World Politics - EXIT NEGOTIATIONS [Archive] - Page 14

View Full Version : World Politics - EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15

edyzmedieval

10-02-2019, 01:04

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 01:07

The impression I get is that pretty much all of the member states are fed up with the process, which makes the EU itself's seemingly endless patience for the remainer's delaying tactics all the more baffling.

Not to mention the aggravating antics of a certain brexit coordinator.

There are some sections of the EU, notably Germany, that are still Anglophilic, and recognise the existence of a significant proportion of people who want to remain in the EU. Just because you enjoy the idiocy of the Brexit leaders doesn't mean they represent all of us.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-02-2019, 02:21

The whole #JoSwinsonIsATory just adds fuel to the fire to the dislike I have of Corbyn's Momentum sponsored cult of personality.

I mean...
https://i.imgur.com/aWpx2Sv.jpg

Could easily be flipped to:
"Stop No Deal Brexit", "Let No Deal Happen Because We Refuse to let anyone but Corbyn be Prime Minister"

I agree.

Which simultaneously pleases and horrifies me.

Greyblades

10-02-2019, 02:43

The equation is simple - they're fed up and want the UK gone, but if possible to stop Brexit, they will.

Why? Because the economic impact will be immense for every single EU country and the political capital lost on this will be massive as well. Hence why EU is more than willing to hope till the end for no Brexit. They could have hashed a deal, minimized the economic impact and gotten the british out of thier hair (as I understand it the ever-closer-union guys never liked our meddling) while retaining good relations a year ago. Hell they could have done it 3 years ago if they were so inclined, instead they've all but ensured that this will be a rocky exit.

And thanks to the open endorsement of the remainer side by fools like verhofstadt, I dare say they have earned the EU the emnity of over half our country, for playing enabler to our more bastard politicians as they enacted the most painful self destruction of a political paradigm we've seen in 150 years.

Its so damn pointless.

Edit: for the record "over half or country" is hyperbole, I dont need to be told that isnt going to be true.

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 03:31

They could have hashed a deal, minimized the economic impact and gotten the british out of thier hair (as I understand it the ever-closer-union guys never liked our meddling) while retaining good relations a year ago. Hell they could have done it 3 years ago if they were so inclined, instead they've all but ensured that this will be a rocky exit.

And thanks to the open endorsement of the remainer side by fools like verhofstadt, I dare say they have earned the EU the emnity of over half our country, for playing enabler to our more bastard politicians as they enacted the most painful self destruction of a political paradigm we've seen in 150 years.

Its so damn pointless.

Edit: for the record "over half or country" is hyperbole, I dont need to be told that isnt going to be true.

It's simple. All Leave needs to do to get the support even of Remainers like myself is to set out plans for keeping their promises. For instance, how do they propose to increase the NHS budget by 350 million per week. That particular promise doesn't need cooperation from outside parties like their other promises, like the easiest and bestest trade deals in the world with countries gagging to sign them.

BTW, one of the principle reasons for Brexit, free movement of labour, is part of the Single Market. Which was a British idea, driven by Britain. Another, the expansion into eastern Europe, was also a British idea, driven by Britain. Two of the biggest arguments used by Leavers were British ideas.

InsaneApache

10-02-2019, 06:26

Do you think it is justified then, to judge by your question?

No death treats are unacceptable. A public beating is more like it. :laugh4:

If they have colluded at least malfeasance in public office should be put to them.

EDIT
IA is implying that said death threats are justified

Don't put words in my mouth.

InsaneApache

10-02-2019, 06:40

It's simple. All Leave needs to do to get the support even of Remainers like myself is to set out plans for keeping their promises. For instance, how do they propose to increase the NHS budget by 350 million per week. That particular promise doesn't need cooperation from outside parties like their other promises, like the easiest and bestest trade deals in the world with countries gagging to sign them.

BTW, one of the principle reasons for Brexit, free movement of labour, is part of the Single Market. Which was a British idea, driven by Britain. Another, the expansion into eastern Europe, was also a British idea, driven by Britain. Two of the biggest arguments used by Leavers were British ideas.

You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with money. It's about voting out people who make our laws. It says a lot about remoaners that they bang on about money all the time. It shows their true character.

CrossLOPER

10-02-2019, 16:28

You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with money. It's about voting out people who make our laws. It says a lot about remoaners that they bang on about money all the time. It shows their true character.

Yeah, all of those remoaners who are complaining on and on about "decreased employment prospects" or "food prices increasing". Little things like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47401160

Who's the traitor, IA? Who's is making their country a worse place to live it? Who's really pulling the strings?

Go on.

Make up a conspiracy theory so i can laugh at it.

rory_20_uk

10-02-2019, 16:40

Yeah, all of those remoaners who are complaining on and on about "decreased employment prospects" or "food prices increasing". Little things like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_effects_of_Brexit
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-47401160

Who's the traitor, IA? Who's is making their country a worse place to live it? Who's really pulling the strings?

Go on.

Make up a conspiracy theory so i can laugh at it.

Ah. So not selling out is being a traitor?

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-02-2019, 16:45

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 17:16

No death treats are unacceptable. A public beating is more like it. :laugh4:

If they have colluded at least malfeasance in public office should be put to them.

EDIT

Don't put words in my mouth.

I can think of at least two Leavers who have called on the EU to intervene in this affair. Would you want to charge them with malfeasance in public office too?

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 17:21

You still don't get it. It has nothing to do with money. It's about voting out people who make our laws. It says a lot about remoaners that they bang on about money all the time. It shows their true character.

And you don't get it. I'm holding the winners to the promises they made. You won. So you keep your promises. How hard is it to understand?

rory_20_uk

10-02-2019, 18:22

And you don't get it. I'm holding the winners to the promises they made. You won. So you keep your promises. How hard is it to understand?

Exactly when did I or IA make those claims? Or are you saying that no one would have voted leave unless these claims had been made? Regardless of how many times you are told this?

~:smoking:

Furunculus

10-02-2019, 18:38

Nor I.

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 18:41

Exactly when did I or IA make those claims? Or are you saying that no one would have voted leave unless these claims had been made? Regardless of how many times you are told this?

~:smoking:

Does it count for anything that the bloke making these promises currently leads the UK government?

Greyblades

10-02-2019, 19:35

rory_20_uk

10-02-2019, 19:51

Does it count for anything that the bloke making these promises currently leads the UK government?

Even though he was not the head at the time of the Referendum?

~:smoking:

InsaneApache

10-02-2019, 20:01

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 20:28

Even though he was not the head at the time of the Referendum?

~:smoking:

How is that relevant? If he was one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, which he was, then shouldn't he be required to keep his promises once he's in a position to do so, which he is? Are you going to argue that Johnson becoming PM has nothing to do with Brexit?

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 20:32

I dont remember much in the way of promises from leave during the referendum, I remember a lot of predictions of outcomes, prospects of what would be made possible and proposals of what we should do after though.

"We'll be free to make trade deals as we wish, lets get back to dealing wigh the anglosphere and the commonwealth"

"We'll be free to choose how many people and who are allowed to immigrate, lets reducw it to a sane amount and favour our cousins in the former colonies"

And yes: "We'll have this much money each year we no longer send to the EU, lets put it in the NHS"

The only people I saw to mistake proposals for promises were remainers, every brexiteer I knew understood that what was done with the new situation this vote would bring would hinge on elections not this referenda.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/polopoly_fs/1.6191793.1564581993!/image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/image.jpg

Which is why I am so determined to deliver now on the promises of that 2016 referendum campaign: not just to honour the will of the people, but to increase the cash available for this amazing national institution

Go on. Show us your plans.

rory_20_uk

10-02-2019, 20:42

How is that relevant? If he was one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, which he was, then shouldn't he be required to keep his promises once he's in a position to do so, which he is? Are you going to argue that Johnson becoming PM has nothing to do with Brexit?

My view, and the view of many others, was not determined by who was in the Leave campaign. All I expect of the Government is to leave. You are trying to conflate the two issues.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 21:00

My view, and the view of many others, was not determined by who was in the Leave campaign. All I expect of the Government is to leave. You are trying to conflate the two issues.

~:smoking:

Exactly who should be responsible for the reality of leaving the EU then? Or is it some kind of existential fuzzy logic, where pinning down responsibility is missing the point because we should just wibble umbrella marshmallows?

Apparently holding one of the leaders of Leave to his promises now that he is in power is unreasonable. Despite him reiterating said promise when he was PM.

rory_20_uk

10-02-2019, 21:12

Exactly who should be responsible for the reality of leaving the EU then? Or is it some kind of existential fuzzy logic, where pinning down responsibility is missing the point because we should just wibble umbrella marshmallows?

Apparently holding one of the leaders of Leave to his promises now that he is in power is unreasonable. Despite him reiterating said promise when he was PM.

If that is the comfy blanket that makes you better then so be it. But for many - if not most - who actually voted to leave they wanted to leave and did not fantasise that there would be vast amount of money flowing in.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 21:30

If that is the comfy blanket that makes you better then so be it. But for many - if not most - who actually voted to leave they wanted to leave and did not fantasise that there would be vast amount of money flowing in.

~:smoking:

Half of UK still believes £350m message plastered on side of Vote Leave's bus (as of October 2018) (https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/kings-college-research-finds-leave-voters-still-believe-lie-about-nhs-1-5754245)

A new study has found that a majority of voters (42%) believed the “we send the EU £350m a week - let’s fund our NHS instead” message to still be true. Just 36% believed it to be false, while 22% were unsure.

...

Polling - carried out by Ipsos MORI - found that Conservative voters and pro-Brexit voters were the most susceptible to the £350m line. It found that 54% of Tory voters and 61% of Leave voters believed the claim compared with 33% of Labour voters and 22% of Lib Dem voters - and 23% of Remain voters.

Vote Leave’s Dominic Cummings said after the Brexit vote he believed that Leave would not have won the EU referendum without the NHS claims.

He said: “It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic”.

Montmorency

10-02-2019, 21:55

Half of UK still believes £350m message plastered on side of Vote Leave's bus (as of October 2018) (https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/kings-college-research-finds-leave-voters-still-believe-lie-about-nhs-1-5754245)

While I remain astonished at the comfort level of - certain groups - at being constantly lied to, 42% is neither half nor a majority. Watch out for malicious framing.

Or, actually, fuck it, let's go for a maximalist socialist agenda, gratuitously deceive the public about its contents and implementation, and shamelessly declare lies to be truth and vice versa when we're proven wrong. What can go awry?

Pannonian

10-02-2019, 22:06

While I remain astonished at the comfort level of - certain groups - at being constantly lied to, 42% is neither half nor a majority. Watch out for malicious framing.

Or, actually, fuck it, let's go for a maximalist socialist agenda, gratuitously deceive the public about its contents and implementation, and shamelessly declare lies to be truth and vice versa when we're proven wrong. What can go awry?

When the margin was 52-48, 42% still believing a lie, 2 years on, is significant. Especially when the director of the Leave campaign reckons it was the most effective message in the campaign, and one which the Leave campaign would not have won without.

Incidentally, for those unfamiliar with the details of Britain's current affairs, Boris Johnson is our current PM, while Dominic Cummings is his chief of staff, and Brexit is their stated raison d'etre.

Furunculus

10-02-2019, 22:08

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49909309

Government proposes keeping Northern Ireland basically within the EU Single Market etc. for four years with an option to review every four years - descied by the NI Assembly and not Westminster.

So, basically, the people of Northern Ireland or their elected representatives get to decide.

Now, watch the EU shout it down - even after one tiny Belgian region held up the EU-Canada trade deal.

noble attempt to actually talk about the issue du jour. futile possibly, but noble.

seems like a pretty good basis to negotiate from:
NI free from flanking policies and services (like GB), which is good.
GB free from goods regs, which i'm not bothered about.
GB free from CU - which i'm only bothered about to escape common commercial policy competence (not goods tarifs per-se).
NI free from CU - which feels a bit pointless given that they'll be in dynamic alignment with eu goods regs.
GB free from the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ (which is great)
NI free... possibily from direct jurisidiction of the ECJ (but great that it is not locked forever as per backstop).

kinda feels like the NI customs unions position is there to be traded away (even if only tarifs - leaving ukgbni services deals)
also feels like the default to diverge is there to be traded away into a default to remain in eu goods regime (which i can live with - their choice).

Furunculus

10-02-2019, 22:10

Or, actually, fuck it, let's go for a maximalist socialist agenda, gratuitously deceive the public about its contents and implementation, and shamelessly declare lies to be truth and vice versa when we're proven wrong. What can go awry?

just the usual mountain of skulls. :)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-02-2019, 23:25

noble attempt to actually talk about the issue du jour. futile possibly, but noble.

seems like a pretty good basis to negotiate from:
NI free from flanking policies and services (like GB), which is good.
GB free from goods regs, which i'm not bothered about.
GB free from CU - which i'm only bothered about to escape common commercial policy competence (not goods tarifs per-se).
NI free from CU - which feels a bit pointless given that they'll be in dynamic alignment with eu goods regs.
GB free from the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ (which is great)
NI free... possibily from direct jurisidiction of the ECJ (but great that it is not locked forever as per backstop).

kinda feels like the NI customs unions position is there to be traded away (even if only tarifs - leaving ukgbni services deals)
also feels like the default to diverge is there to be traded away into a default to remain in eu goods regime (which i can live with - their choice).

I concur with your analysis, it seems to me this position is primed to be moved so that NI ends up in a Customs Union unless or until the NI Assembly votes otherwise. At that point the UK's position is the same as the Backstop, except that the NI Assembly votes on it every four years.

I think I suggested basically this a year ago - execpt it was Westminster voting every five years - although that assumed an all-UK alignment.

I doubt that will be allowed though - despite it being a good compromise position.

CrossLOPER

10-03-2019, 01:53

Ah. So not selling out is being a traitor?

~:smoking:

Sounds like your boy Boris is the one selling out to those Forex neckbeards.

Again, it would be interesting to see what would happen to the UK if Farage and friends got it their way. The problem is that real people are going to be affected in a negative way.

Go on. Show us your plans.

I asked for this too, but got a laughing smiley.

It's kind of the same mindset when you had those tiki nazis running around a couple of years back, where everyone shared their views, but didn't see themselves as nazis. They didn't tell them to wave around nazi flags. They didn't tell them to run over someone with a car.

They didn't tell anyone to shoot remain politicians.

They aren't doing anything, but by golly they support the results, of which there aren't any because the opposite side is keeping those things from them.

Pannonian

10-03-2019, 03:15

I concur with your analysis, it seems to me this position is primed to be moved so that NI ends up in a Customs Union unless or until the NI Assembly votes otherwise. At that point the UK's position is the same as the Backstop, except that the NI Assembly votes on it every four years.

I think I suggested basically this a year ago - execpt it was Westminster voting every five years - although that assumed an all-UK alignment.

I doubt that will be allowed though - despite it being a good compromise position.

The UK’s chief Brexit negotiator has acknowledged that there could be a risk of smuggling across the border in Northern Ireland under proposals put forward by Boris Johnson on Wednesday.

David Frost was asked about the issue at a meeting with European officials in Brussels where Britain’s proposals were presented, according to two officials with knowledge of the discussions that took place.

“He replied that he recognised that the system only worked for those who wanted to comply,” one of the sources said. Frost went on to argue that the smuggling of illicit goods was about criminality, intelligence sharing and law enforcement, the source added.

The UK’s Chief Brexit Negotiator Has Admitted Boris Johnson’s Brexit Plan Could Have A Problem: Smuggling Across The Irish Border (https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-uks-chief-brexit-negotiator-has-acknowledged-that?origin=btm-fd)

Another unicorn solution, intended to be rejected so that the EU can be blamed by people like yourself.

The Taoiseach said the proposals do not fully meet the agreed objectives of the backstop. (https://merrionstreet.ie/MerrionStreet/en/News-Room/News/Statement_by_An_Taoiseach_following_a_call_with_the_UK_Prime_Minister.html)

Pannonian

10-03-2019, 03:23

Remember this?

Do you mean the ones that are colluding with foreign powers to stop Brexit?

It turns out to be another lie from Cummings.

Addressing the foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, who was standing in for Boris Johnson while the prime minister was delivering his keynote speech at the Conservative party conference in Manchester, Grieve asked: “How is it that the government is allowing special advisers at No 10 Downing Street, speaking on behalf of the government, to tell outright lies?

“He should be familiar that on Saturday such a special adviser who I believe is Mr Dominic Cummings told the Mail on Sunday that a number of honourable members were in receipt of foreign funding in order to draft what is known as the Benn act, which is totally untrue.

“He went on to say that this was going to be the subject of a government investigation – something which is also completely untrue because mercifully this country is not yet run as a police state by Mr Cummings.”

The newspaper’s report claimed No 10 had launched a major investigation into alleged links between foreign governments and MPs behind what Johnson has controversially described as the “surrender act”.

Johnson’s chief of staff lied to media about drafting of Benn act, Grieve says at PMQs (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/oct/02/dominic-cummings-accused-of-lying-to-undermine-mps-boris-johnson-benn-act-pmqs)

Not that it matters to Brexiteers. They've got their lie into the media, and that's all that matters to them. Just like the NHS lie. Just like all their other lies.

InsaneApache

10-03-2019, 14:27

It turns out to be another lie from Cummings.

Prove it.

CrossLOPER

10-03-2019, 18:07

Prove it.

You are actually a banana with arms.

Prove that you are not.

Beskar

10-03-2019, 19:26

I think I suggested basically this a year ago - execpt it was Westminster voting every five years - although that assumed an all-UK alignment.

I think I suggested Ireland only near the beginning when it was first brought up as potentially being an issue with the whole "put the border at the coast" solution before it became a thing in the media as a stop-gap/short-term measure.

This was opposed heavily by the DUP which is why the whole 'All UK alignment' came into play, etc.

Pannonian

10-03-2019, 19:42

The Northern Ireland police have said that they don't want any part of keeping the border. If the UK government wants to define the NI-RoI border as they propose, they'll have to raise another force to keep it, as it is outside the remit of the existing force, and there's no way in hell they're going to be dragged into it.

Furunculus

10-03-2019, 20:36

i think you are manufacturing a problem where there is none.

Pannonian

10-03-2019, 20:45

i think you are manufacturing a problem where there is none.

The Chief Constable Simon Byrne has told Boris Johnson the PSNI will not police any customs checkpoints on the Northern Ireland border after Brexit.

Mr Byrne had a 30 minute video call with the prime minister last Friday.

He also told Mr Johnson he had "no plans to put police officers on any one of 300 crossings" along the border.

Speaking after a meeting of the policing board in Belfast, Mr Byrne said the PSNI does not want "to be dragged into another type of policing".

Brexit: PSNI 'won't police custom checkpoints', says chief constable (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49925239)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-03-2019, 23:17

I think I suggested Ireland only near the beginning when it was first brought up as potentially being an issue with the whole "put the border at the coast" solution before it became a thing in the media as a stop-gap/short-term measure.

This was opposed heavily by the DUP which is why the whole 'All UK alignment' came into play, etc.

We come back to the same point - no matter how long you drag this out neither side can or will budge.

Pannonian

10-03-2019, 23:27

We come back to the same point - no matter how long you drag this out neither side can or will budge.

Why is it a red line when the principal argument for Brexit, according to the Brexiteers here, is political? Why not CU/SM with payment into the EU kitty and full regulatory synchronisation and a recognised body with a huge UK bias adjudicating disputes. Just take out the UK's MEPs, which according to IA we don't vote for (even though I distinctly remember voting for them earlier this year, but that might be EU-implanted fake memories). No more border dispute then, and you'll get your political argument recognised.

Furunculus

10-04-2019, 07:43

Brexit: PSNI 'won't police custom checkpoints', says chief constable (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-49925239)

there is no intent to have police man customs checkpoints across the 300 crossing, as the UK has repeatedly said:

"He added: "Obviously, as people would expect, we have a duty to protect people's lives, so if we have intelligence about threats to people from other agencies such as customs or the border force working in a particular place where they are vulnerable to attack, we will send officers to protect them.
But I think it's on a case by case and intelligence-led basis."

Pannonian

10-04-2019, 11:25

there is no intent to have police man customs checkpoints across the 300 crossing, as the UK has repeatedly said:

"He added: "Obviously, as people would expect, we have a duty to protect people's lives, so if we have intelligence about threats to people from other agencies such as customs or the border force working in a particular place where they are vulnerable to attack, we will send officers to protect them.
But I think it's on a case by case and intelligence-led basis."

Are you telling me it's going to be an unmanned border?

Furunculus

10-04-2019, 12:20

Effectively, yes.
We have the Common Travel Arrangement for free movement of people.
We have a political committment for zero border infrastructure, made operational by the offer of alignment on goods and agri-food (90% of checks).

So yes, with much of the customs issue being managed by declaration and business surveillance (the other 10%), there is no reason to 'man a border' outside of contingent securituy operations, i.e.

"If we have intelligence about threats to people from other agencies such as customs or the border force working in a particular place where they are vulnerable to attack, we will send officers to protect them. But I think it's on a case by case and intelligence-led basis."

a completely inoffensive name

10-05-2019, 04:03

Parliament gets it's sovereignty and legitimately from the people. Jesus wept.

Actually legitimacy comes from consent of the governed. Big difference.

Pannonian

10-05-2019, 06:12

You are actually a banana with arms.

Prove that you are not.

Funnily enough, there is more credible evidence of the reverse, of Leavers colluding with foreign governments to defy the UK government/Parliament (the latter is separate when the opposition commands a majority but the government does not). IA's accusation comes from the Mail, a tabloid that is not known for its credibility, and Dominic Grieve, an MP who was high up in May's government, has already actively denied its truth and pointed to Dominic Cummings as the probable source. Grieve also doubts that any investigation has actually been made, as Cummings does not command the police; although this wouldn't be the first time that Cummings has presumed that he does.

Then there is the case of Boris Johnson, a PM who does not command a majority (he has lost every vote so far, which no other PM has achieved), seeking to thwart the expressed will of a Parliament majority (demonstrated in an opposition vote which mustered a majority, which he has not managed) by asking foreign governments to veto any request for an extension. This story first appeared in the Times, traditionally the UK's most respected newspaper.

And then there was the case of Daniel Kawczynski, who sought to thwart the majority May-DUP government by asking the Polish government to veto a request for an extension, fondly imagining that his Polish ancestry would make the Polish government inclined to listen to him. In this case, there is no need to assess the credibility of the source; the idiot MP boasted about it on twitter. Incidentally, the Polish government told him to PO.

Furunculus

10-05-2019, 06:54

Cummings does not command the police; although this wouldn't be the first time that Cummings has presumed that he does.

tell me more...

Parliament gets it's sovereignty and legitimately from the people. Jesus wept.Actually legitimacy comes from consent of the governed. Big difference.

i'd be keen to hear what the practical effect of that difference is...

Pannonian

10-05-2019, 09:22

Remember the complaints about ever closer union, and how that irrevocably bound the UK?

Full text of EU's special status deal for Britain (19th February 2016) (https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-factbox/full-text-of-eus-special-status-deal-for-britain-idUKKCN0VS2SH)

Recalling that the Treaties, together with references to the process of European integration and to the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, contain also specific provisions whereby some Member States are entitled not to take part in or are exempted from the application of certain provisions or chapters of the Treaties and Union law as concerns matters such as the adoption of the euro, decisions having defence implications, the exercise of border controls on persons, as well as measures in the area of freedom, security and justice. Treaty provisions also allow for the non-participation of one or more Member States in actions intended to further the objectives of the Union, notably through the establishment of enhanced cooperations. Therefore, such processes make possible different paths of integration for different Member States, allowing those that want to deepen integration to move ahead, whilst respecting the rights of those which do not want to take such a course

It doesn't apply to the UK. It specifically doesn't apply to the UK. It was negotiated by the UK so that it doesn't apply to the UK.

And IA's complaint that we should be able to vote out lawmakers and that the EU does not allow us to: I distinctly remember voting for such EU lawmakers earlier this year. The government reminded people to register so that they could vote for them. I phoned the electoral register people to double check that I could vote. And on the day, I went out and voted. Was this a fake memory?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-05-2019, 10:27

Furunculus

10-05-2019, 16:27

Remember the complaints about ever closer union, and how that irrevocably bound the UK?

Full text of EU's special status deal for Britain (19th February 2016)

It doesn't apply to the UK. It specifically doesn't apply to the UK. It was negotiated by the UK so that it doesn't apply to the UK.

And IA's complaint that we should be able to vote out lawmakers and that the EU does not allow us to: I distinctly remember voting for such EU lawmakers earlier this year. The government reminded people to register so that they could vote for them. I phoned the electoral register people to double check that I could vote. And on the day, I went out and voted. Was this a fake memory?
Furunculus addressed this a couple of pages back - and I addressed this a few years ago. The EU stipulated this provision only ever apply to the UK, that no other country could have it. Anti-Federalists want a "two speed Europe", what the EU was offering was special status for Britain which would have led to us either leaving eventually or having to give up that status.

We've all been pointing this out for years.

The exemption from ever-closer-union failed in finding a tactical compromise that had no bearing on the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/PDFs/EBAsafeguards.pdf

To give an example of what this problem looks like in practice:

De jure incentives to take common position: This incentive is reinforced by the way the Commission’s ECB/EBA Regulations are currently drafted. For example:

• The ECB Regulation envisions the ECB acting as a coordinator of eurozone national supervisors, with the view for them to take a common position. The ECB has already dropped hints that it intends to actively discourage dissenting opinions amongst eurozone national supervisors.

• Through a eurozone caucus, some member states will indirectly boost their influence as their voting weight amongst eurozone countries is proportionally much greater than in the EU-27 (EU-28 with Croatia). This is particularly true of the larger eurozone member states.

• The safeguards proposed by the European Commission (see Section 5 below) leave the eurozone with the upper hand. Given that the 17 eurozone countries already constitute a simple majority, these countries would only need to seek the support of three ‘outs’ – whereas non-euro countries would need at least four countries.

De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.

Taken together, the EBA structure will therefore significantly shift the balance of power in favour of the eurozone, at the expense of the UK and other ‘outs’.

In short, we face a serious (future) problem whereby a integrated economic union of eurozone states begin to caucus decisions against the policy consensus of the EBU, the consequence of which would be that Britain ceased to be a sovereign nation. Once we cease to be a sovereign nation we instead become a sanjak, such as Greece was under the ottomans and is again today under the troika.

a completely inoffensive name

10-05-2019, 17:15

i'd be keen to hear what the practical effect of that difference is...

Consent is simply an allowance or permission from the governed for the government to operate in a particular manner, or structure, or behavior.
In practical terms, this means that any form, structure, or behavior can be considered legitimate if the governed consent to it. This includes all types of structures outside the 'accepted' Western Democratic presidential/parliamentary systems.
While we as individuals might consider the manner, structure and form of the Soviet Union to be illegitimate from our point of view and our set of principals of what makes for good government, realistically the United States certainly treated the Soviet Union as a legitimate structure, it recognized its sovereignty up until the moment when the governed expressed their lack of consent through their successful independence movements. This is why I believe, as a tangent, it is such a moral failure for the US, UK, France, etc to not explicitly endorse and support movements such as the Arab spring where the governed have shown their displeasure and wish to reform into a more democratic structure.

Now what is the significance of saying to paraphrase above, "any government is legitimate to which the governed do not actively fight against". Well, if we look at what it means to say "will of the people", we interpret it through the understanding of the people as a whole in their totality. Basically, without getting Monty level wordy, I believe (and can elaborate further if you want) the will of the people can only be expressed in systems in which there is no obstacle for the people themselves to have their most common desires expressed in the actions and behaviors of their government.

Again practically, I believe that means that direct democracy with no limitations on the power of the majority or some sort of elective monarchy/dictatorship are the only real systems that can always uphold consistently the "will of the people".

By definition of Liberal Indirect Democracy, we have limitations on the powers of the majority such that the 51% cannot strip away rights and property from the 49%. We have elected representatives who act fundamentally in accordance with their own will and is not beholden by law to vote in lockstep with the wishes of their constituency.
So on multiple levels Western Liberal Democracy cannot say in any manner that it consistently upholds the "will of the people", but we still recognize it as legitimate despite that inability. So again, what makes any government legitimate in a real sense is the consent of those that live under it and not whether the policies match the desired outcomes of 'the people'.

This is ultimately why claims that Brexit must happen because it is the 'will of the people' are nonsense to me. Liberal, indirect democracy of the forms taken by both the US and UK were never about establishing the political expression of a majority of people, 100% of the time.

It was the will of the people that Hillary Clinton become president, but Donald Trump is my president because I and the rest of America still consent to live under a structure that does not take popular votes for president.

Pannonian

10-05-2019, 17:29

Furunculus addressed this a couple of pages back - and I addressed this a few years ago. The EU stipulated this provision only ever apply to the UK, that no other country could have it. Anti-Federalists want a "two speed Europe", what the EU was offering was special status for Britain which would have led to us either leaving eventually or having to give up that status.

Why? We accept what we want, while other countries accept what they want. Why is this an issue for the UK? Denmark doesn't have the euro because it doesn't want it. Other countries can have opt outs too if that's what they want. But they don't because they don't. Why is this an issue for the UK? Why is this such an issue that you're prepared to ruin the UK, literally destroy the UK because of this theoretical issue where it's none of our business?

What are the practical benefits of Brexit? Can Brexit fulfil its practical promises?

350 million per week for the NHS. Promised by Boris Johnson, said by Leave's director Dominic Cummings to be the most effective message of the campaign, without which Leave would not have won. Now Boris Johnson is PM with Dominic Cummings as his chief of staff, and as PM he has reiterated this as a promise to be kept. Now show me the plans for how this is to be done.

Pannonian

10-05-2019, 17:35

We've all been pointing this out for years.

The exemption from ever-closer-union failed in finding a tactical compromise that had no bearing on the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/PDFs/EBAsafeguards.pdf

To give an example of what this problem looks like in practice:

In short, we face a serious (future) problem whereby a integrated economic union of eurozone states begin to caucus decisions against the policy consensus of the EBU, the consequence of which would be that Britain ceased to be a sovereign nation. Once we cease to be a sovereign nation we instead become a sanjak, such as Greece was under the ottomans and is again today under the troika.

Nice extrapolation of the theoretical to imagine the possible. Can we work with the concrete now?

Leave promised 350 million per week more for the NHS from the savings from Brexit. According to Leave's director, Leave would not have been won without this, and this was the single most effective message in the campaign. The bloke who promised this is now PM, and as PM has recognised this to be a promise. The director of Leave is now his chief of staff. Can you show me the plans for keeping this promise? Unlike your post, there is nothing theoretical about this. I can show you concrete evidence of the promise, the people making this promise whilst campaigning for Leave, and the now PM confirming this as a promise. All I say is, show me the plans.

Edit: Can you tell me who Openeurope are? Is this another of your thinktanks?

Furunculus

10-05-2019, 18:47

"nice thing you have there. here is an entirely separate and unrelated thing i want to divert you to instead..."

**in case you notice that i haven't discussed the actual merits of your thing, we'll finish up by impugning the possible motivations behind your thing**

smashing!

Pannonian

10-05-2019, 18:51

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.

Liz Truss, the international trade secretary, said scrapping the protections was “vital for giving us the freedom and flexibility to strike new trade deals and become more competitive”.

A cabinet source also told The Sun newspaper: “The level-playing-field promise has to go, and Boris is very clear about this.

“It would seriously restrict our ability to deregulate and do trade deals with other countries.”

Brexit: Boris Johnson moves to scrap environment safeguards to get deal with Trump, 4th October 2019 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-environment-rules-trump-trade-deal-a9143221.html)

So much for that. BTW, when you say "roll over and take the deal", did you mean from the Americans?

Furunculus

10-05-2019, 20:16

Brexit: Boris Johnson moves to scrap environment safeguards to get deal with Trump, 4th October 2019 (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-environment-rules-trump-trade-deal-a9143221.html)

So much for that. BTW, when you say "roll over and take the deal", did you mean from the Americans?
Philip is talking about sanitary/phytosanitary standards, i.e. agrifoods.
You're quoting Truss who is talking about flanking policies, i.e. employment/social/environment.
Level playing field provisions are entirely separate and removed from when chlorine washed chicken ends up on a dinner plate.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-07-2019, 01:16

Pannonian

10-08-2019, 23:12

Haven't read the full text of the EU treaties, so I will defer to Rory as to whether or no the EU can further penalize the UK following the reversal of Brexit and return to full EU status.

Perhaps, as he suggests, the power of the example of the failure itself will suit their purpose sufficiently.

But...

Could they force the adoption of the Euro? Can they minimize UK influence in EU courts, legislative assemblies by functional marginalization through rules/by laws and the like?

Could they force the adoption of the Euro?

The UK, even now, and by extension in the future if we reverse this decision (since there is a guarantee that a reversal would return us to the position we were in before the referendum), is specifically exempt from the Euro. Denmark has also not adopted the Euro.

Can they minimize UK influence in EU courts, legislative assemblies by functional marginalization through rules/by laws and the like?

The UK already has disproportionate influence in EU assemblies, while the ECJ rules in favour of the UK in 90%+ (95% IIRC) of cases involving the UK. Reflect on this fact: English is the working language of the EU.

Pannonian

10-08-2019, 23:15

What do Leavers make of this (https://twitter.com/LeaveEUOfficial/status/1181515644954714114)? It's from the official Leave campaigners.

Angela Merkel's demand that Britain leaves Northern Ireland to rot inside the Customs Union is reprehensible and shows the true colours of our supposed "European allies".

Enough of this nonsense, we walk away as an independent, self-governing nation in three weeks' time!

We didn't win two world wars to be pushed around by a Kraut. Leave.eu

Greyblades

10-09-2019, 01:31

Pannonian

10-09-2019, 03:28

Boris offered a pretty good compromise and the EU rejected it, presenting no reasonable alternative or compromise of thier own. That it was merkel who personally rejected him is iceing to the cake; puts a german face to the EU's intransigence and plays on Britains historical opposition to a german dominated continent.

I saw this as pretty inevitable, what with parliament and the benn act are still trying to take no deal off the table. The EU wants a wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, why should they accept any compromise when it costs them nothing to refuse everything not 100% thier way?

'Course this assumes that no deal is actually off the table which is in question for the next few weeks. Guess that doesnt matter too much for them; after all if things go wrong its not the germans who are poised to suffer all too much.

I still wonder how the irish feel about the EU gambling with thier economy.

Where was the compromise? How does it fit within EU rules?

And as for your trying to blame the EU on Ireland's behalf, here's a missive from 10 Downing Street. The source is officially unnamed, but everyone's familiar enough with the game to know it's Dominic Cummings.

‘The negotiations will probably end this week. Varadkar doesn’t want to negotiate. Varadkar was keen on talking before the Benn Act when he thought that the choice would be ‘new deal or no deal’. Since the Benn Act passed he has gone very cold and in the last week the official channels and the backchannels have also gone cold. Varadkar has also gone back on his commitments — he said if we moved on manufactured goods then he would also move but instead he just attacked us publicly. It’s clear he wants to gamble on a second referendum and that he’s encouraging Barnier to stick to the line that the UK cannot leave the EU without leaving Northern Ireland behind.

There are quite a few people in Paris and Berlin who would like to discuss our offer but Merkel and Macron won’t push Barnier unless Ireland says it wants to negotiate. Those who think Merkel will help us are deluded. As things stand, Dublin will do nothing, hoping we offer more, then at the end of this week they may say ‘OK, let’s do a Northern Ireland only backstop with a time limit’, which is what various players have been hinting at, then we’ll say No, and that will probably be the end.

Varadkar thinks that either there will be a referendum or we win a majority but we will just put this offer back on the table so he thinks he can’t lose by refusing to compromise now. Given his assumptions, Varadkar’s behaviour is arguably rational but his assumptions are, I think, false. Ireland and Brussels listen to all the people who lost the referendum, they don’t listen to those who won the referendum and they don’t understand the electoral dynamics here.

If this deal dies in the next few days, then it won’t be revived. To marginalise the Brexit Party, we will have to fight the election on the basis of ‘no more delays, get Brexit done immediately’. They thought that if May went then Brexit would get softer. It seems few have learned from this mistake. They think we’re bluffing and there’s nothing we can do about that, not least given the way May and Hammond constantly talked tough then folded.

So, if talks go nowhere this week, the next phase will require us to set out our view on the Surrender Act. The Act imposes narrow duties. Our legal advice is clear that we can do all sorts of things to scupper delay which for obvious reasons we aren’t going into details about. Different lawyers see the “frustration principle” very differently especially on a case like this where there is no precedent for primary legislation directing how the PM conducts international discussions.

We will make clear privately and publicly that countries which oppose delay will go the front of the queue for future cooperation — cooperation on things both within and outside EU competences. Those who support delay will go to the bottom of the queue. [This source also made clear that defence and security cooperation will inevitably be affected if the EU tries to keep Britain in against the will of its government] Supporting delay will be seen by this government as hostile interference in domestic politics, and over half of the public will agree with us.

We will also make clear that this government will not negotiate further so any delay would be totally pointless. They think now that if there is another delay we will keep coming back with new proposals. This won’t happen. We’ll either leave with no deal on 31 October or there will be an election and then we will leave with no deal.

‘When they say ‘so what is the point of delay?’, we will say “This is not our delay, the government is not asking for a delay — Parliament is sending you a letter and Parliament is asking for a delay but official government policy remains that delay is an atrocious idea that everyone should dismiss. Any delay will in effect be negotiated between you, Parliament, and the courts — we will wash our hands of it, we won’t engage in further talks, we obviously won’t given any undertakings about cooperative behaviour, everything to do with ‘duty of sincere cooperation’ will be in the toilet, we will focus on winning the election on a manifesto of immediately revoking the entire EU legal order without further talks, and then we will leave. Those who supported delay will face the inevitable consequences of being seen to interfere in domestic politics in a deeply unpopular way by colluding with a Parliament that is as popular as the clap.

Those who pushed the Benn Act intended to sabotage a deal and they’ve probably succeeded. So the main effect of it will probably be to help us win an election by uniting the leave vote and then a no deal Brexit. History is full of such ironies and tragedies.’

So Downing Street is already inclined to direct the blame at the Irish.

Pannonian

10-09-2019, 03:39

If anyone tries to pretend that Johnson has been offering a reasonable compromise and deal, here's an analysis of the situation (https://twitter.com/syrpis/status/1154286327699005440). Dated 25th July, in the early days of Johnson's premiership.

The plan is not what some might expect. He is more interested in power than in Brexit. His aim (so I argue here) is to fight, and win, a GE, and to obtain a mandate for the next five years. 2/

The way he approaches Brexit should not be seen as cakeist and naive. In policy terms it is: but the thing is that his Brexit plan is not intended to succeed. Instead, it is only intended to create the narrative around which a GE can be won. 3/

First, he will go 'our EU friends', appealing to their economic self-interest, demanding things he knows he cannot get. He will present himself as a 'can-do dealer'... whose plan has only been thwarted by intransigence in Brussels. 4/

Watch for the sharp shift in tone (which will come when the time is judged to be right). Erstwhile friends in the EU will become public enemy number one. The UK will be strong and confident. In extremis, we go it alone, and leave without a deal. 5/

But the plan is not to leave without a deal in October. That, as he knows, would cause huge disruption, and would not augur well for him as PM. The plan is to be ready to leave... but then to be thwarted by public enemy number two, the remainer Parliament. 6/

He will provoke the moderate Tories. He probably knows that they require quite a lot of provoking. He will not seek to undermine the confidence of the Labour Party and the Lib Dems. But he will starve the Brexit Party of political space. 7/

He wants to be able to fight a general election, as the man who is standing up for the British people; against the twin evils of the EU and the remain establishment. Vote Leave (and Dom Cummings) have, remember, done this unexpectedly successfully once before. 8/

To win, he needs to neuter the Brexit Party (I suspect that the jury is out on whether to offer some sort of pact or to opt for a more aggressive strategy), and bank on the fact that the 'remain' opposition will remain disunited. 9/

All this points, as I said a couple of days ago, to an Autumn general election. It is consistent with the UK's inability to concretise Brexit - both his 'new deal' and his 'no deal' will remain stubbornly undefined until after the GE. https://twitter.com/syrpis/status/1153789780980670468 … 10/

Posted on 25th July. Johnson's actions since, and the narrative posted by Brexiteers, fits this to a tee. And we have BS about how Johnson's reasonable compromise has been rejected by the EU. That's part 4. We have the anger against Parliament for thwarting the will of the people, how they will get theirs come All Hallows Eve. That's part 6. The sharp shift in tone has happened in the last couple of days. That's part 5.

InsaneApache

10-09-2019, 10:09

On the Kraut thing. It's taken nearly as long to leave the EU as it did to beat the Kaiser.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DK346Wcev7E

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-09-2019, 13:34

Montmorency

10-10-2019, 04:09

Pannonian

10-10-2019, 05:08

The thing is, most of these moves were inevitable given the situation Johnson inherited. With an obstructive and ideologically driven Labour Party just as interested in electoral success and just as uncaring of the country as a whole an election was inevitable. The EU's "negotiating" position throughout has been to reject what the UK offers without offering counters or setting out its own position in detail - meaning the UK is left to offer, and offer, and offer until it offers one the EU like.

It's like offering a girl flowers - she won't tell you which ones she likes, you just have to keep guessing until you get it right.

In any case, the level of cynicism you display must also be applied to the EU - in which case we should conclude they are interested in only three options:

1. UK crashes out unexpectedly, ruins economy.

2. UK leaves with deal permanently tied to EU, economy stagnates.

3. UK does not leave, economy flourishes.

Any mutually advantageous deal is not advantageous to the EU Project.

How does your mutually advantageous deal appear? Have you looked at the amount of red tape necessary for life outside the EU? Even if it's spun as advantageous by a national government, have a look at the detail on the ground. I posted a video earlier in the thread of a Leaver going through a typical transit process. The crew made some preparations for him, and there wasn't a particularly long queue (in fact it was shorter in duration than normal), but the additional amount of work involved made him rethink his ideas on what his touted WTO conditions involves. And I've also posted an account by a truck driver on what travel from-to the EU involves for your working driver, related from much greater experience than the previous Leaver. This account was cited in the Parliamentary study of Leaving preparations.

How far have you looked into the theoretical advantageous/disadvantageous deals you're talking about? Have you looked at the process beyond the deal, which after all only covers the leaving agreement and the immediate aftermath. The EU already went way beyond what the existing rules specify, in going out of their way to accommodate these working drivers, and extending various other inter-state agreements. But AFAIK you've not acknowledged any of that.

The stated aim of Leavers is to end up with WTO conditions. The NFU have already said that these conditions will make their farmers uncompetitive unless the government makes up the difference, and the government have already said that not only will they not do that, they will even abandon tariffs on imports, which will eliminate their domestic market as well. That's just one part of the post-Leave economy, which has nothing to do with EU agreements (it's based on WTO rules), and doesn't even look at related issues. Look at Leave policy and the details of its implementation. Stop blaming the EU for everything.

Pannonian

10-10-2019, 05:15

Hasn't Ireland and the EU been very clear, since 2017, that they reject any new customs infrastructure or checks within the Irish island?

Whatever you think of it, that's the Irish (and EU) position, and I can't say the British government negotiates in good faith if its proposals consistently contradict this criterion. These outcomes are predictable, it's kayfabe.

The GFA agreed that there should be a joint-UK-RoI-agreed system of government for NI. Autonomy for NI and free travel and a shared economy in the British Isles solved a wide range of problems that a border formerly posed. The UK wants to break this unilaterally and pretend it's all the RoI's fault, blaming the RoI/EU for intransigence when it's the UK's desire for unilateral action that has raised all these problems that hadn't previously existed (not recently anyway). The DUP is the only party in NI that does not recognise these problems. Leavers don't care about these problems, as their universal answer is to blame someone else for the problems they're causing (cf. Jacob Rees-Mogg and Boris Johnson/Dominic Cummings on this subject).

Furunculus

10-10-2019, 07:35

Hasn't Ireland and the EU been very clear, since 2017, that they reject any new customs infrastructure or checks within the Irish island?

Whatever you think of it, that's the Irish (and EU) position, and I can't say the British government negotiates in good faith if its proposals consistently contradict this criterion. These outcomes are predictable, it's kayfabe.

i reject the notion of paying my mortgage on the 10th of the month, that doesn't seem to slow down my lender.

the maximalist interpretation of no hard border (which requires full regulatory adherence and acustoms unions) is a position that may caved too from our weaker negotiating position - and then only as in the backstop with no promise that would continue into a FTA. it is a position rejected by boris as untennable due it failing to pass the commons three times.

Idaho

10-10-2019, 10:48

Look at Leave policy and the details of its implementation. Stop blaming the EU for everything.
The brexiteer mindset can't see anything other than British glory or EU blame. It's beyond ideological and straying well into religious fervour.

A sensible case for leaving could and can be made. But it would really require a practical timeline of 10 years and would inevitably require concessions to the EU in exchange for access to their markets. But this is so unthinkable to the flag wavers that they are forced to grasp other narratives that claim that leaving is "easy" and therefore any ill effects from crashing out is the EU "punishing" the UK.

It's tragi-comic. It's not for the EU or Ireland to compromise their treaties, integrity or cohesiveness to make brexit work! We've made our bed and now we are going to lie in it, all the while blaming everyone else for state we've forced on ourselves.

rory_20_uk

10-10-2019, 11:21

The brexiteer mindset can't see anything other than British glory or EU blame. It's beyond ideological and straying well into religious fervour.

A sensible case for leaving could and can be made. But it would really require a practical timeline of 10 years and would inevitably require concessions to the EU in exchange for access to their markets. But this is so unthinkable to the flag wavers that they are forced to grasp other narratives that claim that leaving is "easy" and therefore any ill effects from crashing out is the EU "punishing" the UK.

It's tragi-comic. It's not for the EU or Ireland to compromise their treaties, integrity or cohesiveness to make brexit work! We've made our bed and now we are going to lie in it, all the while blaming everyone else for state we've forced on ourselves.

Another Remainer with the ability to read minds! Always useful. Religious fervour? Yes that is tragi-comic. That you're blind to the irony.

Given that we have had about 40 years of integration - with little to no input from the people - two years was always going to be too short. But then the EU never really thought anyone would be leaving. If the EU had offered a 10 year transition period I imagine they would have mentioned this at some point.

I think you'll find leavers here want to leave. And I for one have been saying we'd be leaving with no deal because the EU would not jeopardise its integrity - other countries might like free trade without overheads.

~:smoking:

Idaho

10-10-2019, 13:53

Another Remainer with the ability to read minds! Always useful. Religious fervour? Yes that is tragi-comic. That you're blind to the irony.

Given that we have had about 40 years of integration - with little to no input from the people - two years was always going to be too short. But then the EU never really thought anyone would be leaving. If the EU had offered a 10 year transition period I imagine they would have mentioned this at some point.

I think you'll find leavers here want to leave. And I for one have been saying we'd be leaving with no deal because the EU would not jeopardise its integrity - other countries might like free trade without overheads.

~:smoking:
I'm not, strictly speaking, a remainer. I have always been very sceptical of the EU. However I'm not a swivel eyed loon so don't have a belief that jutting my chin out, braying over the top of any reason and waving a flag, amounts to an actual practical way to make all of the detailed adjustments and compromises that are the essence of international agreement.

Leave is leave is leave and you demand that we leave. Yes I've heard the rhetoric. But none of that amounts to a reasonable plan. And that's why I characterise it as religious. Are there remainers with a similar religious faith in the EU? Of course. But you are breaking away from traditional conservative values. That change should only happen for very good reasons and should be done carefully.

We're heading for a car crash which will be the responsibility of the hard brexiteers. But they will find 101 others to blame.

Montmorency

10-10-2019, 15:09

i reject the notion of paying my mortgage on the 10th of the month, that doesn't seem to slow down my lender.

the maximalist interpretation of no hard border (which requires full regulatory adherence and acustoms unions) is a position that may caved too from our weaker negotiating position - and then only as in the backstop with no promise that would continue into a FTA. it is a position rejected by boris as untennable due it failing to pass the commons three times.

Again, the obvious circumvention for this obstacle would be to commit to a full custom union in the first place.

Here's the EU's latest (https://www.ft.com/content/4ea2cc7a-ea79-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55):

Boris Johnson has been issued with an ultimatum by EU leaders ahead of crucial Brexit talks with Ireland’s prime minister Leo Varadkar: accept that Northern Ireland can remain in the EU customs union or there will be no withdrawal agreement.

The EU gave you a roadmap with multiple possible pathways long ago, as referenced by Pannonian and the CGP Grey dude Rory loves. What Leave Edit: Labour should have done is seized on that to pick a reasonable arrangement, any arrangement really, and campaigned on both sides of the issue. It could have been everything centrists claim to love, simultaneously offering a referendum against the LibDem extreme of outright Article 50 revocation and an EU-approved prefabricated (outline of a) Deal against the Cons extreme of Hard Brexit/backstop/magical thinking.

Pannonian

10-10-2019, 16:23

I'm not, strictly speaking, a remainer. I have always been very sceptical of the EU. However I'm not a swivel eyed loon so don't have a belief that jutting my chin out, braying over the top of any reason and waving a flag, amounts to an actual practical way to make all of the detailed adjustments and compromises that are the essence of international agreement.

Leave is leave is leave and you demand that we leave. Yes I've heard the rhetoric. But none of that amounts to a reasonable plan. And that's why I characterise it as religious. Are there remainers with a similar religious faith in the EU? Of course. But you are breaking away from traditional conservative values. That change should only happen for very good reasons and should be done carefully.

We're heading for a car crash which will be the responsibility of the hard brexiteers. But they will find 101 others to blame.

Remainers have a plan. A detailed plan. An extremely detailed plan with definitions, plans, costings, physical and human infrastructure, training, and everything else. With working examples and everything. Everything that the most meticulous engineer could want in a plan, Remainers can provide.

All I ask of Leavers is to provide a modicum of a plan. I'm not asking for anywhere near as detailed a plan as Remainers can provide. Just something that can pass the first stage of any business management's scrutiny. In most businesses, if the project manager offered something akin to what the Leavers have shown so far, they would be fired for extreme incompetence and the management would rethink whatever it was that led them to appoint said incompetent in the first place, possibly with the MD who appointed him getting fired as well.

rory_20_uk

10-10-2019, 16:29

Remainers have a plan. A detailed plan. An extremely detailed plan with definitions, plans, costings, physical and human infrastructure, training, and everything else. With working examples and everything. Everything that the most meticulous engineer could want in a plan, Remainers can provide.

All I ask of Leavers is to provide a modicum of a plan. I'm not asking for anywhere near as detailed a plan as Remainers can provide. Just something that can pass the first stage of any business management's scrutiny. In most businesses, if the project manager offered something akin to what the Leavers have shown so far, they would be fired for extreme incompetence and the management would rethink whatever it was that led them to appoint said incompetent in the first place, possibly with the MD who appointed him getting fired as well.

Aha! Precognition! Great idea!!

In that case we're truly sorted - these people could play the stockmarket and make a killing in a day or so. Perhaps with their skills we'd even manage to pay for all of Corbyn's plans.

A couple of things:

There was no plan shared with the UK populace over the plans for increased integration - the Euro and ECB and indeed ECJ were not a glimmer on the horizon to start with.

If a Project Manager was asked to come up with a plan, if they followed PRINCE2 principles they would of course put the uncertainties into the plan. Sacking someone for not knowing the future requires a complete lack of understanding. Perhaps someone in the Clergy.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

10-10-2019, 16:31

Again, the obvious circumvention for this obstacle would be to commit to a full custom union in the first place.

Here's the EU's latest (https://www.ft.com/content/4ea2cc7a-ea79-11e9-a240-3b065ef5fc55):

The EU gave you a roadmap with multiple possible pathways long ago, as referenced by Pannonian and the CGP Grey dude Rory loves. What Leave Edit: Labour should have done is seized on that to pick a reasonable arrangement, any arrangement really, and campaigned on both sides of the issue. It could have been everything centrists claim to love, simultaneously offering a referendum against the LibDem extreme of outright Article 50 revocation and an EU-approved prefabricated (outline of a) Deal against the Cons extreme of Hard Brexit/backstop/magical thinking.

Farage talked of a Norway-style relationship during the campaign. That's membership of the single market, with one's own control of customs arrangements. If customs arrangements are problematic on the NI/RoI border, then add customs union to the single market membership. That's within the EU's map of possible solutions given to us at the start of all this (back in late 2016, can't remember if it was before or after May became PM). The EU have given us a range of solutions to choose from. If the Brexiteers were going to keep the promises they made during the campaign, the plans are there for them to leave.

Pannonian

10-10-2019, 16:33

Aha! Precognition! Great idea!!

In that case we're truly sorted - these people could play the stockmarket and make a killing in a day or so. Perhaps with their skills we'd even manage to pay for all of Corbyn's plans.

A couple of things:

There was no plan shared with the UK populace over the plans for increased integration - the Euro and ECB and indeed ECJ were not a glimmer on the horizon to start with.

If a Project Manager was asked to come up with a plan, if they followed PRINCE2 principles they would of course put the uncertainties into the plan. Sacking someone for not knowing the future requires a complete lack of understanding. Perhaps someone in the Clergy.

~:smoking:

Fantastic strawman you've built there. Are you planning on burning it on 5th November?

rory_20_uk

10-10-2019, 17:04

Fantastic strawman you've built there. Are you planning on burning it on 5th November?

Are you saying you can predict the future?

~:smoking:

Idaho

10-10-2019, 17:44

If a Project Manager was asked to come up with a plan, if they followed PRINCE2 principles they would of course put the uncertainties into the plan. lack of understanding.

~:smoking:
No one uses prince anymore. It's a system designed on the basis of precognition!

rory_20_uk

10-10-2019, 17:52

No one uses prince anymore. It's a system designed on the basis of precognition!

It is based on back covering and having an audit trail from the top to the bottom. Ergo it is never used since the top management always like a level of plausible deniability.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

10-10-2019, 18:55

It's is a good system if youre operating a complex project in a known environment. No one ever does it properly, but it often adds enough structure to manage a project with some rigour.

Less so if you are operating with poor knowledge of what the end goal looks like. For that there is dsdm agile. A better way of doing things, as usually a project is introduced to transition to a new method/thing.

I'm a qualified practitioner of both, and also have training in scrum.

Possible exception might be iso13485 for medical devices where the aim is not continuous improvement (as per 2001), but continual verification and validation that tye product continues to be made via the approved process.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-12-2019, 10:16

So, word is Johnson has agreed there can be no customs border in Ireland.

Now it's for the EU to move and agree this is ultimately up to the NI Assembly.

Beskar

10-12-2019, 16:06

So, word is Johnson has agreed there can be no customs border in Ireland.

Now it's for the EU to move and agree this is ultimately up to the NI Assembly.

Unless I am mistaken, I am sure I read that there will be a Customs Border (in practice) in Northern Ireland in all but name, predicted to be called a 'Free Trade Zone' or similar and people in Northern Ireland can apply to the government to get a rebate on the tariff difference. So the end result is that for Northern Ireland, they can benefit from the UK trade deals whilst being part of a Customs Border.

Hence this is why it looks like a 'win-win' deal which got Ireland's PM quite happy. Calling a spade by another name.

Pannonian

10-12-2019, 19:03

Was this the deal that the DUP vetoed a year or two ago?

Beskar

10-12-2019, 19:20

Was this the deal that the DUP vetoed a year or two ago?

Boris added an extra provision in it, which meant Northern Ireland benefits from UK trade deals because the government will compensate them. In short, the bill of this is going to fall on us, the Tax payer.

Pannonian

10-12-2019, 20:26

Boris added an extra provision in it, which meant Northern Ireland benefits from UK trade deals because the government will compensate them. In short, the bill of this is going to fall on us, the Tax payer.

But the essence, which is that NI will regulate alongside RoI rather than the UK, remains the same. Nigel Dodds rejected the latest effort yesterday on the same grounds as previously. The Torygraph, Johnson's mouthpiece, has run an opinion piece saying that NI are a burden on the UK and should not be allowed to block Brexit, with the UK dropping it if necessary.

InsaneApache

10-14-2019, 17:52

Oh noes were going full on Venezuela with no bog roll to wipe our arses. That's the final straw. I shall back remain from now on.

Furunculus

10-16-2019, 12:59

In anticipation of some good news later, I invite you to cut-n-paste the following text - selecting therein the appropriate option that reflects your choice as you might have made it at the time:

Meaningful vote #1
Withdrawal Agreement + Political Declaration (with no reassurance over backstop)
a) I supported it - as a good compromise (we weren't going to see a deal, so sign with a smile)
b) I supported it - [B]as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done)
c) I supported it - against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)
d) I rejected it - with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)
e) I rejected it - it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)
f) I rejected it - no deal can be better than remaining/no-deal (and all deals are so deleterious it is beyond any useful compromise)

Meaningful vote #2
Withdrawal Agreement + Political Declaration (with non-binding interpretive text to assuage fears of the backstop)
a) I supported it - as a good compromise (we weren't going to see a deal, so sign with a smile)
b) I supported it - [B]as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done)
c) I supported it - against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)
d) I rejected it - with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)
e) I rejected it - it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)
f) I rejected it - no deal can be better than remaining/no-deal (and all deals are so deleterious it is beyond any useful compromise)

Meaningful vote #3
Withdrawal Agreement (with new protocol text that would be used in the interpretation of how the backstop would apply)
a) I supported it - as a good compromise (we weren't going to see a deal, so sign with a smile)
b) I supported it - [B]as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done)
c) I supported it - against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)
d) I rejected it - with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)
e) I rejected it - it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)
f) I rejected it - no deal can be better than remaining/no-deal (and all deals are so deleterious it is beyond any useful compromise)

Meaningful vote #4
Boris's Agreement (NI separate for goods/agri regulation and part of a dual customs territory as per cheqeurs + Consent mechanism)
a) I supported it - as a good compromise (we weren't going to see a deal, so sign with a smile)
b) I supported it - [B]as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done)
c) I supported it - against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)
d) I rejected it - with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)
e) I rejected it - it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)
f) I rejected it - no deal can be better than remaining/no-deal (and all deals are so deleterious it is beyond any useful compromise)

I'm keen to see what you people through, so please cut and paste the text leaving only one of the six options for each of the four votes...

Furunculus

10-16-2019, 13:04

To kick things off, I will do myself:

Meaningful vote #1
Withdrawal Agreement + Political Declaration (with no reassurance over backstop)
e) I rejected it - it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)

Meaningful vote #2
Withdrawal Agreement + Political Declaration (with non-binding interpretive text to assuage fears of the backstop)
d) I rejected it - with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)

Meaningful vote #3
Withdrawal Agreement (with new protocol text that would be used in the interpretation of how the backstop would apply)
c) I supported it - against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)

Meaningful vote #4
Boris's Agreement (NI separate for goods/agri regulation and part of a dual customs territory as per cheqeurs + Consent mechanism)
b) I supported it - as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done) **on assumption it arrives as suggested**

n.b. MV #2 and MV #3 where incredibly tough choices, and it would have taken little to swing them onto the other side of the coin.

Greyblades

10-16-2019, 20:12

I am having trouble determining what is in boris's deal outside of the backstop, seems to be sliding behind the media's attention.

Furunculus

10-16-2019, 20:23

Feel free to put a question mark against the fourth, and edit later. :)

Greyblades

10-16-2019, 23:39

Then d for the first three and question mark for the 4th, the backstop is only one of several unacceptable conditions that may's deal contains, no amount of fiddling will make it acceptable should the rest be unchanged.

Furunculus

10-16-2019, 23:42

noble attempt to actually talk about the issue du jour. futile possibly, but noble.

seems like a pretty good basis to negotiate from:
NI free from flanking policies and services (like GB), which is good.
GB free from goods regs, which i'm not bothered about.
GB free from CU - which i'm only bothered about to escape common commercial policy competence (not goods tarifs per-se).
NI free from CU - which feels a bit pointless given that they'll be in dynamic alignment with eu goods regs.
GB free from the direct jurisdiction of the ECJ (which is great)
NI free... possibily from direct jurisidiction of the ECJ (but great that it is not locked forever as per backstop).

kinda feels like the NI customs unions position is there to be traded away (even if only tarifs - leaving ukgbni services deals)
also feels like the default to diverge is there to be traded away into a default to remain in eu goods regime (which i can live with - their choice).

looks like flanking policy rejection was traded away (back into non-regression), in order to get the zero tariff regime between UK:EU that will make the chequers customs regime for NI work. no real surprise, and fine with it (as long as its non-regression an not dynamic alignment).

still suspect we end up with close alignment on goods regs in order to minimise NTB's, and that it will take the form of shadow-EEA whereby we unilaterally align with the standards but accept no legal jurisdiction.

Beskar

10-17-2019, 12:19

Boris got a Brexit deal. Let's hope this is the death throws of this drama.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-17-2019, 15:15

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50079385

DUP refuses support, so this one is Dead on Arrival too.

Yay.

Greyblades

10-17-2019, 16:02

Still having trouble determining what is in the deal besides ireland, the one thing confirmed was the 38 billion payment which doesnt indicate well for the rest of it.

Pannonian

10-17-2019, 16:55

Still having trouble determining what is in the deal besides ireland, the one thing confirmed was the 38 billion payment which doesnt indicate well for the rest of it.

It's May's deal minus the EU concessions on NI. The same as May's deal except where it's worse. It's not designed for quality, but for speed to allow Johnson to say he's got a deal before the deadline.

Greyblades

10-17-2019, 17:18

If that is so; the brexit party running on a "break the deal" ticket will cripple the conservatives next election.

Even if its a "designed to fail and blame the opposition for it" deal; this will be held against boris by much of the populace he is reliant on.

Furunculus

10-17-2019, 17:32

It's May's deal minus the EU concessions on NI. The same as May's deal except where it's worse. It's not designed for quality, but for speed to allow Johnson to say he's got a deal before the deadline.

if that is the way it is viewed: there were three opportunities for soemthing better.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-17-2019, 18:12

Pannonian

10-17-2019, 18:31

What concessions?

May and the EU agreed a deal. Foster protested. EU amended the deal after further discussion with May. No differences between Britain and NI, which wasn't what the EU wanted or had agreed to. The separation has re-appeared in Johnson's deal, which is why the DUP now opposes.

Edit: This is the one difference that has come to light so far. Parliament will receive the full details later.

Beskar

10-17-2019, 22:22

You know how he can get it through Government right?
A Binding Referendum!

If the People go for it, then job done. An end to the Brexit-Discussion Nightmare.

As Pan will respond, "This bypasses our parliamentarian sovereignty!" and he is right, it will do. But it will force the next phase of the progress instead of constant stagnation. (Not to mention how rubbish savings accounts are at the moment and are going to be in December.)

Furunculus

10-17-2019, 22:36

https://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/whats-new-about-the-new-brexit-deal-an-explainer/

The UK Government and the European Commission today published the text of a revised Withdrawal Agreement and a revised Political Declaration, coming just in time for the start of today’s European Council Summit. The revised deal is expected to be brought before the House of Commons on Saturday. The Government also released a unilateral declaration concerning the operation of the ‘consent mechanism’ contained in the new Protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.

While the successful negotiation of a new deal represents a political victory for Prime Minister Boris Johnson – including the re-opening of the Withdrawal Agreement – the reality is that both sides have made compromises to get to this stage. The Prime Minister still faces a huge challenge in winning the support of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons, particularly as the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) has confirmed that its MPs will vote against the deal. Some of the so-called ‘Spartans’ in the European Research Group (ERG) have indicated they will support the deal – in spite of the DUP’s opposition – but the Government will still need to secure the support of a number of Labour MPs to get it through Parliament, many of which see this as a “harder” Brexit than Theresa May’s deal.

There is also the question of time. While the Prime Minister may be open to a short technical extension to get the deal ratified, he has ruled out asking for an extension on any other basis. There is speculation that he may seek to persuade the EU not to grant an extension (other than the purposes of ratifying the deal) to force a choice between this deal, revoking Article 50, or No Deal. However, the possibility of a General Election before ratification cannot be ruled out, and it is also possible that the House of Commons could take further action against the Government before 31 October.

The key features which distinguish the new Brexit deal from the previous one negotiated by Theresa May are that:

The backstop has been replaced with a ‘frontstop’ special arrangement for Northern Ireland which will come into force immediately after the end of the transition period. It ensures that Northern Ireland will leave the EU’s Customs union along with the rest of the UK, but the UK will have to enforce EU Customs procedures at points of entry into Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s consumers will be able to benefit from UK tariff rates and trade deals with third countries, and businesses there will continue to enjoy unfettered access to the market in Great Britain. The region will also follow the EU’s regulatory framework in certain respects, meaning there will be no regulatory or customs border with the Irish Republic.
The special arrangements will be subject to the consent of the people of Northern Ireland and include an exit mechanism, with the devolved Assembly being granted the right to opt out of the Northern Ireland-specific procedures on the basis of a majority vote. The absence of a ‘DUP veto’ – requiring cross-community support for the continuance of the arrangements after 4 years – may explain why the party felt that the consent provisions were not sufficient to secure their support.
The Withdrawal Agreement no longer includes a customs union as the default basis for the future UK-EU relationship, which was included under the backstop. The potential future UK-EU relationship is only addressed in the non-binding Political Declaration, which points to a free trade agreement rather than a customs union, but this is a matter which will remain open to negotiation in the transition period, presumably after a UK General Election. Consequently, the level playing field obligations that accompanied the proposed UK-EU customs union under the backstop have been removed in the revised Withdrawal Agreement and to the Political Declaration as an issue for further negotiation in the context of the future UK-EU relationship.

Open Europe’s Dominic Walsh has produced a “track change” document which compares the new Protocol to the backstop negotiated by Theresa May. Although large parts of the Protocol text are unchanged, there are two important points to consider:

Many of the unchanged sections are not related to trade in goods – for example, provisions on the Common Travel Area, the Single Electricity Market, and some of the arrangements for the implementation and governance of the Protocol. These parts of the Protocol were never controversial.
Other provisions, notably regulatory alignment on goods, are the same as before in a technical sense, but are now subject to the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The rest of the Withdrawal Agreement is unchanged. The standstill transition period lasts until December 2020, with the option of extension up to December 2022; the references in the Protocol to transition extension have been deleted, but their legal basis elsewhere in the Withdrawal Agreement remains. The financial settlement is unchanged, although the extension to Article 50 means that the total payment is likely to be in the region of £33 billion, not the oft-quoted “£39 billion” figure. The provisions for citizens’ rights, Gibraltar and governance are as before.

A summary of the key aspects of the new Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland is detailed below.

Customs

Northern Ireland is part of the customs territory of the UK, and can be included in UK FTAs with third countries – provided those FTAs do not disrupt the Protocol.
There will be no customs duties or checks on trade between NI and the EU, including Ireland. NI will continue to apply the Union Customs Code.
Goods moving from GB to NI, or from outside the EU to NI, will only be subject to checks and duties if they are “at risk” of being subsequently moved into the EU.
By default, goods moving to NI from outside the EU are considered to be “at risk” of subsequently entering the EU – with some exceptions:
Personal property of UK residents, and consignments of negligible value, are not subject to any duties.
The Joint Committee of UK and EU representatives will establish criteria for further exemptions from duties, particularly for goods which will not be subject to commercial processing in NI.
Customs duties collected by the UK on GB-NI trade are not paid to the EU. Instead, the UK may reimburse NI traders whose goods can be shown not to have entered the union, and compensate or waive other costs for traders (subject to EU rules on state aid).

Regulations

NI remains aligned with certain single market regulations covering trade in goods and agri-food products, as previously. However, this would now be subject to consent from the NI Assembly, which can decide to opt out of EU alignment.
Previous clauses on ‘protection of the UK internal market’ remain. The UK is not prevented from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from NI to GB. The EU and UK also commit to use their “best endeavours” to facilitate trade and minimise checks between NI and GB as far as possible.

Consent/exit mechanism

The Protocol applies for an initial four years after the transition period – i.e. until 31 December 2024 if the transition is not extended, and 31 December 2026 at the latest.
Within 2 months before this end date, the UK will test democratic consent for the continued application of Articles 5-10 of the Protocol (the customs and regulatory arrangements, plus VAT, the Single Electricity Market and State Aid) from the NI Assembly.
If the Assembly is not sitting at the time, the UK government will recall the Assembly’s members for a special plenary vote on the arrangements.
Neither community has a “veto.” Consent to continue the arrangements requires a simple majority of Members of the Assembly present and voting. If this consent is given, the arrangements will continue for a further four years.
Alternatively, if there is cross-community consent to continue the arrangements, they will continue for a further eight years.
In either scenario, consent will continue to be tested on a rolling basis, with votes every four or eight years.
If the Assembly votes (by simple majority) against the arrangements continuing, then a two-year “cooling off period” begins, after which the arrangements will cease to apply. The earliest date at which the arrangements could end is therefore 31 December 2026.
During this two year period, the UK and the EU will put in place alternative measures. In doing so, they may consult the institutions created by the Good Friday Agreement, including the Assembly.

Future Relationship

The UK-EU relationship is only addressed in the Political Declaration, which is non-binding. The future relationship is subject to negotiations in the next phase, and, most likely, the outcome of an imminent General Election. Although the Political Declaration makes reference to the UK leaving the single market and customs union, it would be open to a future UK government to negotiate a closer relationship if it so wished.
The parties envisage a future relationship based on an “ambitious, broad, deep and flexible” Free Trade Agreement, with zero tariffs or quantitative restrictions, together with co-operation on security, foreign policy and defence.
Unlike the previous Political Declaration, there is no reference to a customs union as the baseline of the future relationship. References to the UK considering alignment with EU regulations to facilitate trade have also been removed. However, the parties remain committed to co-operation on customs arrangements, and to going beyond WTO agreements in the reduction of non-tariff barriers.

Level-Playing Field

Binding all-UK commitments to non-regression in the areas of social and environmental policy, tax, competition and state aid have been removed from the Withdrawal Agreement.
The only level-playing field commitments in the Protocol apply to Northern Ireland alone, and even here only on state aid.
The level-playing field obligations in the previous deal were only included in the Withdrawal Agreement because of the presence of a UK-wide customs union in the backstop, which gave the UK tariff-free access to the Single Market. Without a binding UK-wide customs union, there was no reason for binding commitments to level-playing field measures.
However, the two sides commit to a level-playing field in the Political Declaration, as part of the future relationship. This will be subject to negotiation in the next phase; the closer the future relationship, the stronger the corresponding obligations. Both sides will seek to link level-playing field commitments to levels of market access.

Pannonian

10-17-2019, 23:45

Bloody hell Furunculus. Do you get all your material from your thinktanks?

Seamus Fermanagh

10-18-2019, 02:01

Our media is suggesting that this will fail, narrowly, on Saturday's vote. The general media feeling here is that it will then end up on a referendum again, where this time around 'Remain' will very narrowly edge out 'leave.'

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-18-2019, 02:13

May and the EU agreed a deal. Foster protested. EU amended the deal after further discussion with May. No differences between Britain and NI, which wasn't what the EU wanted or had agreed to. The separation has re-appeared in Johnson's deal, which is why the DUP now opposes.

Edit: This is the one difference that has come to light so far. Parliament will receive the full details later.

The EU wanted the Backstop to be perpetual, now it isn't. As I recall May was the one who insisted that the EU could not be divided and hence the all-UK Backstop, but the Backstop itself is the thing that's gone.

The real thing to take from this is:

A: The unresiable deal has been revised.

B: The Perpetual backstop has been replaced by a note in the Stormont Assembly every four years.

Of course, the Remain camp are already looking to have this new deal declared illegal.

Furunculus

10-18-2019, 08:10

Bloody hell Furunculus. Do you get all your material from your thinktanks?

**slightly bored**

You have repeated this point again and again:

"Edit: Can you tell me who Openeurope are? Is this another of your thinktanks? "

So I will repeat my response:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053798053&viewfull=1#post2053798053

"nice thing you have there. here is an entirely separate and unrelated thing i want to divert you to instead..."

**in case you notice that i haven't discussed the actual merits of your thing, we'll finish up by impugning the possible motivations behind your thing**

smashing!

edyzmedieval

10-18-2019, 13:23

Please explain to me the following procedure - if this deal fails, and apparently it will, then what happens now? It's 2 weeks left, and Parliament said no way no deal.

So... we're stuck in an endless loop?

Furunculus

10-18-2019, 13:35

Difficult to explain, as im just as much in the dark.

Difference to last time is that party likes its leader and can live with his deal, so if it fails then the eu can happily grant an extension so boris can get the landslide ge win that will result and enable his deal to pass.

Boris won't mind either, he wants a GE because he knows it will give him a landslide. we will have an election in the next six months regaddless of whT happens, as some govt will need some majority to implement some legispative activity beyond brexit.

edyzmedieval

10-18-2019, 13:48

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

Not really a landslide when it's around 7-8% difference (including margin of error).

If Labour calls it on Remain in the EU, Lib Dems are definitely on board, then not only the number will rise in percentage points but also can form at least a Remain coalition of sorts with Greens and definitely SNP.

Furunculus

10-18-2019, 15:15

Fptp is cruel to minority opinions.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-18-2019, 15:36

**slightly bored**

You have repeated this point again and again:

"Edit: Can you tell me who Openeurope are? Is this another of your thinktanks? "

So I will repeat my response:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053798053&viewfull=1#post2053798053

I believe Pannonian is intimating that thinktank publications are valueless because the organization generating the white paper in question has an agenda and will therefore present only skewed or untrustworthy data in service of that agenda and not honest analysis.

To be fair, this certainly does occur -- scientific studies generated by research funded by Big Tobacco were notorious for promoting doubt about the deleterious effects of smoking.

However, it should also be noted that the analysts developing these white papers in think tank organizations do have a professional reputation to maintain. Presenting results that are clearly unsupported by the data will eventually mar that reputation, so there is also a pull towards honest reportage.

Like anything else, the reader must be a thoughtful consumer of the information promulgated.

Pannonian

10-18-2019, 16:34

I believe Pannonian is intimating that thinktank publications are valueless because the organization generating the white paper in question has an agenda and will therefore present only skewed or untrustworthy data in service of that agenda and not honest analysis.

To be fair, this certainly does occur -- scientific studies generated by research funded by Big Tobacco were notorious for promoting doubt about the deleterious effects of smoking.

However, it should also be noted that the analysts developing these white papers in think tank organizations do have a professional reputation to maintain. Presenting results that are clearly unsupported by the data will eventually mar that reputation, so there is also a pull towards honest reportage.

Like anything else, the reader must be a thoughtful consumer of the information promulgated.

When there is a 90-10 split among qualified experts on what sets of data to look at and what they mean and so on, the thinktanks that Furunculus rely on are part of the 10 while I tend towards the 90. For instance, the economist he relies on most of all, whose name I've forgotten but the gist of whose arguments I can remember, came up with Furunculus's genius argument of reshaping the UK's economy like Singapore's. Except that Singapore is a city, not a country, whose population is geared towards different norms than the UK's, whose economy and employment models are drastically different from the UK's. And, of course, whose government thinks Brexit is nuts. The logic of this economist leads to the disappearance of the UK's industrial and agricultural economies, which this economist says will be worth it because it will lead to openings for other areas of the economy. We've seen the disappearance of the car industry since 2016, the farmers are belatedly waking up to the logic of Brexit, but we are yet to see the benefits (see the dismissal of the 350 million per week promise and Rees-Mogg's estimation that it may be 50 years before we see things work out better).

That's an example of the thinktank arguments that Furunculus loves posting. Handwaving all negatives because some time in the theoretical future there may come some benefits, just don't ask for evidence of these benefits nor any realistic timeframe. If you were planning any normal project, this kind of plan and research would lead you to seriously questioning the sanity of heading down this path.

Beskar

10-18-2019, 20:20

This video of Boris in 2018 did not age well.
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/watch-boris-johnson-tell-the-dup-in-2018-he-would-never-put-border-in-the-irish-sea-today-he-put-a-border-in-the-irish-sea-1-9110754

Pannonian

10-18-2019, 20:38

Furunculus

10-19-2019, 00:13

When there is a 90-10 split among qualified experts on what sets of data to look at and what they mean and so on, the thinktanks that Furunculus rely on are part of the 10 while I tend towards the 90. For instance, the economist he relies on most of all, whose name I've forgotten but the gist of whose arguments I can remember, came up with Furunculus's genius argument of reshaping the UK's economy like Singapore's. Except that Singapore is a city, not a country, whose population is geared towards different norms than the UK's, whose economy and employment models are drastically different from the UK's. And, of course, whose government thinks Brexit is nuts. The logic of this economist leads to the disappearance of the UK's industrial and agricultural economies, which this economist says will be worth it because it will lead to openings for other areas of the economy. We've seen the disappearance of the car industry since 2016, the farmers are belatedly waking up to the logic of Brexit, but we are yet to see the benefits (see the dismissal of the 350 million per week promise and Rees-Mogg's estimation that it may be 50 years before we see things work out better).

That's an example of the thinktank arguments that Furunculus loves posting. Handwaving all negatives because some time in the theoretical future there may come some benefits, just don't ask for evidence of these benefits nor any realistic timeframe. If you were planning any normal project, this kind of plan and research would lead you to seriously questioning the sanity of heading down this path.

Alternative facts:
1. since Philip put the first comment on the boris deal on the 12th I am the only one that has put forth any 'expert' analysis on the content.
> A few of us; you, me, others, have chipped in with our [opinion] of what the deal looks like, bully for us. No analysis, apart from open europe.
2. Openeurope is an EUskeptic think tank, yes, but it has been a remain and reform think tank for many, many years. And advocated that outcome in the referendum.
> Have some better EU policy / geo-politics / brexit think-tanks, fine, show me some analysis. EU in a changing europe is a good one. What have you presented?
3. Minford is not the the economist I most rely on. He is an alternative view that represents the singapore-on-thames outcome in response to no deal.
> This of course is not what I advocate, and if I have to link back to that very same post again I'm going to be very blunt in my displeasure at the necessity.
4. "Handwaving all negatives because some time in the theoretical future there may come some benefits, just don't ask for evidence"
> Vs what? I find it strange that you make this complaint when you refuse to comment on the content, seeking only to rubbish the provenence, and provide [nothing] in return...

I believe Pannonian is intimating that thinktank publications are valueless because the organization generating the white paper in question has an agenda and will therefore present only skewed or untrustworthy data in service of that agenda and not honest analysis.

To be fair, this certainly does occur -- scientific studies generated by research funded by Big Tobacco were notorious for promoting doubt about the deleterious effects of smoking.

However, it should also be noted that the analysts developing these white papers in think tank organizations do have a professional reputation to maintain. Presenting results that are clearly unsupported by the data will eventually mar that reputation, so there is also a pull towards honest reportage.

Like anything else, the reader must be a thoughtful consumer of the information promulgated.

Yeah, sure. I recognise the problem and entirely agree that everyone needs to be careful.
But in this case, I refer you to my points above.

here's another:
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-8713

and another:
https://ukandeu.ac.uk/whats-at-stake/

ooh, and another:
https://brexitcentral.com/why-mps-should-vote-for-boris-johnsons-deal/

Gilrandir

10-19-2019, 05:19

Except that Singapore is a city, not a country,
It is both:

Singapore, officially the Republic of Singapore, is a sovereign island city-state in Southeast Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

Pannonian

10-19-2019, 14:53

It is both:

Singapore, officially the Republic of Singapore, is a sovereign island city-state in Southeast Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore

You know what I mean. Singapore does not support an agricultural economy as extensive as the UK's, with most of its economic assets supporting an area and population the equivalent of a city.

a completely inoffensive name

10-19-2019, 16:05

Lol, delayed again

Furunculus

10-19-2019, 16:12

i watched it all from 9:30 this morning with my brother, my (polish) wife, and his (turkish) partner.

rawesomely fun entertainment!

looking forward to monday; letter sent but no attempt to negotiate extension, and another vote.

Beskar

10-19-2019, 16:46

Was surprised by the mass Exodus of the Tories once the points of order started. It is like they are not paid to sit in those seats to represent us.

Greyblades

10-19-2019, 19:33

That was already in question with the amount of defections that have gone un-byelection-ed.

I think lammy has defected like 4 times this term.

edyzmedieval

10-19-2019, 20:26

Pannonian

10-19-2019, 23:02

At this rate - either EU will not allow Brexit because Parliament has deemed no-deal illegal or they will never leave in the next year. It's impossible to request another extension since the PM said no.

The PM has sort of enacted the form but has blatantly circumvented the intent, and in the process has broken the law. If the shenanigans about the letters is true, the courts should decide what should be done with the PM. The PM is not allowed to override an Act of Parliament.

Furunculus

10-19-2019, 23:56

with zero self awareness the jolyon/grieve mob will launch a legal case on monday morning for failing to meet the terms of the benn act.

£350m. here is a lesson: to screams of "liar" the lesson was not that it wasn't the right amount, the message received was that it was a lot!

when the election comes, it's going to be a bloodbath* with idiots like this running against cummings.

* politically speaking

Pannonian

10-20-2019, 00:07

Furunculus

10-20-2019, 08:00

Do you believe the PM should be above the law?

i believe that law should be as simple as and 'flat' as possible - much like taxes - for complexity makes it easy to create bad law that needs ever more complexity to mitigate its imperfections.
the benn act was stupid on first principles, and stupid in its implementation; boris has complied with the law.

my point is that boris' response is an elephant trap - and one which recent experience should give the victims enough self-awareness to avoid - but we will soon see just how ready they are to blunder into it.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-20-2019, 16:42

The PM has sort of enacted the form but has blatantly circumvented the intent, and in the process has broken the law. If the shenanigans about the letters is true, the courts should decide what should be done with the PM. The PM is not allowed to override an Act of Parliament.

The problem with the Benn Act is that while it can compel the Prime Minister to "seek" an extension, it can't compel him to say he wants one or that it's a worthwhile use of everyone's time. Even if the Act had stipulated he "negotiate in good faith" it wouldn't matter because he can just say that to claim he was in favour of the extension would be a lie and therefore bad faith.

The real issue here is that Boris Johnson won't resign and Parliament can't oust him because Jeremy Corbyn would insist on replacing him rather than Ken Clark.

Blaming Boris is puerile when he's lost almost every vote he's held and yet Parliament won't oust him or agree to an election.

Beskar

10-21-2019, 00:54

Blaming Boris is puerile when he's lost almost every vote he's held and yet Parliament won't oust him or agree to an election.

*before the extension is in place to prevent Brexit via the backdoor whilst parliament is suspended for said election.

It is an important addition to your remark that tends to get missed.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-21-2019, 03:36

What will be the fallout, politically, when the delaying tactics force another referendum and repudiate the leave choice of the earlier one (my current outsider's estimate of what will happen)?

Neither Labour nor the Tories have covered themselves in glory during the process. How will the British voter react in the first election following that second referendum?

Greyblades

10-21-2019, 04:30

Labour gets cannibalized and goes to third place, lib dems win a swathe of remainer areas outside of scotland, if tories manage to get brexit party on side they split the leave areas between the two, tories getting something approaching thier pre-may's fuck up predicted 2017 win with the brexit party getting a chunk of the leave labor areas, if farage doesn play ball it becomes a shitshow with both parties potentially splitting the vote so bad some areas are lost to other parties.

Cant imagine there will be many of the defector mp's who keep thier seats, either party, and thats a good 30 plus. Considering they're the scum of the parties, IMO, we can only hope they all go.

I want to believe that a second referendum would end with a win for leave, that the remain side will have gimped themselves with all the shit thier politicians have pulled and lose a major chunk of people who want to make sure referendums are respected or out of disgust at the blatant sabotage... but I have a deep fear that is wishful thinking.

edyzmedieval

10-21-2019, 07:02

Pannonian

10-21-2019, 07:55

Problem here from what I see is Labour itself. A second referendum would have been a straight no show Remain win if Labour had a different leader (Corbyn is unpopular with a lot of people) and also if they backed Remain.

However... Labour does not openly back Remain, Corbyn is pro-Leave but most of their electorate is pro-Remain. This is incredibly confusing.

Virtually any other leader would have put up a more effective 2016 campaign, and would easily win a GE against the current Tories. However, the left have decided that Corbyn somehow represents them in the Labour party, and they will not relinquish their control of the party for anything.

rory_20_uk

10-21-2019, 10:39

Problem here from what I see is Labour itself. A second referendum would have been a straight no show Remain win if Labour had a different leader (Corbyn is unpopular with a lot of people) and also if they backed Remain.

However... Labour does not openly back Remain, Corbyn is pro-Leave but most of their electorate is pro-Remain. This is incredibly confusing.

All issues due to the crappy FPTP system we have in the UK. Everyone forced to think "if on the offchance I'm in a seat that might be realistically contested, who do I like most / hate least?" And Corbyn is contorting to this reality.

~:smoking:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-21-2019, 14:37

*before the extension is in place to prevent Brexit via the backdoor whilst parliament is suspended for said election.

It is an important addition to your remark that tends to get missed.

A claim that has been put forward repeatedly but is biased solely on the idea that Boris is "dodgy".

If we'd had the election when he asked for it we'd have a new Government by now. Either Boris would have a majority for his deal, or we'd have a different administration.

Labour gets cannibalized and goes to third place, lib dems win a swathe of remainer areas outside of scotland, if tories manage to get brexit party on side they split the leave areas between the two, tories getting something approaching thier pre-may's fuck up predicted 2017 win with the brexit party getting a chunk of the leave labor areas, if farage doesn play ball it becomes a shitshow with both parties potentially splitting the vote so bad some areas are lost to other parties.

Cant imagine there will be many of the defector mp's who keep thier seats, either party, and thats a good 30 plus. Considering they're the scum of the parties, IMO, we can only hope they all go.

I want to believe that a second referendum would end with a win for leave, that the remain side will have gimped themselves with all the shit thier politicians have pulled and lose a major chunk of people who want to make sure referendums are respected or out of disgust at the blatant sabotage... but I have a deep fear that is wishful thinking.

Hung Parliament.

This fantasy that the Tories will make a pact with the Brexit Party is just that - a fantasy - because most Tories won't vote for them even in a pact. The Lib Dems will gain some seats, but not as many as you might think because they've adopted an anti-democratic "Stop Brexit" line.

Pannonian

10-21-2019, 15:00

A claim that has been put forward repeatedly but is biased solely on the idea that Boris is "dodgy".

If we'd had the election when he asked for it we'd have a new Government by now. Either Boris would have a majority for his deal, or we'd have a different administration.

Hung Parliament.

This fantasy that the Tories will make a pact with the Brexit Party is just that - a fantasy - because most Tories won't vote for them even in a pact. The Lib Dems will gain some seats, but not as many as you might think because they've adopted an anti-democratic "Stop Brexit" line.

How would it be anti-democratic if it's in their manifesto and they enact it as per the manifesto if elected? As a comparison, when will Leavers demand that the government set out their plans for increasing the NHS budget by 350 million per week from savings made from not contributing to the EU? That was in the Leave campaign, it was stated by the director to be the decisive factor in winning the campaign, it's been restated by one of the Leave leaders to be a promise, and both the leader and the director are now in charge of the government. Shouldn't it be part of democracy to show how they plan to keep their promises? Or does the winning side get to do whatever they want, unrelated to their campaign promises, if they win?

Tory MPs have drawn up a new law that would see any British citizen who undermines Government negotiations abroad face jail. (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7591983/Tory-MPs-push-law-threatening-JAIL-British-citizens-undermine-Government-talks-abroad.html)

Greyblades

10-21-2019, 18:18

Hung Parliament.

This fantasy that the Tories will make a pact with the Brexit Party is just that - a fantasy - because most Tories won't vote for them even in a pact.

Who are you referring to by them? The whole point of a pact is to leave areas that are ill disposed to the tories for non referendum reasons to the brexit party, who have a better chance of attracting labor converts, you dont think the tories in those areas would vote for brexit party when the conservative option is off the table? Or do you think the tories have lost the loyalty of thier voters even in safe seats?

Beskar

10-21-2019, 18:34

A claim that has been put forward repeatedly but is biased solely on the idea that Boris is "dodgy".

To be fair, given his track record, it is most likely the case. :laugh4:
He is ruthless enough to actually do it.

That's not a Brexit/Remainer thing, that is just a Boris thing. Theresa May on the otherhand wouldn't do that.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-21-2019, 18:40

Who are you referring to by them? The whole point of a pact is to leave areas that are ill disposed to the tories for non referendum reasons to the brexit party, who have a better chance of attracting labor converts, you dont think the tories in those areas would vote for brexit party when the conservative option is off the table? Or do you think the tories have lost the loyalty of thier voters even in safe seats?

To win a seat the Brexit party needs to attract basically all the Tories voters in a seat AND the Labour converts.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-21-2019, 18:45

To be fair, given his track record, it is most likely the case. :laugh4:
He is ruthless enough to actually do it.

That's not a Brexit/Remainer thing, that is just a Boris thing. Theresa May on the otherhand wouldn't do that.

Possibly, not likely, and only if it's to his benefit. It's conceivable that if Boris LOST the election he might try to hang on after a Hung Parliament until Brexit happened "for his legacy" but there's no benefit to putting off the election./

You think Boris can win an election after putting it off to default on Brexit? You think he's more likely to win then?

Seamus Fermanagh

10-21-2019, 19:32

Furunculus

10-21-2019, 20:11

You really should drop the 350 millions in saving thing.

Your lot is winning anyway, just keep up the skeer and the next ref will clear it.

i have no trouble justifying the £350m claim, because i dont just vote tory because they spend less than labour, but also because what they choose to spend it on and how they go about doing that. the gross figure is just as interesting as the net.
ref the nhs, you are correct, though it should be noted that the grammar of the text came in two very different forms:
1. we 'could' spend it on the nhs. this was around 90% of the campaign exposure.
2. we 'will' spend it on the nhs. the other 10%, but what everyone chooses to remember.

i'm not sure they are winning, not least because i think the process has finally convinced the eu that having us back after all this is like volunteering to incubate ebola.
we're not wanted, and i am quite convinced they want this deal passed as much as boris does.

Pannonian

10-21-2019, 20:44

Pannonian:

You really should drop the 350 millions in saving thing. It was then, leading up to the referendum, somewhere between a "lie" and a "damned lie." Leavers mostly figured it was hyperbole even then and now it is water under a series of bridges for two years. You will have to cope with the fact that none of the Leavers will bother to ask, and that none of the Leaver leadership is EVER going to say "I was lying to try to influence the vote, knowing full well it was a crock of excrement. I hereby resign and leave public life." like you clearly so want them to do.

Your lot is winning anyway, just keep up the skeer and the next ref will clear it.

"Which is why I am so determined to deliver now on the promises of that 2016 referendum campaign: not just to honour the will of the people, but to increase the cash available for this amazing national institution"

4th August 2019, Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

He's reiterated the promise whilst in the office of UK PM.

Edit: I'm less confident than you are that the truth will win over lies, and I'm resigned to leaving the EU on excruciating terms to satisfy the Leave leadership's games. The least I can do, given the uselessness of our official opposition, is to remind Leavers that this was what they chose.

Pannonian

10-22-2019, 00:54

Bills of this complexity normally take months to work through, with several stages of debates and votes. The government has given Parliament less than 2 days to read through the Bill before voting. At least one Tory MP has said that what they've seen of it and the rushed process makes them highly nervous. The Bill makes for bad law, the government knows it, and it wants it passed before everyone realises it is bad law.

The DUP have already noted that Johnson has sold them out by normalising NI's economy with RoI's rather than the UK's. That's one bit. Another is the right to re-set employment and other rights in the future, which betrays the promises the government has made to the Labour rebels. More to come as people read through the Bill.

rory_20_uk

10-22-2019, 10:41

a completely inoffensive name

10-22-2019, 20:31

Lol, delayed again

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-22-2019, 21:44

Two steps Forward, one step back.

Let's have some music for this interlude, how about Two Steps From Hell "Impossible":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qTghUgMOeY

Now - to the point. Boris Johnson has already got further with this than May ever could have and, by my calculation he did it with an absolute majority in the House. Then the Bill got stuck in Limbo.

Boris is till hewing to his October 31st Deadline out of obstinacy, he's starting to look a bit deluded, to be honest.

edyzmedieval

10-22-2019, 22:58

So 31st of October is out of the picture.

Greyblades

10-23-2019, 01:16

Assuming the EU dont tell us to sod off, pretty much.

Beskar

10-23-2019, 19:20

he's starting to look a bit deluded, to be honest.

:laugh4:

a completely inoffensive name

10-28-2019, 20:50

Lol, delayed again

Furunculus

12-16-2019, 00:18

phase two:

https://twitter.com/EuroBriefing/status/1206334693743960064

hopefully you can read that - i could first time.

Pannonian

09-08-2020, 18:47

Don't know if anyone's noticed, but the UK government has announced that it intends to break the law by not honouring the treaty it signed a year ago.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-08-2020, 22:03

Don't know if anyone's noticed, but the UK government has announced that it intends to break the law by not honouring the treaty it signed a year ago.

Wow. Even with our Amerinds (Native Americans, First Peoples), we yanks usually took a couple or three years to go about ignoring and breaking them.

Pannonian

09-08-2020, 23:12

Wow. Even with our Amerinds (Native Americans, First Peoples), we yanks usually took a couple or three years to go about ignoring and breaking them.

The chief legal adviser has resigned, ostensibly without explanation of why, but the assumption is that his client (the UK government) is planning to break the law and thus he couldn't continue to represent them.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-09-2020, 15:31

The chief legal adviser has resigned, ostensibly without explanation of why, but the assumption is that his client (the UK government) is planning to break the law and thus he couldn't continue to represent them.

A personal sense of honor? Kudos to her/him if so. A personal sense of honor is far more scarce among our politicos here than it ought to be -- and we are starting to have too many who actively take pride in not having same.

Pannonian

09-09-2020, 17:31

A personal sense of honor? Kudos to her/him if so. A personal sense of honor is far more scare among our politicos here than it ought to be -- and we are starting to have too many who actively take pride in not having same.

I don't know the ins and outs of legal practice, but the normal practice is supposedly that a lawyer cannot continue to represent their client if the client admits that they intend to break the law. A lawyer who continues would certainly be thrown out of the bar. I don't know if they'd be held complicit as well.

The NI secretary said that their intended policy will be breaking international law "in a small and specific way" (which is alright then). The head of the Ways and Means committee in the US, which I gather is not an insignificant position, warns the UK government to follow the accords made on the NI-RoI border.

Pannonian

09-10-2020, 20:52

rory_20_uk

09-10-2020, 20:58

The attorney general says that it breaks the law, but Parliamentary sovereignty overrides it. So it's a direct conflict between democracy and rule of law, and the government's democratic mandate means it does not have to follow the law if it doesn't want to. Has any other mature democracy put this argument forward before?

I don't recall breaking the law ever being part of any party's manifesto.

If there was ever a time for the Queen to decide to do more than pose for coins and cut bunting this was it.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

09-10-2020, 21:10

I don't recall breaking the law ever being part of any party's manifesto.

If there was ever a time for the Queen to decide to do more than pose for coins and cut bunting this was it.

~:smoking:

What if the Tories then point to this obstruction as an example of the Remoaners' perfidious defiance of the will of the people? What if the voters then back this argument?

rory_20_uk

09-10-2020, 21:53

What if the Tories then point to this obstruction as an example of the Remoaners' perfidious defiance of the will of the people? What if the voters then back this argument?

If voters were to back something then, well, fair enough. Parliament has the authority to cause all manner of harm. I don't have to agree with it.

One of my main reasons for voting to leave was for the primacy of British sovereignty. Fate, it seems, has a cruel sense of humour.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

09-10-2020, 22:03

If voters were to back something then, well, fair enough. Parliament has the authority to cause all manner of harm. I don't have to agree with it.

One of my main reasons for voting to leave was for the primacy of British sovereignty. Fate, it seems, has a cruel sense of humour.

~:smoking:

Does that mean that the government is entitled to break international law if there are votes to be had in portraying it as patriotic? It's fairly obvious that this is how it is going to progress in coming weeks. Are there any ethical boundaries to what a government should be able to do? Or does a democratic mandate excuse any and all actions?

Relating to this, the new cabinet secretary has said that civil servants will not be going against the civil service code in implementing policy that breaks international law.

Pannonian

09-10-2020, 23:11

New Zealand have joined the EU and US in expressing concerns about the UK's trustworthiness given the latter's willingness to unilaterally ignore international treaties.

In completely unrelated news, the UK foreign secretary has called on Iran to honour its agreement on nuclear testing.

rory_20_uk

09-10-2020, 23:14

Does that mean that the government is entitled to break international law if there are votes to be had in portraying it as patriotic? It's fairly obvious that this is how it is going to progress in coming weeks. Are there any ethical boundaries to what a government should be able to do? Or does a democratic mandate excuse any and all actions?

Relating to this, the new cabinet secretary has said that civil servants will not be going against the civil service code in implementing policy that breaks international law.

You appear to be approaching this as with hobbes leviathan. There is some lovely shining "right" out there and everything else is "wrong".

"Entitled"? International laws only apply if a country chooses to abide by them. Governments can therefore choose to leave whenever they want. That is the point of having a government.

Which international laws should the UK be abiding? All of them? The ones the UK has signed up to? Ones that have passed the UN? Or just the ones that are "right"?

Ethics are equally based on the country and on the time. Things that are now thought to be ethical would not have been decades ago, and I'm sure that things we now do will be thought to be unethical in the future.

The Civil Service Code can also be rewritten by government - perhaps to specify that Civil Servant follow UK law as opposing to pick and choose what they feel like. Those that disagree can resign.

The UK government shouldn't be doing this for a very simple reason: the Civilised world functions on a series of beliefs and one important one is the rule of law. If we all pretend laws exist and need to be obeyed, then from that almost everything else is derived - ownership of ideas and objects and the ability to trade. The more countries ride roughshod over them, sooner or later it is worse for all. One hundred years ago, a gentleman's agreement was sufficient for the UK government to send millions of men off to get killed because a chap doesn't break his word with other chaps. (and yes, massive perceived self interest) And although many might have thought the UK mad for having such a Code it did mean countries generally knew where they stood.

Boris appears to be cheerfully courting anarchy with the view that laws don't matter when inconvenient. Even Blair got his top pet lawyer to change his mind and pretend he had legal backing for attacking Iraq - what he did was illegal but he pretended it was following the law. Generally one can break the law and not get caught (as was the case with Cummings) but that doesn't make him innocent, just not charged with a crime.Even he didn't just turn around and say "yeah, I just don't really think I need to bother with that law since it was inconvenient".

~:smoking:

Pannonian

09-10-2020, 23:23

You appear to be approaching this as with hobbes leviathan. There is some lovely shining "right" out there and everything else is "wrong".

"Entitled"? International laws only apply if a country chooses to abide by them. Governments can therefore choose to leave whenever they want. That is the point of having a government.

Which international laws should the UK be abiding? All of them? The ones the UK has signed up to? Ones that have passed the UN? Or just the ones that are "right"?

Ethics are equally based on the country and on the time. Things that are now thought to be ethical would not have been decades ago, and I'm sure that things we now do will be thought to be unethical in the future.

The Civil Service Code can also be rewritten by government - perhaps to specify that Civil Servant follow UK law as opposing to pick and choose what they feel like. Those that disagree can resign.

The UK government shouldn't be doing this for a very simple reason: the Civilised world functions on a series of beliefs and one important one is the rule of law. If we all pretend laws exist and need to be obeyed, then from that almost everything else is derived - ownership of ideas and objects and the ability to trade. The more countries ride roughshod over them, sooner or later it is worse for all. One hundred years ago, a gentleman's agreement was sufficient for the UK government to send millions of men off to get killed because a chap doesn't break his word with other chaps. (and yes, massive perceived self interest) And although many might have thought the UK mad for having such a Code it did mean countries generally knew where they stood.

Boris appears to be cheerfully courting anarchy with the view that laws don't matter when inconvenient. Even Blair got his top pet lawyer to change his mind and pretend he had legal backing for attacking Iraq - what he did was illegal but he pretended it was following the law. Generally one can break the law and not get caught (as was the case with Cummings) but that doesn't make him innocent, just not charged with a crime.Even he didn't just turn around and say "yeah, I just don't really think I need to bother with that law since it was inconvenient".

~:smoking:

To be specific, the one being discussed at the moment is the agreement the UK government signed last year. Actually, looking it up, he agreed to it last year. He actually officially signed it this year. So he signed the agreement in January this year, then in September his government announces that it intends to ignore it wherever it wishes.

The EU, US and NZ so far have noted that the UK is not a trustworthy partner given its track record. Let's see what else we lose in pursuit of the perfect Brexit.

Montmorency

09-11-2020, 02:58

Does that mean that the government is entitled to break international law if there are votes to be had in portraying it as patriotic? It's fairly obvious that this is how it is going to progress in coming weeks. Are there any ethical boundaries to what a government should be able to do? Or does a democratic mandate excuse any and all actions?

Relating to this, the new cabinet secretary has said that civil servants will not be going against the civil service code in implementing policy that breaks international law.

I wish you wouldn't describe 'government wins an election and does things' as democracy. No less when parliamentary governments are not typically formed upon a majority of votes. Regardless, policy isn't democracy. It's not a tension within democracy when a government does what it will (whether good or bad).

The EU, US and NZ so far have noted that the UK is not a trustworthy partner given its track record.

I think the US is currently apt to underperform the UK in trustworthiness rankings, but the Tories are welcome to try to even the score.

And can I just say, OT but it's messed up that in the US right now the large majority of uni students have at least some in-person learning component (with cases consequently arising from colleges in excess of 50 thousand within a month), whereas the majority of children have to make do with fully-distanced learning. AFAIK almost all states currently allow indoor dining and bars. Off the top of my head maybe New Jersey doesn't yet. New York* doesn't. But the priorities aren't entirely strange when you remember the other messed-up fact that Republicans have refused to support state and local budgets during an unprecedented fiscal shortfall among them.

*NY is currently planning to resume indoor dining at 25% capacity from the end of September, but there is no timetable on resuming bar service (alcohol can only be served to people who are also eating and ordering food).

Pannonian

09-15-2020, 18:29

Also, don’t worry about the so-called ‘permanent’ commitments this historically abysmal Cabinet are trying to make on our behalf. They are not ‘permanent’ and a serious government — one not cowed by officials and their bullshit ‘legal advice’ with which they have herded ministers like sheep — will dispense with these commitments and any domestic law enforcing them.

True to his word. According to rory, he didn't vote for the government to break the law. According to Furunculus, anyone voting Tory would have known that Cummings came with it.

Pannonian

09-16-2020, 22:36

rory_20_uk

09-16-2020, 23:30

So that's the chair of Ways and Means (AFAIK the body that controls the purse strings of the US government), the leader of Congress (the lawmaking body), and now the presidential candidate favoured to win who have all warned that any US-UK trade deal is contingent on the UK keeping the Good Friday Agreement. Which the UK have just passed a law to allow it to disregard. Does this mean that the Brexiteers are now hoping that Trump and the Republicans will sweep the US elections?

First off, there has been a lot more about going against "the spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement (which itself is the UK government undertaking a deal with Terrorists) rather than stating that what was being done was legally against the agreement.

And as to the "All Brexiteers are now Trump supporters"... Try to stop being so obtuse.

Wanting to leave the EU means... just that. And even then the reasons are not all the same.

Perhaps there are some Brexiteers who wanted to leave the EU so they could have Boris as leader (very foresighted since he was on the fence about the whole thing). Most had one digital choice on the matter and at the last election a choice between Corbyn and Johnson. As you well know. As things currently are with Keir Starmer next election there is a good chance I'll vote Labour. I loathe Corbyn and Dianne Abbot, but then I also loathe Boris and Rees-Mogg. I don't neatly fit into any one of the parties really.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

09-16-2020, 23:53

First off, there has been a lot more about going against "the spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement (which itself is the UK government undertaking a deal with Terrorists) rather than stating that what was being done was legally against the agreement.

And as to the "All Brexiteers are now Trump supporters"... Try to stop being so obtuse.

Wanting to leave the EU means... just that. And even then the reasons are not all the same.

Perhaps there are some Brexiteers who wanted to leave the EU so they could have Boris as leader (very foresighted since he was on the fence about the whole thing). Most had one digital choice on the matter and at the last election a choice between Corbyn and Johnson. As you well know. As things currently are with Keir Starmer next election there is a good chance I'll vote Labour. I loathe Corbyn and Dianne Abbot, but then I also loathe Boris and Rees-Mogg. I don't neatly fit into any one of the parties really.

~:smoking:

Whether you talk about the spirit or otherwise, Biden, Pelosi and Neal have made it clear. Anything that leads to there being a border between NI and RoI will mean there will be no US-UK trade deal. No obfuscations. No excuses. No pointing the finger at someone else.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-17-2020, 15:14

rory_20_uk

09-17-2020, 20:03

Whether you talk about the spirit or otherwise, Biden, Pelosi and Neal have made it clear. Anything that leads to there being a border between NI and RoI will mean there will be no US-UK trade deal. No obfuscations. No excuses. No pointing the finger at someone else.

No obfuscations or excuses. What else is there? Does evidence count as an excuse? Since free movement across the border by treaty predates both Ireland and the UK joining the EU (or what was the EEC at the time).

The UK has demanded a trade deal with the ability for free movement over the Irish border for obvious reasons. The EU doesn't want this for obvious reasons.

The end point is the choice of all parties:

Ireland chooses to remain in the EU rather than have a free border. Probably a no brainer, but still a choice.
The EU chooses to enforce the border with more rigour than it does some other borders with non-EU countries (such as the Vatican). Again, a choice and one they are highly likely to undertake to preserve the political EU - since the EU makes little economic sense.
The UK then I think has three choices - allow cross border trade (keeping up with the Spirit of the Good Friday Agreement) and allow a foreign party to create an internal division in the UK (spoiler - I'd happily give Norther Ireland to anyone who wants that suppurating boil of a place) which it appears Boris has done without realising it since he didn't really grasp the treaty he signed or tear up the Treaty, allow Southern Ireland to freely trade with the North keeping in theory the Irish happy except that the South would have to apply EU tariffs and they'd create the border themselves or finally end with a Trade agreement with the EU that would basically mean we would not be able to have meaningful trade deals without the EU's blessing.
The USA can choose to or not have an agreement with the UK. And there are quite a lot of votes in and around Boston aren't there who are part of the Irish diaspora? Best collect those votes! I doubt the USA would be keen to have a deal with a country that disregards international laws - we don't have a Superpower Exemption card any more.

Do not presume that the Dem slate will win. I hope it will and the advantage is in their court, but a 2016 near repeat is not impossible at this stage.

BTW, I would also NOT presume that the would-be Dem leadership is stating fact so much as a preference and opening position. I do not see us cutting off the UK.

A trade deal would be good but no trade deal would merely be continuing the status quo. The UK mainly needs it to show itself as a major player on the world stage. The sooner the UK chooses to accept its position has altered since 1900 the better.

The USA probably still would want the UK in its sphere of influence and a trade deal is a pretty cheap thing to give (compared to Pakistan / Israel / Egypt to name but a few).

~:smoking:

Pannonian

09-19-2020, 01:49

A covid test centre in Kent is being shut to be replaced by a lorry park to prepare for Brexit. Priorities..

Pannonian

09-19-2020, 02:03

A trade deal would be good but no trade deal would merely be continuing the status quo. The UK mainly needs it to show itself as a major player on the world stage. The sooner the UK chooses to accept its position has altered since 1900 the better.

The USA probably still would want the UK in its sphere of influence and a trade deal is a pretty cheap thing to give (compared to Pakistan / Israel / Egypt to name but a few).

~:smoking:

Isn't the status quo free trade with our geographically closest trading partners? It is practically (literally) a rule that most trade is conducted with the nearest geographical partners. That's what we have. That's the status quo. But you decided that wasn't to be. So you decided not to continue with the status quo. So how can you present something to be the status quo, when you explicitly decided to dispense with it.

rory_20_uk

09-19-2020, 10:34

Isn't the status quo free trade with our geographically closest trading partners? It is practically (literally) a rule that most trade is conducted with the nearest geographical partners. That's what we have. That's the status quo. But you decided that wasn't to be. So you decided not to continue with the status quo. So how can you present something to be the status quo, when you explicitly decided to dispense with it.

Oh dear or dear. Is that what you're left with?

My reason was Judicial freedom (I know, all leavers are by definition xenophobes wanting to leave an organisation that is based solely in Europe...) Judicial freedom was possible under the EEC as it was an economic structure. And the EC. These were a continuation of the status quo as were at the core trade deals. But were radically altered by the EU. Which broke the status quo.

Speaking of status quo, what about all the years in general before the EU came into being? Or, like the novel 1984, do the years since the EU was created the only ones that count and everything before that can be dismissed as alternative facts or just ignored.

Full marks Dear Leader on the Revisionism.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

09-19-2020, 22:02

Greyblades

09-20-2020, 08:11

Seamus Fermanagh

09-23-2020, 16:17

Then we must thank god they're buggering up their election chances at rates unseen since Mondale.

:inquisitive:

I'd agree they're not exactly setting the world on fire with their campaign thus far. On the other hand, they haven't tripped over themselves either. It remains to be seen how a SCOTUS nomination affects the field of play.

And Fritz did not do too badly. It was a "thank you" campaign for years of party loyalty by Mondale. I don't think anybody really expected RR to get taken down by any Dem that year -- though Fritz took a shot at it when Ron showed his advancing age in the first debate. Overall though, it was a slam dunk by the GOP of that era and the Dems had little if any chance to stop it. They did much better in Congress against the RR second term.

Now, the 1992 effort against Bush41...THAT was a cocking shock-up.

Pannonian

09-23-2020, 19:26

An internal border now. Truck drivers will need a valid passport to enter Kent.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-24-2020, 05:23

An internal border now. Truck drivers will need a valid passport to enter Kent.

Really? I'd have thought ya'll would've been looking at those odd folk in Devon and Cornwall as needing passports to visit the rest of you.

~D

Pannonian

09-30-2020, 01:29

And Parliament has just voted to free the UK government from international law.

a completely inoffensive name

09-30-2020, 01:53

And Parliament has just voted to free the UK government from international law.

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Internal_Market_Bill

Pannonian

09-30-2020, 02:02

This? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Internal_Market_Bill

Yup. It allows the UK government to ignore or override international laws as it sees fit. The logical conclusion to all the sovereignty arguments that Brexiteers have thrown around.

a completely inoffensive name

10-01-2020, 06:30

Yup. It allows the UK government to ignore or override international laws as it sees fit. The logical conclusion to all the sovereignty arguments that Brexiteers have thrown around.

So don't take this the wrong way, but can you please copy-paste the actual text that says what you are claiming?

I am reading the texts of California's ballot propositions right now in their entirely cause I find these summary's are just not cutting it for me.

Pannonian

10-01-2020, 08:17

So don't take this the wrong way, but can you please copy-paste the actual text that says what you are claiming?

I am reading the texts of California's ballot propositions right now in their entirely cause I find these summary's are just not cutting it for me.

I'm not an expert on legalese, but here's a report (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54073836) on the NI secretary admitting that the Bill will break international law. Is that good enough?

a completely inoffensive name

10-01-2020, 19:50

Ok, looks like the American is gonna have to take the time to read UK/EU laws.
This article helped me navigate what the key issues are: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/18720565.brexit-internal-market-bill-controversial/

So here is the text of the Withdrawal Agreement, Article 4 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/840655/Agreement_on_the_withdrawal_of_the_United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland_from_the_Eur opean_Union_and_the_European_Atomic_Energy_Community.pdf):

Methods and principles relating to the effect, the implementation and the application of this Agreement
1.The provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of Union law made applicable by this Agreement shall produce in respect of and in the United Kingdom the same legal effects as those which they produce within the Union and its Member States.Accordingly, legal or natural persons shall in particular be able to rely directly on the provisions contained or referred to in this Agreement which meet the conditions for direct effect under Union law.
2.The United Kingdom shall ensure compliance with paragraph 1, including as regards the required powers of its judicial and administrative authorities to disapply inconsistent or incompatible domestic provisions, through domestic primary legislation.

So in this agreement, you can't overwrite through domestic legislation. You are placing the Withdrawal Agreement as having supremacy over domestic laws.

Now your Internal Market Bill is trying to maintain authority of NI goods within the UK Internal Market and has numerous sections regarding the Northern Ireland Protocol which is from the Withdrawal Agreement and specifically there is this section called 'Modifications in connection to the Northern Ireland Protocol (https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/lbill/58-01/135/5801135.pdf)':

(1)The United Kingdom market access principles for goods apply, in relation to the sale of goods in a part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland,with the following modifications.(For provision affecting the application of those principles in relation to the sale of goods in Northern Ireland, see, in particular, the Northern Ireland Protocol and sections 7A, 7C and 8C of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.)
(2)The mutual recognition principle for goods applies in relation to all qualifying Northern Ireland goods as if they were produced in, or imported into,Northern Ireland.
(3)That principle does not apply in relation to goods produced in, or imported into, Northern Ireland that are not qualifying Northern Ireland goods, unless subsection (4) applies.
(4)If goods falling within subsection (3) are moved in a way that would, but for the fact that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, amount for the purposes of the mutual recognition principle for goods to the importation of the goods into England, Scotland or Wales, the goods are to be regarded for the purposes of that principle as having been so imported.

So the Internal Market Bill seems to be declaring that goods which are coming through EU-NI rules into NI must be treated as imports even though these goods are then coming into the rest of the Internal Market (Wales, England, Scotland) through internal member Northern Ireland.

Back to Withdrawal Agreement, Article 5 which is the NI Protocol:
2.For the purposes of the first and second subparagraphs of paragraph 1, a good brought into Northern Ireland from outside the Union shall be considered to be at risk of subsequently being moved into the Union unless it is established that that good:
(a)will not be subject to commercial processing in Northern Ireland; and
(b) fulfils the criteria established by the Joint Committee in accordance with the fourth subparagraph of this paragraph.
For the purposes of this paragraph, "processing"means any alteration of goods, any transformation of goods in any way, or any subjecting of goods to operations other than for the purpose of preserving them in good condition or for adding or affixing marks, labels, seals or any other documentation to ensure compliance with any specific requirements. Before the end of the transition period, the Joint Committee shall by decision establish the conditions under which processing is to be considered not to fall within point (a) of the first subparagraph, taking into account in particular the nature, scale and result of the processing.
Before the end of the transition period, the Joint Committee shall by decision establish the criteria for considering that a good brought into Northern Ireland from outside the Union is not at risk of subsequently being moved into the Union. The Joint Committee shall take into consideration, inter alia:
(a)the final destination and use of the good;
(b)the nature and value of the good;(c)the nature of the movement; and(d)the incentive for undeclared onward-movement into the Union, in particular incentives resulting from the duties payable pursuant to paragraph 1.The Joint Committee may amend at any time its decisions adopted pursuant to this paragraph.In taking any decision pursuant to this paragraph, the Joint Committee shall have regard to the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland.

So in summary, the Withdrawal Agreement states the Joint Committee will determine customs applied to goods that move from Ireland to NI and then into the UK Internal Market. This Internal Market Bill states that the UK will decide for themselves to apply customs on such goods. The Withdrawal Agreement says the UK can not modify the terms with such domestic policy. Therefore, the UK is deliberately violating International Law.

I understand Furunculus liked my previous comment because I am thinking he was betting on Pan's knowledge of actual law lacking. That may be true, but after struggling with the actual text for myself, I think it is correct to say that the UK is purposely going back on its commitments.

Pannonian

10-01-2020, 20:52

Montmorency

10-01-2020, 21:37

Just from reading that, my understanding - hopefully not badly flawed - would be:

1. There is an issue regarding movement of goods between Ireland and NI, one being a EU member and another not (while being part of the UK).
2. There is an interest in maintaining one set of rules for NI and another for the main island (what was the word for it again?), though in concept we would want one ruleset for the EU jurisdictions and another for the UK jurisdictions. This is related to the Good Friday agreement and the sectarian politics of the Irish island.
3. The WA allows an executive body to treat NI as under EU rules for some goods, and as under UK rules for others, on the basis of some goods having their final destination in NI and not being at (an unacceptable level of) risk of penetrating the main island jurisdictions.
4. This is the famous cake-having/eating commented on from the beginning of the process and it's illegal.

Furunculus

10-04-2020, 11:41

The long and the short of it is that this is a [political] tussle to add definition into the interpretation of deliberately fuzzy treaty provisions - fuzziness necessary to bridge chasms in understanding that would otherwise have prevented the WA being agreed.

The EU has an interest defining the provisions in a way that limits UK autonomy.
The UK has an interest defining the provisions in a way that maximises UK autonomy.

A good example here is the State Aid issue:
For while the de-jure interpretation of the provision is clear that UK law will reign supreme in GB, the de-facto result of an unfavorable interpretation would be bleed back into the GB economy.
This where UK companies end up adopting EU State Aid regs because the cost of separately demonstrating compliance against sales that might in future be made into NI would be too burdensome.
So the UK is looking to define the provisions in a way that limits what is termed as "reach back".
And the EU is very keen that there is as much reach back as possible - as it is in the EU's interest as a regulatory 'superpower' to keep a G7 economy within its regulatory orbit.

None of this is very surprising, or cause for disappointment, it is just a process that needs to be worked through...
... by an ugly contest of wills. c'est la vie.

a completely inoffensive name

10-04-2020, 18:26

Furunculus

10-04-2020, 18:45

Nope, other than to wave airily in the direction of the WA.

a completely inoffensive name

10-30-2020, 05:59

Heard Corbyn got kicked from his own party. The left in the UK is even more disorganized and incompetent than in the US.

rory_20_uk

10-30-2020, 17:55

Heard Corbyn got kicked from his own party. The left in the UK is even more disorganized and incompetent than in the US.

An independent review found he had acted in a manner that was close to, if not illegal - the whole anti-Semitic Jew bashing thing and then covering up the complaint cases. Corbyn responded by saying the Jews are always inflating the numbers and need to take a shower and cool off... I have no idea why this has anything to with the level of organisation, or not of labour - the process appears to have been pretty well organised under Corbyn. I think that the view of plurality of views = bad is more a reflection of the state of the USA.

Corbyn intentionally let in every far left wing group into Labour and it seems the latest leader is undertaking one of the periodical flushes of the excrement that ensures we have more than a one party system. I no more want right wing skin heads in the Tories than I want commies in Labour.

If Labour keeps this up (and indeed the Tories keep up whatever it is they're doing) I'll be voting labour at the next election.

~:smoking:

a completely inoffensive name

10-31-2020, 03:33

I have no idea why this has anything to with the level of organisation, or not of labour - the process appears to have been pretty well organised under Corbyn. I think that the view of plurality of views = bad is more a reflection of the state of the USA.

Cause the main center left party somehow had this train wreck lead the party for several years and less than a year after he loses a very winnable election he is excommunicated. It definitely reflects poorly on how organized and structured the party is.

Pannonian

10-31-2020, 08:14

Cause the main center left party somehow had this train wreck lead the party for several years and less than a year after he loses a very winnable election he is excommunicated. It definitely reflects poorly on how organized and structured the party is.

Labour party is criticised for being institutionally anti-semitic under Corbyn. New rules enabled by Corbyn (back when the party secretary was one of his cronies) mean the secretary has greater executive power. Except the new secretary is not one of his cronies. The new leader Starmer has told the Labour MPs that none of them are to comment unless called upon. On publication of the report, Starmer unreservedly accepts its findings and says that anyone who says that it is exaggerated or otherwise disputes it has no place in the party. Off his own bat, within minutes of the report's publication, Corbyn issues a statement saying that the issue is overstated.

It's a case of the old leader being a stubborn idiot who doesn't follow instructions, and who thinks his old immunity to direction still applies. The whole party had to follow when he (probably intentionally) ballsed up the Remain campaign, because he was leader. He's not leader now.

Furunculus

11-01-2020, 08:25

been a suspicious amount of silence on brexit in the last two weeks.

brass tacks?

Pannonian

11-01-2020, 12:55

been a suspicious amount of silence on brexit in the last two weeks.

brass tacks?

You won. We lost. We're just waiting for it to go through. I could post all the stuff about how the logistics is going up the loo with any conditions short of SM/CU, but the believers don't care about evidence or experts, so what's the point? Lorry drivers can no longer enter Kent without a valid visa, and the expectation is for the traffic throughput to be delayed for a day or more, but that's not a great concern for the believers either.

Furunculus

11-01-2020, 18:29

Apologies, my comment wasn't directed here, but to the barnier and frost negotiating teams, and their respective tame media for leaks/outrage as the situation requires.

So the brass tacks comment was to question whether a deal is in fact close to the final hurdles...?

Pannonian

11-01-2020, 19:06

Pannonian

11-03-2020, 00:41

8th November 2019 (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/johnson-tells-northern-ireland-businesses-to-bin-customs-forms-38674258.html)

Mr Johnson was asked by Irwin Armstrong, owner of CIGA Healthcare, whether he could “go back to my company in the morning and tell my staff we will not be filling in any customs declarations for good leaving Northern Ireland to go to GB?”.

The PM replied: “You can.”

He added: “If somebody asks you to do that, tell them to ring up the Prime Minister and I will direct them to throw that form in the bin.

2nd November 2020 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-54783685)

The new Irish Sea border will involve as many as 30 million customs declarations annually on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The comments were made in a briefing to businesses in NI by government adviser Frank Dunsmuir.

Beskar

11-04-2020, 00:44

AFAIK Barnier does not read this forum.

Imagine if he did.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-04-2020, 14:36

At least you folks can presume your political lights actually read -- even if they skip the glorious wisdom of this thread.

a completely inoffensive name

11-07-2020, 20:10

Tangential to US election thread, guy I linked, Ian Bremmer, has been saying the UK government actively wanted a Trump reelection. I'm guessing because of the dynamics we see here:

Sinn Fein President: https://twitter.com/sinnfeinireland/status/1325124387851399174

No trade deal unless Good Friday Agreement is respected, does that force UK to give up control of goods flowing through NI into Great Britain?

Pannonian

11-14-2020, 21:59

rory_20_uk

11-16-2020, 12:47

Remember the arguments about sovereignty and how unacceptable it was that the UK had to abide by the European Court of Justice? Which rules in favour of British companies nearly all the time, but it's the principle that counts.

The current headlines are a seachange in the British government because an unelected adviser was forced out for briefing against the PM's partner. Said adviser ignoring the lockdown rules resulted in the PM fully backing him and firing cabinet ministers (elected by the British people) for not backing him. But opposing the PM's partner and briefing against her was unacceptable and resulted in his resignation/firing.

It's like reading Suetonius.

A technical point - MPs are elected to Parliament by the public. They are chosen by the PM for Cabinet. And I think I am correct there is little stopping the PM choosing whoever he wants for Cabinet - in some cases historically rhe PM has even enobled someone so they can choose them.
If you're saying that the system is broken I would agree - we have a proper pseudo-Royal Court with the PM's to-be wife having power alongside both Civil Servants, MPs and SPADs with the electorate able to cast a vote every 5 years for a person who kind of but not really is supposed to represent local issues yet can be neither local nor locally engaged.

We have had one chance to change at least one facet of the election system in recent years and even then the government ensured that the alternative chosen was the worst possible and didn't bother to explain it.

So please let's have political reform. Many other European countries show better options, as does New Zealand (and others).

This would be true Brexit or not.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

11-18-2020, 00:59

The word is out; it's official. Starting with the DofE, schools have been told to stock up on long life food as there will likely be disruptions to food supplies.

In other Brexit related news, fishing reps have told the government the fishing industry will collapse in the absence of a deal. And a minister has told sheep farmers that, since the changes in market conditions will make sheep farming untenable, they should switch to beef farming instead.

Oh, and did anyone miss the realisation that the area allocated for the lorry park in Kent floods multiple times a year?

And polls across the EU show that positive opinions of the EU outnumber the negatives. I might have said including the UK, but, of course, the UK is no longer in the EU, despite 60% now being pro-EU.

Are Brexiteers going to be stocking up on food too? Or are they going to trust in the food supply chain that the government have now said will be affected?

Furunculus

11-18-2020, 09:06

I for one welcome our coming brexpocalypse!

"And polls across the EU show that positive opinions of the EU outnumber the negatives. I might have said including the UK, but, of course, the UK is no longer in the EU, despite 60% now being pro-EU."

Notably, public attitudes to immigration rose in the years after the referendum too.
I would suggest that this was because the issue was seen to be being addressed.
I would suggest a similar principle here, easily tested by seeing whether a political party can win on a GE manifesto of rejoining the EU...
**waits patiently**

Montmorency

11-19-2020, 16:00

I would suggest a similar principle here, easily tested by seeing whether a political party can win on a GE manifesto of rejoining the EU...
**waits patiently**

You had one in 2019 and *checks notes* pro-Brexit parties won less than 47% of the vote in an inversion of the referendum margins. :shrug:

Furunculus

11-22-2020, 11:14

You had one in 2019 and *checks notes* pro-Brexit parties won less than 47% of the vote in an inversion of the referendum margins. :shrug:

that's a funny, thanks for brightening my Sunday morning.

2009 - (EP09) Tories win on a "We're no longer part of the [federalist] Conservative-Right bloc" in the EP ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom

2010 - (GE10) Cameron wins on a "Hey, we're Euroskeptics, but not fruitcakes and nutters" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_Kingdom_general_election

2011 - (REF) Lib-Dems fail to win on a "Would you like to reconsider our majoritarian electoral system?" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

2012 - (OP12) Remain fails to win on a "Look at that nutter, Cameron, vetoing EU rescue treaty's!" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2012

2013 - (OP13) Remain fails to win on a "Look at that nutter, Cameron, promising to imperil our membership with a referendum" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#2011

2014 - (EP14) UKIP wins on a "Let's leave the EU" ticket" (with tories just one seat behind Labour):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom

2014 - (REF) The SNP fails to win on a "We were only it for the EU membership, and now look what he's gone and promised!" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_referendum

2015 - (GE15) Tories get a (surprise) win on a "Lets have a referendum" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Kingdom_general_election

2016 - (REF) Leave wins referendum on a "Lets leave the EU" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

2017 - (GE17) Labour fails to win on a "Let's reconsider what we're doing before we make a terrible mistake" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_United_Kingdom_general_election

2018 - (Stupid18) People's Vote of Judea fail to win on a "There is no avenue we won't pursue to stop this bloody thing!" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Vote#Campaign_activities

2019 - (EP19) Brexit Party wins on a "We'll smash any party that dares thwart our aim of leaving the EU" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_European_Parliament_election_in_the_United_Kingdom

2019 - (GE19) Tories win on a "Please, let us just get on with the damnable business of leaving the EU" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_general_election

2020 - (OP20) Labour failing to win on a "Now that we're actually leaving, would you please reconsider voting tory" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2020

2021 - (??21) Shall i go on?

Montmorency

11-30-2020, 07:35

If this litany is meant either to establish a narrative that Brexit is a winning issue across the listed elections (most of what you link aren't elections but opinion polls (https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-poll-minority-believe-was-right-to-leave-the-eu-2020-9) so I'm not sure how to take that), or that my point about the 2019 election is superseded by some other information, it fails on either as other than a pisstake.

I'm especially miffed that you entirely ignored the latter, which was the whole extent of my single-sentence post you're responding to. You asked about elections in which Brexit was an issue. The 2019 election is the latest result we have, for an election that was more about Brexit than all but the Brexit referendum itself.

It is an anachronism to account for pre-2015 elections as being predicated on a Brexit controversy that wasn't yet salient, and even in 2015 it's debatable how prominently it figured relative to other issues. The most you could submit in your favor is that Brexit-supporting parties gained something less than 2% of the vote between 2017 and 2019 general elections. But as I pointed out they didn't come close to matching the vote share of the pure issue-ballot in 2016 (or even the Con/UKIP vote share in 2015, for that matter).

Where you verge on overt falsehood:

2017 - (GE17) Labour fails to win on a "Let's reconsider what we're doing before we make a terrible mistake" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_U...neral_election

The UK's withdrawal from the European Union was expected to be a key issue in the campaign,[117] but featured less than expected.[118]

:thinking:

I commend your precise "failed to win" language though.

2019 - (EP19) Brexit Party wins on a "We'll smash any party that dares thwart our aim of leaving the EU" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_E...United_Kingdom

An overly-creative narrative to tout a vote share of 30.5% bringing 29/73 seats of the national delegation (especially as compared to the 2014 EU Parliament elections in which the Brexit alliance actually won ~52% of votes).

Isn't this the sort of display Pannonian would call, 'typical Brexiteer guff'?

Furunculus

11-30-2020, 14:34

Pannonian

12-02-2020, 15:46

This should belong in the Covid thread, but how it's been done belongs to the Brexit thread.

"Speaking shortly after the announcement that the Pfizer/BioNTec jab had been cleared for use by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), Mr Hancock said that the authorisation process was faster than in the EU because Britain was no longer a member."

Was this one of the benefits of Brexit? No.

"But asked if this was the case, MHRA chief executive June Raine said the process was undertaken under the terms of European law, which remains in force until the completion of the Brexit transition at the end of 2020."

Pannonian

12-04-2020, 01:57

The main lorry park in Kent won't be ready until some months after the deadline, as the area has flooded (due to being in a flood plain). So we're exiting the barrier-free market, but our IT system is nowhere near ready, we don't have the customs officers to deal with the traffic, our main waiting area for the traffic isn't ready, and truckers entering Kent will require a permit.

Seamus Fermanagh

12-04-2020, 05:45

Pannonian

12-04-2020, 07:44

Still going with the Brit tradition of "muddling through" I see.

The hauliers are due to be issued guidance for what to do after the deadline. Which is in less than a month's time. On the positive side, one haulier rep reckons that there may be less traffic than expected. Due to European haulage companies not bothering with the UK altogether. Have I mentioned that the UK relies on food imports, most of which comes from the EU? Never mind, we'll just rely on our own food production. What's that, the fishing and agriculture industries reckon they will go out of business with the model of Brexit being mooted?

Seamus Fermanagh

12-04-2020, 17:58

The hauliers are due to be issued guidance for what to do after the deadline. Which is in less than a month's time. On the positive side, one haulier rep reckons that there may be less traffic than expected. Due to European haulage companies not bothering with the UK altogether. Have I mentioned that the UK relies on food imports, most of which comes from the EU? Never mind, we'll just rely on our own food production. What's that, the fishing and agriculture industries reckon they will go out of business with the model of Brexit being mooted?

Hmmm. Remember reading about shortages and the like when you folks started the 1939 dust up. You had 38 million then, and roughly 56 million now. So I am guessing the 25% overall agro/food increase from 1940 levels leaves you lot a bit short without imports. Might get a bit peckish whilst things sort themselves.

Pannonian

12-05-2020, 01:34

Hmmm. Remember reading about shortages and the like when you folks started the 1939 dust up. You had 38 million then, and roughly 56 million now. So I am guessing the 25% overall agro/food increase from 1940 levels leaves you lot a bit short without imports. Might get a bit peckish whilst things sort themselves.

66 million actually. What would be interesting is whether anyone who voted Leave will be stocking up on food ahead of effective Brexit, or whether they will believe in what they've been saying, that everything will be ok. Don't know if you remember the discussions, but one of the points made about the UK's post-Brexit economy is that we will be moving towards a Singaporean model, and that agriculture and fishing can be dispensed with. That the Singaporean government thinks Brexit is nuts was ignored of course, but now we've combined making imports impractical with rendering our agriculture and fishing unviable. And we are still determined to retain our sovereign right to ignore international law, meaning no one supports us as a matter of principle, along with everyone wanting to exploit us as they see how weak we are (see New Zealand commenting along those lines).

Brexit is the single most stupid act by any western country in my lifetime. And unlike the US electing Trump, it's not a one term thing. As Brexiteers like to retort, let's wait for 40 years before drawing conclusions. Will the Brexiteers be going full steam ahead in their belief that everything will be fine as they'd promised? Or will they be taking alleviative measures whilst still maintaining that Brexit is right and proper? The worst hypocrites of course, will be those Leavers who leave the UK in order to escape the consequences of their decision.

Pannonian

12-05-2020, 02:53

Brexit latest: UK should brace itself for months of food shortages from 1 January, delivery experts say (https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-latest-uk-brace-months-food-shortages-1-january-delivery-782518)

The UK should brace itself for months of food shortages from 1 January as strict European rules are enforced and the prospect of long delays at the customs border scare off truck drivers from even attempting to deliver goods across the Channel, experts on both sides of the channel have claimed.

According to the boss of Europe’s largest haulage trade body, the UK is looking at a “nightmare scenario” that will lead to “weeks, if not months” of food shortages after the Brexit transition period comes to an end in just four weeks.

The UK’s leading haulage organisation has also criticised the Government’s preparations, claiming truck companies are unable to plan for the new rules “because we’ve not been told what the rules are”.
...
Marco Digioia, secretary general of the European Road Haulers Association, said he was priming his membership for “huge bottle necks between the UK and EU”.

“You can expect empty shelves in supermarkets from the first week of 2021,” said Mr Digioia. “It’s a complete nightmare scenario. It will last for weeks, even months.”
...
Duncan Buchanan, policy director for England and Wales at the UK’s Road Haulage Association, confirmed many EU truck drivers were refusing take on the queues in Dover and other UK ports.

“This will be more disruptive to supply chains than Covid has been,” said Mr Buchanan. “EU hauliers are refusing to travel to the UK from 1 January, and they’re asking our drivers to take up the slack.”

Mr Buchanan went on to criticise the Government for not allowing truck companies to see the new digital customs system – called Goods Vehicle Movement Service (GVMS).

He added: “We haven’t even had the chance to see the GVMS yet. We should have had this information in August in order to prepare.”

Furunculus

12-05-2020, 09:58

What would be interesting is whether anyone who voted Leave will be stocking up on food ahead of effective Brexit, or whether they will believe in what they've been saying, that everything will be ok.

Yes, the wine collection is pretty impressive right now. ~;)

Re: the rest of your invective - can you please alter the constant whining drone? Or, at the very least, learn how to talk with some nuance when referring to what is half the voting population? Otherwise, any serious interest in engaging with you dies.

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

separately - an interesting discussion on what brexit is actually about - and the subject of [potential] discussion on whether this bet is a good one:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/12/britain-vaccine-brexit-covid/617280/

Seamus Fermanagh

12-05-2020, 17:28

66 million actually. What would be interesting is whether anyone who voted Leave will be stocking up on food ahead of effective Brexit, or whether they will believe in what they've been saying, that everything will be ok. Don't know if you remember the discussions, but one of the points made about the UK's post-Brexit economy is that we will be moving towards a Singaporean model, and that agriculture and fishing can be dispensed with. That the Singaporean government thinks Brexit is nuts was ignored of course, but now we've combined making imports impractical with rendering our agriculture and fishing unviable. And we are still determined to retain our sovereign right to ignore international law, meaning no one supports us as a matter of principle, along with everyone wanting to exploit us as they see how weak we are (see New Zealand commenting along those lines).

Brexit is the single most stupid act by any western country in my lifetime. And unlike the US electing Trump, it's not a one term thing. As Brexiteers like to retort, let's wait for 40 years before drawing conclusions. Will the Brexiteers be going full steam ahead in their belief that everything will be fine as they'd promised? Or will they be taking alleviative measures whilst still maintaining that Brexit is right and proper? The worst hypocrites of course, will be those Leavers who leave the UK in order to escape the consequences of their decision.

Of course Singapore must rely on food imports and fishing. They don't have enough dry land to do elsewise with their population. I would think that the UK would at least want to retain a "boutique" agro industry. Our side of the pond may be too "corporate" of an agro industry for some folks' tastes, but we could feed everyone without a hitch on one year's notice if we had to do so; even though we import quite a percentage as it currently stands.

Montmorency

12-06-2020, 06:07

You missed the significance of what was on the surface the least relevent of the points listed:

2011 - (REF) Lib-Dems fail to win on a "Would you like to reconsider our majoritarian electoral system?" ticket:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_U...ote_referendum

This is how decision are made, and it is how decisions were determined should be made.
It is the only useful bar to be vaulted over or limbo'ed under.

We have a constitution that puts very few bars in the way of what an elected gov't with a compliant majority can achieve, and we have an electoral system that has a strong tendency to deliver a majoritarian result in parliament for that gov't to use.

Want change? Win elections!
Don't like what 'they' did? Kick them out!
Don't you think the decision's made are too big for one electoral cycle? Tough, win an election and reverse!
Yeah, but isn't this one too big to be treated as a normal political event? Not it isn't, it's just another choice!

If you wanted to highlight the majoritarian features of the Westminster system in practice, you should have done so, since what you did highlight was fallacious or misleading toward the point you seemed to be explicitly making (which was triumphalism over the popularity of Brexit as demonstrated through elections).

I do not oppose the practice of allowing plurality winners the opportunity to form coalitions or implement their valid agendas, in systems that are sustained on plurality victories. That wasn't the issue at hand, which is that Brexit has lost support over time by the metric of elections.

Such systems exist, by the way, independent of First Past the Post. Obvious example: Australia. And majoritarianism is not a function of FPTP, it is a function of what constraints are placed on governments (i.e. constitutional boundaries and licenses). You can have FPTP systems that are majoritarian in principle, such as the US, but by contingent factors anti-majoritarian in practice. Or anti-majoritarian in principle, such as in Canada, which I understand has particularly-strong constitutional safeguards for civil and human rights on top of its federal character.

Want change? Win elections!

On those glib terms alone the Tories enjoy a heaping of structural bias. Given the distribution of voters in the UK, between the SNP on one end and the LibDems on the other (now that there's minimal crossover between LibDem and Tory demos), Labour has little prospective hope of forming a government without forming a Faustian coalition regardless of their electoral approach. Which is beside the Brexit issue, as no party will have a coherent platform to offer on EU relations anytime soon.

(Although it can cut against Cons sometimes as well; constituency inefficiency meant 36% of the vote could win 306/650 seats in 2010, 42.4% of the vote won only! 317/650 seats in 2017, yet 1% more PV in 2019 gained them 56% of seats or 365/650. That's an addition of ~50 seats, more than 7% of the total, for 1% of the vote. These imbalances could potentially swing against you soon, so both major parties should have some stake in reform.)

Gesturing to the electoral process is all well and good from a shortsighted Bolshevist perspective - let's be honest, you would back Brexit to the hilt if it got in with 5% approval, because you want it that way - but it can't inform us about Brexit today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fndeDfaWCg

Yeah, but isn't this one too big to be treated as a normal political event? Not it isn't, it's just another choice!

Strange way of looking at things. Obviously - and in the event you would be seen to agree - there is a substantive difference in perception and treatment between tweaking NHS access standards and, say, abolishing the hereditary aristocracy (all of it). It is only arguably the same in the purely-mechanical formal act (not even process, but act, as we've seen what disturbances can befall the parliamentary process) of passing legislation.

The interests of fairness and stability do place some limits on sheer will to power, whether they are legal, constitutional, or just normative. Commitment to overturning these is risky; gloat as you please, but don't be insouciant about where you're going.

66 million actually. What would be interesting is whether anyone who voted Leave will be stocking up on food ahead of effective Brexit, or whether they will believe in what they've been saying, that everything will be ok.

Didn't even most people who knew about the oncoming pandemic fail to stock up before governments initiated action? People tend not to be proactive about future threats, including the ones they acknowledge will affect them.

(If most people who anticipated the force of the pandemic did make preparations, disregard the above.)

Brexit is the single most stupid act by any western country in my lifetime. And unlike the US electing Trump, it's not a one term thing.

It's not American Exceptionalism to highlight the Bush II and Trump terms, as well as the War on Terror itself, just out of the 21st century, because all of the above likely have had and will have a much worse effect on the global human condition than Brexit (notwithstanding certain comments about deregulation below).

Let's compromise and gripe about the degradation of the Anglosphere (outside New Zealand).

About the lorry quotas, isn't the EU holding some restrictions in abeyance for the transition? Or has that already expired?

Yes, the wine collection is pretty impressive right now. ~;)

Re: the rest of your invective - can you please alter the constant whining drone? Or, at the very least, learn how to talk with some nuance when referring to what is half the voting population? Otherwise, any serious interest in engaging with you dies.

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

separately - an interesting discussion on what brexit is actually about - and the subject of [potential] discussion on whether this bet is a good one:

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/12/britain-vaccine-brexit-covid/617280/

Nuance? I mean, you @ half the UK voting population: "Want change? Win elections!" :shrug:

Weird article. Lists a lot of concrete downsides but follows airily with lines like:

But that doesn’t mean the gamble is wrong; it just means it’s risky.

Like, OK, but what? how? why? Maybe flying a jet fighter without a canopy will make the pilot "quicker and better" than other pilots, but the reader deserves to know what "quicker and better" means, how that could be the case, and why we should credit it.

Those around Johnson plainly believe that Brexit offers an opportunity to outcompete the EU not just in today’s industries but, perhaps more important, in the industries that haven’t been invented—and therefore haven’t been regulated—yet. What is less often acknowledged is that this belief—or fear—is shared on the continent. The prospect of a deregulated post-Brexit Britain outcompeting Europe is why the EU has demanded much tighter regulations to protect the “level playing field” with Britain than it has with any other country.

Any country can deregulate itself into a shithole country. For a former heart of "civilization" to undertake that project would be bad not just for Britons but for the entire world, when we need "developed"-world diplomacy toward transnational corporate accountability and a virtuous cycle of cooperation rather than another race to the bottom.

Of course the developed world should fear such a turn if that's what Brexit represents. Seems manifestly like an argument for characterizing Brexit as a blight on humanity...

I've found this piece (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/18/europe-brexit-britain-state-politics-fit-for-purpose) on Brexit to be especially incisive:

t least the Sun thrives on chaos. The savage parliamentary mauling of Britain’s withdrawal agreement with the European Union allowed Rupert Murdoch’s pet tabloid to unveil on Wednesday morning a front page of grandly gleeful malevolence. Under the headline Brextinct, it conjured a creepy chimera of Theresa May’s head pasted on to the body of a dodo. But the thing about such surreal pictures is that it is not easy to control their interpretation. From the outside, this one seemed to suggest much more than the immediately intended message that both May and her deal are politically dead. When, it prompted one to ask, did Brextinction really happen? Was this strange creature ever really alive or was it not always a grotesquely Photoshopped image of something else, a crisis of belonging that has attached itself to the wrong union? Do the events of this week point us, not towards the EU, but to the travails of a radically disunited kingdom?

The dodo, after all, may be proverbially dead but it has a vivid afterlife in that great trawl of the English unconscious, Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. It is the Dodo, when various characters have fallen into a pool of tears, who suggests how they might dry themselves – the Caucus-race. “There was no ‘One, two, three, and away’, but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out, ‘The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, ‘But who has won?’”

This seems, this week more than ever, a perfect description of the state to which British politics has been reduced – a lot of frantically anarchic running overseen by a defunct creature, the Brextinct dodo. And who has won? Carroll’s Dodo, of course, decrees: “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.” Having emptied Alice’s pockets to provide rewards for everyone else, the Dodo solemnly presents her with the only thing that’s left: her own thimble. “We beg your acceptance of this elegant thimble.”

The Brexit game is patently not worth the thimble to be presented at the end of it. Yet in Theresa May’s humiliation on Tuesday, there were prizes for almost everybody else: a glimpse of opportunity for her rivals in cabinet; a revival of their sadomasochistic no-deal fantasies for the zealots; the hope of a second referendum for remainers; proof of the near-collapse of the Westminster order for nationalists; the hope of a general election for Jeremy Corbyn. But in truth nobody has won anything – it is a losing game all round.

For all of this is the afterlife of dead things. One of them is Brexit itself. When did Brextinction occur? On 24 June 2016. The project was driven by decades of camped-up mendacity about the tyranny of the EU, and sold in the referendum as a fantasy of national liberation. It simply could not survive contact with reality. It died the moment it became real. You cannot free yourself from imaginary oppression. Even if May were a political genius – and let us concede that she is not – Brexit was always going to come down to a choice between two evils: the heroic but catastrophic failure of crashing out; or the unheroic but less damaging failure of swapping first-class for second-class EU membership. These are the real afterlives of a departed reverie.

If the choice between shooting oneself in the head or in the foot is the answer to Britain’s long-term problems, surely the wrong question is being asked. It is becoming ever clearer that Brexit is not about its ostensible subject: Britain’s relationship with the EU. The very word Brexit contains a literally unspoken truth. It does not include or even allude to Europe. It is British exit that is the point, not what it is exiting from. The tautologous slogan Leave Means Leave is similarly (if unintentionally) honest: the meaning is in the leaving, not in what is being left or how.

Paradoxically, this drama of departure has really served only to displace a crisis of belonging. Brexit plays out a conflict between Them and Us, but it is surely obvious after this week that the problem is not with Them on the continent. It’s with the British Us, the unravelling of an imagined community. The visible collapse of the Westminster polity this week may be a result of Brexit, but Brexit itself is the result of the invisible subsidence of the political order over recent decades.

It may seem strange to call this slow collapse invisible since so much of it is obvious: the deep uncertainties about the union after the Good Friday agreement of 1998 and the establishment of the Scottish parliament the following year; the consequent rise of English nationalism; the profound regional inequalities within England itself; the generational divergence of values and aspirations; the undermining of the welfare state and its promise of shared citizenship; the contempt for the poor and vulnerable expressed through austerity; the rise of a sensationally self-indulgent and clownish ruling class. But the collective effects of these interrelated developments do seem to have been barely visible within the political mainstream until David Cameron accidentally took the lid off by calling a referendum and asking people to endorse the status quo.

What we see with the lid off and the fog of fantasies at last beginning to dissipate is the truth that Brexit is much less about Britain’s relationship with the EU than it is about Britain’s relationship with itself. It is the projection outwards of an inner turmoil. An archaic political system had carried on even while its foundations in a collective sense of belonging were crumbling. Brexit in one way alone has done a real service: it has forced the old system to play out its death throes in public. The spectacle is ugly, but at least it shows that a fissiparous four-nation state cannot be governed without radical social and constitutional change.

European leaders have continually expressed exasperation that the British have really been negotiating not with them, but with each other. But perhaps it is time to recognise that there is a useful truth in this: Brexit is really just the vehicle that has delivered a fraught state to a place where it can no longer pretend to be a settled and functioning democracy. Brexit’s work is done – everyone can now see that the Westminster dodo is dead. It is time to move on from the pretence that the problem with British democracy is the EU and to recognise that it is with itself. After Brextinction there must be a whole new political ecosystem. Drop the dead dodo, end the mad race for a meaningless prize, and start talking about who you want to be.

To be fair, the same or similar is really true for much of the world, including America and most of Europe. But self-carnage is not an answer. This, Pannonian, is also what I meant when I remarked at some other time that we can't go back home; the old order has died and the new one is waiting to be born.

Pannonian

12-06-2020, 10:49

It's not American Exceptionalism to highlight the Bush II and Trump terms, as well as the War on Terror itself, just out of the 21st century, because all of the above likely have had and will have a much worse effect on the global human condition than Brexit (notwithstanding certain comments about deregulation below).

I'm not just talking about the magnitude of effects on the human condition. I'm talking about the amount of evidence and expert argument against, and the dearth of evidence and arguments for. I'm talking about taking the wrong step every step of the way, given many, many opportunities to take even just a single tiny step the right way. I'm talking about the determination to make it as long term and even permanent as possible. I'm talking about going out of our way to do the greatest possible damage to ourselves, when practically everyone else (barring probably Russia) was urging us against it.

The only unrefuted argument left for Brexit that I've seen is "We won".

rory_20_uk

12-06-2020, 15:17

Pannonian

12-06-2020, 15:38

The constant mixing your point of view with "fact" gets very wearisome. But as far as you appear to be concerned, it is solely about the economy.

One reason to vote Leave - National sovereignty.

~:smoking:

Do you support National Sovereignty as an absolute? Or is it only a factor wrt the EU?

Would you also like us to leave the UN, WTO, NATO, and all the other bodies which we are members of?

rory_20_uk

12-06-2020, 16:29

Do you support National Sovereignty as an absolute? Or is it only a factor wrt the EU?

Would you also like us to leave the UN, WTO, NATO, and all the other bodies which we are members of?

Which of these other bodies can add to the laws of the country? Or are they demonstratively different?

~:smoking:

Pannonian

12-08-2020, 19:32

18th September 2019:
Ineos chairman Sir Jim Ratcliffe (one of Brexit's biggest backers) said: “We have looked long and hard at possible manufacturing locations for Grenadier across the world with lots of good options to choose from.

“The decision to build in the UK is a significant expression of confidence in British manufacturing which has always been at the heart of what Ineos stands for.”

Engineered for the world. Built in Britain.

We’re delighted to announce that our #uncompromising 4x4 will be built in Wales and named
@INEOSGrenadier
.

A significant commitment to UK manufacturing, creating up to 500 #jobs as part of our £600m investment."

Boris Johnson: “Today’s announcement from Ineos will deliver hundreds of new jobs in Bridgend and is a vote of confidence in UK expertise, making sure we keep our status as a pioneer in new vehicle technologies.

“Backing our automotive sector is a key priority for this Government, and we’re working closely with industry to ensure it stays competitive and to put the UK at the forefront of the global drive to zero emissions.”

------

8th December 2020: Ineos Automotive confirms Grenadier 4x4 will be built in France (https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ineos/grenadier/352683/ineos-automotive-confirms-grenadier-4x4-will-be-built-france)

-------

Yet another Brexit hypocrite. Gets Britain out of Europe, then moves his business into Europe. Brexit is a good thing, as long as the costs are paid by others.

Pannonian

12-08-2020, 19:35

Which of these other bodies can add to the laws of the country? Or are they demonstratively different?

~:smoking:

NATO dictates to the UK's budget. Control of the finances is traditionally what makes the Prime Minister the Prime Minister. Is there any reason why the UK does not have the right to spend whatever it likes on defence? Isn't NATO's stipulation a violation of our sovereign right to control our own budgets?

rory_20_uk

12-08-2020, 20:05

NATO dictates to the UK's budget. Control of the finances is traditionally what makes the Prime Minister the Prime Minister. Is there any reason why the UK does not have the right to spend whatever it likes on defence? Isn't NATO's stipulation a violation of our sovereign right to control our own budgets?

NATO doesn't dictate the budget whatsoever - it is completely optional. Most choose not to follow.

Is that as good as it gets? What about all the other bodies you mentioned are somehow equivalent to the situation with the EU. Please, do enlighten me.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

12-09-2020, 08:30

NATO doesn't dictate the budget whatsoever - it is completely optional. Most choose not to follow.

Is that as good as it gets? What about all the other bodies you mentioned are somehow equivalent to the situation with the EU. Please, do enlighten me.

~:smoking:

I'd like to ask a question though. Is your support for sovereignty and dismissal of economic effects absolute? Will you back your support for Brexit on the grounds of sovereignty against any economic effects that are said to be coming up? When the economic effects come up, and they are as Remainers said they would be, will you say, I knew this would happen, and I think it is worth it?

rory_20_uk

12-10-2020, 00:02

I'd like to ask a question though. Is your support for sovereignty and dismissal of economic effects absolute? Will you back your support for Brexit on the grounds of sovereignty against any economic effects that are said to be coming up? When the economic effects come up, and they are as Remainers said they would be, will you say, I knew this would happen, and I think it is worth it?

To be clear, you are admitting all the previous examples you gave of other institutions that impinge on UK sovereignty are void? I take this as the case since you appear to be moving on.

Moving on to a question that appears to be meaningless - since nothing is absolute. Every country that surrendered in a conflict had the choice to fight on until utter destruction and chose not to.

What time frame is the economic effects to be measured over? March 2021, 2030, or a different time point? If I knew what was going to happen I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams - as people did on Black Wednesday when the UK left the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (another time the Government tried to shoe horn us closer to Europe and didn't feel the need to bother asking the people)... And although it was a disastrous event that cost a load of money the country survived.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

12-10-2020, 01:55

To be clear, you are admitting all the previous examples you gave of other institutions that impinge on UK sovereignty are void? I take this as the case since you appear to be moving on.

Moving on to a question that appears to be meaningless - since nothing is absolute. Every country that surrendered in a conflict had the choice to fight on until utter destruction and chose not to.

What time frame is the economic effects to be measured over? March 2021, 2030, or a different time point? If I knew what was going to happen I would be rich beyond my wildest dreams - as people did on Black Wednesday when the UK left the European Exchange Rate Mechanism (another time the Government tried to shoe horn us closer to Europe and didn't feel the need to bother asking the people)... And although it was a disastrous event that cost a load of money the country survived.

~:smoking:

I moved on because it's clear we are speaking in different languages. You cite sovereignty as the principle that justifies Brexit, but then differentiate control of our government from laws. I could ask you which EU laws you want us to drop, if that would be more to your taste. Would you care to answer that question then, as a concrete example of the principle you cite?

rory_20_uk

12-10-2020, 13:07

I moved on because it's clear we are speaking in different languages. You cite sovereignty as the principle that justifies Brexit, but then differentiate control of our government from laws. I could ask you which EU laws you want us to drop, if that would be more to your taste. Would you care to answer that question then, as a concrete example of the principle you cite?

Ah, I see. I was talking about Sovereignty as the ability to impose laws on the UK. You were... choosing to cross talk on something barely related. You've not managed to point out one entity that controls our government - unless you are trying to stretch this to include almost every form of soft power and then claim that this is also the same as what the EU does. Is this the case?

The "concrete principle" is simple - EU Regulations. A system where rules can be added to the UK from outside of the UK. And I've specifically chosen not to include EU Directives where countries are forced to draft and pass a law that the EU requires since I'm sure you'd say that as this was drafted and passed in the UK it was our "choice"

But please, do tell - what other bodies have the same control over the UK - laws or otherwise - as the EU.

~:smoking:

Idaho

12-10-2020, 13:45

Yet another Brexit hypocrite. Gets Britain out of Europe, then moves his business into Europe. Brexit is a good thing, as long as the costs are paid by others.
Mega lol.

Honestly, what do people expect. "Wealth creators" only create wealth for anyone else as an unfortunate side effect. If they could engineer it so they got all the money and everyone else was sold into chattel slavery they would do it in a shot and give us some platitude about "market realities".

Pannonian

12-10-2020, 15:23

Ah, I see. I was talking about Sovereignty as the ability to impose laws on the UK. You were... choosing to cross talk on something barely related. You've not managed to point out one entity that controls our government - unless you are trying to stretch this to include almost every form of soft power and then claim that this is also the same as what the EU does. Is this the case?

The "concrete principle" is simple - EU Regulations. A system where rules can be added to the UK from outside of the UK. And I've specifically chosen not to include EU Directives where countries are forced to draft and pass a law that the EU requires since I'm sure you'd say that as this was drafted and passed in the UK it was our "choice"

But please, do tell - what other bodies have the same control over the UK - laws or otherwise - as the EU.

~:smoking:

So which EU regulations do you want us to drop?

Seamus Fermanagh

12-10-2020, 19:53

Mega lol.

Honestly, what do people expect. "Wealth creators" only create wealth for anyone else as an unfortunate side effect. If they could engineer it so they got all the money and everyone else was sold into chattel slavery they would do it in a shot and give us some platitude about "market realities".

Only the short-sighted ones. Longer-term exploiters know that you have to share a tad of the wealth in order to keep the pump primed so that you can bilk them for more and more over the long haul. As with Henry Ford improving the wages of his workers by a good notch (and putting a Model T of their own 'just' within reach...)

Seamus Fermanagh

12-10-2020, 19:56

So which EU regulations do you want us to drop?

The Express seems to believe that some of the regulations are annoying for the UK. Link (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1235600/brexit-news-brexit-day-ridiculous-EU-laws-brexit-transition-period) lol'd on the banana curvature one.

rory_20_uk

12-10-2020, 21:33

So which EU regulations do you want us to drop?

So as long as there are no current EU regulations that are problematic, then we should remain in the EU...?

First one - whichever means we have to follow the CJEU.

And guess what? I'm not going to read every EU rule, past or present and compare to UK law.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

12-11-2020, 04:08

So as long as there are no current EU regulations that are problematic, then we should remain in the EU...?

First one - whichever means we have to follow the CJEU.

And guess what? I'm not going to read every EU rule, past or present and compare to UK law.

~:smoking:

And that is why I changed tack and asked you whether you'd stand by the consequences of Brexit. You put forth an argument of principle without giving specifics. You hold the CJEU as a bone of contention, even though the the CJEU favours British companies the vast majority of the time. You refuse to cite any specific EU regulations even though you say that the fact that there are EU regulations is your decisive argument. So I didn't ask you for specifics, or that you should apply your principles evenly. I asked instead whether you're prepared to stand by the consequences of Brexit. Are you prepared to say that you agree with Brexit and all its consequences?

Pannonian

12-11-2020, 04:24

The Express seems to believe that some of the regulations are annoying for the UK. Link (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1235600/brexit-news-brexit-day-ridiculous-EU-laws-brexit-transition-period) lol'd on the banana curvature one.

Boris Johnson says EU laws about vacuum cleaners and bananas are ‘crazy’. We take a look at whether he is right (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/11/boris-johnson-launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall)

He's not. And the costs of Brexit estimated in the article have now been further quantified, starting with disruptions to food supply now a certainty (the head of the group dealing with the UK's food supply said that any clarifications are now too late).

You may remember PFH rubbishing me on the results of no deal Brexit, saying that there will be a deal and that I should stop worrying. The PM now says that there is a substantial chance of no deal (less than 3 weeks to go), the results of no deal have been estimated to be even worse than previously predicted, and the heads of various groups dealing with the UK's food supply and other logistics have said that any deal the UK government is likely to agree to won't make a substantial difference given the fundamental problems.

rory_20_uk

12-11-2020, 21:00

And that is why I changed tack and asked you whether you'd stand by the consequences of Brexit. You put forth an argument of principle without giving specifics. You hold the CJEU as a bone of contention, even though the the CJEU favours British companies the vast majority of the time. You refuse to cite any specific EU regulations even though you say that the fact that there are EU regulations is your decisive argument. So I didn't ask you for specifics, or that you should apply your principles evenly. I asked instead whether you're prepared to stand by the consequences of Brexit. Are you prepared to say that you agree with Brexit and all its consequences?

We've gone over that before. Now you've accepted that both your assertation that all reasons have been discredited and the statement that are other organisations with similar effects on sovereignty as the EU is false, I'm not going to repeat myself.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

12-11-2020, 21:21

We've gone over that before. Now you've accepted that both your assertation that all reasons have been discredited and the statement that are other organisations with similar effects on sovereignty as the EU is false, I'm not going to repeat myself.

~:smoking:

So you won't admit evidence or concrete examples into your sovereignty argument, and you won't admit responsibility for the consequences of Brexit either.

From Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian today, a much more eloquent analyst than me.

Much of this is rooted, as it always was, in the sovereignty fetish that devoured first the Tory’s Eurosceptic wing, then the Tory party and, soon, the entire British economy. It obsesses over the abstract noun of sovereignty, claiming that an EU deal with binding rules would violate that sacred principle. But every trade deal contains binding rules – a deal with the US would be no different. It’s true even of the WTO rules that will govern our relationship with the EU from next month, and which Johnson now rebrands as “Australian”, hailing them as the very incarnation of national freedom.

Perhaps, then, this is not really about the trimming of sovereignty – a compromise Brexiters are happy to make with everyone else in the world. “It’s because it’s Europe,” says trade analyst Sam Lowe of the Centre for European Reform. Ultimately, he’s concluded, this isn’t about tariffs and barriers, but something far more visceral. “They’re annoyed we’re in Europe’s vicinity.” If they could move Britain physically further away from the continent, they would. They long to be free of its taint.

Do you think the sovereignty argument should be applied to other trade deals too? Do you think that the UK should divest itself of all trade deals, on the grounds that they impinge on our sovereignty? Or do you only apply this argument to the EU?

rory_20_uk

12-11-2020, 22:52

So you won't admit evidence or concrete examples into your sovereignty argument, and you won't admit responsibility for the consequences of Brexit either.

From Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian today, a much more eloquent analyst than me.

Do you think the sovereignty argument should be applied to other trade deals too? Do you think that the UK should divest itself of all trade deals, on the grounds that they impinge on our sovereignty? Or do you only apply this argument to the EU?

Still desperately trying to square the circle. Never letting clear evidence sway you from your narrative.

I gave clear concrete examples -but you choose to ignore them.
I have - as I said - given a long exchange on the consequences of Brexit. Or more specifically the damage done from joining from the EEC.

Trade deals do not impinge on Sovereignty, as I have repeatedly said. Again, name me one other supra national organisation that can add to UK laws. So far you've managed to desperately mumble about how these other things (NATO, no wait, the WTO... erm UNICEF? Uh... aha! All other trade agreements) might alter how the UK acts - ignoring how the same can be said of anything.

Try to deal with the specifics rather than endless straw men.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

12-12-2020, 01:37

Still desperately trying to square the circle. Never letting clear evidence sway you from your narrative.

I gave clear concrete examples -but you choose to ignore them.
I have - as I said - given a long exchange on the consequences of Brexit. Or more specifically the damage done from joining from the EEC.

Trade deals do not impinge on Sovereignty, as I have repeatedly said. Again, name me one other supra national organisation that can add to UK laws. So far you've managed to desperately mumble about how these other things (NATO, no wait, the WTO... erm UNICEF? Uh... aha! All other trade agreements) might alter how the UK acts - ignoring how the same can be said of anything.

Try to deal with the specifics rather than endless straw men.

~:smoking:

I may have missed it. Can you point me to it, so I can read for myself? I've been reading other material, which I deem to be knowledgable and unbiased on the subject, given that they cite specific regulations and effects and are not inclined to be pro-EU. In the recent exchange, all you've cited is the CJEU, excepting the principle of sovereignty and laws which you refuse to specify, and which you indeed have said that you do not want to specify. Which EU laws do you want us to drop? Or do you want us to drop all EU laws?

BTW, are you planning on flying into EU countries any time soon?

Pannonian

12-13-2020, 13:10

"British ministers have warned supermarkets to stockpile food amid possibilities of a no-deal Brexit, with shortages feared as talks with the European Union remain deadlocked, The Sunday Times newspaper reported.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson is set to take control of planning if Britain opts for no deal and will chair an exit operations committee to prepare the response, the newspaper reported.

Ministers have told suppliers of medicines, medical devices and vaccines to stockpile six weeks’ worth at secure locations in the United Kingdom, the report added."

https://uk.reuters.com/article/britain-eu-supermarkets/uk-ministers-warn-supermarkets-to-stockpile-food-on-no-deal-brexit-fears-sunday-times-idUKFWN2IS08H

Project Fear, they called it. Will the Brexiteers try to solve these problems, or will they just seek to direct blame?

InsaneApache

12-18-2020, 22:23

Morning all, what's new?

Pannonian

12-19-2020, 00:28

Morning all, what's new?

Trucks queue down the M20 for mile upon mile at the entrance of the Eurotunnel in Folkestone, as companies rush to stockpile as the deadline for a Brexit trade deal looms.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1339851685666144258

Bags of faeces and bottles of urine reported, with gardens of nearby properties said to be unworkable due to the overwhelming smell.

a completely inoffensive name

12-19-2020, 03:39

Morning all, what's new?

This is the opposite of new, while listening to a History of Economics lecture I paid attention to the lesson on the precursors to the EU.
Didn't know that GB was an original invitee to the EEC which they declined out of fear of a supranational organization dictating economic policy. Various free trade deals was made creating the EFTA, but only 10 years later GB wanted into the common market after mismanaging their own empire. France vetoed GB's application until de Gaulle was out of office and then GB enjoyed the common market until two weeks from now.

I'm guessing the turn around time from Brexit to reapplication will be faster, but it would be a fun rhyme that Macron vetoes any re-application just to teach GB a lesson in being so flippant about supranational organizations.

Pannonian

12-19-2020, 03:51

This is the opposite of new, while listening to a History of Economics lecture I paid attention to the lesson on the precursors to the EU.
Didn't know that GB was an original invitee to the EEC which they declined out of fear of a supranational organization dictating economic policy. Various free trade deals was made creating the EFTA, but only 10 years later GB wanted into the common market after mismanaging their own empire. France vetoed GB's application until de Gaulle was out of office and then GB enjoyed the common market until two weeks from now.

I'm guessing the turn around time from Brexit to reapplication will be faster, but it would be a fun rhyme that Macron vetoes any re-application just to teach GB a lesson in being so flippant about supranational organizations.

What makes you think there will be an application to rejoin? There will be no chance of it being accepted without a referendum in favour, probably with a more decisive result than the last one. And there will always be a section of the UK population willing to blame the EU for everything, whatever the evidence or logic or lack of. Nebulous arguments like sovereignty that cannot have any concrete basis, combined with resentment of foreigners.

a completely inoffensive name

12-19-2020, 04:11

What makes you think there will be an application to rejoin? There will be no chance of it being accepted without a referendum in favour, probably with a more decisive result than the last one. And there will always be a section of the UK population willing to blame the EU for everything, whatever the evidence or logic or lack of. Nebulous arguments like sovereignty that cannot have any concrete basis, combined with resentment of foreigners.

The UK will slip behind the continent economically and will be forced to join for geopolitical survival. It's literally why you joined the EEC in the first place.
Sovereignty is cool and all, but you haven't even left yet. After 5-10 years of economic pain, it will be a different story.

Political environments in the 21st century seem to change more quickly compared to the latter half of the 20th.

I mean, the UK could be a powerhouse again if managed correctly. Plenty of other European states do fine outside the EU, the EFTA is still around. Rory, Frun and well every other UK poster besides you are hoping for a better economic future because the potential is there for smart reforms and a more dynamic/responsive state. Problem is, I just don't see that potential being unlocked by the current government.

Maybe the other UK posters know more about what the Tory party is actually planning on doing to reform internal markets cause we seem to be stuck on the issue of trade balances which is only one aspect of a nation's economy.

In short: internal mismanagement by UK politicians will erode the sovereignty argument as people begin to feel like they would rather just have the higher standard of living. As of now, there is still the potential for both, so I can't really see why you insist on verbally haranguing your fellow countrymen so much.

Pannonian

12-19-2020, 11:49

The UK will slip behind the continent economically and will be forced to join for geopolitical survival. It's literally why you joined the EEC in the first place.
Sovereignty is cool and all, but you haven't even left yet. After 5-10 years of economic pain, it will be a different story.

Political environments in the 21st century seem to change more quickly compared to the latter half of the 20th.

I mean, the UK could be a powerhouse again if managed correctly. Plenty of other European states do fine outside the EU, the EFTA is still around. Rory, Frun and well every other UK poster besides you are hoping for a better economic future because the potential is there for smart reforms and a more dynamic/responsive state. Problem is, I just don't see that potential being unlocked by the current government.

Maybe the other UK posters know more about what the Tory party is actually planning on doing to reform internal markets cause we seem to be stuck on the issue of trade balances which is only one aspect of a nation's economy.

In short: internal mismanagement by UK politicians will erode the sovereignty argument as people begin to feel like they would rather just have the higher standard of living. As of now, there is still the potential for both, so I can't really see why you insist on verbally haranguing your fellow countrymen so much.

Compare what I said would happen with what they said would happen, with what is happening. Also I don't just rely on this forum for evidence of what Brexiteers say. There are also the Brexiteer politicians, and their supporters. Brexiteers and Trumpists are from the same alt right stable, gaming the electoral system.

rory_20_uk

12-19-2020, 13:40

Compare what I said would happen with what they said would happen, with what is happening. Also I don't just rely on this forum for evidence of what Brexiteers say. There are also the Brexiteer politicians, and their supporters. Brexiteers and Trumpists are from the same alt right stable, gaming the electoral system.

This is the latest example why there is no point in bothering to directly respond: a zealot who only repeats himself and never, ever bothers to learn.

If anything, the ranting is getting worse.

~:smoking:

drone

12-19-2020, 14:52

I'm guessing the turn around time from Brexit to reapplication will be faster, but it would be a fun rhyme that Macron vetoes any re-application just to teach GB a lesson in being so flippant about supranational organizations.
If the UK (or whatever is left of it in a few years) is to be allowed back in, they will definitely be forced to adopt the Euro. So they will lose not only their "sovereignty", but also control of their monetary policy. So Brexit may have been a French/German plot all along... :inquisitive: