament with the same deal in the expectation MP's will pass it this time.

What's the definition of insanity again? And who here is actually insane?

As to the Backstop - the point is not to avoid being in a Customs Union with the EU, the point is to avoid being trapped in one before we've even begun negotiations on our future Trade Relationship. If the UK is legally trapped in the Backstop with no recourse then there's no point in the EU negotiating - it can just leave the UK trapped ad infinitum.

Barnier has reiterated that the UK will be able to unilaterally exit any customs arrangement with the EU. Just leave NI within the customs union, as required by the GFA (a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI). May can't go with that because she's beholden to the DUP. How is this the fault of the EU? She had a Commons majority when she invoked article 50, which started all this. Remember the UK is the active actor in all of this. The EU didn't push for all this; the UK did. And now the Leavers are blaming the EU because the EU aren't yielding on absolutely everything. Even though the EU have already gone out of their way to help the UK in a number of areas. Which they didn't have to, and which no one else is doing. Not even our supposed friends the Americans.

I've accepted that we will leave with no deal, courtesy of the Brexiters who will continue with their dogma and continue to blame the EU for all the ills of the world. I just wish that Brexiters will take responsibility for what will transpire. I just wanted tomorrow to be reasonably like today. But Brexiters want revolution without any clue as to what will happen next, as long as they can blame someone.

Some more Brexit revelations. After the assassination of the Remain-campaigning MP Jo Cox, the Remain and Leave campaigns agreed on a truce for a few days, in which neither side campaigned. Except for some elements of the Leave camp, who saw this as an opportunity to push their message with no opposition. There are some real scum among the Brexit camp.

[edyzmedieval]

Apparently May threatened to stay in the EU if no deal is done.

[Pannonian]

Apparently May threatened to stay in the EU if no deal is done.

She's also threatened to leave with no deal if no deal is done. She's trying to get votes from both camps.

[Furunculus]

Barnier has reiterated that the UK will be able to unilaterally exit any customs arrangement with the EU. Just leave NI within the customs union, as required by the GFA (a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI).

Some more Brexit revelations. After the assassination of the Remain-campaigning MP Jo Cox, the Remain and Leave campaigns agreed on a truce for a few days, in which neither side campaigned. Except for some elements of the Leave camp, who saw this as an opportunity to push their message with no opposition.

That is an, ahem... 'generous' interpretation of the GFA. The EU can play as hard as it like, as long as it doesn't mind no deal.

You mean the completely separate and totally unofficial Leave.eu campaign group run by Farage/Banks?

This is why this latest dispute matters:

https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2019/0309/1035261-brexit-tony-connelly/

[Pannonian]

How America’s food giants swallowed the family farms (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/09/american-food-giants-swallow-the-family-farms-iowa)


It’s a story replicated across America’s midwest, with the rapid expansion of farming methods at the heart of the row over US attempts to erode Britain’s food standards and lever open access to the UK market as part of a post-Brexit trade deal. Last weekend, the US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, appealed to the UK to embrace US farming, arguing that those who warned against practices such as washing chicken in chlorine had been “deployed” to cast it “in the worst possible light”.

His message was greeted with anger by campaigners. Nick Dearden of Global Justice Now warned: “It is really an animal welfare issue here. If UK farmers want to compete against American imports, they will have to lower their standards or go out of business.” His words would come as no surprise to Rosemary Partridge, who farms in Sac County, western Iowa. She grew up on an Iowa family farm and then moved with her husband in the late 1970s to raise pigs and grow crops.

“In the past 20 years, where I am, independent hog farming just silently disappeared as the corporates came in,” says Partridge.

The future of post-Brexit British agriculture folks. Hope you're happy with what you've voted for.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Barnier has reiterated that the UK will be able to unilaterally exit any customs arrangement with the EU. Just leave NI within the customs union, as required by the GFA (a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI). May can't go with that because she's beholden to the DUP. How is this the fault of the EU? She had a Commons majority when she invoked article 50, which started all this. Remember the UK is the active actor in all of this. The EU didn't push for all this; the UK did. And now the Leavers are blaming the EU because the EU aren't yielding on absolutely everything. Even though the EU have already gone out of their way to help the UK in a number of areas. Which they didn't have to, and which no one else is doing. Not even our supposed friends the Americans.

I've accepted that we will leave with no deal, courtesy of the Brexiters who will continue with their dogma and continue to blame the EU for all the ills of the world. I just wish that Brexiters will take responsibility for what will transpire. I just wanted tomorrow to be reasonably like today. But Brexiters want revolution without any clue as to what will happen next, as long as they can blame someone.

Some more Brexit revelations. After the assassination of the Remain-campaigning MP Jo Cox, the Remain and Leave campaigns agreed on a truce for a few days, in which neither side campaigned. Except for some elements of the Leave camp, who saw this as an opportunity to push their message with no opposition. There are some real scum among the Brexit camp.

So, instead of selling NI down the river with a hard border on land you propose a hard border in the Irish Sea.

In reality, either outcome betrays someone.

Meanwhile, we finally have some indications on the "Technical solution" to the problem:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506139



Lars Karlsson, a former director at the World Customs Organisation, said all the separate elements which made up the proposal had been tested "somewhere in the world, just not in one single border".


The border in Northern Ireland would be "the first and a leading example in the world of this kind," he added.


However, the committee urged the UK and EU negotiators to agree on a definition of a hard border by 12 March.


"Mistrust over the backstop protocol has been heightened by lack of clarity on what exactly constitutes a 'hard border'," said chairman Andrew Murrison.


"My committee is calling for clarification of the term in a legally explicit way to ensure both parties share the same understanding of how the backstop can be avoided."

[Pannonian]

So, instead of selling NI down the river with a hard border on land you propose a hard border in the Irish Sea.

In reality, either outcome betrays someone.

Meanwhile, we finally have some indications on the "Technical solution" to the problem:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47506139


Lars Karlsson, a former director at the World Customs Organisation, said all the separate elements which made up the proposal had been tested "somewhere in the world, just not in one single border".

All IT solutions consist of elements that have been tested somewhere in the world, just not in a single solution in that particular context. And thus IT solutions fail and overrun their budgets on a grand scale. Does anyone have a list of these elements of the NI-RoI border tech solution that Brexiteers love to cite, complete with their contexts? NB. I have experience of implementing IT solutions, from design through to execution and maintenance. Even with the small scale projects I've worked on, that paragraph above rings alarm bells for its insouciance.

And BTW, when you talk of betrayal, remember that Brexiteers initiated this. The EU didn't push the UK into this problem. Remainers didn't push the UK into this problem. Leavers like yourself did. And if you don't like taking responsibility, then blame the leaders whose BS you continue to push like above. Under 3 weeks until no deal.

More on Lars Karlsson, the expert quoted in PFH's article, on this subject. (https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/customs-expert-lars-karlsson-who-wrote-report-on-irish-border-did-not-visit-irish-border-1-5778289)


Former Swedish customs official Lars Karlsson presented a 46-page report to the European Parliament last year showing how technological solutions could maintain as open an Irish Border as possible and remove the need for a backstop.

Mr Karlsson appeared before the Northern Ireland Public Affairs Committee in Westminster today, initially saying he had visited and "studied the border".

But after questioning by Lady Sylvia Hermon, Mr Karlsson admitted:

- That he had only visited the Irish border once, two years ago,

- That he had not been along the entire border, and

- That he was there in a different capacity not related to the report anyway.

Lady Hermon asked: "So when you said you'd been there and studied it, you've not been along the entire border?"

To which Mr Karlsson replied: "No.

"I have not been there in relation to this specific issue, no."

Ouch. My prediction: take the estimated time and cost of the solution, at least triple the cost and time, and you might have something that might be able to limp along with numerous holes and patches. A more realistic estimate is at least 5x both. An equally realistic estimate is 5x both and it still doesn't work. Based on previous government experience with tech solutions.

[edyzmedieval]

Well that ended nicely... I'm being sarcastic of course. Another defeat.

[Furunculus]

the sausage machine grinds exceeding slow of late.

[Pannonian]

16 days until no deal. Are you happy with this Brexit?

[Pannonian]

All IT solutions consist of elements that have been tested somewhere in the world, just not in a single solution in that particular context. And thus IT solutions fail and overrun their budgets on a grand scale. Does anyone have a list of these elements of the NI-RoI border tech solution that Brexiteers love to cite, complete with their contexts? NB. I have experience of implementing IT solutions, from design through to execution and maintenance. Even with the small scale projects I've worked on, that paragraph above rings alarm bells for its insouciance.

And BTW, when you talk of betrayal, remember that Brexiteers initiated this. The EU didn't push the UK into this problem. Remainers didn't push the UK into this problem. Leavers like yourself did. And if you don't like taking responsibility, then blame the leaders whose BS you continue to push like above. Under 3 weeks until no deal.

More on Lars Karlsson, the expert quoted in PFH's article, on this subject. (https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/customs-expert-lars-karlsson-who-wrote-report-on-irish-border-did-not-visit-irish-border-1-5778289)

Ouch. My prediction: take the estimated time and cost of the solution, at least triple the cost and time, and you might have something that might be able to limp along with numerous holes and patches. A more realistic estimate is at least 5x both. An equally realistic estimate is 5x both and it still doesn't work. Based on previous government experience with tech solutions.

Apparently the IT solution dealing with EU residents can't cope with multiple names, eg. maiden names and married names. This is a problem that just needs translation from paper to code, without any complications with geography, real time interactions with people, people intentionally evading or sabotaging it, etc. It's also a problem that has been solved all over the web wherever IDs are involved. Yet Brexiteers expect people to believe that a solution that has never been implemented as a whole or on that scale will suddenly work satisfactorily. And in case people have missed it, the IRA are sending bombs around again.

[Furunculus]

16 days until no deal. Are you happy with this Brexit?

I have faith in the process, even if the result isn't precisely what I want.
The salient point is:that continued membership is no longer tenable.

[Pannonian]

I have faith in the process, even if the result isn't precisely what I want.
The salient point is:that continued membership is no longer tenable.

In other words, you would be happy with no deal when it comes.

[rory_20_uk]

Apparently the IT solution dealing with EU residents can't cope with multiple names, eg. maiden names and married names. This is a problem that just needs translation from paper to code, without any complications with geography, real time interactions with people, people intentionally evading or sabotaging it, etc. It's also a problem that has been solved all over the web wherever IDs are involved. Yet Brexiteers expect people to believe that a solution that has never been implemented as a whole or on that scale will suddenly work satisfactorily. And in case people have missed it, the IRA are sending bombs around again.

I am always impressed about your ability to know what everyone else is thinking that disagrees with you thinks, and view future predictions are accurate when they are negative and always wrong when positive.

The IRA are sending bombs. So... we should stop Brexit because of the IRA? Sort of capitulating to Terrorism.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I am always impressed about your ability to know what everyone else is thinking that disagrees with you thinks, and view future predictions are accurate when they are negative and always wrong when positive.

The IRA are sending bombs. So... we should stop Brexit because of the IRA? Sort of capitulating to Terrorism.

~:smoking:

I'd like to know how the planned tech solution for the border will work, given that they can't even get an IT solution to deal with multiple names. The latter is entirely a paper to code problem, without any other obstacles, easily scaleable, yet they can't even do that. The expert cited in PFH's article says that the planned solution will work, even though he's never visited the area to scout the issues, nor have the individual components ever been put together or on such a scale. And on top of that, despite your attempt to paint it as a giving in to terrorists issue, you have people actively evading, subverting or sabotaging it. Even if there aren't bombs, you'll still have smugglers. Are you going to depict that as giving in to terrorists too? BTW, I'm not making this up. I'm just stating what used to happen, just as with the IRA, and as the IRA are showing, what will happen again.

The current position on customs in the event of no deal is no tariffs to be imposed. I've described elsewhere what effect this will have on UK agriculture. And no tariffs to be enforced means no leverage for trade deals either. Enlighten me if I'm wrong on this.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You said they had no idea of a solution.

They at least have a plan - so you were wrong about that.

Further, you keep blaming Leavers for this but it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided the vote was all about immigration (what Cameron told the other EU leaders) and it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided that "Brexit means Brexit".

Further, it is the EU that wasted time by refusing to engage in any negotiations on our future trade relationship until the Backstop, the Money, and Citizen's Rights were settled.

On that final topic, it was the UK (under pressure from the British people) that offered unilateral guarantees for EU citizen's rights that were rejected by the EU.

Most people who voted Leave would probably be happy with "Norway Plus" but May won't ask for it, the EU won't offer it and so we're left with a bad Withdrawal Agreement.

Once we're trapped in the Backstop we only have three ways out.

1. Break it and accept having to pay billions in compensation.

2 Rejoin the EU.

3. Accept whatever Trade Deal the EU offers.

Macron has already said that if Britain wants access to EU Markets it must give EU trawlers access to British Waters, something Norway doesn't have to put up with.

[Pannonian]

You said they had no idea of a solution.

They at least have a plan - so you were wrong about that.

Further, you keep blaming Leavers for this but it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided the vote was all about immigration (what Cameron told the other EU leaders) and it was a Remain-voting Prime Minister who decided that "Brexit means Brexit".

Further, it is the EU that wasted time by refusing to engage in any negotiations on our future trade relationship until the Backstop, the Money, and Citizen's Rights were settled.

On that final topic, it was the UK (under pressure from the British people) that offered unilateral guarantees for EU citizen's rights that were rejected by the EU.

Most people who voted Leave would probably be happy with "Norway Plus" but May won't ask for it, the EU won't offer it and so we're left with a bad Withdrawal Agreement.

Once we're trapped in the Backstop we only have three ways out.

1. Break it and accept having to pay billions in compensation.

2 Rejoin the EU.

3. Accept whatever Trade Deal the EU offers.

Macron has already said that if Britain wants access to EU Markets it must give EU trawlers access to British Waters, something Norway doesn't have to put up with.

How is it a plan when it is completely unrealistic? I can propose to solve the border problem by stationing 300,000 troops and electrified fences on the border to prevent unauthorised access. That's just as much a plan as the one you cite, and just as realistic.

And in the next few paragraphs you continue to lay responsibility for no deal on everyone but people who voted to Leave. Anyway, there will be no danger of being trapped in the back stop, or having to accept whatever trade deal the EU offers. The government is planning to enforce no tariff regime. That means, by WTO rules (I await the Brexiteers' next tantrum to call for Leaving the WTO), there will be no tariffs enforced on anyone, whether EU or non-EU. That means there won't be any trade deals full stop, as other countries already have all they want without having to offer us anything in return. Anything they want to export to us will be free from tariffs, while anything we want to export to them can have anything they want added on top (the US added 292% in the Bombardier case). How do you think UK farmers will fare?

"Trapped in the customs union", you complain. How does it compare with government plans for no tariffs come no deal on 29th March? What are the minuses of the former? What are the minuses of the latter? And no unicornery about the virtues of fantasy agreements, as the EU has already stated, negotiations are over; they've done all they can to back the UK government, but the latter has no mandate to keep its end of the bargain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How is it a plan when it is completely unrealistic? I can propose to solve the border problem by stationing 300,000 troops and electrified fences on the border to prevent unauthorised access. That's just as much a plan as the one you cite, and just as realistic.

And in the next few paragraphs you continue to lay responsibility for no deal on everyone but people who voted to Leave. Anyway, there will be no danger of being trapped in the back stop, or having to accept whatever trade deal the EU offers. The government is planning to enforce no tariff regime. That means, by WTO rules (I await the Brexiteers' next tantrum to call for Leaving the WTO), there will be no tariffs enforced on anyone, whether EU or non-EU. That means there won't be any trade deals full stop, as other countries already have all they want without having to offer us anything in return. Anything they want to export to us will be free from tariffs, while anything we want to export to them can have anything they want added on top (the US added 292% in the Bombardier case). How do you think UK farmers will fare?

"Trapped in the customs union", you complain. How does it compare with government plans for no tariffs come no deal on 29th March? What are the minuses of the former? What are the minuses of the latter? And no unicornery about the virtues of fantasy agreements, as the EU has already stated, negotiations are over; they've done all they can to back the UK government, but the latter has no mandate to keep its end of the bargain.

I voted to exit the EU - that's it. The current debacle has been engineered by a two Remain-backing Prime Ministers and a Remain-Backing Opposition, and the EU.

Have people from the Leave camp had an influence? Yes. Has it been a good influence? Not especially.

Even so, it remains the fact that there is a Remain-Backing majority AND a soft-Brexit Majority in both Houses.

To Engineer a No-Deal Brexit out of that is an exercise is utter incompetence.

[Husar]

I voted to exit the EU - that's it. The current debacle has been engineered by a two Remain-backing Prime Ministers and a Remain-Backing Opposition, and the EU.

That sounds like the Dolchstoßlegende.

"We could have won the war if it hadn't been for traitors and these constant attempts of our enemies to win. I find it morally wrong that the enemy fights back! Why can't they roll over like the peasant barbarians our Empire slaughtered for the Colonies?! It's our birth right to rule over them while claiming that we stand for sovereignty! Everything but the acceptance of all our demands is soooo unfair! ~:mecry:"

:laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That sounds like the Dolchstoßlegende.

"We could have won the war if it hadn't been for traitors and these constant attempts of our enemies to win. I find it morally wrong that the enemy fights back! Why can't they roll over like the peasant barbarians our Empire slaughtered for the Colonies?! It's our birth right to rule over them while claiming that we stand for sovereignty! Everything but the acceptance of all our demands is soooo unfair! ~:mecry:"

:laugh4:

But the EU isn't even the European Economic Area, which nobody voted to leave - ever.

So if we don't leave that, and we have a Customs Union...

The EU is not at fault for May's "Red Lines" but in bears a certain amount of the responsibility for souring negotiations, particularly in making the money a key point.

[Pannonian]

But the EU isn't even the European Economic Area, which nobody voted to leave - ever.

So if we don't leave that, and we have a Customs Union...

The EU is not at fault for May's "Red Lines" but in bears a certain amount of the responsibility for souring negotiations, particularly in making the money a key point.

Blaming everyone except Brexiteers again. The EU has been consistent throughout all this. The deal that May has as of now was on the table from the start, as per the graph of ready solutions the EU set out. It's been the UK, including Leavers like Davis (surely you're not claiming he was a Remainer) who said to the UK press that promises made to the EU were not binding. It is this two facedness from the UK government that has soured negotiations. Although, in the end, it was Leave's lack of a manifesto that has ultimately made the EU tire of negotiations. Remain had a manifesto: the EU as it is. Leave promised all sorts without being held to any one of these scenarios, and thus far no single Leave solution has a Parliamentary mandate. Except no deal, which will still be the default as of 29th March.

Now Farage is lobbying foreign governments to interfere in the UK's government. Hope you're happy with your sovereignty loving bedfellows.

[Pannonian]

That sounds like the Dolchstoßlegende.

"We could have won the war if it hadn't been for traitors and these constant attempts of our enemies to win. I find it morally wrong that the enemy fights back! Why can't they roll over like the peasant barbarians our Empire slaughtered for the Colonies?! It's our birth right to rule over them while claiming that we stand for sovereignty! Everything but the acceptance of all our demands is soooo unfair! ~:mecry:"

:laugh4:

4th Feb 2018 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053772677&viewfull=1#post2053772677)


“[Civil servants] look at the evidence and we go where it is,” he said. “Of course if you are selling snake oil, you don’t like the idea of experts testing your products.

“And I think that’s what we’ve got, this backlash against evidence and experts is because they know where the experts will go.”

Responding to claims officials distorted their analysis, the former civil servant told ITV’s Peston On Sunday show: “I think that’s completely crazy. The truth is civil servants operate by the civil service code. The values are honesty, objectivity, integrity, impartiality.

“Their job is to look at the evidence and present it as best they can, analyse the uncertainties ... but that’s what they do, they’re objective and impartial.

“And I think what you find is that tends to get accepted very nicely when it agrees with someone’s prior beliefs, but actually, when someone doesn’t like the answer, quite often they decide to shoot the messenger.”

“‘Dolchstoss’ means ‘stab in the back’,” Lord Turnbull told the Observer. “After the first world war there was an armistice, but the German army was then treated as the losers. Then, at the start of the Nazi era, the ‘stab-in-the back’ theme developed.

“It argued that ‘our great army was never defeated, but it was stabbed in the back by the civilians, liberals, communists, socialists and Jews’. This is what I think these critics are trying to do. They are losing the argument in the sense that they are unable to make their extravagant promises stack up, and so they turn and say: ‘Things would be OK if the civil service weren’t obstructing us.’”

PFH has come up with another iteration of this, blaming Remainers for Brexit not proceeding well. The fact is, as the civil servant pointed out, Leave won by promising stuff that wasn't achievable. The main Leavers steered clear of the problem when the time came to replace Cameron. And now they're at it again, arguing that it's the Remainers who are sabotaging Brexit. It's never their fault or responsibility. It's always someone else's fault, even when we voted for the opposite.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Blaming everyone except Brexiteers again. The EU has been consistent throughout all this. The deal that May has as of now was on the table from the start, as per the graph of ready solutions the EU set out. It's been the UK, including Leavers like Davis (surely you're not claiming he was a Remainer) who said to the UK press that promises made to the EU were not binding. It is this two facedness from the UK government that has soured negotiations. Although, in the end, it was Leave's lack of a manifesto that has ultimately made the EU tire of negotiations. Remain had a manifesto: the EU as it is. Leave promised all sorts without being held to any one of these scenarios, and thus far no single Leave solution has a Parliamentary mandate. Except no deal, which will still be the default as of 29th March.

Now Farage is lobbying foreign governments to interfere in the UK's government. Hope you're happy with your sovereignty loving bedfellows.

Again there's this "except Brexiteers" rhetoric.

No, not "except" simply "not only."

Remain defined what the Leave voted meant and Remain defined what holding to that vote meant - not Leave.

Further, not every Leave voter is a "Brexiteer" in much the same way that not every Remain voter is a "Remainiac".

You keep referencing this thing David Davis said but you haven't specified when and you apparently just expect me to be able to find the quote? If this is a major plank of your argument can I have an actual quote to analyse and comment on, please?

[Furunculus]

In other words, you would be happy with no deal when it comes.

I chose to support May's deal, despite having the same reservations expressed in Cox's advice.
I still supported May's deal when May improved the offer, despite my continuing reservations.
I will support it again, when it comes back again for the third time.
I support it recognising the compact that it will be a shallow-end social democracy, despite my own preferences to aim for a mid-atlantic Oz/Ca market economy.
But will I cry if blind idiocy in refusing to allow Cox to overturn his Dec advice leads to no deal? No. Oz/Ca may well be the consequence.

[Pannonian]

Again there's this "except Brexiteers" rhetoric.

No, not "except" simply "not only."

Remain defined what the Leave voted meant and Remain defined what holding to that vote meant - not Leave.

Further, not every Leave voter is a "Brexiteer" in much the same way that not every Remain voter is a "Remainiac".

You keep referencing this thing David Davis said but you haven't specified when and you apparently just expect me to be able to find the quote? If this is a major plank of your argument can I have an actual quote to analyse and comment on, please?

Here's Davis "clarifying" what he said. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/12/david-davis-has-damaged-trust-in-the-uk-for-brexit-talks-says-verhofstadt)

This was May's first deadline to allow talks to move on. She managed to get concessions with assurances on her side, which the EU negotiators took on trust. Davis then undermined them with the above. After this, the EU 27 no longer took anything from the UK on trust, requiring everything to be legally actionable.


Michael Roth, Germany’s minister for Europe, told German media he was “taken aback” that the language May had used in Brussels “differed somewhat” to what the prime minister had said in London since her return, referring in particular to the suggestion that Britain would only pay the final bill to the EU once a trade agreement had been reached. “She needs to be taking the same line in Brussels as in London,” he said.

An EU official said the guidelines for talks on future relations that had been drafted were already “Davis-proofed”, and it was clear what the consequences were if commitments were not respected.

The circulated draft includes the demand that “negotiations in the second phase can only progress as long as all commitments undertaken during the first phase are respected in full and translated faithfully in legal terms as quickly as possible”.

[Pannonian]

Also, does your assertion that Remain defined what Leave meant mean that Leave's concrete promises, such as the 350m per week for the NHS, will be kept? Or can you clarify how Remain defined what Leave meant by this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/14/97905329_BRISTOL_ENGLAND_-_MAY_14__Conservative_MP_Boris_Johnson_speaks_as_he_visits_Bristol_on_May_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqKjggCdpv XjoraOzAlyzu1MOSRhbr0ZABex7Vh5dC_YU.jpg?imwidth=1240

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Here's Davis "clarifying" what he said. (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/12/david-davis-has-damaged-trust-in-the-uk-for-brexit-talks-says-verhofstadt)

This was May's first deadline to allow talks to move on. She managed to get concessions with assurances on her side, which the EU negotiators took on trust. Davis then undermined them with the above. After this, the EU 27 no longer took anything from the UK on trust, requiring everything to be legally actionable.

THAT is your smoking gun - David Davis saying that as the "Interim Agreement" was not a treaty there might still be some wiggle room?

Not exactly a storm in a Teacup but it's not the great "betrayal" you're making it out to be, either.


Also, does your assertion that Remain defined what Leave meant mean that Leave's concrete promises, such as the 350m per week for the NHS, will be kept? Or can you clarify how Remain defined what Leave meant by this?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/14/97905329_BRISTOL_ENGLAND_-_MAY_14__Conservative_MP_Boris_Johnson_speaks_as_he_visits_Bristol_on_May_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqKjggCdpv XjoraOzAlyzu1MOSRhbr0ZABex7Vh5dC_YU.jpg?imwidth=1240

I believe they meant that the Rebate was calculated in Brussels and we were obliged to pay what the EU asked even if money wasn't going to Brussels and then actually being rebated.

Really, though, it was a hyperbolic slogan which, even if the figure had been accurate, never should have been made.

The idea we would suddenly spend all the money we send to the EU on the NHS is absurd and the people who championed it were absurd and I said so at the time.

No, the Remainers said that the vote WASN'T about money, but about immigration.

[Pannonian]

No, the Remainers said that the vote WASN'T about money, but about immigration.

Like I said, the other day I saw a poster giving government advice on what to do if you're planning on driving in the EU after 29th March. On it someone put a sticker saying "Ban Islam".

Are you still disclaiming responsibility for what happens after we leave the EU? After all, you voted for it. I voted against it. You keep arguing for it, even after seeing how it's been implemented. I've been arguing against it throughout.

[Beskar]

Just waiting for May to revoke article 50, dissolve government and step down then watch the Union burn as she says in parliament "You do it" as it erupts into riots in the street.

[Montmorency]

Just waiting for May to revoke article 50, dissolve government and step down then watch the Union burn as she says in parliament "You do it" as it erupts into riots in the street.

Parliament votes (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/mar/14/mps-vote-by-majority-of-210-to-extend-article-50-and-delay-brexit) to extend exit deadline, May's cabinet rebels.

One funny tweet (https://twitter.com/damocrat/status/1105571463778709504) (from March 12):


What should happen next:

• Quietly revoke Article 50
• Tell Brexiters we left with no deal
• Send them blue passport covers
• Give them special long queues at airports/ports
• Charge them for roaming calls/data
• Give them food and medicine ration books
• Get on with life

Quote (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFy70V78eEc) on May's Deal from Cornwall Tory MP:


This is a turd of a deal, which has now been taken away and polished, and is now a polished turd. But it might be the best turd that we’ve got.

[edyzmedieval]

So... guys... like, make up your minds please? Leave, stay, do a backstop, do a air flip, jump up and down, do another Royal Wedding... just do something!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

*Does the Hockey Cokey*

I can do you a bacon buttie if you like, too?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

*Does the Hockey Cokey*

I can do you a bacon buttie if you like, too?

If I saw those phrases on someone's search engine history, I would be scandalized.

[Beskar]

So the Speaker said "No" to a third attempt at Theresa May's deal and sources suggest another extension would only be approved in event of a Second Referendum.

Up for Marshmallows at Westminister?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, according to Erskine May he didn't really have much choice. It would have been partial of him not to.

So, either the deal gets dropped or a rider on a Referendum gets added.

[Pannonian]

Well, according to Erskine May he didn't really have much choice. It would have been partial of him not to.

So, either the deal gets dropped or a rider on a Referendum gets added.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/58A9/production/_106079622_dmfrontpage19mar2019.jpg
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/11811/production/_106079617_express.jpg
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/97F1/production/_106079883_thesunfrontpage19.03.19.jpg

Another "enemy of the people"?

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/mail_judges.jpg

[Husar]

Just want to put this out here: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/03/19/putty_patched_rsa_key_exchange_vuln/


Lead maintainer and "benevolent dictator" of all things PuTTY Simon Tatham told El Reg that "of all the things found by the EU bug bounty programme, the most serious was vuln-dss-verify. That really is a 'game over' level vulnerability for a secure network protocol: a MITM attacker could bypass the SSH host key system completely."

"Luckily," he continued, "it never appeared in a released version of PuTTY: it was introduced during work to rewrite the crypto for side-channel safety, and spotted only a few weeks later by a bug-bounty participant, well before the release came out. So the EU protected almost everybody from that one."

He sounds like a remainer.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/58A9/production/_106079622_dmfrontpage19mar2019.jpg
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/11811/production/_106079617_express.jpg
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/cpsprodpb/97F1/production/_106079883_thesunfrontpage19.03.19.jpg

Another "enemy of the people"?

https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/mail_judges.jpg

Ja, och?

Seriously though, the Speaker is supposed to be impartial and above reproach - Bercow has been neither. The reaction to his justified intervention at this point shows why he is, in general, not the right man for the job.

[InsaneApache]

We haven't had a decent Speaker since Betty.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We haven't had a decent Speaker since Betty.

Quite true, but Bercow is right in this case. Theresa May is the one trying to trample Parliament, bad enough she tried to ram her deal through a second time with only minor changes, to then engage in what amounts to threats and bribery and attempt a third vote on the same issue?

Disgraceful.

Had she attempted it I'm sure Labour would have tabled a vote of no confidence.

[InsaneApache]

I can't wait until the EU elections this May. The bunch of traitors in Parliament are in for a shock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN7r0Rr1Qyc

[Pannonian]

Ja, och?

Seriously though, the Speaker is supposed to be impartial and above reproach - Bercow has been neither. The reaction to his justified intervention at this point shows why he is, in general, not the right man for the job.

And the judges? The original headline was in response to the court decision that Parliament has deciding power. They were called "Enemies of the people". Do you not think that the right wing press may just be a tad irresponsible? Especially as one MP has already been killed for opposing Brexit.

[Pannonian]

Quite true, but Bercow is right in this case. Theresa May is the one trying to trample Parliament, bad enough she tried to ram her deal through a second time with only minor changes, to then engage in what amounts to threats and bribery and attempt a third vote on the same issue?

Disgraceful.

Had she attempted it I'm sure Labour would have tabled a vote of no confidence.

Don't forget that the original MV was supposed to have been before Christmas. Except that May called it off at the last moment and postponed it for after the recess.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And the judges? The original headline was in response to the court decision that Parliament has deciding power. They were called "Enemies of the people". Do you not think that the right wing press may just be a tad irresponsible? Especially as one MP has already been killed for opposing Brexit.

Pan, nobody on this site who supports Brexit supports or reads the Daily Mail.

You're constructing a Strawman out of your own outrage.

[InsaneApache]

I love the right wing press trope, when to a man, the press are remainers.

[Montmorency]

I can't wait until the EU elections this May. The bunch of traitors in Parliament are in for a shock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FN7r0Rr1Qyc

Are you posting a tragic depiction of fascist delusion, in reference to the upcoming EU elections, ironically or un-ironically?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are you posting a tragic depiction of fascist delusion, in reference to the upcoming EU elections, ironically or un-ironically?

It's hard to tell at this point. If Brexit drags on we me end up with a Eurosceptic EU Parliament.

[Montmorency]

It's hard to tell at this point. If Brexit drags on we me end up with a Eurosceptic EU Parliament.

I know you're, like, a Chestertonian, but what do you think of Varoufakis et al. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153366-Future-of-the-European-Union?p=2053791646&viewfull=1#post2053791646)?

btw i less worried about IA's post now, turns out this song is more of a meme in the UK.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReIAna459sg&feature=youtu.be

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I know you're, like, a Chestertonian, but what do you think of Varoufakis et al. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153366-Future-of-the-European-Union?p=2053791646&viewfull=1#post2053791646)?

btw i less worried about IA's post now, turns out this song is more of a meme in the UK.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReIAna459sg&feature=youtu.be

A what?

[Furunculus]

I know you're, like, a Chestertonian, but what do you think of Varoufakis et al. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/153366-Future-of-the-European-Union?p=2053791646&viewfull=1#post2053791646)?

btw i less worried about IA's post now, turns out this song is more of a meme in the UK.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReIAna459sg&feature=youtu.be

I have a lot of time for Varoufakis: he is honest, committed, and capable.

He just arrives at his politics from a moral matrix entirely different to mine, so as much as I find him insightful and interesting he would never get my vote.

[InsaneApache]

So A50 is extended to 30th June. The EU elections are on 30th May. If we are not to participate in said elections then by the treaties governing the EU we will be thrown out by the EU.

It's like Alice in Wonderland stuff.

[rory_20_uk]

So on a very technical point we might have to unilaterally withdrawal the Article 50. Of course to redo it again once all our ducks are in a line.

And oh so quietly it dies a death. And Democracies all over the world learn an important lesson in never asking the populace what they want.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Brexiteers should be happy. Yellowhammer kicks in next week.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Brexiteers should be happy. Yellowhammer kicks in next week.

It's possible Macron will veto May's request for an extension (because it's pointless) leading to a vote in the House to the effect that we should ask for a long extension to hold a referendum/public consultation, leading to her resigning and being replaced ad hoc with another Tory who can deliver said request, after which there will be an election.

It's worth reflecting that if anyone other than Corbyn was Leader of the Opposition right now that the Opposition would already have been asked to form a government.

[Pannonian]

It's possible Macron will veto May's request for an extension (because it's pointless) leading to a vote in the House to the effect that we should ask for a long extension to hold a referendum/public consultation, leading to her resigning and being replaced ad hoc with another Tory who can deliver said request, after which there will be an election.

It's worth reflecting that if anyone other than Corbyn was Leader of the Opposition right now that the Opposition would already have been asked to form a government.

Don't blame me for that. I voted not for Brexit, nor Corbyn, nor May. By far the crappest decision in my lifetime, headed by by far the crappest PM in my lifetime, opposed by by far the crappest leader of the opposition in my lifetime.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So on a very technical point we might have to unilaterally withdrawal the Article 50. Of course to redo it again once all our ducks are in a line.

And oh so quietly it dies a death. And Democracies all over the world learn an important lesson in never asking the populace what they want.

~:smoking:

British should have realized the error in trying out direct democracy when it put you in the same category with US states such as Florida and California. Failed states all of them.

[rory_20_uk]

Don't blame me for that. I voted not for Brexit, nor Corbyn, nor May. By far the crappest decision in my lifetime, headed by by far the crappest PM in my lifetime, opposed by by far the crappest leader of the opposition in my lifetime.

So you cheerfully state nothing is your fault whilst declaiming anyone that voted leave responsible for the current situation.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So you cheerfully state nothing is your fault whilst declaiming anyone that voted leave responsible for the current situation.

~:smoking:

How is it my fault when I said the stuff that's happening now would happen, and voted against it happening? If I tell you that sticking your hand in a fire is a bad idea because it'll burn you, and you decide to stick your hand in a fire and it burns you, how is it my fault for warning you against it? Meanwhile, Brexiteers complain that it's burned their hand, and say it's not their fault because they didn't expect it to burn like that.

[rory_20_uk]

How is it my fault when I said the stuff that's happening now would happen, and voted against it happening? If I tell you that sticking your hand in a fire is a bad idea because it'll burn you, and you decide to stick your hand in a fire and it burns you, how is it my fault for warning you against it? Meanwhile, Brexiteers complain that it's burned their hand, and say it's not their fault because they didn't expect it to burn like that.

A better analogy is one side decides to cross a road when those in charge of the activity wait until it is rush hour. Leaving aside the issue that the government never raised these issues when deeper integration was being undertaken without a vote.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

He really means freedom is slavery.

[Pannonian]

A better analogy is one side decides to cross a road when those in charge of the activity wait until it is rush hour. Leaving aside the issue that the government never raised these issues when deeper integration was being undertaken without a vote.

~:smoking:

It's just over a week until Brexit, and as things go, we will leave without a deal. Are you still in favour of Leaving, as things are now?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's just over a week until Brexit, and as things go, we will leave without a deal. Are you still in favour of Leaving, as things are now?

It is possible to be in favour pf Leaving without being in favour of Leaving now.

I presume you still voted Labour at the last election? Labour ran on a Brexit ticket and got the biggest vote since Tony Blair (May got the biggest vote since Thatcher, 1982).

Unless you voted Lib Dem or Green at the last election you voted for Brexit, or at least didn't vote against it.

Similarly, bearing in mind I voted Lib Dem I can't complain if we don't leave.

[Pannonian]

It is possible to be in favour pf Leaving without being in favour of Leaving now.

I presume you still voted Labour at the last election? Labour ran on a Brexit ticket and got the biggest vote since Tony Blair (May got the biggest vote since Thatcher, 1982).

Unless you voted Lib Dem or Green at the last election you voted for Brexit, or at least didn't vote against it.

Similarly, bearing in mind I voted Lib Dem I can't complain if we don't leave.

I voted Labour for most of my life. Because of Brexit and Corbyn's position on it I voted Lib Dem in the last election. And saying that May or Corbyn got the biggest vote since whenever convinces me not a jot. Do you know which party leader got the most votes ever in any UK general election?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I voted Labour for most of my life. Because of Brexit and Corbyn's position on it I voted Lib Dem in the last election. And saying that May or Corbyn got the biggest vote since whenever convinces me not a jot. Do you know which party leader got the most votes ever in any UK general election?

Carry on, then.

Here's that petition - currently going up by a few hundred every few seconds.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

[Montmorency]

And oh so quietly it dies a death. And Democracies all over the world learn an important lesson in never asking the populace what they want.

~:smoking:

Referendums are most useful when they are judged or expected beforehand to produce a decisive result.


He really means freedom is slavery.

This cartoon carries over with shocking aptness (I especially like "repudiates her bonds" and "secession humbug"). Pann, feel free to adjust the characters to modern context.


22344


Ah, freedom, that old shibboleth. The World Happiness Survey just released its 2019 edition (https://s3.amazonaws.com/happiness-report/2019/WHR19.pdf). There is an item asking about the "freedom to make life choices":


Freedom to make life choices is the
national average of binary responses to
the GWP question “Are you satisfied or
dissatisfied with your freedom to choose
what you do with your life?”

Uzbekistan respondents appear to have a high enough self-perception of "freedom" to earn them the #1 spot on this measure among all countries.

I do declare, Brexit brings "freedom" to the UK in the same way that Uzbekistan is the freest country on Earth.

[rory_20_uk]

Referendums are most useful when they are judged or expected beforehand to produce a decisive result.

And on one very narrow grounds they did - Dave wanted to either be the leader of a country that wanted what he wanted or to go off to the private where it would be more fun.

A proper referendum would have had a nested tree of outcomes and a 70% threshold for a positive result with also asking clearly what to do if the EU did not agree. Most of the cattle might not understand but lowering things to the level of the average person is hardly the recipe for success.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

I voted Labour for most of my life. Because of Brexit and Corbyn's position on it I voted Lib Dem in the last election. And saying that May or Corbyn got the biggest vote since whenever convinces me not a jot. Do you know which party leader got the most votes ever in any UK general election?

lol, i voted lib-dem too.

[Gilrandir]

Referendums are most useful when they are judged or expected beforehand to produce a decisive result.


Referendums (da?) are stupid. I can hold dozens of referendums asking people if they want to have dinners at restaurants for free, buy gasoline for 2 pence a gallon, pay no taxes etc. and people will all say yes. Does it mean it should be that way because people want it?

Moreover, in democracies you elect the authorities and pay them money for taking decisions, but why you should pay more money to hold a referendum? In fact, you pay twice. It is like parents paying for the kids' education at a private school plus paying salary to the principal into the bargain.

AFAIK, national (federal) referendums in Germany are forbidden - good for you, guys.

[Pannonian]

Referendums (da?) are stupid. I can hold dozens of referendums asking people if they want to have dinners at restaurants for free, buy gasoline for 2 pence a gallon, pay no taxes etc. and people will all say yes. Does it mean it should be that way because people want it?

Moreover, in democracies you elect the authorities and pay them money for taking decisions, but why you should pay more money to hold a referendum? In fact, you pay twice. It is like parents paying for the kids' education at a private school plus paying salary to the principal into the bargain.

AFAIK, national (federal) referendums in Germany are forbidden - good for you, guys.

Referendums may be workable if there are mechanisms for dealing with abuse. There weren't for the Brexit referendum. Leave perpetrated abuses by the multitude that, if they had happened in any normal election, would invalidate the result and have the instigators in prison. But because the referendum was legally merely advisory, not legally binding, these measures are not available. The UK's constitution is designed to implement elections for representatives. It is well designed for that. It is not designed to implement referendums, especially where one side is concrete and the other open ended.

In related news, PM May has said that Britain voted for pain and that's what it will get, and it will take the form of no deal. Sources: the outgoing leader of the Lib Dems and the Financial Times. Leavers, this is what we're on course for. Are you still in favour of Leaving?

[Furunculus]

Yup.

[Beskar]

lol, i voted lib-dem too.

Opposites Attract?

[Pannonian]

In the normalisation of abuse to politicians, Ian Blackford (SNP) was harassed by several Brexiteers accusing him of being a "traitor to England".

[a completely inoffensive name]

In the normalisation of abuse to politicians, Ian Blackford (SNP) was harassed by several Brexiteers accusing him of being a "traitor to England".Why do you have to write every sentence in a hyperbolic tone. I feel like you wake up in the morning at 100% and never let off the gas until bed.

[Pannonian]

Why do you have to write every sentence in a hyperbolic tone. I feel like you wake up in the morning at 100% and never let off the gas until bed.

You missed the point about Brexiteer idiots accusing a Scottish politician (SNP stands for Scottish National Party) of being a "traitor to England".

As for the hyperbolic tone: every day the expression of Brexit finds new depths of idiocy, as the above. Satirists couldn't invent the above, as it would be considered unrealistically idiotic. Yet Brexiteers, day after day, manage to outdo satire.

Brexit PROTEST: Lorry drivers threaten to bring M4 to STANDSTILL over May shambles TONIGHT (22nd March 2019, 14:46) (https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1103958/brexit-news-protest-m4-lorry-drivers-blockade-m4-south-wales)
Brexit-backing blockade labelled 'pathetic' as drivers claim it was just a 'normal Friday night' on the M4 (22nd March 2019, 22:59) (https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/brexit-backing-blockade-labelled-pathetic-16016771)


Pro-Brexit truckers said they "could bring the country to its knees" on Friday night as motorists from across the UK took part in a series of protests on some of the busiest motorways.

But it didn't quite seem to happen as planned.

Some events just didn't take place, and there were far fewer people than predicted at others. Traffic on the roads was heavy for a while in some areas, and there were some frustrated motorists stuck in queues, in Deeside for example, and on the M6 where three lanes of traffic were affected by the go-slow protest.

In Wales, around 100 pro-Brexiteers were due to met at Magor services at 6pm, before taking to the motorway with the aim of causing delays around the Prince of Wales Bridge.

They planned to drive slowly up the carriageway to create a rolling road block, but only a handful of vehicles could be seen, and there were no reports of any major traffic hold-ups, although queues were filmed travelling behind slow-moving vehicles over the Princes of Wales Bridge towards Bristol.

Some drivers in other parts of the UK were pulled over by the police for driving inconsiderately.

Around ten vehicles were taking part in the protest on the A30 in Cornwall and police confirmed on Twitter that nine were stopped and the front two were reported for "inconsiderate driving".

They were advised to "continue their way at an appropriate speed".

[Gilrandir]

Referendums may be workable if there are mechanisms for dealing with abuse. There weren't for the Brexit referendum. Leave perpetrated abuses by the multitude that, if they had happened in any normal election, would invalidate the result and have the instigators in prison. But because the referendum was legally merely advisory, not legally binding, these measures are not available. The UK's constitution is designed to implement elections for representatives. It is well designed for that. It is not designed to implement referendums, especially where one side is concrete and the other open ended.



Referendums make elections redundant. Why would you need any government if you can put any issue to vote on a referendum? Start with free medicare and free education at Oxford.

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IL2XwSkFJQ

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In related news, PM May has said that Britain voted for pain and that's what it will get, and it will take the form of no deal. Sources: the outgoing leader of the Lib Dems and the Financial Times. Leavers, this is what we're on course for. Are you still in favour of Leaving?

So Theresa May is punishing the UK for independent thinking?

How very European.

In other news, Europe's failure to foster prosperity in Italy and Greece has seen them turn to China who already owns the main Container Port outside Athens.

As for Leaving - let's not pretend this situation hasn't been largely engineered by the EU.

[Pannonian]

So Theresa May is punishing the UK for independent thinking?

How very European.

In other news, Europe's failure to foster prosperity in Italy and Greece has seen them turn to China who already owns the main Container Port outside Athens.

As for Leaving - let's not pretend this situation hasn't been largely engineered by the EU.

Still blaming the EU. It's not the EU that's made the UK decide to Leave. It's not the EU who's set May's red lines. Always everyone's fault but yours for deciding to leave. If this isn't what you envisaged by Leaving, it just shows what an open ended option Leave was, versus the concrete manifesto of Remain. The unicorns promised by Leave do not exist. The reality of Remain does exist.

[InsaneApache]

How's France this weekend?

[Pannonian]

How's France this weekend?

They won 4-1 away against Moldova on Friday. Or was there anything else you were talking about?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They won 4-1 away against Moldova on Friday. Or was there anything else you were talking about?

How about the people getting their hands blown off by police grenades?

I've never pretended this is all the EU's fault but you seem blinkered to just how far the EU is the architect of the current crisis.

For starters, we're in this mess because after the EU Constitution was rejected by France and the Netherlands it was repackaged with minor changes into the "Lisbon Treaty" and then duly passed by National Parliaments without Referendums being held, except Ireland who rejected it. Once Ireland said "Non" the EU announced that the Irish would get to vote again, which they duly did after the Irish economy crashed and had to be bailed out by the EU.

Voting three times on a treaty that has been soundly rejected twice. The EU quite literally wrote the playbook for May on our current crisis. Further, they are complicit in said crisis because they are allowing her to re-run the vote and so abuse the British people and Parliament. Until the 12th of April, at least, we are all still EU citizens and that means the European Commission is partaking in flagrant abuse of the democratically elected government of its own people.

The EU had other options - it could have withdrawn the deal after Parliament voted it down the first time unless we held a Referendum on it, for example. That would, at the very least, have prevented the nail-biting last-minute extension.

So, I say the EU is "largely" to blame for the current crisis, because they have engineered the mechanisms (Article 50, multiple votes on the same issue) that caused it.

[Strike For The South]

5 eyes union?

[Pannonian]

How about the people getting their hands blown off by police grenades?

I've never pretended this is all the EU's fault but you seem blinkered to just how far the EU is the architect of the current crisis.

For starters, we're in this mess because after the EU Constitution was rejected by France and the Netherlands it was repackaged with minor changes into the "Lisbon Treaty" and then duly passed by National Parliaments without Referendums being held, except Ireland who rejected it. Once Ireland said "Non" the EU announced that the Irish would get to vote again, which they duly did after the Irish economy crashed and had to be bailed out by the EU.

Voting three times on a treaty that has been soundly rejected twice. The EU quite literally wrote the playbook for May on our current crisis. Further, they are complicit in said crisis because they are allowing her to re-run the vote and so abuse the British people and Parliament. Until the 12th of April, at least, we are all still EU citizens and that means the European Commission is partaking in flagrant abuse of the democratically elected government of its own people.

The EU had other options - it could have withdrawn the deal after Parliament voted it down the first time unless we held a Referendum on it, for example. That would, at the very least, have prevented the nail-biting last-minute extension.

So, I say the EU is "largely" to blame for the current crisis, because they have engineered the mechanisms (Article 50, multiple votes on the same issue) that caused it.

Didn't the Lisbon agreement get changed after Ireland rejected it, and the amended version was then passed? And talking about flagrant abuse of the UK's democracy, the PM has already cancelled Parliamentary votes on the issue on multiple occasions, such as before the Christmas break. Reports say that she's done it again, not allowing cabinet ministers to see the planned options for indicative votes. Is Parliament sovereign? Or does sovereignty belong to the executive? What authority does the PM have for all this?

On the bolded bit: the EU have said that they're prepared for us to leave with no deal if that's what we want, and that they will assume that this is what we want unless we say otherwise. But they're not prepared to continue wasting time negotiating the same thing that's been set in stone ever since May set out her red lines. This was the deal that was available when she made her Lancaster House speech, as per the EU's rules. This was all decided by the UK. Not the EU.

BTW, article 50 was written by a Brit. Just like the Single Market was engineered by Britain. When are you going to start taking responsibility for your decision?

[Pannonian]

Q for those still blaming the EU for all this: what solution should there be, and what's the authority for this?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They won 4-1 away against Moldova on Friday. Or was there anything else you were talking about?

Cannot say that the Moldova win was unexpected though. Now, UCF beating Duke would've been a surprise, but alas...

[Husar]

How about the people getting their hands blown off by police grenades?

Why plural? I find an article in the express and one in the sun saying one man's hand was blown off. The telegraph says it was partially blown off. So I don't know how much of the hand is actually left. Partially could also mean the thumb for example.
And then of course they were trying to storm parliament, he picked the grenade up and it's not exactly a grenade that is meant to blow off parts of someone's body. Tear gas grenades are used by police everywhere. So not entirely sure what the point is here. Don't pick up tear gas grenades or don't do it the wrong way around? Avoid ones that aren't up to spec and can explode? Or just let people storm parliament and hang the politicians on the next tree?

Why are British people not protesting the Brexit desaster in front of Downing Street?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didn't the Lisbon agreement get changed after Ireland rejected it, and the amended version was then passed? And talking about flagrant abuse of the UK's democracy, the PM has already cancelled Parliamentary votes on the issue on multiple occasions, such as before the Christmas break. Reports say that she's done it again, not allowing cabinet ministers to see the planned options for indicative votes. Is Parliament sovereign? Or does sovereignty belong to the executive? What authority does the PM have for all this?

On the bolded bit: the EU have said that they're prepared for us to leave with no deal if that's what we want, and that they will assume that this is what we want unless we say otherwise. But they're not prepared to continue wasting time negotiating the same thing that's been set in stone ever since May set out her red lines. This was the deal that was available when she made her Lancaster House speech, as per the EU's rules. This was all decided by the UK. Not the EU.

BTW, article 50 was written by a Brit. Just like the Single Market was engineered by Britain. When are you going to start taking responsibility for your decision?

When are you going to stop trying to hold me solely responsible?

I took my share of responsibility years ago, literally, when I voted. That does not absolve the EU of responsibility, nor does the fact a Brit wrote Article 50 absolve 27 Governments of refusing to hold referendums on what was, clearly, a Constitutional Document for the EU.

I'm not even going to touch your attempt to conflate the fact I voted Leave with support for Theresa May. If you wan't to get tribal then perhaps I should point out she's one of "your" lot?


Why plural? I find an article in the express and one in the sun saying one man's hand was blown off. The telegraph says it was partially blown off. So I don't know how much of the hand is actually left. Partially could also mean the thumb for example.
And then of course they were trying to storm parliament, he picked the grenade up and it's not exactly a grenade that is meant to blow off parts of someone's body. Tear gas grenades are used by police everywhere. So not entirely sure what the point is here. Don't pick up tear gas grenades or don't do it the wrong way around? Avoid ones that aren't up to spec and can explode? Or just let people storm parliament and hang the politicians on the next tree?

Why are British people not protesting the Brexit desaster in front of Downing Street?

A report for you: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/30/french-police-tactics-scrutiny-gilets-jaunes-injuries-paris

"Lawyers have also petitioned the government to ban so-called “sting-ball” grenades, which contain 25g of TNT high-explosive. France is the only European country where crowd-control police use such powerful grenades, which deliver an explosion of small rubber balls that creates a stinging effect as well as launching an additional load of teargas. The grenades create a deafening effect that has been likened to the sound of an aircraft taking off."

"Lawyers estimate that as many as 17 people have lost an eye because of the police’s use of such weapons since the start of the street demonstrations, while at least three have lost their hands and others have been left with their face or limbs mutilated."

So, according to the Guardian, three hands, seventeen eyes - this is why I describe this as plural. Perhaps it is not being fully reported in Germany because of the recent Treaty of Cooperation and the upcoming Joint Parliament?

[Furunculus]

husar seems a little too ready to write off the actions of the state. why is that? :p

[Pannonian]

Civil service distancing themselves from the political government, in a manner that's apparently unprecedented, as they note that government is acting in the interests of party politics.

The Commons votes to take control of government on this issue, that the executive warns is unprecedented.

The former may well be preparation for a future public inquiry on Brexit, with the civil service seeing its implementation as toxic and wanting to wash its hands of it. The latter is logical, given that constitutionally the executive's authority rests on a Commons majority, the executive has repeatedly and decisively shown that it possesses no such authority, and the executive does not wish to share its authority, saying as recently as today that it may disregard the Commons.

[Husar]

"Lawyers have also petitioned the government to ban so-called “sting-ball” grenades, which contain 25g of TNT high-explosive. France is the only European country where crowd-control police use such powerful grenades, which deliver an explosion of small rubber balls that creates a stinging effect as well as launching an additional load of teargas. The grenades create a deafening effect that has been likened to the sound of an aircraft taking off."

"Lawyers estimate that as many as 17 people have lost an eye because of the police’s use of such weapons since the start of the street demonstrations, while at least three have lost their hands and others have been left with their face or limbs mutilated."

So, according to the Guardian, three hands, seventeen eyes - this is why I describe this as plural. Perhaps it is not being fully reported in Germany because of the recent Treaty of Cooperation and the upcoming Joint Parliament?

Thanks, didn't read about that in the articles I found. I thought I read somewhere that they removed the "rubber grenades" from service.
Since I used English search terms the conspiracy has to apply to Britain as well somehow, or maybe I just didn't go to page 5 of my search to find everything from the last couple of months.


husar seems a little too ready to write off the actions of the state. why is that? :p

I'm a law and order guy, so pretty much a right-winger.
And that's quite rich from someone who would rather trade with the USA: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database

A few people losing a hand because they don't want a higher Diesel tax is a small price to pay for freedom (of the police to defend themselves, blue lives matter).

[a completely inoffensive name]

When are you going to stop trying to hold me solely responsible?

I took my share of responsibility years ago, literally, when I voted. That does not absolve the EU of responsibility, nor does the fact a Brit wrote Article 50 absolve 27 Governments of refusing to hold referendums on what was, clearly, a Constitutional Document for the EU.

I'm not even going to touch your attempt to conflate the fact I voted Leave with support for Theresa May. If you wan't to get tribal then perhaps I should point out she's one of "your" lot?

I've been trying to work through your previous argument, so forgive me if these are a dumb questions. EU Constitution was presented as referendums to member states, but failed in France and Netherlands as you mentioned.
When the reforms were re-packaged as a series of amendments to existing treaties they became what we call the "Lisbon Treaty".

1. Did that legally change the methodology in which the reforms could be passed? To me it makes sense that a new written Constitution would be driven by direct approval by the public bodies it impacts while "Treaties" would be under the domain of their representative governments just as any other economic or political agreement between governments.

2. My impression from wikipedia (I know, mock me all you want) is that legally the Irish government could not amend their constitution to adopt the treaty unless the Constitution permitted it, which means a referendum has to be legally held to amend the Constitution to allow for ratifying any major changes to European Union treaties and that this has happened for every major EU treaty in the past. My impression from you is that Ireland was treated specifically in this way (by referendum) for reasons other than legal...is that a wrong impression?

3. The primary reason for rejection was not understanding the impact of Lisbon on several areas of Irish law. The EU then clarified that moving forward, nothing in the Lisbon treaty would impact existing Irish law regarding taxation, worker's right, abortion, and family law.
I guess the argument could be made that it should have been made clear during the first referendum, but on the other hand weren't these genuine concessions that the European Council made which made it in practice a revised deal?

4. With the above in mind, it seems that for each defeat the European Council either changed the manner, the methodology, or provided some assurances/concessions prior to each revisit of what we call "Lisbon Treaty". Unless I am mistaken about any of this (which is very possible), this seems to be in accordance with a degree of respect for the democratic rule of law in contrast to Theresa May who has quite literally tabled the same Brexit deal with no additional clarification or modification to the text three times in a row, only weeks apart. I understand from a broad level similarities can be made (if we can re-vote on Lisbon, we can re-vote on the same bill, thank EU), but once we start getting into the weeds it seems they are actually different circumstances...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've been trying to work through your previous argument, so forgive me if these are a dumb questions. EU Constitution was presented as referendums to member states, but failed in France and Netherlands as you mentioned.
When the reforms were re-packaged as a series of amendments to existing treaties they became what we call the "Lisbon Treaty".

1. Did that legally change the methodology in which the reforms could be passed? To me it makes sense that a new written Constitution would be driven by direct approval by the public bodies it impacts while "Treaties" would be under the domain of their representative governments just as any other economic or political agreement between governments.

2. My impression from wikipedia (I know, mock me all you want) is that legally the Irish government could not amend their constitution to adopt the treaty unless the Constitution permitted it, which means a referendum has to be legally held to amend the Constitution to allow for ratifying any major changes to European Union treaties and that this has happened for every major EU treaty in the past. My impression from you is that Ireland was treated specifically in this way (by referendum) for reasons other than legal...is that a wrong impression?

3. The primary reason for rejection was not understanding the impact of Lisbon on several areas of Irish law. The EU then clarified that moving forward, nothing in the Lisbon treaty would impact existing Irish law regarding taxation, worker's right, abortion, and family law.
I guess the argument could be made that it should have been made clear during the first referendum, but on the other hand weren't these genuine concessions that the European Council made which made it in practice a revised deal?

4. With the above in mind, it seems that for each defeat the European Council either changed the manner, the methodology, or provided some assurances/concessions prior to each revisit of what we call "Lisbon Treaty". Unless I am mistaken about any of this (which is very possible), this seems to be in accordance with a degree of respect for the democratic rule of law in contrast to Theresa May who has quite literally tabled the same Brexit deal with no additional clarification or modification to the text three times in a row, only weeks apart. I understand from a broad level similarities can be made (if we can re-vote on Lisbon, we can re-vote on the same bill, thank EU), but once we start getting into the weeds it seems they are actually different circumstances...

1. At no point was any country, saving Ireland, explicitly legally obliged to hold a Referendum. The point was that the original treaty was called a "Constitution" and so several member states, including the Netherlands, France and the UK were politically obliged to hold a referendum. The Lisbon Treaty just repackaged the same arrangements in a more politically palatable form - the substantive difference was negligible. However, this was enough for Tony Blair to go back on his previous promise to hold a referendum - causing David Cameron to commit to holding one on the Treaty.

Then Gordon Brown refused to hold an election until the Treaty was ratified by all members, preventing Cameron from holding his referendum - this is the immediate root-cause of the Brexit-Referendum.

2. A "Rider" was added to the Treaty which essentially committed the EU to modifying it at some future date, whether this ever actually happened after the financial crash I couldn't tell you, but in either case the Treaty voted on was the same both times. So the EU made promises about future Treaties and then held the same Referendum twice. This is roughly what Theresa May has tried to do with her second vote, and her third.

3. Taxation... Remember Amazon's Tax Bill? The Irish voted it down because most Europeans are less keen on further integration than their elected politicians. As I said, the Irish were voting on substantially the same thing as the Dutch and French had already rejected.

4. There was some "clarification" before the Second vote, there will probably be an attempt at clarification before the Third. The idea that you just repeat the vote until you get the result you want is a very EU concept, though - the same happened with the EU-Canada Treaty where it was essentially bribery and vague promises until the final Parliament got on board.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Someone vandalised Oliver Letwin's wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oliver_Letwin&oldid=889576623

[InsaneApache]

5 eyes union?

Then we'd have to merge this with the Trump thread. :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

And here, let me make one personal remark to the Members of this Parliament. Before the European Council, I said that we should be open to a long extension if the UK wishes to rethink its Brexit strategy, which would of course mean the UK's participation in the European Parliament elections. And then there were voices saying that this would be harmful or inconvenient to some of you. Let me be clear: such thinking is unacceptable. You cannot betray the six million people who signed the petition to revoke Article 50, the one million people who marched for a People's Vote, or the increasing majority of people who want to remain in the European Union. They may feel that they are not sufficiently represented by the UK Parliament, but they must feel that they are represented by you in this chamber. Because they are Europeans.

This is closer to my sentiments than the :daisy: leaders of the two main parties.

[rory_20_uk]

This is closer to my sentiments than the :daisy: leaders of the two main parties.

So... any minority in any state should get representation at the EU if they want it? Or only if the EU wants them to? For a pretence at Democracy might he like to address the c. 17 million that voted to leave? Might they be betrayed if the UK stays? A mere inconvenience of the clinically insane / xenophobes and troglodytes who can be ignored for their own good.

"Betrayal" might be a more accurate term to use when the populace was not asked at all. Apparently that wasn't a problem - even when the vote was either ignored or redone. Only when things don't go the way the EU wants. The term "betrayal" wasn't even used when the UK was taken to war against sovereign states with no UN mandate and demonstrations of over 2 million.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So... any minority in any state should get representation at the EU if they want it? Or only if the EU wants them to? For a pretence at Democracy might he like to address the c. 17 million that voted to leave? Might they be betrayed if the UK stays? A mere inconvenience of the clinically insane / xenophobes and troglodytes who can be ignored for their own good.

"Betrayal" might be a more accurate term to use when the populace was not asked at all. Apparently that wasn't a problem - even when the vote was either ignored or redone. Only when things don't go the way the EU wants. The term "betrayal" wasn't even used when the UK was taken to war against sovereign states with no UN mandate and demonstrations of over 2 million.

~:smoking:

So, are you going to accept responsibility for the consequences of no deal or whatever the UK ends up with? I've asked Brexiteers a number of times, but every time the answer demands rights but accepts no responsibility. What do you think of the promises made by Leave? Do you think Brexit should be based around these promises? Should Brexit be judged on whether or not the NHS budget increases by 350m/week?

[Husar]

So... any minority in any state should get representation at the EU if they want it? Or only if the EU wants them to? For a pretence at Democracy might he like to address the c. 17 million that voted to leave? Might they be betrayed if the UK stays? A mere inconvenience of the clinically insane / xenophobes and troglodytes who can be ignored for their own good.

"Betrayal" might be a more accurate term to use when the populace was not asked at all. Apparently that wasn't a problem - even when the vote was either ignored or redone. Only when things don't go the way the EU wants. The term "betrayal" wasn't even used when the UK was taken to war against sovereign states with no UN mandate and demonstrations of over 2 million.

~:smoking:

I don't see how that relates to him apparently arguing that UK citizens should get to vote for the EU parliament as long as the UK is in the EU via an extension that the UK asked for. As I understand it, he's arguing (to the EU parliament) that not letting the British vote in the upcoming EU election because the UK wants to leave would betray the citizens who don't want to leave and appreciate the extension.

If you're angry about the extension, take that anger to your own government and not the EU.
To me it looks like you're just externalizing your anger over internal issues of the UK unless you can show me that I completely misunderstood the unsourced quote (no, I won't google it myself, it's not my argument).
You didn't blame the EU when it granted the UK government's request for a rebate, did you?

[rory_20_uk]

So, are you going to accept responsibility for the consequences of no deal or whatever the UK ends up with? I've asked Brexiteers a number of times, but every time the answer demands rights but accepts no responsibility. What do you think of the promises made by Leave? Do you think Brexit should be based around these promises? Should Brexit be judged on whether or not the NHS budget increases by 350m/week?

Perhaps you are rather slow. So I'll try again...

We live in a representative democracy, Not my dictatorship. I have not been advocating spending two years on wasting time. The vote was the first time we were allowed to express a view. I had wished for integration to have stopped decades ago.

To your points - again:

I did not believe the promises of Leave any more than I believed Gordon Brown's "end of boom and bust", Cameroon's "compassionate Conservatism" or any other facile phrase spat out by a focus group.
I do not think Brexit should have been based around those promises. I would have rather that we'd never got to "Brexit" and not abandoned our trading partners from the 1970's onwards in a rush to get in with Europe. Yes, then I was the child and this is the future those that voted then ruined for me now.
I do not think that the main priority is to pour money into the NHS, but to sort out what resources are spent on for starters and secondly do some wel overdue integration of social services and the NHS to alleviate the chronic bed blocking.
I didn't vote based on any "promises" made by Leave. I was interested in the Sovereignty of the country. Not freedom of movement. Not freedom of goods. I'm happy for joint standards - just like how the internet works for example.

So - do you hold those who allowed deeper integration with the EU responsible for the current situation? If they had done more we would not be in this mess now.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

We usually order in advance for the Christmas meal with work colleagues and this came up the other day. Usually, we book for this restaurant which is nice and affordable, but we go every year kind of thing. Then there was talk about this new restaurant opening up which promised the everything for nothing sort of thing. We had a vote and it is was pretty even split, 1 vote more for the new place, so the decision was made to explore what kind of options and deal we can get with them. People were mildly optimistic.

Anyway, this restaurant got really bad reviews and they wouldn't offer any special deals or anything. You simply go and pay a lot for it. You know, 1/5 rating, rat droppings on the plate, small portions, overpriced, etc sort of thing. My boss trying to be diplomatic, even though she wanted to regular place, tried to reason with them, but a vocal minority are those trouble makers who are unreasonable, throwing a wobbler as they want to go to the new place.

Obviously people's opinions changed since the initial vote, cannot blame them for initially wanting to try something new that sounded good, but it turns out it is a solid no win, so we discussed having a new vote on the subject just to settle it. Now, these people are being labelled enemies of the workplace, also being called backstabbers as they changed their mind. The whole thing is a real mess, and the deadline for the regular place is running out.

Looks like I am in for a Christxit.

[rory_20_uk]

Wow. That metaphor has shown how wrong I was. How everything I think is in fact merely a fiction. Only by remaining in the EU can we eat, have medicine and remain a functioning society.

Or perhaps it was a facile and trite example that tries to link the future of a country to the choice of a meal.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

You would have thought that the warnings of people starving, denied medicine so that they die, rampant clap, death of the first born and a plague of locusts would have persuaded the racist bigoted, low information and basically thick leave voters the error of their ways. Alas not, as the thick bastards are, well, too thick to understand.

These sorts really shouldn't have the vote.

Still at least we'll have Article 13 to save us from those bastards American media platforms.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmO7BdPcmlU

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pannonian:

The number of political leaders who staunchly accept the responsibility for an unpopular decision or a decision which, good or bad, comes at a high cost to their constituency, is fairly small. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage was anecdotal, since there were too few examples to do anything statistical. ~;) You might argue that Parliament has more of a history of ethical behavior and admission of responsibility than does the US Senate. I would be skeptical.

Rory:

The Tusk quotation isn't about representing minorities, really. It is about taking time to allow England to 'come to her senses' and return to the fold, chastened, repudiating Brexit and thus more or less squelching similar efforts from other nations in the EU. One of those "more in sorrow than in anger" angles.

[Goalum]

We usually order in advance for the Christmas meal with work colleagues and this came up the other day. Usually, we book for this restaurant which is nice and affordable, but we go every year kind of thing. Then there was talk about this new restaurant opening up which promised the everything for nothing sort of thing. We had a vote and it is was pretty even split, 1 vote more for the new place, so the decision was made to explore what kind of options and deal we can get with them. People were mildly optimistic.

Anyway, this restaurant got really bad reviews and they wouldn't offer any special deals or anything. You simply go and pay a lot for it. You know, 1/5 rating, rat droppings on the plate, small portions, overpriced, etc sort of thing. My boss trying to be diplomatic, even though she wanted to regular place, tried to reason with them, but a vocal minority are those trouble makers who are unreasonable, throwing a wobbler as they want to go to the new place.

Obviously people's opinions changed since the initial vote, cannot blame them for initially wanting to try something new that sounded good, but it turns out it is a solid no win, so we discussed having a new vote on the subject just to settle it. Now, these people are being labelled enemies of the workplace, also being called backstabbers as they changed their mind. The whole thing is a real mess, and the deadline for the regular place is running out.

Looks like I am in for a Christxit.

lucky guess: you lot are english? :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Rory:

The Tusk quotation isn't about representing minorities, really. It is about taking time to allow England to 'come to her senses' and return to the fold, chastened, repudiating Brexit and thus more or less squelching similar efforts from other nations in the EU. One of those "more in sorrow than in anger" angles.

Yes, I am not so vainglorious that the EU really cares about the UK beyond the money in and as a lesson to others. It is just more posturing - but again when it is the EU is it somehow wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom whereas Brexiteers are the raving words of the criminally insane.

Making the UK grovel for each small extension until nothing is really done beyond beg for longer to remain in the EU. Not exactly subtle imagery.

~:smoking:

[Goalum]

Making the UK grovel for each small extension until nothing is really done beyond beg for longer to remain in the EU. Not exactly subtle imagery.

According to the brexiteers all you had to do is get out for things to get really better in a flash - so why is your government even asking extensions knowing all too well that it will be made to grovel if it does?

Unlikely that the uk government wants to "be made to grovel" i'd say.. so perhaps it tries to show to the brexit crowd that believed the lies that were said for the referendum, that leaving is actually a very bad idea by trying to make it happen - in that way the conservative party will stop [actually let it on its own to go to a halt] the brexit without losing its political strength among those that voted for exit.

Teresa May was appointed successor by David Cameron and it may well be that what we are witnessing is his plan-b to remedy the situation as it evolved, without the conservative party collapsing electorally ~;)

Leaving is bad for the uk in every respect - and not just economically. Also politically, diplomatically and even culturally.

Your government knows that all too well.


Yes, I am not so vainglorious that the EU really cares about the UK beyond the money in and as a lesson to others.

The eu is a league of nations that have close ties of all sorts and strong reasons to maintain them, not an organisation in its own right. In that sense it does care about the uk way more about the money and a lesson to others, although these factors are in play in the negotiations.

Brussels bureaucrats are just responsible managers and executers - when leaders of strong nations speak they back down if you closely pay notice. The uk was/is the second strongest of these nations - and in terms of diplomatic influence, the first [Germany does not have nuclear weapons [it can develop very quickly, but that's another story] nor a seat in the UN's security council, nor the US cultural and economica ties that the uk has].

The very idea of the eu as a separate entity from the nations that comprise them is a joke and brexiteering propaganda - either connected to the far-right or the far-left.


It is just more posturing - but again when it is the EU is it somehow wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom whereas Brexiteers are the raving words of the criminally insane.

There is content even in posturing - even reason needs to be marketed and even lack of it can be marketed also.

The raving is in the content of what the brexiteers say - as are the wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom of the eu representatives - not in the posturing

[rory_20_uk]

According to the brexiteers all you had to do is get out for things to get really better in a flash - so why is your government even asking extensions knowing all too well that it will be made to grovel if it does?

Unlikely that the uk government wants to "be made to grovel" i'd say.. so perhaps it tries to show to the brexit crowd that believed the lies that were said for the referendum, that leaving is actually a very bad idea by trying to make it happen - in that way the conservative party will stop [actually let it on its own to go to a halt] the brexit without losing its political strength among those that voted for exit.

Teresa May was appointed successor by David Cameron and it may well be that what we are witnessing is his plan-b to remedy the situation as it evolved, without the conservative party collapsing electorally ~;)

Leaving is bad for the uk in every respect - and not just economically. Also politically, diplomatically and even culturally.

Your government knows that all too well.



The eu is a league of nations that have close ties of all sorts and strong reasons to maintain them, not an organisation in its own right. In that sense it does care about the uk way more about the money and a lesson to others, although these factors are in play in the negotiations.

Brussels bureaucrats are just responsible managers and executers - when leaders of strong nations speak they back down if you closely pay notice. The uk was/is the second strongest of these nations - and in terms of diplomatic influence, the first [Germany does not have nuclear weapons [it can develop very quickly, but that's another story] nor a seat in the UN's security council, nor the US cultural and economica ties that the uk has].

The very idea of the eu as a separate entity from the nations that comprise them is a joke and brexiteering propaganda - either connected to the far-right or the far-left.



There is content even in posturing - even reason needs to be marketed and even lack of it can be marketed also.

The raving is in the content of what the brexiteers say - as are the wonderful statements of reasonable wisdom of the eu representatives - not in the posturing

A lot to unpack there.

First off, "Brexeteers" are only united in their wish to leave the EU. Their reasons are varied and can not be simply lumped together. Many think that economically things will get worse at least in the short term. But sometimes principles are worth more than money. Some might have completely based their ideas on the side of a bus - but since we've never trusted politicians before, it seems more to me that they wanted to believe the lie, rather than the lie persuaded them.

Politically and diplomatically? Really? Why? Surely all small countries would be desperate to join bigger blocks. And I personally think the UK is far to quick to meddle abroad in matters that are not our concern. Culturally is even more of a stretch - will the EU suddenly stop bothering to learn English? England was fortunate to peak when they did since the language has spread to all corners of the world. Unfortunate in that what is definitely English culture is pretty limited, since we were flooded with ideas from the colonies and now are proudly "multicultural". This will not change with or without the EU - since those from the EU tend to be those most keen to integrate.

What was the EU might have been a loose collection of states. But unless you've failed to notice the overseas diplomats, the unified currency everyone has to join, oversight of national budgets, the start of an army... what facet of a state are they not quietly creating? Then the veto is ever so slowly eroded. To help make decisions more effective, of course. It is a long way from what it was 25 years ago.

~:smoking:

[Goalum]

A lot to unpack there.

First off, "Brexeteers" are only united in their wish to leave the EU.

Certainly


Their reasons are varied and can not be simply lumped together.

Their resons no, them as a political camp, yes.


Many think that economically things will get worse at least in the short term. But sometimes principles are worth more than money.

What is the principle exactly that is being tarnished?


Some might have completely based their ideas on the side of a bus - but since we've never trusted politicians before, it seems more to me that they wanted to believe the lie, rather than the lie persuaded them.

Absolutely. Yet in terms of result is one and the same, because someone is spreading the lies at the side of a bus.


Politically and diplomatically? Really? Why? Surely all small countries would be desperate to join bigger blocks. And I personally think the UK is far to quick to meddle abroad in matters that are not our concern.

There are none such matters [of "no concern"] especially for the strong nations. They have an interest to participate in coallitions, because exactly they can influence and lead them more than weaker nations and in so doing they will consolidate and preserve and even expand their power. So did all great powers, so they are doing today.


Culturally is even more of a stretch - will the EU suddenly stop bothering to learn English? England was fortunate to peak when they did since the language has spread to all corners of the world. Unfortunate in that what is definitely English culture is pretty limited, since we were flooded with ideas from the colonies and now are proudly "multicultural". This will not change with or without the EU - since those from the EU tend to be those most keen to integrate.

To clarify: i am not a leftist. I am a center right winger. I believe in human rights, free economy, and open society but up to a point. A culture, in order to develop healthily, needs to have a certain inertia in how fast its changing as well as certain core characteristics [for the english people common sense is one such characteristic for example]. That inertia is its traditions, its cultural heritage.

This changes over time - because, well things change and sometimes new elements need to be integrated for a culture to survive and thrive.

New ways of thinking, new approaches, new relations - from history even new peoples can/need to be integrated. English history in particular has many such examples. The roman conquest, the anglo-saxon conquest, the viking invasions, the norman conquest - all these brought new blood, new ways, even new languages, that over time were integrated in what is now recognisably "english".

The key is in slow integration of the new cultural elements. If a culture changes too fast, it loses its compass and social cohesion and if it changes none at all is superseded by the times - plenty of such examples.


What was the EU might have been a loose collection of states. But unless you've failed to notice the overseas diplomats, the unified currency everyone has to join, oversight of national budgets, the start of an army... what facet of a state are they not quietly creating? Then the veto is ever so slowly eroded. To help make decisions more effective, of course. It is a long way from what it was 25 years ago.

Why would you want to veto any of these things?

The currency has made the eu nations ever stronger in a zillion ways - including the uk that didn't join - ask anyone that does bank transactions in your country.

The eu army will give the eu nations' diplomatic will a very strong arm to enforcing it or making it respected - and that will, will be determined more to the will of its strong nations, who will also reap the most benefits from its enforcement/being respected. I don't see the problem, especially for the uk.


oversight of national budgets

This is to keep in check populist governments - far right or far left ones, like we have in my country [greece]. The greek economic crisis was exactly because greek politicians had no one to give account to.

Equally Italy, Spain, Portugal and many of the ex-eastern block countries, have strong traditions of large black market economies [transactions that are not being taxed as they are done "in private"] as well as rampant corruption and nepotism, that do not allow their economies and societies to grow.

In England, political corruption has never been a problem - and i remember that well from when i lived in England. You are very fortunate that you have politicians as accountable as you have over there ~:)

The eu nations have made rules for how a nation functions healthily, its not the interventionist nightmare the brexiteering camp presents it to be.


~:smoking:

Consider quitting Rory, smoking makes you poorer and less healthier - tried and tested for 17 years ~;)

[Montmorency]

Referendums on domestic policy often turn out well for breaking political deadlock on popular ideas. Referendums on foreign policy more clearly cut against the grain of representative government, and so probably should be excluded from the mechanism unless the proposed policy is the abolition of foreign policy (e.g. full political union).



But sometimes principles are worth more than money.

Can't you have some other principles?


What was the EU might have been a loose collection of states. But unless you've failed to notice the overseas diplomats, the unified currency everyone has to join, oversight of national budgets, the start of an army... what facet of a state are they not quietly creating? Then the veto is ever so slowly eroded. To help make decisions more effective, of course. It is a long way from what it was 25 years ago.

That baby in the crib may not be the Herakles you imagine, but if it were I would welcome our new EU overlords. :P

[Pannonian]

I don't see how that relates to him apparently arguing that UK citizens should get to vote for the EU parliament as long as the UK is in the EU via an extension that the UK asked for. As I understand it, he's arguing (to the EU parliament) that not letting the British vote in the upcoming EU election because the UK wants to leave would betray the citizens who don't want to leave and appreciate the extension.

If you're angry about the extension, take that anger to your own government and not the EU.
To me it looks like you're just externalizing your anger over internal issues of the UK unless you can show me that I completely misunderstood the unsourced quote (no, I won't google it myself, it's not my argument).
You didn't blame the EU when it granted the UK government's request for a rebate, did you?

The EU leadership, unlike the UK leadership, and certainly unlike the rank and file Brexiteers, have been consistent in supporting a constitutional solution for the UK, decided by the UK. In return for this, Brexiteers have continued to blame them for everything, for sticking their oar in. Eg. the ECJ, rory's bete noir, supported the UK deciding on whether to stick with article 50 or not. That's confirming the UK's sovereignty, unlike the UK government, who argued that this was out of their control, ie. arguing that the UK did not have sovereignty. In the case of Tusk, he was chiding the EU's member states for feeling fed up with the UK, and supporting the UK's people in making their own decision. Once again, supporting the UK's sovereignty. And rory doesn't like this, once again a Brexiteer criticising the EU for impinging on the UK's sovereignty when it's nothing of the sort. Throughout all this, Brexiteers have always been destructive in nature, opposing everything European whilst offering no constructive answers.

In today's votes, the closest to a majority were Ken Clarke's customs union that PFH is horrified at us "being trapped in", although he's declined my request for an answer as to why he dislikes it, and Margaret Beckett's second referendum. Tusk would support either, as he and the EU leadership would support any UK decision, as long as it had constitutional support. Incidentally, revoking article 50 got more support than May's agreement got in its last outing (defeated by 109 votes, versus around 150 votes for MV2 and 200+ for MV1).

[Pannonian]

Pannonian:

The number of political leaders who staunchly accept the responsibility for an unpopular decision or a decision which, good or bad, comes at a high cost to their constituency, is fairly small. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage was anecdotal, since there were too few examples to do anything statistical. ~;) You might argue that Parliament has more of a history of ethical behavior and admission of responsibility than does the US Senate. I would be skeptical.

Rory:

The Tusk quotation isn't about representing minorities, really. It is about taking time to allow England to 'come to her senses' and return to the fold, chastened, repudiating Brexit and thus more or less squelching similar efforts from other nations in the EU. One of those "more in sorrow than in anger" angles.

On the first paragraph: it's a matter of Leave having a manifesto to be judged on. Remain had a manifesto: the EU as it is at the time of voting. Heck, IA sticks what's happened since, without our voice, as a reason for not remaining. That's how much of a tangible manifesto Remain had. In comparison, Leave has dropped all its promises, with the most well known (350m per week for the NHS) being excused as inadvisable but an aspiration, not a promise. Things that Remain said would happen (manufacturing would leave) has happened. Yet Leave maintains its mandate on the grounds that they won, Remain lost. The closest that Leave has to a manifesto is May's withdrawal agreement, and Parliament has rejected that twice; out of the four biggest government defeats in British history, May's WA suffered two of them. Even revoking article 50 and reversing Brexit without further ado got more support than Leave's manifesto. And since Leave's only concrete manifesto has so little support, what mandate does Leave have? Legally no deal is the eventual result, but every Brexiteer says "I didn't vote for this, not my fault".

On the second, the EU would be happy for the UK to leave on May's deal. It would even accept the UK leaving on no deal: the EU has announced that its preparations for no deal are complete. What the EU wants above all else, as every EU official dealing with May's government has stated, is for the UK to make a decision on something concrete. Which brings us back to the above: Leave had no solid manifesto in its campaign, and has disclaimed all promises made during it. What Brexiteers have to do is settle on one solution and stick with it, and the EU will support that. Hell, it has gone out of its way to facilitate May's WA, the WA that has suffered two of the biggest government defeats in British history. The EU wishes the UK to make a decision; PFH criticises it for being inflexible and bullying the UK. The EU gives the UK time to make a decision: rory criticises it for pushing the UK around. Brexit has always been about blaming the EU. Even when the EU defends the UK's sovereignty and allows it time and freedom to make its own decision, Brexiteers still blame the EU.

[Furunculus]

[duplicate post]

[Furunculus]

In today's votes, the closest to a majority were Ken Clarke's customs union that PFH is horrified at us "being trapped in", although he's declined my request for an answer as to why he dislikes it...

If you're voting for a CU, you're doing because you want friction less trade in goods. but that is only 15-20 percent of the total friction, so what you're really voting for is an alignment against single market goods regs. to deal with the 80-85 percent. This is remarkably close to chequers/WA+PD.

But you have never really said what you find so fundamentally objectionable about those proposals?

-------------------------------

I’ve long had a nagging suspicion that Liam Fox has the unrewarding task of setting up a fiefdom that exists only to scrapped as a bargaining chip in the great brexit unwinding. Customs Unions are dangerous beasts, but they don’t do much damage – sovereignty wise – in and of themself.

That is if we are to consider Customs Unions as separate from Single Markets.

But you can’t consider them separately and the problem comes from the necessity for regulatory alignment behind the barrier, because we’re talking non-tariff barriers here. But if you’re happy to have regulatotory alignment on Goods two things fall out: 1. You don’t have much to offer third parties in the realms of trade agreements, and, 2. You aren’t losing much by going the whole hog and being in an EU Customs Unions… for Goods.

Britain is a Services based economy, and to a much larger degree than most european countries we are a Services exporting country, but Services has never really featured in the EU. Either internally, as a corporeal and fully fledged internal market, or as a feature of external relations via trade agreements. Germany, principally – but one among many – taking a very possessive view of Services regulations, and this has severely stunted any move to make a real Services market. An attempt to create a Services passport died in 2012 with Cameron’s “No, No, No!”.

Back to Liam and his heavy burden in the wake of Salzburg: Yeah, they’not so keen on a common rule book with a cumbersome customs arrangement that permits british FTA’s and complex systems for collecting each others tariffs. Where to go from here? Have a common rule book for Good, and as per Chequers keep Services out of the ambit of the European Union. Then, have a Customs Union with the EU… for Goods. What does this achieve?

It achieves three things:

1. It preserves the sovereignty of Parliament for an enormous swath of the UK Law, where there is less to be gained from being part of the EEA (because a Services market is nascent at best). What sovereinty it gives away to the EU it has already sold the pass on via the Common Rule Book for Goods, and this is largely determined by the likes of UNECE anyway.
2. It allows the UK to make Services based Trade Agreements, and lets not forget there are about a billion new middle class being added every decade. Once they’ve bought their BMW from the Germans, they’re going to want to think about Insurance, Legal Services, Finance, etc. Trade agreements of the like that we’ll never get via the EU!
3. It allows a ‘total package’ for Goods which keeps us in all the EU trade agreements, the Single market, and dedramatises sticky issues like NI. Thus bringing the backstop back to only those things necessary for the All Island Economy and the GFA. Sanitory, Phyto-Sanitory, etc. Oh, and it ditches all that complexity around varying tariff regimes that pleased precisely nobody.

Would the EU prefer the UK to break and go for EFTA/EEA? Sure, why wouldn’t you want to keep a leash on a strategic competitor! Might it be possible to negotiate an exemption from ECJ jurisdiction on key strategic Services industries within the EEA? Like, financial and legal services, which are european industries that the UK absolutely dominates and would be daft to give up (not much love lost for the anglo-saxon model). Well, its possible, but I wouldn’t want to bet on it in the current climate!

So, full alignment in Goods in both regulation and trade, and a rather more limited remit for Liam. Just a thought.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In today's votes, the closest to a majority were Ken Clarke's customs union that PFH is horrified at us "being trapped in", although he's declined my request for an answer as to why he dislikes it, and Margaret Beckett's second referendum. Tusk would support either, as he and the EU leadership would support any UK decision, as long as it had constitutional support. Incidentally, revoking article 50 got more support than May's agreement got in its last outing (defeated by 109 votes, versus around 150 votes for MV2 and 200+ for MV1).

You have not been paying attention, because I have been very clear.

In theory ending up in a Customs union with the EU is not a bad thing, at least in the medium term. However, the Backstop "traps" the UK in a Customs Union if negotiations break down. Given that Macron has indicated that future UK access to EU markets will be contingent on the UK taking the CFP this is not acceptable. If we had negotiated our future trade relationship with the EU alongside our withdrawal this might not have been a problem but because we are now expected to sign a contingent provisional agreement and THEN negotiate a trade deal it is.

If the UK signs up to the Backstop then, when negotiations break down, it will have three options.

1. Except the Backstop as permanent, leaving the UK in a perpetual trade limbo half attached to the EU, half not, with no room to make our own deals.

2. Sell the Irish down the river to free the rest of the UK.

3. Break the agreement, which may be possible in international law, and walk away.

Options 2 and 3 betray someone in Northern Ireland whilst Option 1 would likely leave the UK economy stagnant due to the perpetual uncertainty.

So the problem is not a Customs Union per se, the problem is being tripped up and forced into one being trapped their by a negotiating partner you don't trust.

Clear enough?

[Furunculus]

1. Except the Backstop as permanent, leaving the UK in a perpetual trade limbo half attached to the EU, half not, with no room to make our own deals.


The customs union would not allow the UK to differ from EU trade/tariff policy on goods but it could strike independent deals on services, investor protections and so on, and would have some ability to resist new EU trade deals.

[Pannonian]

I said to a cabinet minister, why is the Prime Minister holding a vote when she's pretty sure she's going to lose? And using very strong language, this cabinet minister said to me, Fuck knows (sic), I'm past caring, it's like the living dead in here.

Newsnight (https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/1111401976204427266?s=19)

[Montmorency]

That is if we are to consider Customs Unions as separate from Single Markets.

But you can’t consider them separately and the problem comes from the necessity for regulatory alignment behind the barrier, because we’re talking non-tariff barriers here. But if you’re happy to have regulatotory alignment on Goods two things fall out: 1. You don’t have much to offer third parties in the realms of trade agreements, and, 2. You aren’t losing much by going the whole hog and being in an EU Customs Unions… for Goods.

Britain is a Services based economy, and to a much larger degree than most european countries we are a Services exporting country, but Services has never really featured in the EU. Either internally, as a corporeal and fully fledged internal market, or as a feature of external relations via trade agreements. Germany, principally – but one among many – taking a very possessive view of Services regulations, and this has severely stunted any move to make a real Services market. An attempt to create a Services passport died in 2012 with Cameron’s “No, No, No!”.

Back to Liam and his heavy burden in the wake of Salzburg: Yeah, they’not so keen on a common rule book with a cumbersome customs arrangement that permits british FTA’s and complex systems for collecting each others tariffs. Where to go from here? Have a common rule book for Good, and as per Chequers keep Services out of the ambit of the European Union. Then, have a Customs Union with the EU… for Goods. What does this achieve?

It achieves three things:

1. It preserves the sovereignty of Parliament for an enormous swath of the UK Law, where there is less to be gained from being part of the EEA (because a Services market is nascent at best). What sovereinty it gives away to the EU it has already sold the pass on via the Common Rule Book for Goods, and this is largely determined by the likes of UNECE anyway.
2. It allows the UK to make Services based Trade Agreements, and lets not forget there are about a billion new middle class being added every decade. Once they’ve bought their BMW from the Germans, they’re going to want to think about Insurance, Legal Services, Finance, etc. Trade agreements of the like that we’ll never get via the EU!
3. It allows a ‘total package’ for Goods which keeps us in all the EU trade agreements, the Single market, and dedramatises sticky issues like NI. Thus bringing the backstop back to only those things necessary for the All Island Economy and the GFA. Sanitory, Phyto-Sanitory, etc. Oh, and it ditches all that complexity around varying tariff regimes that pleased precisely nobody.

Would the EU prefer the UK to break and go for EFTA/EEA? Sure, why wouldn’t you want to keep a leash on a strategic competitor! Might it be possible to negotiate an exemption from ECJ jurisdiction on key strategic Services industries within the EEA? Like, financial and legal services, which are european industries that the UK absolutely dominates and would be daft to give up (not much love lost for the anglo-saxon model). Well, its possible, but I wouldn’t want to bet on it in the current climate!

So, full alignment in Goods in both regulation and trade, and a rather more limited remit for Liam. Just a thought.

Freedom of movement of services (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services_en) is technically one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms.

If the complaint is that actual intermember exchange of goods is more robust than exchange in services - well, why would leaving the single market suddenly change that? IIRC the majority of British exports in services are to the EU. If one is dissatisfied with exports of services to the EU within the single market, why would one entertain that leaving the single market would facilitate exports of services either to the EU or to the rest of the world? Leaving aside that post-industrial economies are overwhelmingly service-oriented and perhaps most of this economic activity is too local to be amenable to inducements to cross-border trade. Britain is too big to organize its economy solely around financial services exports - it's not Cyprus or Malta -and why don't you think the cocoon of the Single Market is what allows London finance to flourish? Isn't it easier for British services to compete in the single market than equally across the world?

Critique (https://www.ft.com/content/16c9fea6-8501-11e8-96dd-fa565ec55929) of Chequers in terms of remaining in market for goods but not market for services.

My impression is still that your ideas about sovereignty and comparative advantage are more ideological and abstract than evidence-based.


So the problem is not a Customs Union per se, the problem is being tripped up and forced into one being trapped their by a negotiating partner you don't trust.

Clear enough?

How about, do what the American executive did over legislative recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital between Clinton and Trump, and delay certification (of Brexit) until the next year, every year.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How about, do what the American executive did over legislative recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital between Clinton and Trump, and delay certification (of Brexit) until the next year, every year.

This option is being seriously mooted, to put it off at least until 2022 (next election).

May is bringing (part) of the deal back tomorrow - something she previously said was impossible. If/when she fails to get the votes a third time that HAS to trigger a no confidence vote. At this point in the crisis at least one major party should start to unravel as MP's default to what their electorate wants vs party loyalty. Interestingly, our FPTP system makes this more likely whereas in a wretched PR system some MP's are always beholden to their Party and will remain loyal.

This is Corbyn's ball to drop. If he fluffs it (and I have no great expectation he won't) we could well end up with all three main parties having no leader come May, given Vince Cable has said he will resign. At that point Parliament will basically have to pick someone to go to Brussels and beg for more time.

Unless, of course, the Queen just dissolves Parliament.

[Pannonian]

Freedom of movement of services (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services_en) is technically one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms.

If the complaint is that actual intermember exchange of goods is more robust than exchange in services - well, why would leaving the single market suddenly change that? IIRC the majority of British exports in services are to the EU. If one is dissatisfied with exports of services to the EU within the single market, why would one entertain that leaving the single market would facilitate exports of services either to the EU or to the rest of the world? Leaving aside that post-industrial economies are overwhelmingly service-oriented and perhaps most of this economic activity is too local to be amenable to inducements to cross-border trade. Britain is too big to organize its economy solely around financial services exports - it's not Cyprus or Malta -and why don't you think the cocoon of the Single Market is what allows London finance to flourish? Isn't it easier for British services to compete in the single market than equally across the world?

Critique (https://www.ft.com/content/16c9fea6-8501-11e8-96dd-fa565ec55929) of Chequers in terms of remaining in market for goods but not market for services.

My impression is still that your ideas about sovereignty and comparative advantage are more ideological and abstract than evidence-based.

How about, do what the American executive did over legislative recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital between Clinton and Trump, and delay certification (of Brexit) until the next year, every year.

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en)

This has to be implemented by 1st January 2020. The leaders of Brexit are desperate to get the UK out and away from this before that date.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Unless, of course, the Queen just dissolves Parliament.

I thought the act that fixed parliament terms basically did away with that power?

[Furunculus]

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en)

This has to be implemented by 1st January 2020. The leaders of Brexit are desperate to get the UK out and away from this before that date.

^ Guilty of spreading fake news. ^

https://twitter.com/PJChapman74/status/1039899242914099201

[InsaneApache]

I thought the act that fixed parliament terms basically did away with that power?

I'm pretty sure that Brenda can still dissolve Parliament whenever she wishes.

...and so democracy dies in the UK after 101 years of universal suffrage.

This will not end well.

[Gilrandir]

This will not end well.

Do you mean this thread? Aren't you guys tired of chewing the same gum for 82 pages?

[InsaneApache]

Very funny.

The message is this. If you vote the 'wrong way' then the politicians will ignore you and carry on as before. I don't know what that is but it isn't democracy.

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

[Pannonian]

Very funny.

The message is this. If you vote the 'wrong way' then the politicians will ignore you and carry on as before. I don't know what that is but it isn't democracy.

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.

Are you disappointed that May hasn't got her deal through on the third attempt? Do you think she might get it through at the fourth time of asking? What was that you said about voting the wrong way? Are Parliament supposed to wave through whatever the PM dictates, even though the PM does not command a majority in this or in the House as a whole? Are there any other issues you'd like the House to wave through without discussing or voting on it?

[Strike For The South]

Then we'd have to merge this with the Trump thread. :laugh4:

I was actually thinking I could shake up with you....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Very funny.

The message is this. If you vote the 'wrong way' then the politicians will ignore you and carry on as before. I don't know what that is but it isn't democracy.

Be careful what you wish for, it may come true.IA:

This has been a factor in representative government wherever and whenever it has been used. Burke even argued it was the duty of the better informed/educated representative to vote in the best interests of a constituency against the will OF that constituency. This is hardly a harbinger of democracy's eradication.

[Pannonian]

IA:

This has been a factor in representative government wherever and whenever it has been used. Burke even argued it was the duty of the better informed/educated representative to vote in the best interests of a constituency against the will OF that constituency. This is hardly a harbinger of democracy's eradication.

In Parliamentary democracy, a government holds a mandate by virtue of the majority they hold in Parliament, allowing them to pass legislation after it is voted on. If the government does not have enough votes to pass legislation, it does not have a mandate to pass that legislation. This mechanic is recognised in the fact that the party holding a majority of MPs is invited to form a government, since they are able to do the above. So I'm not sure what IA is complaining about. All the PM has to do is pass legislation to effect Brexit as defined by her and as IA presumably supports, and that is done.

If he thinks Parliament should pass legislation simply because the PM says this is it, what other things does Parliament need to do without a vote because the PM says it needs to be done? A nice chap in Romford sported a T-shirt the day after the referendum saying, We've won, now kick them out. Does Parliament need to do this as well if the PM requires it? After all, that Essex bloke had as much of a part in voting Leave as IA did. Who's to say that any argument against this is more valid than his? It is Parliament's part to usher through Brexit as its supporters envisaged, according to IA.

[InsaneApache]

No I'm disappointed that MPs are doing everything they can to stop Brexit.

Remember, next time it might be you that gets the finger from the politicians.

[Pannonian]

No I'm disappointed that MPs are doing everything they can to stop Brexit.

Remember, next time it might be you that gets the finger from the politicians.

In related news, the official Leave campaign today accepted that they broke the law as found by the Electoral Commission. In an election electing a candidate, this would result in the result being voided and the election re-held. But because the referendum was supposedly advisory and not subject to rigorous checks, the campaign is merely fined 60-odd k and we are left to reconcile their lies with reality.

BTW, talking about getting the finger from politicians, are we going to see the 350 million per week for the NHS that Leave promised? Unlike May's deal, this was something that Leave actually promised at the time of the campaign. Have you been pressing Brexit-supporting politicians to fulfil this campaign promise of theirs? Farage disowned it on the morning of the result.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/14/97905329_BRISTOL_ENGLAND_-_MAY_14__Conservative_MP_Boris_Johnson_speaks_as_he_visits_Bristol_on_May_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqKjggCdpv XjoraOzAlyzu1MOSRhbr0ZABex7Vh5dC_YU.jpg?imwidth=480

[Furunculus]

In other news, ghe inxeoendent group have rebranded themselves for the coming fight as cuk.

[Montmorency]

No I'm disappointed that MPs are doing everything they can to stop Brexit.

Remember, next time it might be you that gets the finger from the politicians.

Look at it from another perspective: if a non-binding referendum asking "Socialism or Capitalism?" passed in favor of socialism 52-48, the (Corbyn?) government couldn't come within miles of figuring out a way to devise and implement a comprehensive program for social, economic, and political transition by some arbitrary timeline, half the socialists were insisting that the government resolve the matter by the deadline by irrevocably legislating a stark "Capitalism is over, f*** you" that immediately empowers all citizens to directly organize their municipalities and redistribute property as they see fit, and the capitalists were begging for the revocation of Article 50 the Committee of Public Progress, and the socialists were fuming that allowing the public another vote or entertaining a different process would be an "undemocratic" betrayal (a chillingly Orwellian charge) by the "enemies of the people", I would be sympathetic to the capitalists - and I'm a socialist.

I know for sure though that capitalists around the world would take the opportunity to point to the whole affair as exposing the chaos and tyranny that must surely be heralded by socialism. Right, Seamus?



BTW, talking about getting the finger from politicians, are we going to see the 350 million per week for the NHS that Leave promised? Unlike May's deal, this was something that Leave actually promised at the time of the campaign. Have you been pressing Brexit-supporting politicians to fulfil this campaign promise of theirs? Farage disowned it on the morning of the result.


Dude, they just want to cancel their bonds. They already told you multiple times they don't think such indiscretions affect the basic integrity of the process, so you won't gain anything by not changing the record.



EDIT: Furunculus will like this (or maybe he won't?)

1-minute clip (https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1111400616687861762) of Varoufakis on who's responsible for this state of affairs. Key line:


Whether you are a Brexiteer or a Remainer, this is a deal that a nation signs only after having been defeated at war

Straight fire.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1esrEb9p0Wc

[Pannonian]

Look at it from another perspective: if a non-binding referendum asking "Socialism or Capitalism?" passed in favor of socialism 52-48, the (Corbyn?) government couldn't come within miles of figuring out a way to devise and implement a comprehensive program for social, economic, and political transition by some arbitrary timeline, half the socialists were insisting that the government resolve the matter by the deadline by irrevocably legislating a stark "Capitalism is over, f*** you" that immediately empowers all citizens to directly organize their municipalities and redistribute property as they see fit, and the capitalists were begging for the revocation of Article 50 the Committee of Public Progress, and the socialists were fuming that allowing the public another vote or entertaining a different process would be an "undemocratic" betrayal (a chillingly Orwellian charge) by the "enemies of the people", I would be sympathetic to the capitalists - and I'm a socialist.

I know for sure though that capitalists around the world would take the opportunity to point to the whole affair as exposing the chaos and tyranny that must surely be heralded by socialism. Right, Seamus?




Dude, they just want to cancel their bonds. They already told you multiple times they don't think such indiscretions affect the basic integrity of the process, so you won't gain anything by not changing the record.



EDIT: Furunculus will like this (or maybe he won't?)

1-minute clip (https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1111400616687861762) of Varoufakis on who's responsible for this state of affairs. Key line:



Straight fire.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1esrEb9p0Wc

IA was outraged because Parliament won't pass May's deal, and he calls it the end of democracy in the UK. But May's deal wasn't promised by Leave. 350 million per week for the NHS was promised by Leave. Why is the former the obligation of Parliament to pass, but the latter is ignored by Leavers?

[Pannonian]

No I'm disappointed that MPs are doing everything they can to stop Brexit.

Remember, next time it might be you that gets the finger from the politicians.

MPs who voted against May include:

Steve Baker
Bill Cash
Christopher Chope
Mark Francois
John Redwood

[Furunculus]

EDIT: Furunculus will like this (or maybe he won't?)

1-minute clip (https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1111400616687861762) of Varoufakis on who's responsible for this state of affairs. Key line:


i agree with the argument he presents on the illogicality of agreeing to the EU's demand of a two stage negotiating process.
this is precisely why when we said "no deal is better than a bad deal" we should have meant it! and if necessary, have left if they refused to negotiate in tandem.
it would have produced a brexit closer to my own preferences; a market economy model rather than a limited social democracy.

that said, what resulted from this broken process was workable, it gave me a lot of the things i wanted while giving remainers some of what they wanted.
it left britain as a limited social democracy, but that seemed a reasonable compromise given the marginal result. i'm a considerate chap.

if we have another referendum i will be writing dominic cummings a cheque for a grand, and will look forward to the "tell them again!" slogan with enormous enthusiasm.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Point of Order: Both Main parties (Lab, Con) ran on a pro-Brexit platform at the least election and increased their vote share. Parties that ran a second Referendum or pro-EU platform (SNP, Lib Dem) reduced their vote share.

This is a care issue in the current crisis.

[Pannonian]

Point of Order: Both Main parties (Lab, Con) ran on a pro-Brexit platform at the least election and increased their vote share. Parties that ran a second Referendum or pro-EU platform (SNP, Lib Dem) reduced their vote share.

This is a care issue in the current crisis.

Since the 2017 General Election produced such a decisive result for pro-Brexit parties, all the government has to do is pass legislation to enact it. That is how the British constitution works, isn't it?

May has announced another sequel. MV4: A New Beginning.

[Gilrandir]

It is March the 30th and the UK hasn't brexited still.

[Kagemusha]

I think next there will be new parliamentary elections in Britain, because no deal of May´s is never gonna be accepted.

The good thing about this is that then we get to see democracy in action as the theme for the elections will be pretty clear. Maybe it will even break apart Labour and Conservative party and create something new. Im looking forward to this. (With slight amusement i have to admit).

[rory_20_uk]

I think next there will be new parliamentary elections in Britain, because no deal of May´s is never gonna be accepted.

The good thing about this is that then we get to see democracy in action as the theme for the elections will be pretty clear. Maybe it will even break apart Labour and Conservative party and create something new. I'm looking forward to this. (With slight amusement i have to admit).

I would love for a different system to emerge, with a multiplicity of parties.

But for another vote under First Past the Post on this single issue for the next 5 years on everything - unless the "Remainers" are serious and every time a government does something that was not on their manifesto we hold a new vote... or is it just this one occasion?

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

I would love for a different system to emerge, with a multiplicity of parties.

But for another vote under First Past the Post on this single issue for the next 5 years on everything - unless the "Remainers" are serious and every time a government does something that was not on their manifesto we hold a new vote... or is it just this one occasion?

~:smoking:

Brexiiteers are the ones who need to get serious.
They do hold the parliamentary majority. So when the deal is getting shot down by both the Remainers (representing 49% of the population who voted) and Brexiteer European Research Group, you cannot blame the peoples who are against it, blame the people (ERG) supposedly for it.

or you know, just accept there is actually no consensus on what Brexit actually is and have an actually referendum with the people to have a right to define and give a mandate to enact it. Opposed to the advisory non-binding wish-washy one which caused this mess and ever-enduring constitutional crisis in the first place.

Unless the real reason is, you are fearful that people might not actually want Brexit now and vote to remain, opposed to actually voting to confirm they do indeed want Brexit and expect to win.

[Pannonian]

Brexiiteers are the ones who need to get serious.
They do hold the parliamentary majority. So when the deal is getting shot down by both the Remainers (representing 49% of the population who voted) and Brexiteer European Research Group, you cannot blame the peoples who are against it, blame the people (ERG) supposedly for it.

or you know, just accept there is actually no consensus on what Brexit actually is and have an actually referendum with the people to have a right to define and give a mandate to enact it. Opposed to the advisory non-binding wish-washy one which caused this mess and ever-enduring constitutional crisis in the first place.

Unless the real reason is, you are fearful that people might not actually want Brexit now and vote to remain, opposed to actually voting to confirm they do indeed want Brexit and expect to win.

Get these Remainiacs out now!

Steve Baker
Bill Cash
Christopher Chope
Mark Francois
John Redwood

Others who voted against Brexit in earlier rounds.

David Davis
Iain Duncan Smith
Boris Johnson
Daniel Kawczynski
Esther McVey
Dominic Rabb
Jacob Rees Mogg

Get these Remoaners out now!

Edit: There were 118 Tories who voted against Brexit first time round.

[Furunculus]

Freedom of movement of services (https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services_en) is technically one of the Single Market's Four Freedoms.
A somewhat nascent pillar of the single market, but yes.


If the complaint is that actual intermember exchange of goods is more robust than exchange in services - well, why would leaving the single market suddenly change that?
The complaint is that in a direct sense - but it is not something that we can change unilaterally in face face of opposition from the original eu bloc members. The complaint is indirect - as a response to the above - about the latent hostility to a free-wheeling finance industry that shouldn't feel the need to justify its activity against arbstract notions of social justice.

This then leads to the real issue:
From the EEA - is it appropriate for Britain to let a strategic industry be regulated by the EU, when:
1. There exists a latent hostility to the anglo-saxon model of eocnomic regulation
2. Britain is the by far the largest partner in financial services in europe
3. As a consequence of #2 - the EU hasn't got a lot of skin in a game to compel it to be a 'responsible' regulator.
4. As a consequence of #2 - the EU doesn't have a global industry to think strategically about.
5. The nature of global economic growth means the opportunity is elwsewhere, and the EU simply isn't in a position to care about 'elsewhere'


why don't you think the cocoon of the Single Market is what allows London finance to flourish? Isn't it easier for British services to compete in the single market than equally across the world?
Because it was the 'big-bang' of finaical deregulation that caused London to flourish as a global financial centre, not the single market:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)
It is one of only TWO "full-service" hubs in the world due to a variety of inherent advantages:
https://www.pwc.co.uk/who-we-are/regions/northernireland/CityUK-FutureOfFS_060717.pdf


Critique (https://www.ft.com/content/16c9fea6-8501-11e8-96dd-fa565ec55929) of Chequers in terms of remaining in market for goods but not market for services.
I can't read that - but I have seen many valid and useful critiques, not least that services is inextricably tied up with people.
But then I fully expect that were the current deal to go through, over the next two years of negotiation:
1. We'd trade preferential access for labour for access for services, and;
2. We'd do it with an enhanced equivalence regime where we remain our own regulator, because:
3. With 9% unemployment, the EZ already verging on a technical recession, the next global down-turn coming - the EU needs London's money.


My impression is still that your ideas about sovereignty and comparative advantage are more ideological and abstract than evidence-based.

My impression is that sometimes you like to fling out academic sounding verbiage in the hope that sheer quantity alone will disguise the fact that on occasion you have no substantial rebuttal to offer. Is that unfair?

[Beskar]

After three no's, there is a chance that Theresa May's showing is going to get a fourth showing as an option... ... ... seriously... ...

But 2nd referendum which is binding and allowing the British people to choose their Brexit is apparently a terrible thing. Brexiteer logic. :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

After three no's, there is a chance that Theresa May's showing is going to get a fourth showing as an option... ... ... seriously... ...

But 2nd referendum which is binding and allowing the British people to choose their Brexit is apparently a terrible thing. Brexiteer logic. :laugh4:

The tyrannous EU forces its member states to vote and vote again until they get the right result. Parliament is betraying the British people by failing to pass the government's Bill, even after three goes. MPs like John Redwood and Bill Cash, and Boris Johnson, David Davis and Jacob Rees Mogg before them, keep doing all they can to stop Brexit. It's all the EU's fault.

[Montmorency]

My impression is that sometimes you like to fling out academic sounding verbiage in the hope that sheer quantity alone will disguise the fact that on occasion you have no substantial rebuttal to offer. Is that unfair?

I don't use more academic language than you do; my diction is pretty much vernacular. I only post a lot relative to the average user here. I don't feel like you've rebutted my points, though I'll grant that you make an effort to be substantive. You have a particular premise in favoring a "market economy", but I've never seen you show why the existence of finance as a major sector of the British economy is self-justifying, how the continuation of a £100 billion sector is the lynchpin for sustaining British life and therefore a lynchpin of Brexit strategy, or even how the fact of European integration is either a mortal threat to the British economy or really a moral threat to your value of sovereignty (or why your particular construction of sovereignty makes sense in the first place). You've had a generation within the EU Single Market; can you show that Single Market membership is not relevant to the growth of this industry? Why do you think there is growth opportunity outside the EU for this industry as opposed to constraint outside Europe alongside the prospect of erosion of European market share? (Deutsche Bank (https://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/RPS_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000469527/Brexit_impact_on_investment_banking_in_Europe.pdf) at least thinks Single Market access is exactly one of the advantages that has been enticing to the foreign banks that scaffold British investment banking, the dominant subset of British banking and financial services.)

At risk of getting ahead of myself, I'm interested in both if you're plausible and if you're internally consistent.

Quick question: have you ever mocked Corbyn for musing on British autarky?

EDIT:
I can't read that - but I have seen many valid and useful critiques, not least that services is inextricably tied up with people.

Accessible through Google search, "Why is Britain leaving the single market for services?". Also try Incognito/Private browsing. 1K words.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The tyrannous EU forces its member states to vote and vote again until they get the right result. Parliament is betraying the British people by failing to pass the government's Bill, even after three goes. MPs like John Redwood and Bill Cash, and Boris Johnson, David Davis and Jacob Rees Mogg before them, keep doing all they can to stop Brexit. It's all the EU's fault.

Is it tragedy, or farce that all of this is true?

We're heading into round two of the votes now:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/01/brexit-what-are-the-indicative-votes-mps-will-vote-on

Option A is a non-starter and Option B has already been rejected. One hopes if they're soundly rejected again that they, along with May's deal can be put to bead - with a stake through the heart.

[Beskar]

So Labour has whipped in favour of commons 2.0, aka Norway-Plus, aka EFTA.
At this moment of writing, it is coming out with the Common Market 2.0 motion winning by 307 to 253

Does that sit well with those who voted leave if this gets the majority?
[As a note, Norway-Plus was shouted a lot as a possible default position by the leave camp during the referendum.]

[Furunculus]

Ill take it as an improvement, but it remains for the proponents to explain why it is acceptable for:
1. the eu to regulate the city of london (financial and professional services)
2. how that is actionable given it requires efta allowing a member in a customs union

mays deal is better, if:
a) you believe that flanking policies ought to be the competence of parliament
b) you want service related trade deals

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I know that there was no official vote of "no confidence," but when a government-sponsored measure on a major piece of legislation is voted down three times, isn't there a bit of a tradition that the PM resigns and/or calls for elections? As a student of representative democracy, I would appreciate local insight on this.

Beskar All along, I think the bulk of the leave crowd wanted something along the lines of Norway Plus. My read is that 90%+ of the UK was happy with a combination of the EEC and the Good Friday Accords. It was the further diminution of sovereignty thereafter, notably the Lisbon deal and the refugee crisis engendered by Assad's excesses, that created a notable groundswell against the EU. Obviously, the 'nativists' in the UK took up that latter issue (likely to bigoted excess) as our own nativists here in the USA have taken up 'The Wall' as some kind of mantra (shamefully, with bigoted excess led by our President). The bulk of the opposition wasn't quite that strident though, at least from my read of things from this side of the pond.

[Pannonian]

I know that there was no official vote of "no confidence," but when a government-sponsored measure on a major piece of legislation is voted down three times, isn't there a bit of a tradition that the PM resigns and/or calls for elections? As a student of representative democracy, I would appreciate local insight on this.

Beskar All along, I think the bulk of the leave crowd wanted something along the lines of Norway Plus. My read is that 90%+ of the UK was happy with a combination of the EEC and the Good Friday Accords. It was the further diminution of sovereignty thereafter, notably the Lisbon deal and the refugee crisis engendered by Assad's excesses, that created a notable groundswell against the EU. Obviously, the 'nativists' in the UK took up that latter issue (likely to bigoted excess) as our own nativists here in the USA have taken up 'The Wall' as some kind of mantra (shamefully, with bigoted excess led by our President). The bulk of the opposition wasn't quite that strident though, at least from my read of things from this side of the pond.

May's government has ignored all previous customs and traditions. Before the three failed votes, May had postponed the promised "meaningful vote", which was originally set for pre-Christmas break. When it eventually happened in mid-January, it was defeated by the biggest marginal in recorded history, which alone would normally cause previous British governments to call for a vote of confidence in itself, or even to call a General Election to clear the situation (as has happened numerous times in the past when it's clear the main manifesto promise cannot be kept). Prior to that, the government had to be taken to court to allow Parliament a say at all; May had ruled that Brexit was to be a matter determined and decided by her, and the court disagreed. Alongside that, the European Court of Justice, that body Brexiteers demonise as encroaching on British sovereignty, overruled the UK government's assertion that article 50, once invoked, cannot be revoked; the ECJ ruled that British sovereignty retains control of the process until it is ended. May now deems the process to be unsatisfactory, and has ordered a Secession of the Nobs (she's ordered the cabinet to abstain).

Brexit is all about the good of the Tory party, not the good of the country. Even the original referendum was to solve the schisms in the Tory party that have existed for the past 30 years, that had accounted for Thatcher and Major previously.

[Pannonian]

People from outside the UK may not be familiar with the individuals in the Brexit story, so here is a picture of Jacob Rees Mogg, the head of the European Research Group, the euphemistically named anti-EU group that is directing Brexit policy in the British government. It is a screencap from the most recent episode of Newsnight, a political discussion programme on the BBC.

https://i.postimg.cc/YCp3NYjJ/Ashampoo-Snap-2019-04-01-14h25m18s-001.jpg

[Goalum]

People from outside the UK may not be familiar with the individuals in the Brexit story, so here is a picture of Jacob Rees Mogg, the head of the European Research Group, the euphemistically named anti-EU group that is directing Brexit policy in the British government. It is a screencap from the most recent episode of Newsnight, a political discussion programme on the BBC.

https://i.postimg.cc/YCp3NYjJ/Ashampoo-Snap-2019-04-01-14h25m18s-001.jpg

A picture's worth a 1000 words :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Brexiiteers are the ones who need to get serious.
They do hold the parliamentary majority. So when the deal is getting shot down by both the Remainers (representing 49% of the population who voted) and Brexiteer European Research Group, you cannot blame the peoples who are against it, blame the people (ERG) supposedly for it.

or you know, just accept there is actually no consensus on what Brexit actually is and have an actually referendum with the people to have a right to define and give a mandate to enact it. Opposed to the advisory non-binding wish-washy one which caused this mess and ever-enduring constitutional crisis in the first place.

Unless the real reason is, you are fearful that people might not actually want Brexit now and vote to remain, opposed to actually voting to confirm they do indeed want Brexit and expect to win.

I would have some grudging respect if right at the start the MPs had said "this was a non-binding vote. Thanks for your say, but we're overruling it as is our prerogative." But they didn't. Back then it was all about the "will of the people". Well, sort of.

Since the 1970's when the last plebiscite was undertaken on the as now is EU, how many times has what was voted on substantially changed? And yet there have been no votes.

So to point out the obvious, again it is only the requirement for new elections when the answer is against the EU's interests. Otherwise I imagine it is all a-ok since the politicians agreed it and they are our representatives... even though in many cases this wasn't in the manifesto. Mere details, right?

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ill take it as an improvement, but it remains for the proponents to explain why it is acceptable for:
1. the eu to regulate the city of london (financial and professional services)
2. how that is actionable given it requires efta allowing a member in a customs union

mays deal is better, if:
a) you believe that flanking policies ought to be the competence of parliament
b) you want service related trade deals

The Leave vote was sold on the premise that Leaving would not incur substantial economic disruption. The majority of those who voted Leave did so on the principle that they wanted to leave the EU. Nobody was asked about leaving the EEA, although some clearly also voted to leave the trading Bloc.

at the Election the Tories DID put forward a vision of Brexit and Labour but not, but:

A) Both parties committed to Brexit
B) The current Labour Leader is a man many suspect of being a closet Communist/Terrorist Supporter/Anti-Semite/wanting to overthrow the Monarchy/Break up the UK/All/Some of the above.

So, really, the fact that May got the best Result since Thatcher is not that surprising, and it's not really a mandate for Brexit.

[Pannonian]

I would have some grudging respect if right at the start the MPs had said "this was a non-binding vote. Thanks for your say, but we're overruling it as is our prerogative." But they didn't. Back then it was all about the "will of the people". Well, sort of.


Why don't you directly cite Corbyn on the morning of the result?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkmBdQ-t8cg

I despise the man as much as any of the ERGers.

[Goalum]

I despise the man as much as any of the ERGers.

Careful now how you speak about comrade Jeremy - the breeze's a bit chilly in Irkutsk this time of the year..:yes:

[Beskar]

The Independent Group(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want to remain.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like no-deal Brexit. They should have gone for Norway-Plus.

[Furunculus]

The Independent Group(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want to remain.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like no-deal Brexit. They should have gone for Norway-Plus.

The ERG(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want a harder brexit.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like a softer Brexit. They should have gone for Theresa's deal.

[Furunculus]

The Leave vote was sold on the premise that Leaving would not incur substantial economic disruption. The majority of those who voted Leave did so on the principle that they wanted to leave the EU. Nobody was asked about leaving the EEA, although some clearly also voted to leave the trading Bloc.

at the Election the Tories DID put forward a vision of Brexit and Labour but not, but:

A) Both parties committed to Brexit
B) The current Labour Leader is a man many suspect of being a closet Communist/Terrorist Supporter/Anti-Semite/wanting to overthrow the Monarchy/Break up the UK/All/Some of the above.
So, really, the fact that May got the best Result since Thatcher is not that surprising, and it's not really a mandate for Brexit.

lots of people insisted it would mean leaving the EEA, and lots of others said they'd be happy with eea.

but i'm not sure how that follows on from what i said, re: questions about financial services regulation and how eea+cu is actionable?

[Beskar]

The ERG(tm) voted against all of the proposals because they want a harder brexit.
A bit of a stupid move, considering the horse has bolted on that one and it is looking like a softer Brexit. They should have gone for Theresa's deal.

Looks like we agree on both counts.

Though arguably, no deal Brexit seems to be the default if nothing passes still.

[Pannonian]

Looks like we agree on both counts.

Though arguably, no deal Brexit seems to be the default if nothing passes still.

Video explaining the consequences of no deal. Probably explains the news article it's tied to.

Government orders hospitals not to reveal Brexit impact assessments to protect 'commercial interests' (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nhs-hospitals-brexit-impact-eu-staff-numbers-trust-services-matt-hancock-a8834061.html)

Fox's department does have a workable solution for the customs problem listed in the video: no customs checks on imports. No tailbacks on incomings if there are no checks. The price is it will severely damage or even collapse the agricultural and probably other industries that rely on tariffs to render them viable. But Patrick Minford, Furunculus' favourite economist who's come up with the economic model that F even now favours as Britain's future, reckons that's a worthwhile price to pay. Move UK to a services (read finances) model without an agricultural or manufacturing industry weighing it down. So the video isn't entirely accurate. It is possible to solve some of the problems of no deal. You just have to sacrifice some sectors of the UK economy. And I suspect, some of the constituent nations of the UK itself.

[Furunculus]

...But Patrick Minford, Furunculus' favourite economist who's come up with the economic model that F even now favours as Britain's future, reckons that's a worthwhile price to pay...

I love how you personalise this at every opportunity.
It is such an inspiring method of debating ideas; never mind the idea itself, just vilify the proponent.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053785833&viewfull=1#post2053785833




"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!

Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)

That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.

I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.


Returning to this time after time like a dog to its own vomit, is forcing me to question your grasp on reality.

[InsaneApache]

That well known fascist Corbyn has been given the keys to Brexit....


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7NlFWh7Sz8

[Pannonian]

For those who voted Leave. If there were a choice between no deal and revoke, which would you choose?