EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

Will the Corbyn supporters still solidly back Corbyn now that he's come out in favour of Brexit? As was obvious to anyone who's paid attention to what he's said.

[Fragony]

Corbyn sure is interesting, I think he is a dangerous man, very radical. I can't judge if he is an antisemite or that accusations of it are beneath him, not sure. Extreme left and antisemitism go hand in hand, he certainly glorifies in passive agression

[Furunculus]

Has EU leadership offered the opportunity to opt out of the EU but keep a place in the single market? I suspect not. The British negotiator who, trying to get Brexit to work, refused such an offer would be lynched.

Yes, EEA/EFTA + the Customs Union is what was offered.
So fully regulatory alignment on all Single Market rules - and Flanking Policies!
Plus no freedom to seek trade outside of the EU's own agreements.
Essential loss of regulatory control of financial services.
Plus further bleed-thru of fiscal and monetary norms as an activist ECJ concurs that these are Single Market related activities.

This is why I support Chequers in aiming for single market for goods, and not services. Not disimilar to what has been acheieved by the Swiss and Ukraine, but magical unicorn thinking no doubt. ;)

[Beskar]

This is why I support Chequers in aiming for single market for goods, and not services. Not disimilar to what has been acheieved by the Swiss and Ukraine, but magical unicorn thinking no doubt. ;)

You mean the Swiss in the Schengen Area? Freedom of movement accepted, which the UK does not want.

[Furunculus]

i don't care very much about freedom of movement.
at least no more than the point that it discrimates against the rest of the world, including nations which i feel we have close social and cultural ties.

but schengen has no bearing on this point.

[Pannonian]

i don't care very much about freedom of movement.
at least no more than the point that it discrimates against the rest of the world, including nations which i feel we have close social and cultural ties.

but schengen has no bearing on this point.

What do you think of Australia and New Zealand objecting to our rolling over existing terms for proposed WTO membership, arguing that they only agreed to them because we were part of the EU, and since we're leaving the EU, they want more advantageous terms?

[Furunculus]

What do you think of Australia and New Zealand objecting to our rolling over existing terms for proposed WTO membership, arguing that they only agreed to them because we were part of the EU, and since we're leaving the EU, they want more advantageous terms?

that does not alter my judgement as outlined above in any way.

[Pannonian]

that does not alter my judgement as outlined above in any way.

They clearly value their trade ties with the EU over doing us the favour that we'd presumed. Or were you thinking of some other countries who are socially and culturally closer to us than Australia and New Zealand?

BTW, we discriminate in favour of Australian and New Zealanders who are here, who have more rights than EU citizens (barring Irish). Do you think we should remove these discriminatory rights?

Also, have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? You dismissed him as an insignificant source, yet the UK government is forming policy based on his testimony and reports citing him. Do you still think that no deal is better than SM/CU (BRINO) as you'd previously said?

[Furunculus]

They clearly value their trade ties with the EU over doing us the favour that we'd presumed. Or were you thinking of some other countries who are socially and culturally closer to us than Australia and New Zealand?

BTW, we discriminate in favour of Australian and New Zealanders who are here, who have more rights than EU citizens (barring Irish). Do you think we should remove these discriminatory rights?

Also, have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? You dismissed him as an insignificant source, yet the UK government is forming policy based on his testimony and reports citing him. Do you still think that no deal is better than SM/CU (BRINO) as you'd previously said?

no, those people.

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

excellent, I expect my government (whoever is running it) to respond to changing circumstances.

[Pannonian]

no, those people.

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

excellent, I expect my government (whoever is running it) to respond to changing circumstances.

They could vote to deprive EU citizens of those rights. EU citizens couldn't vote to preserve those rights. You and rory are big on political rights, aren't you?

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? His testimony, and reports citing his testimony, is making the government reconsider their insouciance towards no deal. Are you still for no deal after listening to him? Have you even listened to him? FWIW, the BBC took one Brexiteer through the process that Mr Trucker referred to. After going through a relatively trouble-free instance of that, said Brexiteer said he'd been lied to, and hadn't understood until then what trade involved. And that was just the standard process that Mr Trucker goes through on a good day, with virtually no unusual friction encountered (the Brexiteer noted that in his experience, 50% of documents contain errors, with the customs official telling him how long each error would delay matters; there weren't any on this occasion, but the very checking of the documents demonstrated to the Brexiteer the processes involved).

[Furunculus]

They could vote to deprive EU citizens of those rights. EU citizens couldn't vote to preserve those rights. You and rory are big on political rights, aren't you?

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? His testimony, and reports citing his testimony, is making the government reconsider their insouciance towards no deal. Are you still for no deal after listening to him? Have you even listened to him? FWIW, the BBC took one Brexiteer through the process that Mr Trucker referred to. After going through a relatively trouble-free instance of that, said Brexiteer said he'd been lied to, and hadn't understood until then what trade involved. And that was just the standard process that Mr Trucker goes through on a good day, with virtually no unusual friction encountered (the Brexiteer noted that in his experience, 50% of documents contain errors, with the customs official telling him how long each error would delay matters; there weren't any on this occasion, but the very checking of the documents demonstrated to the Brexiteer the processes involved).

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

[Pannonian]

but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

SMCU would have been outside political union. But like you said, you prefer no deal to that. So the stuff about only not consenting to political union is guff.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, or read reports extrapolating from that to the economy as a whole? You may dismiss him as insignificant, but the UK government disagrees with you.

[Furunculus]

SMCU would have been outside political union. But like you said, you prefer no deal to that. So the stuff about only not consenting to political union is guff.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, or read reports extrapolating from that to the economy as a whole? You may dismiss him as insignificant, but the UK government disagrees with you.

Hey, tedious boi, endlessly repeating the same mindless catechisms: no need to make stuff up when you are perfectly well aware of my position:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053780824&viewfull=1#post2053780824


"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!

Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)

That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.

I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.
p.s. Flexcit - life is complicated; I can recognise the merit of the authors work without needing to agree with everything he says. Presumably you are the same, given that he advocates brexit for many of the same reasons I do?

Whadaya you know, i was addressing exactly the same question four months back too, and as predicted then I am having to repeat myself once more. #tedium.

[Husar]

i don't care very much about freedom of movement.
at least no more than the point that it discrimates against the rest of the world, including nations which i feel we have close social and cultural ties.

but schengen has no bearing on this point.

If giving someone more freedom of movement discriminates against someone else's freedom of movement, then someone earning more money than I do discriminates against my ability to consume. Have you finally turned socialist? :creep:

[Pannonian]

Hey, tedious boi, endlessly repeating the same mindless catechisms: no need to make stuff up when you are perfectly well aware of my position:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053780824&viewfull=1#post2053780824

Whadaya you know, i was addressing exactly the same question four months back too, and as predicted then I am having to repeat myself once more. #tedium.

The last time you posted that, I quoted your conversation with Husar, in which you explicitly stated that you prefer no deal to "soft Brexit."


"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.



That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (no deal Brexit), thanks." You chose Brexit, and faced with the options, you choose no deal, and faced with the realities as presented by the relevant experts, you still choose no deal Brexit. Take responsibility for your choice, rather than, as is typical of Brexiteers, trying to pass responsibility to those that hadn't voted for it.


but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

Husar's option 1 does not include political union, but you chose option 2, no deal Brexit, anyway.

[Pannonian]

Hey, tedious boi, endlessly repeating the same mindless catechisms: no need to make stuff up when you are perfectly well aware of my position:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053780824&viewfull=1#post2053780824

Whadaya you know, i was addressing exactly the same question four months back too, and as predicted then I am having to repeat myself once more. #tedium.

The last time you posted that, I quoted your conversation with Husar, in which you explicitly stated that you prefer no deal to "soft Brexit."


"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.



That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (no deal Brexit), thanks." You chose Brexit, and faced with the options, you choose no deal, and faced with the realities as presented by the relevant experts, you still choose no deal Brexit. Take responsibility for your choice, rather than, as is typical of Brexiteers, trying to pass responsibility to those that hadn't voted for it.


but not the right to move here at will, get a job without hindrance, and stay as they please, right?

i do not consent to political union. i spent the last eighteen months supporting a happy compromise. you could have spent the last two years adocating soft brexit but did not. now we have to see whether we end up with hard brexit against both of our preferences. but, in all circumstances I do not consent to political union.

Husar's option 1 does not include political union, but you chose option 2, no deal Brexit, anyway.

[Furunculus]

If giving someone more freedom of movement discriminates against someone else's freedom of movement, then someone earning more money than I do discriminates against my ability to consume. Have you finally turned socialist? :creep:

i'm afraid your analogy doesn't really capture the situation.

there has NEVER been any public consensus on accepting open borders and unlimited immigration.
which is why RoR immigration has been steadily clamped down upon as EU regulation has opened up.
which is how we have a situation here where 7% of the worlds population occupies over 50% of immigration into the uk.

[Furunculus]

The last time you posted that, I quoted your conversation with Husar, in which you explicitly stated that you prefer no deal to "soft Brexit."


That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (no deal Brexit), thanks." You chose Brexit, and faced with the options, you choose no deal, and faced with the realities as presented by the relevant experts, you still choose no deal Brexit. Take responsibility for your choice, rather than, as is typical of Brexiteers, trying to pass responsibility to those that hadn't voted for it.

Husar's option 1 does not include political union, but you chose option 2, no deal Brexit, anyway.

Husar offered a false choice in taking the EU's opening position as the end game.

They offered not the soft-brexit choice of EFTA/EEA, but rather EEA+CU (that latter of which would not even be compatible with EFTA membership).
I support a halfway house which brings a full regulatory model for goods but leaves services out. Not dissimilar to that already achieved by the Swiss and Ukraine.
That is not a 'hard' brexit deal, it is in fact very moderate, Husar's option by contrast would leave britain so closely aligned in regulatory / social / employment / trade policy, that it would be difficult to argue that we had left.

And I have pointed out geopolitical realities to you, where the threat of unilateral guillotine on the agreement is unacceptable, and no one should ever attempt to negotiate without the ability to walk away.

[Husar]

i'm afraid your analogy doesn't really capture the situation.

I'm shocked that you say that, I fully expected you to agree. :laugh4:


there has NEVER been any public consensus on accepting open borders and unlimited immigration.
which is why RoR immigration has been steadily clamped down upon as EU regulation has opened up.
which is how we have a situation here where 7% of the worlds population occupies over 50% of immigration into the uk.

Well, maybe you should have opened the border to those refugees in the huge camp in Calais to diversify your immigration.
I also doubt that it is shocking that most migration does not happen across half the planet. Your argument thus does not prove anything.

[Furunculus]

I also doubt that it is shocking that most migration does not happen across half the planet. Your argument thus does not prove anything.

if i were germany, no, in being a regionally insular nation whith little historic cultural or linguistic reach.
it would perhaps be of little surprise that the enormous majority of immigration was from immediate neighbours.
that is not the position that britain finds itself in, and it is beyond dispute that the regime that operates against non-EU nationals is punitive in a way that EU nationals would shudder to experience.

[Husar]

if i were germany, no, in being a regionally insular nation whith little historic cultural or linguistic reach.

Funny.


that is not the position that britain finds itself in, and it is beyond dispute that the regime that operates against non-EU nationals is punitive in a way that EU nationals would shudder to experience.

You could just as well have corrected me when I took your argument for granted, because it's not even true that most migrants come from the EU: https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/


Estimated non-EU net migration, meanwhile, is 227,000 a year—the highest level recorded since 2011. It has been almost consistently higher than EU migration for decades.

So what exactly is your problem here? It appears that non-EU migrants have no real problems coming to the UK, there are even more of them than EU migrants.

[Furunculus]

You could just as well have corrected me when I took your argument for granted, because it's not even true that most migrants come from the EU: https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/



So what exactly is your problem here? It appears that non-EU migrants have no real problems coming to the UK, there are even more of them than EU migrants.

you are correct, there is more RoW immigration than EU immigration, but in the years leading up to the brexit vote it was nearly 50:50:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
i remain perfectly comfortable in my original assertion that there was an injustice in 7% of the worlds population occupying over/nearly/slightly-less-than half the net migration, as contrasted to the other 90% of the worlds population.

lol, "no real problem"? the regime for RoR immigration [is] punative compared for that of EU citizens under freedom of movement, and it has become more punitive as a response to increased pressure from eu immigration.

[Husar]

you are correct, there is more RoW immigration than EU immigration, but in the years leading up to the brexit vote it was nearly 50:50:
https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/
i remain perfectly comfortable in my original assertion that there was an injustice in 7% of the worlds population occupying over/nearly/slightly-less-than half the net migration, as contrasted to the other 90% of the worlds population.

lol, "no real problem"? the regime for RoR immigration [is] punative compared for that of EU citizens under freedom of movement, and it has become more punitive as a response to increased pressure from eu immigration.

Do you have anything to back that up? You can assert a lot and so can I, but that doesn't prove your point in any way.
It may well be that the UK government is moving against immigration, but I cannot find anything about how this is tied to EU membership. Some people claim it is, without citing any specific EU rules that would mandate this.

[Pannonian]

Do you have anything to back that up? You can assert a lot and so can I, but that doesn't prove your point in any way.
It may well be that the UK government is moving against immigration, but I cannot find anything about how this is tied to EU membership. Some people claim it is, without citing any specific EU rules that would mandate this.

Even the EU immigration can be acted on, with various measures taken by other member countries that aren't done by the UK, eg. registering when they enter and having to leave if they don't have employment within 6 months. The four freedoms mandates freedom of movement of labour, not freedom of movement of individuals. Instead, you have the Brexit loons arguing that EU immigrants are freeloading on the welfare state and the NHS, when it's Westminster, not Brussels, that allows this.

[Furunculus]

Do you have anything to back that up? You can assert a lot and so can I, but that doesn't prove your point in any way.
It may well be that the UK government is moving against immigration, but I cannot find anything about how this is tied to EU membership. Some people claim it is, without citing any specific EU rules that would mandate this.

i did find an authoritative source a few months back that discussed how uk public policy had responded to rising immigration in noughties, might have been here, but can't find it now. i did look.

[Furunculus]

Even the EU immigration can be acted on, with various measures taken by other member countries that aren't done by the UK, eg. registering when they enter and having to leave if they don't have employment within 6 months. The four freedoms mandates freedom of movement of labour, not freedom of movement of individuals. Instead, you have the Brexit loons arguing that EU immigrants are freeloading on the welfare state and the NHS, when it's Westminster, not Brussels, that allows this.

q) and how much of this depends on a conformist social democracy that requires national id cards, to be presented throughout private life in accessing services?
a) lots

we could achieve this, certainly, but it would need finnish collectivism not british individualism.

[a completely inoffensive name]

May says the choices are clear. It is either this deal, no deal, or no brexit.

[Pannonian]

We've finally got a manifesto for Brexit. Do the Brexiteers here support it?

[Fragony]

We've finally got a manifesto for Brexit. Do the Brexiteers here support it?

I guess, I support it as people should be able to rethink it, it will probably turn out to be much harsher though, will you accept it if it does

[Husar]

Just for reference, because I needed that myself: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-11-14/theresa-may-s-brexit-deal-what-we-know-so-far

I for one welcome our new island colony.

[Furunculus]

We've finally got a manifesto for Brexit. Do the Brexiteers here support it?

Too soon to say, but my uninformed inclination is: yes.

[Pannonian]

Too soon to say, but my uninformed inclination is: yes.

Have you read the bits about joint decisions yet? Or the stuff about equivalence. That's rory's most cited red line well and truly crossed.

[Furunculus]

Have you read the bits about joint decisions yet? Or the stuff about equivalence. That's rory's most cited red line well and truly crossed.

Actually, yes, and this is one of the motivations I mentioned to you some months back.

In short:
The peril of the Swiss governance method is that it all hangs as one agreement, subject to a unilateral guillotine if the ECJ judges that it has breached any one element of the agreement. The whole lot chopped!

I argued that this would be unacceptable.
It was threatened during the course of the negotiation, but what has been achieved is better than that:

https://twitter.com/sylviademars/status/1063100734152019970

Lots of external arbitration by separate committees overseeing their discreet element of the treaty.

People have been too focussed on the single axis of sovereignty vs integration, whereas I have always been inetersted in brexit from a geopolitics perspective, and I'd argue that "power fragility" is just as important.

There will always be disputes, disputes that [could] be resolved amicably, but become fulcrums in entirely separate public policy battles.
Constantly having to look over your shoulder when contemplating public policy divergence is not 'useful' sovereignty, even if you in theory have absolute legal freedom to do as you please.

[rory_20_uk]

May's deal appears to have managed to unite most of the country - almost everyone dislikes the deal - the remainers want to be leading Europe, not the gimp at the end of the choke collar; the brexiteers want to be properly out and equally not the gimp at the end end of a choke collar. A true master stroke.

I've always stated that there is close to no realistic chance of a deal since one would require something that the UK and entire EU agrees with - and even getting Ireland on side is proving to be extremely difficult.

Rather than spending 2 1/2 years in getting things sorted for what would be an undoubtedly be a difficult situation of leaving with no deal, they're pretending they can get one - even saying "no deal is better than a bad deal".

Enter a drawn-out pretending-to-leave and then at a point in the future we then end up rejoining more under the banner of having control over the money we continue to have to give.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

If you end up rejoining or paying for access, you may actually pay more if the special rebate is gone. :clown:

[Fragony]

If you end up rejoining or paying for access, you may actually pay more if the special rebate is gone. :clown:

60 procent of Brittish trade is outside the EU the remaining trade becommin more expensive is not going to hurt all that much, I hope the Netherlands follow suit, not realistic currentlly, but good luck with tarrifs on the biggest harbour and second biggest food producers in the world. It will happen eventually that we leave as well, everything you eat, everything you make, will cost you a lot more. The Netherlands has good carts but nobody plays them, for now

[rory_20_uk]

If you end up rejoining or paying for access, you may actually pay more if the special rebate is gone. :clown:

Absolutely. What limited trust / power / gravitas the UK might have had is pretty much gone. Any "special deals" are also probably on the line. Turncoats are occasionally useful but rarely trusted.

But then the entire process was screwed from the start - a poorly thought out referendum that was supposed to kill the issue it kicked off with simplistic questions and no real clear process of what exactly this meant leading to a lot of chaos given the vote was so close. The Brexit side did lie - frankly those that believed the lies should loose the right to vote since they are not functioning as sentient beings.

Out of this whole sad situation the only possibility of any sort of upside for the UK is if Italy goes down the pan and drags the Euro down with it.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

I know people for voted leave simply because of the NHS Money Bus, because they wanted to support the NHS and though since it was on the side of a bus, it was legit. :no:

When you tried to tell them otherwise, they were all "nooo it is on the side of a bus!"

That bus is also still in the news...

[Furunculus]

I know people for voted leave simply because of the NHS Money Bus, because they wanted to support the NHS and though since it was on the side of a bus, it was legit. :no:

When you tried to tell them otherwise, they were all "nooo it is on the side of a bus!"

That bus is also still in the news...

do you hang out with a lot of left wing people?

asking, as that never entered my mind as a motivation, or, many of the brexit supporting people I know.*

*which isn't many, as I work in the public sector, in a university town.

[Montmorency]

Funny line (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/15/brexit-wreckers-slink-away-dominic-raab-esther-mcvey):


These resignations confirm a fundamental structural problem with the whole leave prospectus: it was a fantasy, and as such incompatible with the mundane fulfilment of ministerial responsibility. Raab has come to the same conclusion that David Davis and Boris Johnson reached earlier in the year: it is easier to be on the team that accuses the prime minister of failing to deliver majestic herds of unicorns than it is to be stuck with a portfolio that requires expertise in unicorn-breeding.

[Beskar]

do you hang out with a lot of left wing people?
asking, as that never entered my mind as a motivation, or, many of the brexit supporting people I know.*
*which isn't many, as I work in the public sector, in a university town.

More I am from a poor working class area. Those same people are more likely to be UKIP voters too, as some feel Nigel Farage would represent their interests as he is more down with the people and that migration is the source of woes in British society by overstretching already overstretched hospital, education, etc services. Few people I know even vote conservative, because they see it as a pride thing, in a manner of "I am above my peers, I am a conservative" type of manner even though they shoot themselves in the foot due to the policies. Then there are people who vote conservative as they are rich, so they actually would benefit from it.

Whilst the actual left-wingers I know voted for remaining within the EU. The Remainers included pretty much anyone educated and under of the age of 40.

So I am guessing the demographic I am referring to are working class people over the age of 50.

People who loved the bus include my own mother who works within the NHS, using it part of her justification as she was heavily influenced by my euro-sceptic uncle who embarked on a Brexit campaign of saving young people from themselves because we don't know what is good for us (so ignore us), for the pride of Britain type stance. Myself and all my cousins all voted remain.

[Furunculus]

personally - and i say this because have very little anecdotal evidence to share - i don't think we can ignore the fact the the vast majority have never had an emotional attachment to EUrope as a political idea.
the EU - apart from a small minority - has never stirred any passion in us, or seemed the answer to any great question. as is the case on the continent.

so, yes, you may pick up on working class labour (non) voters who liked the bus, and you my also note other demographic slices like scotland, the young, the educated, etc, but in all those case they too voted en-mass to leave as well as remain.
a third of scots
forty percent of the young
a third of people with degrees

great chunks of even those demographic slices seen as fertile ground for remain.
... and then around all those specific groups the great avalanche of middle england - who also will have voted to remain in substantial part.

but not enough. not enough passion to make up for the grit it constantly sprinkled in the gears of society.

i do think getting worked up over the bus is not helpful to disappointed remainers; it is a slogan to shout not a reason leading to understanding.

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

And by way of return:

My own immediate family was split. parents and sons voting to leave.
Daughters voting to remain (i think - never really asked).

My parents being the most committed, and who am I to argue: educated professionals (teacher/nurse) who HAD ACTUALLY MOVED THEIR FAMILY ABROAD TO LIVE.
Myself with a polish wife, my brother living in istanbul with his turkish girlfriend. Both of us soft leavers.
My sisters living solidly english middle-class urban lives. Both of them soft remainers, neither with any love, just seemed practical.
Oh, and as a consequence of our parents choices, all of us have in fact lived abroad, growing up in central africa.

I can find no reason why I should besmirch any of the choices made in my family. All made for good and honest reasons, whichever choice was arrived at.

[Montmorency]

When you call yourself a "soft" Brexiter, do you mean in 2016, or now? My impression is that you've always been adamant on the ideological importance of holding Europe at arm's length.

[Furunculus]

When you call yourself a "soft" Brexiter, do you mean in 2016, or now? My impression is that you've always been adamant on the ideological importance of holding Europe at arm's length.

I have always been a Eurosceptic, never a ukipper.
only became a leaver after Camerons renegotiation, when Belgium demanded the exemption from ever closer union must apply only to the UK.
both obnoxious in its own right, but also the end to any hope of Britain building blocking minorities in a time of QMV, reduced vote weight, and eurozone caucusing.

[Pannonian]

I have always been a Eurosceptic, never a ukipper.
only became a leaver after Camerons renegotiation, when Belgium demanded the exemption from ever closer union must apply only to the UK.
both obnoxious in its own right, but also the end to any hope of Britain building blocking minorities in a time of QMV, reduced vote weight, and eurozone caucusing.

What do you think of the role played by the backers of Putin and Trump? Are they less obnoxious in your eyes? Do you think the likes of Cambridge Analytica and Steve Bannon are good for British democracy?

[Furunculus]

What do you think of the role played by the backers of Putin and Trump? Are they less obnoxious in your eyes?

Do you think the likes of Cambridge Analytica and Steve Bannon are good for British democracy?

you'll have to explain that one. In the context of brexit...?

if they broke the law, prosecute them. if they exposed weaknesses in the law, amend the law. not of any material consequence either way.

[Fragony]

Game over it seems

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... Do you think the likes of Cambridge Analytica and Steve Bannon are good for British democracy?

Setting aside your more particular political question about interference, this general question is worthy of its own thread and of concern, I believe, everywhere where elections are even vaguely fair.

The mediated world in which we live is manipulatable in ways the make the Goldwater Daisy ad seem like a child's machinations. I don't think there are many in government -- and fewer than I would like in general -- thinking about the problem potential here.

[Pannonian]

Setting aside your more particular political question about interference, this general question is worthy of its own thread and of concern, I believe, everywhere where elections are even vaguely fair.

The mediated world in which we live is manipulatable in ways the make the Goldwater Daisy ad seem like a child's machinations. I don't think there are many in government -- and fewer than I would like in general -- thinking about the problem potential here.

This is why I absolutely loathe the soundbite by Michael Gove, one of the leading Leave campaigners: "I think this country has had enough of experts". The success and viability of liberal democracy is absolutely dependent on being able to assess the evidence at hand, going back to the C19 when the franchise was expanded at the same time as compulsory education at younger ages was introduced across the population. The average voter has never been able to understand in detail the issues at hand. It's a matter of educating them to assess which experts are offering realistic choices, and only then can they make an informed choice. Brexit, and in particular Leave, explicitly diminished the political importance of experts. But politics does not automatically equal reality. Just because you vote for something does not necessarily make it so.

[Fragony]

Experts aren't always experts, the academic world is full of frauds and essays for hire. I also got university degrees (multiple), I do not take them serious at all I just read books

[Pannonian]

Experts aren't always experts, the academic world is full of frauds and essays for hire. I also got university degrees (multiple), I do not take them serious at all I just read books

Have you listened to Mr Trucker? Or the reps of the UK logistics industry? They are indeed for hire. They're hired to move the UK's trade around. Are they worth listening to?

[Fragony]

Have you listened to Mr Trucker? Or the reps of the UK logistics industry? They are indeed for hire. They're hired to move the UK's trade around. Are they worth listening to?

Can't say I have. As it looks you have won the argument the brexit seems to be dead, fold it up with a special kiss from me to seal it

Brexit is gone, sadly

[Pannonian]

Can't say I have. As it looks you have won the argument the brexit seems to be dead, fold it up with a special kiss from me to seal it

Brexit is gone, sadly

Why nor read up on what Mr Trucker had to say, or the extrapolations that the logistics reps make over the UK? These are the people who are the lifeblood of British trade, so they're not academic theorists, unlike the economists that Furunculus is fond of citing. They deal with everyday reality. Are they experts worth listening to?

[Fragony]

Why nor read up on what Mr Trucker had to say, or the extrapolations that the logistics reps make over the UK? These are the people who are the lifeblood of British trade, so they're not academic theorists, unlike the economists that Furunculus is fond of citing. They deal with everyday reality. Are they experts worth listening to?

It's always good to listen, without having looking it up I wonder where their market is, I bet it is not in the global market that is much more important for the UK. Again, I haven't actually looked it up. Brexiteers have lost and should just take it

[Pannonian]

It's always good to listen, without having looking it up I wonder where their market is, I bet it is not in the global market that is much more important for the UK. Again, I haven't actually looked it up. Brexiteers have lost and should just take it

As the resigned Brexit minister admitted, he was surprised at how important the Calais-Dover route is in British trade, even in the context of the whole UK. The EU-UK logistical trail is critical to the UK, and the sources I cite are the experts on the subject. To dismiss them in favour of looking at the macro economy, as Furunculus does, is to wilfully miss the point. No logistics, no trade, no matter how much you fiddle the numbers and talk about global market and other buzz terms. Just because you win a vote to have unicorns does not mean unicorns will exist.

[Fragony]

As the resigned Brexit minister admitted, he was surprised at how important the Calais-Dover route is in British trade, even in the context of the whole UK. The EU-UK logistical trail is critical to the UK, and the sources I cite are the experts on the subject. To dismiss them in favour of looking at the macro economy, as Furunculus does, is to wilfully miss the point. No logistics, no trade, no matter how much you fiddle the numbers and talk about global market and other buzz terms. Just because you win a vote to have unicorns does not mean unicorns will exist.

But that traderoute wouldn't have been closed, just made more expensive. I think it a missed oppertunity to get rid of Brussels which I see as an increasingly scary overhead, my fever dreams of a possible Nexit are shattered as a Dutch-UK trade alliance could have been much more influential than the French-German dominance there is now. There is hardly any growth in the EU-zone, only the UK and the Netherlands excel, we could be so much better. The Netherlands especially has a knive on the throat of Germany's industry, and everybody else because we produce their food, we shouldn't have to listen to these idiots we can do it all ourself, when backed. Such a shame, with Denmark and Norway and maybe even the ever neutral Switzerland we could have got out of this mess

[Husar]

But that traderoute wouldn't have been closed, just made more expensive.

I think Pannonian said several times that it would effectively be almost closed for a while because of the border checks for which the UK doesn't have anywhere near enough border agents since they didn't train any in advance.

And concerning overhead, having several thousand more border agents and taking over other EU functions that require personnel is not free either.

[Fragony]

I think Pannonian said several times that it would effectively be almost closed for a while because of the border checks for which the UK doesn't have anywhere near enough border agents since they didn't train any in advance.

And concerning overhead, having several thousand more border agents and taking over other EU functions that require personnel is not free either.

Has nothing to do with traderoutes

[Husar]

Has nothing to do with traderoutes

traderoutes don't cross borders?

[Fragony]

traderoutes don't cross borders?



Of course they do but it are seperate manners

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course they do but it are seperate manners

In terms of specific function yes, Frags, but they are all part of the larger process of trade and by extension of the economies involved.

[Pannonian]

Has nothing to do with traderoutes

Seriously, listen to Mr Trucker and read the parliamentary report that cites his account. We're not talking about computer games and sliding scales where you can allocate resources. Also, you mentioned earlier about your dream Nexit. The Netherlands announced they were prepared for no deal Brexit months ago.

[Pannonian]

In terms of specific function yes, Frags, but they are all part of the larger process of trade and by extension of the economies involved.

More relevantly, there are specific details that my cited sources highlight, that absolutely no Brexiteer has attempted to engage with. Because they are unavoidable and unarguable, and the scale cannot be judged. The UK, as a third country, will receive permits for 5% of the trade journeys currently made. Whatever else happens, there will be that bottleneck. That was why the government announced that, in the event of no deal, it would take control of these logistics so as to prioritise the critically important over everything else. The last time a UK government did that was on the outbreak of WW2 when we expected to be blockaded. I'm not sure if May's agreement opens up that bottleneck, but I suppose the relevant institutions will comment once they've digested the details.

[Fragony]

In terms of specific function yes, Frags, but they are all part of the larger process of trade and by extension of the economies involved.

Holding back other trade. The UK and the Netherlands combined would have been formitable, we wouldn't have had to listen to anyone. The French-German EU marches on

[rory_20_uk]

And Spain moves on Gibraltar. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46267684) Hardly surprising - will any other countries have last minute gripes that the leverage of a veto vote on Brexit is just too good a chance to pass up?

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And Spain moves on Gibraltar. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46267684) Hardly surprising - will any other countries have last minute gripes that the leverage of a veto vote on Brexit is just too good a chance to pass up?

~:smoking:

Not that surprising. The re-acquisition of Gibraltar has been a Spanish goal since the early 18th, pursued with differing levels of vigor depending on the era and the government. You could make an argument that this is one of the few policy goals shared by all the divers Spanish governments ever since the Brits took it -- the most consistent element of their national policy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Holding back other trade. The UK and the Netherlands combined would have been formitable, we wouldn't have had to listen to anyone. The French-German EU marches on

While I agree that EU policy skews Franco-German in orientation, Frags, I don't think either country's take on things is that divergent from the bulk of European sensibilities -- including a sizeable slice of those of your fellow Nederlanders. At least on this side of the pond, we do not hear too much about France or Germany dictating terms to the rest of Europe under threat of economic sanctions or what not (excepting pushing Greece on the specifics of the bailout -- which could be argued as reasonable given the economic basket-case they'd made of themselves). They have the largest populations and economies in the collective, so it is pretty natural that they have a significant say. Florida and Texas have a lot more leverage in our Congress than does Idaho.


You are also, with respect, undercutting your own previous penchant for national rugged individualism and a Nexit with that "combined would have been formidable, we wouldn't have to listen to anyone." Such a power combination was, I believe, a primary reason for the European Union.

[Pannonian]

While I agree that EU policy skews Franco-German in orientation, Frags, I don't think either country's take on things is that divergent from the bulk of European sensibilities -- including a sizeable slice of those of your fellow Nederlanders. At least on this side of the pond, we do not hear too much about France or Germany dictating terms to the rest of Europe under threat of economic sanctions or what not (excepting pushing Greece on the specifics of the bailout -- which could be argued as reasonable given the economic basket-case they'd made of themselves). They have the largest populations and economies in the collective, so it is pretty natural that they have a significant say. Florida and Texas have a lot more leverage in our Congress than does Idaho.


You are also, with respect, undercutting your own previous penchant for national rugged individualism and a Nexit with that "combined would have been formidable, we wouldn't have to listen to anyone." Such a power combination was, I believe, a primary reason for the European Union.

And economically, the UK has been the biggest shaper of the current EU.

[Gilrandir]

And economically, the UK has been the biggest shaper of the current EU.

Was

[Kagemusha]

While I agree that EU policy skews Franco-German in orientation, Frags, I don't think either country's take on things is that divergent from the bulk of European sensibilities -- including a sizeable slice of those of your fellow Nederlanders. At least on this side of the pond, we do not hear too much about France or Germany dictating terms to the rest of Europe under threat of economic sanctions or what not (excepting pushing Greece on the specifics of the bailout -- which could be argued as reasonable given the economic basket-case they'd made of themselves). They have the largest populations and economies in the collective, so it is pretty natural that they have a significant say. Florida and Texas have a lot more leverage in our Congress than does Idaho.


You are also, with respect, undercutting your own previous penchant for national rugged individualism and a Nexit with that "combined would have been formidable, we wouldn't have to listen to anyone." Such a power combination was, I believe, a primary reason for the European Union.

I think Seamus makes a rather good point here. Frags. Why are you so willing to group with Britain, while no doubt Netherlands would be the junior partner in such partnership, while you detest grouping with Germany and France within EU? Is it the current conservative Government? If so would the end of such partnership come immediately the next time Labour wins the British elections?

In my opinion, it is rather sad that Britain is leaving EU as it had a big role within EU as her influence had a stabilizing effect and could at times deter the power block of Germany and France within EU.Now with GB leaving there wont be such possibility and EU is going the develop the way Germany and France will see fit. Only opportunities for other EU countries to make a real difference will be when those two will be off different opinion concerning certain policies.

The good thing is of course that novadays Germans are not gassing people anymore and the French are not chopping heads off like no tomorrow, at least for now.:2thumbsup: Still without Britain,the smaller EU countries will see their influence diminished further. Which most of the time will be off no consequence, but still may create more anti EU sentiment in many of the EU countries.

[Furunculus]

I agree, kaga. It is a shame, and even now I would happily retract art50 with one minor change to Camerons renegotiation: make Britain's exemption from ever closer union applicable to all.
but that failure made it clear the EU was a project in which we had no future, in not sharing the driving ambition of the project.
yes, the smaller nations will suffer as a result, and suffer from increased populism.

[Pannonian]

Richard North (who coined the Brexit model that Furunculus is fond of) on Peter Lilley and the ERG (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87061)


That is the measure of the man, and the ERG (to say nothing of Global Britain). But it also illustrates the problem we have when authoritative figures decide to lie. His 75 words takes nearly 1,700 of mine to knock them down. The lies spread faster than they can be challenged and corrected.

And, although I am calling Lord Lilley out as a liar, on a well-read blog, he will do nothing. He dare not. Instead, he will go into denial – in common with his political acolytes. That is the way these people work: they ignore criticism, pretending it does not exist and just go on repeating their lies.

However, Lilley has done us a service, illustrating once again how the ERG works. These people are not to be trusted and the case they make, founded on lies, is terminally flawed. The way they behave is disgusting. They add immeasurably to the debasement of politics, and the erosion of trust.

Brexit is almost entirely founded on lies.

[Furunculus]

for reference - the gruaniad populist quiz places me alongside angela merkel on the populist index:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2018/nov/21/how-populist-are-you-quiz

[Furunculus]

Richard North (who coined the Brexit model that Furunculus is fond of) on Peter Lilley and the ERG (http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87061)


Brexit is almost entirely founded on lies.

flexcit was coined by richard north, but it's fairer to see i'm very fond of the authoritative research that went into building his model. have you read it? ;) but i don't think that flexcit is a bad model, quite the opposite.

equally, i don't think chequers (mk2?) is a bad model.

but you are being disingenuous in inferring the conclusion: "Brexit is almost entirely founded on lies." as if they sprang from richard north's mouth, when he is having a go at the ERG for their quite separate and distinct proposal.

saying that Brexit is almost entirely founded on lies is a statement exactly as fatuous as is this: "The Remain campaign is almost entirely founded on lies."
it has some cross-cutting truths, but does not speak to the 'truth' of the matter. on either side!

[Furunculus]

[bleh]...

[Pannonian]

p.s. you're terribly fond of name checking me in your great revelations of misdoing, but you never address the detailed and thoughtful posts i attempt to craft to further the discussion.

why?

Because you dismissed the primary sources I linked to? You keep linking to IEA studies, when the IEA is pretty much discredited by its offering to shape its research to whichever right wing interests fund it (such as the chairman of IEA offering to put on a good show for US agribusiness). But have you listened to Mr Trucker or read the parliamentary report on logistics yet? These guys don't deal with theory that can be wrangled to suit whoever offers to pay them. They carry the UK's trade, at micro and at macro level. Mr Trucker describes what happens at micro level. The report describes what happens at macro level. If you dismiss them, you have nothing useful to say about British trade.

Example: Kate Hoey, one of the foremost Brexiteer politicians, says something that contradicts Mr Trucker. Does this mean there are two sides to every story? The BBC takes a Brexiteer (voter), a business owner, through a typical trucking journey, letting him see the process for himself. He doesn't encounter any of the problems Mr Trucker alludes to; just a normal, hassle free journey. But at the end of it, he concludes that he'd been lied to by the Leave politicians. There aren't two sides to the story of Brexit. There is the side of objective, corroborable truth; then there is the Leave side, lying all the way. See the claim that Turkey will join the EU, or that Leave will divert 350m/wk to the NHS.

[Furunculus]

we're both equally guilty on that score, as i don't think you've read 400 pages of flexcit. i confess, i dodged 15 minutes of video.

iea is no more and no less discredited on that count than any other think tank.

"There aren't two sides to the story of Brexit. There is the side of objective, corroborable truth; then there is the Leave side, lying all the way." utter dribbling cobblers.

[Beskar]

"There aren't two sides to the story of Brexit. There is the side of objective, corroborable truth; then there is the Leave side, lying all the way." [/I]utter dribbling cobblers.

I disagree with the cobblers, but I also disagree with the statement. The Leave campaign is mostly based on lies and outright deceit which is pretty much factual. However, there are valid arguments, opinions and reasons for why people want to consider leaving the EU and these are not "lying all the way", There is a difference/nuance.

So for example, I don't believe you are "lying all the way" or intending to. But Nigel or Boris? Hell yes they were.

[Pannonian]

I disagree with the cobblers, but I also disagree with the statement. The Leave campaign is mostly based on lies and outright deceit which is pretty much factual. However, there are valid arguments, opinions and reasons for why people want to consider leaving the EU and these are not "lying all the way", There is a difference/nuance.

So for example, I don't believe you are "lying all the way" or intending to. But Nigel or Boris? Hell yes they were.

See the phishing campaign by Leave, presenting a facade of a football predictions competition fronted by celebs, whose real purpose was to gain contact details for targeted campaigning. Is that democracy?

[Fragony]

I disagree with the cobblers, but I also disagree with the statement. The Leave campaign is mostly based on lies and outright deceit which is pretty much factual. However, there are valid arguments, opinions and reasons for why people want to consider leaving the EU and these are not "lying all the way", There is a difference/nuance.

So for example, I don't believe you are "lying all the way" or intending to. But Nigel or Boris? Hell yes they were.

What is wrong with being independant, it is a lost oppertunity. Theresa May deserves much respect for respecting the outcome of something she didn't believe in herself. What you have now (could still change itś not over yet) is an EU that can overrule your laws, congratutations with that.Congratulations with paying much more money to drunks like Juncker, NGO'ś and lobbyists. Such a waste. You could have been out of this Orwellian nightmare, we Dutch could have been following you

[Pannonian]

What is wrong with being independant, it is a lost oppertunity. Theresa May deserves much respect for respecting the outcome of something she didn't believe in herself. What you have now (could still change itś not over yet) is an EU that can overrule your laws, congratutations with that.Congratulations with paying much more money to drunks like Juncker, NGO'ś and lobbyists. Such a waste. You could have been out of this Orwellian nightmare, we Dutch could have been following you

Are you suggesting walking away from all talks without compromising for any deals?

[Fragony]

Are you suggesting walking away from all talks without compromising for any deals?

UK is powerful enough to just do that. The rationality behind it is that it would really hurt the EU if the UK leaves, the EU, not Europe. It is already falling apart you see, Merkel being reason #1

[Pannonian]

UK is powerful enough to just do that. The rationality behind it is that it would really hurt the EU if the UK leaves, the EU, not Europe. It is already falling apart you see, Merkel being reason #1

Have you read about the government studies of the ramifications of no deal? I've mentioned them plenty of times. Start with the Dover-London roads being gridlocked on day 1. A few days on from that, you start having shortages of food and other essential supplies. Your talking about the EU being hurt is theoretical. The government studies pinpoint exactly where the UK will suffer and at what point. If you're so confident about the UK doing well in no deal, come over and live here and share the consequences of your bullcrap.

[Furunculus]

I disagree with the cobblers, but I also disagree with the statement. The Leave campaign is mostly based on lies and outright deceit which is pretty much factual. However, there are valid arguments, opinions and reasons for why people want to consider leaving the EU and these are not "lying all the way", There is a difference/nuance.

So for example, I don't believe you are "lying all the way" or intending to. But Nigel or Boris? Hell yes they were.

i disagree. prime evidence by anecdote being clegg in saying that he thought the eu would be much the same in ten years time as it is today.

but a good example of the ease with which remain lied in being able to trot of bland statements about the status quo, when this is not true.
the remorseless logic of the euro and ever closer union demands more integration.
the consequence of:
1. increased use of QMV over national veto
2. reduced vote-weight as the post Lisbon changes came in
3. eurozone caucusing of decision making - increasingly taken under QMV
4. cameron's renegotiation making it clear to all the peripheral nations that they had no future outside of ever-closer-union

building blocking coalitions was not a sustainable option.

that was not a place we could stay (if you reject that future), but so easy for remain to get an easy ride saying: "aw shucks, you drama queen, things ain't so bad. and nothing will change!"

[Fragony]

Have you read about the government studies of the ramifications of no deal? I've mentioned them plenty of times. Start with the Dover-London roads being gridlocked on day 1. A few days on from that, you start having shortages of food and other essential supplies. Your talking about the EU being hurt is theoretical. The government studies pinpoint exactly where the UK will suffer and at what point. If you're so confident about the UK doing well in no deal, come over and live here and share the consequences of your bullcrap.

Of course there consequens but also benefits. No I am not coming there is something depressing about the UK to me, I don't like the place, why would I ever leave the Netherlands to go to the UK. Netherlands is leeched though

[Pannonian]

i disagree. prime evidence by anecdote being clegg in saying that he thought the eu would be much the same in ten years time as it is today.

but a good example of the ease with which remain lied in being able to trot of bland statements about the status quo, when this is not true.
the remorseless logic of the euro and ever closer union demands more integration.
the consequence of:
1. increased use of QMV over national veto
2. reduced vote-weight as the post Lisbon changes came in
3. eurozone caucusing of decision making - increasingly taken under QMV
4. cameron's renegotiation making it clear to all the peripheral nations that they had no future outside of ever-closer-union

building blocking coalitions was not a sustainable option.

that was not a place we could stay (if you reject that future), but so easy for remain to get an easy ride saying: "aw shucks, you drama queen, things ain't so bad. and nothing will change!"

What has that to do with the UK? We were never in the eurozone. Why do Brexiteers keep citing the euro as a reason for Brexit?

[Furunculus]

What has that to do with the UK? We were never in the eurozone. Why do Brexiteers keep citing the euro as a reason for Brexit?

You have been told.

Several times now:

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


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’.

[Pannonian]

You have been told.

Several times now:

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


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.

So you're miffed because the outs have a numerical inferiority of one in attempting to win any argument in that organisation. So how are things going in winning over the EU27? Each of them has a veto over any agreement the UK may want to make. Ireland have made themselves felt already. Spain have now piped up. And goodness knows who else may want a say before April 2019. Then of course there's the WTO, where there are even more countries who can veto the UK's membership. The US, Russia and your beloved Commonwealth kin have already spoken up. What do you think of the inexorable logic that the UK will be alone with the world looking to screw us over?

BTW, the above isn't a theoretical argument, as yours is. The above countries have already signalled their unwillingness to accommodate us. We've already had to accommodate Ireland, spending the better part of two years trying to satisfy them.

[Furunculus]

the remorseless logic of the euro and ever closer union demands more integration, that is not a place we can go to.
cameron's renegotiation demonstrated this.

the four points above speak to power, and how it is wielded. we can have no expectation of being able to successfully build blocking coalitions in future, as we might have hoped in the early noughties.

[Pannonian]

the remorseless logic of the euro and ever closer union demands more integration, that is not a place we can go to.
cameron's renegotiation demonstrated this.

the four points above speak to power, and how it is wielded. we can have no expectation of being able to successfully build blocking coalitions in future, as we might have hoped in the early noughties.

So how are our prospects for successfully building blocking coalitions in your post-Brexit Brave New World? We've spent the best part of two years trying to satisfy Ireland. Now Spain have piped up with the threat of vetoing, and we've yielded within a couple of days. This ain't your theoretical political landscape that has never been seen in action. This is genuine, demonstrated, post-Brexit political landscape that Remainers said would be so before the referendum.

[Furunculus]

A little tendentious presenting the temporary difficulty of leaving an institution to the long term steady state of being without it, no?

[Fragony]

So how are our prospects for successfully building blocking coalitions in your post-Brexit Brave New World? We've spent the best part of two years trying to satisfy Ireland. Now Spain have piped up with the threat of vetoing, and we've yielded within a couple of days. This ain't your theoretical political landscape that has never been seen in action. This is genuine, demonstrated, post-Brexit political landscape that Remainers said would be so before the referendum.

A second referendum has a reason to exist imho, but I doubt anything different comes from it considering the bullying of the EU, the EU(France) simply needs your and mine money. The French even threaten with war with Germany if they do not get free money, that is the EU

[Pannonian]

A little tendentious presenting the temporary difficulty of leaving an institution to the long term steady state of being without it, no?

Which Leave predictions have come true so far? Which Remain predictions have come true so far?

[Montmorency]

Under what circumstances could one, fundamentally opposed to long-term political integration into Europe, become convinced to reject Leaving?

[Pannonian]

Under what circumstances could one, fundamentally opposed to long-term political integration into Europe, become convinced to reject Leaving?

Given that they reject empirical evidence, I'm not sure what would convince them. It's like Trump supporters, who integrate all Trump outrages into their anti-liberal narrative.

[Pannonian]

A second referendum has a reason to exist imho, but I doubt anything different comes from it considering the bullying of the EU, the EU(France) simply needs your and mine money. The French even threaten with war with Germany if they do not get free money, that is the EU

The EU doesn't need to bully us. Any single country within the EU can bully us, without needing to resort to Brussels. See Spain over Gibraltar. I wonder when Holland will take their turn at kicking us while we're down.

[Fragony]

The EU doesn't need to bully us. Any single country within the EU can bully us, without needing to resort to Brussels. See Spain over Gibraltar. I wonder when Holland will take their turn at kicking us while we're down.

The Netherlands would never do that, nobody would like it if we screw the English. There have been a few wars but that was centuries ago, things have changed

[Pannonian]

The Netherlands would never do that, nobody would like it if we screw the English. There have been a few wars but that was centuries ago, things have changed

Malta has a deep association with the UK. Its flag even contains the George Cross, awarded by the UK to the islanders for their siege in WW2. Their commissioner was one of the first to demand that the UK should be made an example of. I have little doubt the Netherlands will have their turn at kicking us.

[Furunculus]

Under what circumstances could one, fundamentally opposed to long-term political integration into Europe, become convinced to reject Leaving?

Camerons deal + exemption from ever-closer-union available to all. That is all that is needed:

So that euro-outs have a realistic prospect of curbing the political and economic integration that the original-six keep advancing.
Via the endless extension of flanking policies which their social-democratic outlook considers to be a fundamental element of trade policy.
An outlook that is enabled by an activist ECJ in considering this social regulation to fall into the ambit of the single-market, which affects all members.

Without that exemption available to small peripheral nations they have no incentive to join thre UK in a blocking coalition.

[Fragony]

Malta has a deep association with the UK. Its flag even contains the George Cross, awarded by the UK to the islanders for their siege in WW2. Their commissioner was one of the first to demand that the UK should be made an example of. I have little doubt the Netherlands will have their turn at kicking us.

Why would the Netherlands do that you are way to important for us, there is no predatory mindset against the Brittish we like (and need) you here, trade brings in billions in a friendly relationship. It is the eurozone that should worry as the Netherlands is the second biggest food producer of the world and the only one country capable of supplying the raw materials they realy realy need.The Netherlands and the UK should form a pact, and have a beer. Norway and Dnmark should join as well

[rory_20_uk]

The French put the boot in: Quelle surprise (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46336962). Did the government not see this coming? They've managed to squander two years of preparation time on something rather similar to political prayer - that somehow the EU would suddenly give them everything they wanted and there would be no need to have any preparations since it would all be OK.

So the two options now are a disorderly exit that the Government has done nothing to prepare for and has at best given very mixed messages over and agreeing to not be in the EU... but obey all the rules, pay in all the money, have no say and only get to leave when the EU says we can. Not since King John made the Kingdom a Papal possession in 1214 have we been so owned.

Most projects the government takes on are over budget and behind schedule. So of course, the government approached this more complex issue with that same level of ability. Normally of course when it is something such as the NHS smart card, when it fails the costs are quietly written off and no one really pays attention. Here the costs have been a lot higher.

"Fail to plan is planning to fail". I didn't expect to see that at a National level. Are there any good jobs going in Canada?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The French put the boot in: Quelle surprise (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46336962). Did the government not see this coming? They've managed to squander two years of preparation time on something rather similar to political prayer - that somehow the EU would suddenly give them everything they wanted and there would be no need to have any preparations since it would all be OK.

So the two options now are a disorderly exit that the Government has done nothing to prepare for and has at best given very mixed messages over and agreeing to not be in the EU... but obey all the rules, pay in all the money, have no say and only get to leave when the EU says we can. Not since King John made the Kingdom a Papal possession in 1214 have we been so owned.

Most projects the government takes on are over budget and behind schedule. So of course, the government approached this more complex issue with that same level of ability. Normally of course when it is something such as the NHS smart card, when it fails the costs are quietly written off and no one really pays attention. Here the costs have been a lot higher.

"Fail to plan is planning to fail". I didn't expect to see that at a National level. Are there any good jobs going in Canada?

~:smoking:

Didn't the Spanish mention joint governance of Gibraltar as well? How's Brexit? Is it to your taste?

[Furunculus]

Didn't the Spanish mention joint governance of Gibraltar as well? How's Brexit? Is it to your taste?

https://mobile.twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1066415285597609986

[rory_20_uk]

Didn't the Spanish mention joint governance of Gibraltar as well? How's Brexit? Is it to your taste?

Given right from the start I stated that a "hard exit" is the only realistic option to remaining in for exactly these sort of reasons, no - not really. I overlooked the fishing as an issue (and is one of the main reasons why Norway remains outside) but Gibraltar was an obvious one. But I do understand that repeatedly asking the same question until you get an answer you like is sort of what the EU defines itself as.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

Camerons deal + exemption from ever-closer-union available to all. That is all that is needed:

So that euro-outs have a realistic prospect of curbing the political and economic integration that the original-six keep advancing.
Via the endless extension of flanking policies which their social-democratic outlook considers to be a fundamental element of trade policy.
An outlook that is enabled by an activist ECJ in considering this social regulation to fall into the ambit of the single-market, which affects all members.

Without that exemption available to small peripheral nations they have no incentive to join thre UK in a blocking coalition.

You've said before, but it's evading my question, which includes the clause "[being] fundamentally opposed to long-term political integration into Europe". The question doesn't allow having and eating cake at once, I'm afraid.

[Furunculus]

I don't understand your point...?

My answer seems perfectly compatible with the grammatical structure of your question.

Unless you are implicitly talking about internal changes, I. E. Of conscience.

Perhaps; "in ceasing to be opposed to political union I suddenly found my self able to tolerate continued membership on existing terms, and recognising the trend of integration that was already present."

It is theoretical possible, but so limited a supposition it doesn't really move debate to an interesting new place.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The French put the boot in: Quelle surprise (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46336962). Did the government not see this coming? They've managed to squander two years of preparation time on something rather similar to political prayer - that somehow the EU would suddenly give them everything they wanted and there would be no need to have any preparations since it would all be OK.

So the two options now are a disorderly exit that the Government has done nothing to prepare for and has at best given very mixed messages over and agreeing to not be in the EU... but obey all the rules, pay in all the money, have no say and only get to leave when the EU says we can. Not since King John made the Kingdom a Papal possession in 1214 have we been so owned.

Most projects the government takes on are over budget and behind schedule. So of course, the government approached this more complex issue with that same level of ability. Normally of course when it is something such as the NHS smart card, when it fails the costs are quietly written off and no one really pays attention. Here the costs have been a lot higher.

"Fail to plan is planning to fail". I didn't expect to see that at a National level. Are there any good jobs going in Canada?

~:smoking:

healthcarejobs.ca lists 130 vacancies for RNs....

[Pannonian]

healthcarejobs.ca lists 130 vacancies for RNs....

If rory is looking for vacancies, there are even more in the UK since the referendum.


The number of EU nationals leaving jobs at public bodies such as hospital trusts and universities rose by an estimated 15% between 2016 and 2017, according to freedom of information data assembled by a pro second referendum group.

Best for Britain collected data from 82 hospital trusts and 116 universities, among other public bodies, and argues that the figures show public services are being put under extra pressure as a result of the 2016 referendum.

The hospital trusts, all in England, who responded to the freedom of information requests recorded a 22% increase in the number of EU nationals leaving their jobs according to the figures supplied, a “damning indictment” of the Brexit result according to one leading doctor.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/26/figures-show-rise-in-eu-nationals-exiting-public-sector-after-brexit-vote

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If rory is looking for vacancies, there are even more in the UK since the referendum.

I think he was mostly joking, but the context was for jobs NOT in Blighty.

[Montmorency]

I don't understand your point...?

My answer seems perfectly compatible with the grammatical structure of your question.

Unless you are implicitly talking about internal changes, I. E. Of conscience.

Perhaps; "in ceasing to be opposed to political union I suddenly found my self able to tolerate continued membership on existing terms, and recognising the trend of integration that was already present."

It is theoretical possible, but so limited a supposition it doesn't really move debate to an interesting new place.

The question was


Under what circumstances could one, fundamentally opposed to long-term political integration into Europe, become convinced to reject Leaving?

It is today, the time of this post. Exemptions for everybody does not appear to be an option. From the perspective of today's world, you dislike the EU's structure and governance and wish to see Brexit brought to a conclusion.

What could happen that makes you say, 'Nope, cancel Brexit'?

[Furunculus]

I see.

... Alien invasion.

[Pannonian]

The question was

It is today, the time of this post. Exemptions for everybody does not appear to be an option. From the perspective of today's world, you dislike the EU's structure and governance and wish to see Brexit brought to a conclusion.

What could happen that makes you say, 'Nope, cancel Brexit'?

He doesn't like the EU's structure that will put the UK at a disadvantage politically. But he supports May's agreement that renders the UK in vassal to the EU. The UK is no longer at a numerical disadvantage of 1 when trying to build a blocking coalition (to cite his article), but has to accept everything the EU tells it to do. When I pointed out to him that the latter that he supports was an already demonstrated reality, unlike the theoretical possibility of the former that he opposed, he says that it's unfair to compare the two.

[Furunculus]

A vassal in what sense?

Presuming chequers as the best guide we have:
Goods = yes (but fine, not willing to die in a ditch over common aubergine standards
Services = no (which would effectively be the case in eea)
employment = non regression (better than following in eea)
environment = non regression (ditto)
social = non regression (which ecj is steadily moving into the ambit of single market regs)
competition = yes (I can live with it - neoliberal alert!)
Foreign policy and defence = no
Fiscal = no

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I see.

... Alien invasion.

Extra-terrestrial, or would a huge mob of forcefully apologetic Canadians count?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A vassal in what sense?

Presuming chequers as the best guide we have:
Goods = yes (but fine, not willing to die in a ditch over common aubergine standards
Services = no (which would effectively be the case in eea)
employment = non regression (better than following in eea)
environment = non regression (ditto)
social = non regression (which ecj is steadily moving into the ambit of single market regs)
competition = yes (I can live with it - neoliberal alert!)
Foreign policy and defence = no
Fiscal = no

So you would like a free trade zone and pretty much nought aside from that.

[Fragony]

So you would like a free trade zone and pretty much nought aside from that.

That is how it was when it was still the EEG, just trade, no medling with national afairs. We should go back to that. We have basicly all been hijacked by an unnacountable unchosen layer of government. Some aplaud that, I most certainly don't the Netherlands is it's own country, not a province of the EU. It will be if it isn't already

[Furunculus]

So you would like a free trade zone and pretty much nought aside from that.

Yes.
Because I fundamentally reject the notion that social environmental and employment legislation are an indivisble element of trade.


Extra-terrestrial, or would a huge mob of forcefully apologetic Canadians count?

I have a lot of time for canadians.

[Pannonian]

Yes.
Because I fundamentally reject the notion that social environmental and employment legislation are an indivisble element of trade.

I have a lot of time for canadians.

What do you think of Thatcher's ideas on economics?

[Fragony]

Canadians are cool, travel-tip, say you are from Canada here, chances are you will get everything for free

[Furunculus]

What do you think of Thatcher's ideas on economics?

No particular problem, why?

[Pannonian]

No particular problem, why?

What do you think of her speech on the single market?

[Furunculus]

I realise you think you setting yourself up for some grand expose at my expense, but you are not.

The problem is not the single market, it is the judicial activism of the ecj in bringing elements of employment, social and environmental policy into the ambit of the single market, where they cannot be sidestepped, ignored, or otherwise avoided.

Using a logic that Husar has supported in the past: that such action is no more than a sesnibsle regulated capitalism, so of course this is reasonable.!

[Pannonian]

I realise you think you setting yourself up for some grand expose at my expense, but you are not.

The problem is not the single market, it is the judicial activism of the ecj in bringing elements of employment, social and environmental policy into the ambit of the single market, where they cannot be sidestepped, ignored, or otherwise avoided.

Using a logic that Husar has supported in the past: that such action is no more than a sesnibsle regulated capitalism, so of course this is reasonable.!

But we're still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. And we will continue to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ until the EU decides otherwise. And unlike before, we don't have a say in the law that the ECJ will rule by.

[Furunculus]

But we're still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. And we will continue to be under the jurisdiction of the ECJ until the EU decides otherwise. And unlike before, we don't have a say in the law that the ECJ will rule by.

You have so little faith in the institution you profess to love... Why?

[rory_20_uk]

You have so little faith in the institution you profess to love... Why?

I wasn't sure it wasn't "love" more that freedom is not worth any cost.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

You have so little faith in the institution you profess to love... Why?

I'm pointing out that, from your complaint that our original position is disadvantageous in terms of coalition building should things move in a direction contrary to our wishes, we now no longer even have a voice, but we are still subject to said movement. How is this situation better?

We are still bound to equivalence, so we have to follow the rules and regulations of the single market, contrary to your beliefs above. The ECJ still rules on whether our practices affect competitiveness against EU members, so we still obey that body. And any change in that situation is subject to the agreement of the joint body, meaning we are bound to these conditions unless the EU decides otherwise.

How does this stack up against your professed beliefs in sovereignty?

For our American friends: imagine if the Thirteen Colonies in 1776 had representation, and some theorists complained that this representation was being made less effective because the UK was gaining another MP. After some negotiation, these theorists hail a new agreement, by which they pay marginally less tax, but ruining the economy in the process. More relevantly, the agreement gives up all representation in Westminster, but still binds the Thirteen Colonies to laws made in London. And these theorists tell us this is a great thing, whilst still continuing their old arguments about how Westminster wasn't adequately representing the Thirteen Colonies.

On the scale of economy ruining: government studies estimate that no deal will result in a drop in government revenue roughly equivalent to that of our entire defence expenditure. When Brexiteers say that they prefer to leave without a deal, we can just about account for this by implementing 100% defence cuts.


That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

[Furunculus]

We are still bound to equivalence, so we have to follow the rules and regulations of the single market, contrary to your beliefs above. The ECJ still rules on whether our practices affect competitiveness against EU members, so we still obey that body. And any change in that situation is subject to the agreement of the joint body, meaning we are bound to these conditions unless the EU decides otherwise.

How does this stack up against your professed beliefs in sovereignty?


You think the EU will lock us in the backstop against our will...

You have so little faith in the institution you profess to love... Why?

[Pannonian]

You think the EU will lock us in the backstop against our will...

You have so little faith in the institution you profess to love... Why?

Because the agreement says so? And why do you say that I have little faith? I'd prefer to remain as we are. I'd prefer to remain locked inside the EU. It's you that's saying we should be out.

[Fragony]

Because the agreement says so? And why do you say that I have little faith? I'd prefer to remain as we are. I'd prefer to remain locked inside the EU. It's you that's saying we should be out.

But are you willing to respect the referendum of those who don't. Europhiles just killed referendums here because they got the wrong answer

[Pannonian]

But are you willing to respect the referendum of those who don't. Europhiles just killed referendums here because they got the wrong answer

Which Leave scenario are the Leavers implementing? No deal? May's deal? Or something else? I quoted Furunculus above, when he replied to Husar's question, but he's since disowned that answer. Just like how the Leave politicians have disowned all their pre-referendum promises. All these promises are non-existent in May's agreement. Bar one, abandonment of freedom of movement. Will Leavers like rory and Furunculus admit, after all their high-faluting talk about political principles and economic models, that Brexit was about stopping immigration? Because that's the only pre-referendum promise that's present in May's deal.

[Furunculus]

Which Leave scenario are the Leavers implementing? No deal? May's deal? Or something else? I quoted Furunculus above, when he replied to Husar's question, but he's since disowned that answer. Just like how the Leave politicians have disowned all their pre-referendum promises. All these promises are non-existent in May's agreement. Bar one, abandonment of freedom of movement. Will Leavers like rory and Furunculus admit, after all their high-faluting talk about political principles and economic models, that Brexit was about stopping immigration? Because that's the only pre-referendum promise that's present in May's deal.

what have I disowned?

[rory_20_uk]

Which Leave scenario are the Leavers implementing? No deal? May's deal? Or something else? I quoted Furunculus above, when he replied to Husar's question, but he's since disowned that answer. Just like how the Leave politicians have disowned all their pre-referendum promises. All these promises are non-existent in May's agreement. Bar one, abandonment of freedom of movement. Will Leavers like Rory and Furunculus admit, after all their high-faluting talk about political principles and economic models, that Brexit was about stopping immigration? Because that's the only pre-referendum promise that's present in May's deal.

You really become very tiresome. All you do is bash the strawmen you create.

To repeat myself AGAIN... I voted out due to the lack of sovereignty. Can you grasp that?? It's a simple point.
And to repeat myself AGAIN... I never thought that there would be an agreement since that would be verging on political suicide for the EU because the EU is politically weak - it exists only by bullying the members of the costs of leaving.

And FINALLY... Merely that is the agreement May has reached DOESN'T MEAN I OR ANY OTHER REMAINER APPROVES OF IT!! :wall:

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Which Leave scenario are the Leavers implementing? No deal? May's deal? Or something else? I quoted Furunculus above, when he replied to Husar's question, but he's since disowned that answer. Just like how the Leave politicians have disowned all their pre-referendum promises. All these promises are non-existent in May's agreement. Bar one, abandonment of freedom of movement. Will Leavers like rory and Furunculus admit, after all their high-faluting talk about political principles and economic models, that Brexit was about stopping immigration? Because that's the only pre-referendum promise that's present in May's deal.

Well to be honest immigration is why I want the Netherlands to leave, I won't lie about it you wouldn't believe anyway probably. Not that I dislike these people, not that I do not not understand that they would rather be here, but they should just sort out their own stuff unless they are real refugees, most aren't, most come here for welfare. It is a perfectly fine reason to leave the EU (and the UN look up Marrakesh)

[Husar]

I never thought that there would be an agreement since that would be verging on political suicide for the EU because the EU is politically weak - it exists only by bullying the members of the costs of leaving.

Surely one could make the argument that nations that do not cooperate closely, like in a political alliance, always "bully" one another because if they're not cooperators, they're competitors. Some Brexiteers argued that global competition was a good argument for leaving and Britain would do splendidly in a competitive environment, etc.

To call competitive behavior bullying is socialism, btw. :rolleyes:

[Pannonian]

You really become very tiresome. All you do is bash the strawmen you create.

To repeat myself AGAIN... I voted out due to the lack of sovereignty. Can you grasp that?? It's a simple point.
And to repeat myself AGAIN... I never thought that there would be an agreement since that would be verging on political suicide for the EU because the EU is politically weak - it exists only by bullying the members of the costs of leaving.

And FINALLY... Merely that is the agreement May has reached DOESN'T MEAN I OR ANY OTHER REMAINER APPROVES OF IT!! :wall:

~:smoking:

So, out of the three options Husar presented, which would you prefer?

1. May's deal, aka no freedom of movement, but with everything else as status quo as she can contrive it.
2. No deal.
3. Remain.

If there is another referendum, those three are likely to be the available options. Which would you prefer? NB. There is no more waffling about some unstated solution that regains your preferred degree of sovereignty. It will be those three.

[Pannonian]

Well to be honest immigration is why I want the Netherlands to leave, I won't lie about it you wouldn't believe anyway probably. Not that I dislike these people, not that I do not not understand that they would rather be here, but they should just sort out their own stuff unless they are real refugees, most aren't, most come here for welfare. It is a perfectly fine reason to leave the EU (and the UN look up Marrakesh)

Immigration from Europe has been lower since the referendum. But more than outweighed by immigration from outside Europe, which has gone up, leaving net migration at roughly the same. NB. the latter has always been within Westminster's control, even within the EU, while measures against the former can be taken, but Westminster has chosen not to.

[rory_20_uk]

So, out of the three options Husar presented, which would you prefer?

1. May's deal, aka no freedom of movement, but with everything else as status quo as she can contrive it.
2. No deal.
3. Remain.

If there is another referendum, those three are likely to be the available options. Which would you prefer? NB. There is no more waffling about some unstated solution that regains your preferred degree of sovereignty. It will be those three.

At this moment in time having squandered over 2 years...

1) Remain - May with the EU has engineered a situation where there is no time nor political space (courtesy of the DUP) to mitigate the problems. Just like the SNP, there's always next time to do it properly...
2) No Deal - the EU would not enable a "nice" slow glide out. It would probably be a car crash. with a nasty abrupt ending - and to the best of my knowledge the government has done almost nothing to mitigate.
3) May's deal - it is by far and away the worst of both. High costs, no power and the agility to do what the UK is told to do for as long as the EU says... and we gain the ability to block highly skilled workers from the EU whilst still betting lumbered with Non-EU "asylum seekers" / economic migrants who are apparently freeing oppression from the EU.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

So, out of the three options Husar presented, which would you prefer?

1. May's deal, aka no freedom of movement, but with everything else as status quo as she can contrive it.
2. No deal.
3. Remain.

If there is another referendum, those three are likely to be the available options. Which would you prefer? NB. There is no more waffling about some unstated solution that regains your preferred degree of sovereignty. It will be those three.

You seem to have amended Husar choice, is this an accident? Checking for 17.4million friends... ☺️

[Pannonian]

You seem to have amended Husar choice, is this an accident? Checking for 17.4million friends... ☺️

That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals.

So, out of the three options Husar presented, which would you prefer?

1. May's deal, aka no freedom of movement, but with everything else as status quo as she can contrive it.

Where have I amended things?

[Furunculus]

well, you have conflated soft-brexit (barnier's offer of eea+customs union) with may's deal (which is goods but not services, with non regression in flanking policies).

one is not acceptable, the other is a tolerable compromise that reasonable and moderate people can accept.

[Pannonian]

well, you have conflated soft-brexit (barnier's offer of eea+customs union) with may's deal (which is goods but not services, with non regression in flanking policies).

one is not acceptable, the other is a tolerable compromise that reasonable and moderate people can accept.

One is the consequence of the other. The UK wants to remove freedom of movement of labour, so the EU27 will withhold freedom of movement of other stuff. Are you going to claim that the EU27 is unreasonable in their demands, whilst claiming that the UK is eminently fair in their demands? IIRC you've talked before about how the UK cannot cope with the addition of a small city every year, hence the red lines. Yet the figures show that net migration hasn't decreased; lower migration from the EU has been replaced by migration from outside the EU. You've definitely argued that it's unfair to allow freer movement from within the EU than from other places. The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU.

Out of Husar's 3 options, which would you choose should there be a referendum? May's deal, no deal, or remain? Or are you going to waffle again about some theoretical scenario that we won't see? Remember 29th March 2019 is just 4 months away. Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have always thought that only two outcomes were ever likely, from the day I heard that the referendum had been approved.

1. The UK would have to repudiate the referendum, confirm their commitment to the EU, and put up with whatever punishments were meted out by EU leadership.
or
2. The UK would leave and everything would revert to pre-EEC levels of connection with Europe (with the economic hit and renewed turmoil in Ireland that that would entail).

The other choices were zephyrs of hopefulness. There has never been a real motivation for the EU to make this easy on the UK, and quite a few reasons why punishing them as severely as possible will enhance the power of the EU leadership cadre.

Lincoln didn't let the South secede (even though the Constitution is mute on the issue) and did not negotiate. He precipitated a conflict that he was fairly sure he could win. Nothing is more natural than the powers-that-be using that power to keep a recalcitrant member in line -- or disowning them entirely if they manage to leave.

[Pannonian]

I have always thought that only two outcomes were ever likely, from the day I heard that the referendum had been approved.

1. The UK would have to repudiate the referendum, confirm their commitment to the EU, and put up with whatever punishments were meted out by EU leadership.
or
2. The UK would leave and everything would revert to pre-EEC levels of connection with Europe (with the economic hit and renewed turmoil in Ireland that that would entail).

The other choices were zephyrs of hopefulness. There has never been a real motivation for the EU to make this easy on the UK, and quite a few reasons why punishing them as severely as possible will enhance the power of the EU leadership cadre.

Lincoln didn't let the South secede (even though the Constitution is mute on the issue) and did not negotiate. He precipitated a conflict that he was fairly sure he could win. Nothing is more natural than the powers-that-be using that power to keep a recalcitrant member in line -- or disowning them entirely if they manage to leave.

What sticks in the craw is the level of deception from the Leave side, far beyond what is normally seen, and condoned by Leave supporters; "This country has had enough of experts" is illustrative of Leave. Also, the lack of responsibility from Leave, rejecting all warnings of negative consequences, and blaming others for them. This can be seen in blaming the EU for not being reasonable and giving the UK everything it demands, blaming crypto-remainers for Brexit not going well, and even Grimsby's wish to be spared the Brexit that it so decisively voted for.

[Furunculus]

One is the consequence of the other. The UK wants to remove freedom of movement of labour, so the EU27 will withhold freedom of movement of other stuff. Are you going to claim that the EU27 is unreasonable in their demands, whilst claiming that the UK is eminently fair in their demands? IIRC you've talked before about how the UK cannot cope with the addition of a small city every year, hence the red lines. Yet the figures show that net migration hasn't decreased; lower migration from the EU has been replaced by migration from outside the EU. You've definitely argued that it's unfair to allow freer movement from within the EU than from other places. The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU.

Out of Husar's 3 options, which would you choose should there be a referendum? May's deal, no deal, or remain? Or are you going to waffle again about some theoretical scenario that we won't see? Remember 29th March 2019 is just 4 months away. Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision.

Still putting up straw men in the hope that other people will help you knock them down?

I reject the choice you present.
I reject the conflation of Husar's choice as originally presented and May's chequers (2.0) plan.

One is acceptable, the other is not.
As to whether the EU is being unreasonable in their demnds: We ask for nothing more than that already achieved by Switzerland and Ukraine.
Single market for goods, with some Service specific bilaterals.

"Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision."
Could you be any more of a condescending *&^%$?

[Furunculus]

I have always thought that only two outcomes were ever likely, from the day I heard that the referendum had been approved.

1. The UK would have to repudiate the referendum, confirm their commitment to the EU, and put up with whatever punishments were meted out by EU leadership.
or
2. The UK would leave and everything would revert to pre-EEC levels of connection with Europe (with the economic hit and renewed turmoil in Ireland that that would entail).

The other choices were zephyrs of hopefulness. There has never been a real motivation for the EU to make this easy on the UK, and quite a few reasons why punishing them as severely as possible will enhance the power of the EU leadership cadre.


Not to say that the outcomes you present aren't most likely, but there ARE good reasons why pursuing a Zephyr would make good sense.

With the scale of the problems the EU faces - both internal and external - why add an extra major headache?
As global hard-geopolitics returns, why would you alienate the world's second most capable expeditionary power and soft power, which is also a UNSC veto nation and the worlds fifth/sixth largest economy.
As the global economy heads towards its next down-turn, a time when the Eurozone still has negative interest rates and £50b/month quantitative easing, oh, and 9% unemployment and a fragile over-leveraged banking system, why would you smash economic ties with your biggest trading partner.

Of course, despite all this, common sense could go under the bus regardless. Which doesn't make membership of such a dysfunctional regime any more more attractive!

[Pannonian]

Still putting up straw men in the hope that other people will help you knock them down?

I reject the choice you present.
I reject the conflation of Husar's choice as originally presented and May's chequers (2.0) plan.

One is acceptable, the other is not.
As to whether the EU is being unreasonable in their demnds: We ask for nothing more than that already achieved by Switzerland and Ukraine.
Single market for goods, with some Service specific bilaterals.

"Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision."
Could you be any more of a condescending *&^%$?

Here ya go.


However, on Thursday May repeated her rejection of the “Norway plus” model and suggested she would not be prepared to offer it as a compromise arrangement because it would mean the continuation of freedom of movement. That is regarded in Downing Street as the hardest of the prime minister’s red lines.

Theresa May rules out Norway-style Brexit compromise with Labour (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/30/theresa-may-rules-out-norway-style-brexit-compromise-with-labour)

No deal, no Brexit, or a deal that accounts for "the hardest of the prime minister’s red lines".

Which would you choose? Under 4 months until 29th March 2019.

[Furunculus]

I don't understand, she seems to be advocating broadly what I advocate, and rejecting broadly what I reject.

Quelle problem?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not to say that the outcomes you present aren't most likely, but there ARE good reasons why pursuing a Zephyr would make good sense.

With the scale of the problems the EU faces - both internal and external - why add an extra major headache?
As global hard-geopolitics returns, why would you alienate the world's second most capable expeditionary power and soft power, which is also a UNSC veto nation and the worlds fifth/sixth largest economy.
As the global economy heads towards its next down-turn, a time when the Eurozone still has negative interest rates and £50b/month quantitative easing, oh, and 9% unemployment and a fragile over-leveraged banking system, why would you smash economic ties with your biggest trading partner.

Of course, despite all this, common sense could go under the bus regardless. Which doesn't make membership of such a dysfunctional regime any more more attractive!

I never meant that the hope of such a "zephyr" was a bad thing for which to strive, just that I thought it unlikely to be caught.

You mentioned the hardening of global geo-politics. You note the economic power of the UK. These underpin my assessment of Britain's departure from the EU. The EU does not want the UK to depart or to make economic trade hurdles for their member states, but they want and must have all members toeing the line. Having you leave on your own preferred terms will NOT allow the EU to maintain the collective power and clout to enforce decisions on the membership. They may not be able to prevent your departure -- but they can and will make it painful and possibly humiliating "pour encourager les autres." To do otherwise is to functionally decrease their power and effectiveness - something few governments of any kind have acceded to without opposing it.

[Furunculus]

It's a factor, yes, but one that must be balanced against those I list.

[Husar]

We ask for nothing more than that already achieved by Switzerland

Sure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland–European_Union_relations#Schengen_Agreement


This means that there are no passport controls on Switzerland's borders with its neighbours though customs controls continue to apply.
[...]
In a referendum in February 2014, the Swiss voters narrowly approved a proposal to limit the freedom of movement of foreign citizens to Switzerland. The European Commission said it would have to examine the implications of the result on EU–Swiss relations since literal implementation would invoke the guillotine clause.[14]

On 22 December 2016, Switzerland and the EU concluded an agreement whereby a new Swiss law (in response to the referendum) would require Swiss employers to take on any job seekers (whether Swiss nationals or non-Swiss citizens registered in Swiss job agencies) whilst continuing to observe the free movement of EU citizens into Switzerland thus allowing them to work there.

Sounds like just what you want.

[Furunculus]

And I have talked before about the fragility of institutional relationships like Switzerland, good job we're not dinky like Switzerland, eh?

the institutional elements of the WA are actually quite robust, with elements properly firewalled, so not like switzerland living with a gun to its head 24/7.

[Montmorency]

I have always thought that only two outcomes were ever likely, from the day I heard that the referendum had been approved.

1. The UK would have to repudiate the referendum, confirm their commitment to the EU, and put up with whatever punishments were meted out by EU leadership.
or
2. The UK would leave and everything would revert to pre-EEC levels of connection with Europe (with the economic hit and renewed turmoil in Ireland that that would entail).

The other choices were zephyrs of hopefulness. There has never been a real motivation for the EU to make this easy on the UK, and quite a few reasons why punishing them as severely as possible will enhance the power of the EU leadership cadre.

Lincoln didn't let the South secede (even though the Constitution is mute on the issue) and did not negotiate. He precipitated a conflict that he was fairly sure he could win. Nothing is more natural than the powers-that-be using that power to keep a recalcitrant member in line -- or disowning them entirely if they manage to leave.

At some juncture I hope there's a comparison between the final Brexit deal and the hypothetical "mutually beneficial" deal where the UK is feted out on a red carpet.

Counterpoint: the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire. Whereas with the secession of the Confederacy, the United States faced a hostile expansionist power seizing its assets. The Civil War was as much about self-defense as about power (though the two aren't exactly distinct).

This nice recent video by CGP Grey on federal land management indirectly helps demonstrate the existential scale of the conflict.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LruaD7XhQ50

[Husar]

And I have talked before about the fragility of institutional relationships like Switzerland, good job we're not dinky like Switzerland, eh?

the institutional elements of the WA are actually quite robust, with elements properly firewalled, so not like switzerland living with a gun to its head 24/7.

Too bad that I forgot about all of it, what Washington Agreement?

First you want a deal like Switzerland and now you say your Washington Agreement would be different. :dizzy2:
Please remember that I only half-care about this, I have no interest in reading 200 page reports about the finer details of someone's dream deal. Keep it fun, like watching a train wreck.

[Fragony]

Too bad that I forgot about all of it, what Washington Agreement?

First you want a deal like Switzerland and now you say your Washington Agreement would be different. :dizzy2:
Please remember that I only half-care about this, I have no interest in reading 200 page reports about the finer details of someone's dream deal. Keep it fun, like watching a train wreck.

Watching a train-wreck is funnier to say. But you simply don't need a trade-deal to trade, comes rather naturally, you have something, they want it. You sell it, they buy it.And vica versa. No need for a chapparone. In the end the EU is a protective system that doesn't allow the global market to do it's own thing and it only deals in handouts to gain more political power, it is a perversion of what was achieved

[Furunculus]

Too bad that I forgot about all of it, what Washington Agreement?

First you want a deal like Switzerland and now you say your Washington Agreement would be different. :dizzy2:
Please remember that I only half-care about this, I have no interest in reading 200 page reports about the finer details of someone's dream deal. Keep it fun, like watching a train wreck.

well, we do live in a complex world, but i'll do my best:

although about 10 pages back i have mentioned the need to avoid a fragile institutional relationship where one 'wrong step' invokes the guillotine, the other 65 pages of this discussion have discussed the trade/regulatory relationship.

this is certainly what exercises people when we've talked about chequers, norway, canada, orderly/disorderly no-deal scenarios: the trade/regulatory relationship.

so when I say that i want something along the lines of the chequers proposal, something which is still obviously where the political declaration is headed, and something that is not greatly different in trade/regulatory terms from what has been achieved by ukraine and switzerland, this is what I meant.

i felt comfortable that this was understood because:
1. I have in fact made the distinction with institutional relationship used by the swiss (10 pages back or thereabouts - discussed by myself at least in some detail).
2. I have always discussed trade/regulatory relationship in terms of [both] ukraine [and] switzerland, which have very different institutional relationships.
3. I have always made clear that I liked EFTA as an institutional relationship, even if I was more dubious about the EEA as a trade/regulatory relationship.


So, back on topic - can I provide you a TLDR summary of why the institutional relationship in the WA (withdrawal agreement) is more tolerable than the swiss:eu relationship?
I'll try:
https://twitter.com/sylviademars/status/1063100734152019970
Or, if you're feeling a little braver and want to move out of easy bite sized nuggets:
https://medium.com/@sylviademars/the-role-of-the-cjeu-in-the-november-withdrawal-agreement-thoughts-9cc0ca6c472

Plus some short 144char sound-bites on why the trade/regulatory relationship anticipated by May's deal (Chequers 2.0?) is better than EEA:
https://twitter.com/HenryNewman/status/1066059644727115777

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Counterpoint: the Soviet Union and the Roman Empire. Whereas with the secession of the Confederacy, the United States faced a hostile expansionist power seizing its assets. The Civil War was as much about self-defense as about power (though the two aren't exactly distinct)….

I concur that self-defense and power involve a good deal of overlap in many cases. I think that my read on the EU's willingness to "deal" reflects this as noted above.

The secession of the Confederate States and Lincoln's response when compared to the dissolution of the Soviet and Roman empires would make a lovely argument for the Monastery.

[Furunculus]

Cracking read:

https://2ihmoy1d3v7630ar9h2rsglp-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/181202-WA-explainer-FINAL.pdf

My firm opinion is that we should extend the transition period for 24 hours beyond the July 2020 date, so it can never be activiated again, and then crash straight into the backstop.

Immediately agree to fully align with all eu regs of Goods, and give every impression that we're happy to sit there forever.

Entirely good enough, but may irritate the EU enough to consider offering us something better / more-bespoke.

And quickly! So it's all done and dusted before a 2022 GE election where labour might get in and make a pigs ear of everything (like they did when they threw away Major's hard-won exemption to the Social Chapter).

[Pannonian]

Cracking read:

https://2ihmoy1d3v7630ar9h2rsglp-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/181202-WA-explainer-FINAL.pdf

My firm opinion is that we should extend the transition period for 24 hours beyond the July 2020 date, so it can never be activiated again, and then crash straight into the backstop.

Immediately agree to fully align with all eu regs of Goods, and give every impression that we're happy to sit there forever.

Entirely good enough, but may irritate the EU enough to consider offering us something better / more-bespoke.

And quickly! So it's all done and dusted before a 2022 GE election where labour might get in and make a pigs ear of everything (like they did when they threw away Major's hard-won exemption to the Social Chapter).

Bloody hell. The amount that's wrong in the above post.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? Does the above solution address the issues he'd raised? Please explain how.

[Furunculus]

Bloody hell. The amount that's wrong in the above post.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? Does the above solution address the issues he'd raised? Please explain how.

Explain?

Have you read flexcit yet? <insert tedious question here

[Pannonian]

Explain?

Have you read flexcit yet? <insert tedious question here

I know that one of the leading advocates of Flexcit, indeed the bloke who coined the term, now supports Remain. Does that say anything?

The issues Mr Trucker raised have to be solved if there is to be trade at all, as recognised by Raab. You either solve these problems and have continued trade, or drastically cut the throughput of trade, as recognised by all government departments dealing with trade and its hinterlands, to an extent not seen since WW2. All talk of theory is nowt as long as you don't address these issues. Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? How does your solution address the issues he raises?

[Furunculus]

I know that one of the leading advocates of Flexcit, indeed the bloke who coined the term, now supports Remain. Does that say anything?

The issues Mr Trucker raised have to be solved if there is to be trade at all, as recognised by Raab. You either solve these problems and have continued trade, or drastically cut the throughput of trade, as recognised by all government departments dealing with trade and its hinterlands, to an extent not seen since WW2. All talk of theory is nowt as long as you don't address these issues. Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? How does your solution address the issues he raises?

Does he, which one?

I see, we're back to full on tedious-boi. What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

[Pannonian]

Does he, which one?

I see, we're back to full on tedious-boi. What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

Once again, have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, and the issues he raises? He and his like are what enables trade in goods. If you won't even listen to him, how the hell can you say that any particular agreement is good for trade? You talk about freedom of movement of goods. But that's heavily, nay critically dependent, on Mr Trucker and his friends. Every government department recognises that. Why don't you have a listen to him? It doesn't take so long; it's only 10 mins or so IIRC.

[Furunculus]

Once again, have you listened to Mr Trucker yet, and the issues he raises? He and his like are what enables trade in goods. If you won't even listen to him, how the hell can you say that any particular agreement is good for trade? You talk about freedom of movement of goods. But that's heavily, nay critically dependent, on Mr Trucker and his friends. Every government department recognises that. Why don't you have a listen to him? It doesn't take so long; it's only 10 mins or so IIRC.

I have to confess, that i might have actually watched it if I didn't take such perverse pleasure in denying you.
Instead, I have rather more fun asking whether you've read 450 of detailed dissection of the EU regulatory regime that is Flexcit...
... and having a little fun by occasionally drawing a contrast between that and a 10m video.

but then i'm a reading snob, considering video a terribly low-bandwidth medium with which to transfer lots of detailed information. ;)

[Pannonian]

I have to confess, that i might have actually watched it if I didn't take such perverse pleasure in denying you.
Instead, I have rather more fun asking whether you've read 450 of detailed dissection of the EU regulatory regime that is Flexcit...
... and having a little fun by occasionally drawing a contrast between that and a 10m video.

but then i'm a reading snob, considering video a terribly low-bandwidth medium with which to transfer lots of detailed information. ;)

Read the Commons report then. It contains a transcript of Mr Trucker's interview, plus extrapolation from that to what happens on a wider scale in the event of no deal. No theoretical solution passes muster unless it takes Mr Trucker's raised issues into account. If you move physical goods, then you are utterly dependent on Mr Trucker and friends. Everything literally goes through him and his like.

[Furunculus]

One is the consequence of the other. The UK wants to remove freedom of movement of labour, so the EU27 will withhold freedom of movement of other stuff. Are you going to claim that the EU27 is unreasonable in their demands, whilst claiming that the UK is eminently fair in their demands? IIRC you've talked before about how the UK cannot cope with the addition of a small city every year, hence the red lines. Yet the figures show that net migration hasn't decreased; lower migration from the EU has been replaced by migration from outside the EU. You've definitely argued that it's unfair to allow freer movement from within the EU than from other places. The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU.

Out of Husar's 3 options, which would you choose should there be a referendum? May's deal, no deal, or remain? Or are you going to waffle again about some theoretical scenario that we won't see? Remember 29th March 2019 is just 4 months away. Also, remember to own responsibility for your choice, given that your lot won the referendum vote. Don't try to blame others for your decision.

No, they are two quite separate things. The EU has already separated out Goods for Switzerland and Ukraine. It would be damningly innappropriate for Service to be managed by the EU with us accepting the rules via the EEA. There would be no justification, as in financial Services and Legal Services we are a super-power compared to the rest of the EU. As to migration: "The figures show that migration from outside the EU is around twice that from the EU." Fine, i'll get worried about EU migration when it falls to the percentage its ratio of the world population would merit.

You're still being disingenuous (polite word for "lieing"), as May's deal wasn't in Husar's article:
"That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit."

On Husar's choice I take "no Deal", on your choice:
"May's deal, no deal, or remain?"
I take May's deal.

Because, you know; I'm a reasonable moderate and middle-of-the-road kinda guy! :D

[Furunculus]

Read the Commons report then. It contains a transcript of Mr Trucker's interview, plus extrapolation from that to what happens on a wider scale in the event of no deal. No theoretical solution passes muster unless it takes Mr Trucker's raised issues into account. If you move physical goods, then you are utterly dependent on Mr Trucker and friends. Everything literally goes through him and his like.

Yes, yes, yes, but, back to the topic in hand:

What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

[Pannonian]

Yes, yes, yes, but, back to the topic in hand:

What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

Like I said, everything goes through Mr Trucker and co. Explain how that bottleneck is solved in your proposed solution. Eg. what status does the UK have in your proposed solution? Is it a third country? Does it have privileged status? How many passes does the UK receive? All of that is raised by Mr Trucker, and the implications spelled out in the Commons report. All that is why the government proposes to take direct control of what comes into the UK in the event of no deal, so as to manage that bottleneck.

In the event of no deal, UK-EU trade (the UK's biggest trading partner) is due to be cut by 95%. That's spelled out in the Commons report. Does your proposed solution address this?

[Furunculus]

In the event of no deal, UK-EU trade (the UK's biggest trading partner) is due to be cut by 95%. That's spelled out in the Commons report. Does your proposed solution address this?

errr... yes. it's "the backstop".

did you read it? :D

[Pannonian]

errr... yes. it's "the backstop".

did you read it? :D

What status does the UK have with the EU? I'm not talking about tariffs here. How many passes would the UK receive? Does your solution mention a number?

[Furunculus]

No idea. :D Do you?
What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

[Pannonian]

No idea. :D Do you?
What doesn't the WA achieve, and how much friction does this deficit add?

I haven't read the agreement, but you have, so I'm asking you.

The current trade between the UK and the rEU is carried by approximately 30,000 truck journeys. The drivers don't need passes because the UK is within the EU. In the event of no deal, the UK will be treated as a third party, and eligible for 1,500 passes. So the 30k volume will be reduced by 95% to 1.5k. Hence the government's no deal preparations to take full control of what comes into the UK, as food, medical and other critical supplies will have to fit into that bottleneck. The issue was raised by Mr Trucker during that phone in. The numbers are in the Commons report. You've heard Raab's comments about the Dover-Calais trade route. The government's preps are in the news. None of it is theoretical. It's reported by experts in their field, unlike your report.

Does your proposed solution mention any numbers as to the number of passes UK drivers will be allotted?

[Furunculus]

No idea. :D
Sounds like the kind of thing a government ought to factor in, given it will "destroy 95percent of our EU trade", especially since Mr Trucker went and told Parliament about it.
I'm sure HMG have it covered, and I stand by my statement that I'd be quite happy to live within the backstop until the EU want to turf us out like an oversized teenager.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am catching up on the last few months of the Economist and I am frankly just tired of Brexit taking up the entire "Britain" section every damn issue.

WHen am I supposed to hear about all the other policies that the UK is fucking up?

[Pannonian]

I am catching up on the last few months of the Economist and I am frankly just tired of Brexit taking up the entire "Britain" section every damn issue.

WHen am I supposed to hear about all the other policies that the UK is fucking up?

That's all the politics that's happening in the UK at the moment, and ever since the referendum. Everything else is related to it. Given that no deal deprives the Treasury of revenue roughly equivalent to the entire Defence budget, and no deal is popular among the dimmer parts of the population, who are disturbingly numerous, what else do you expect to be discussed. "No deal is better than a bad deal", said our PM.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's all the politics that's happening in the UK at the moment, and ever since the referendum. Everything else is related to it. Given that no deal deprives the Treasury of revenue roughly equivalent to the entire Defence budget, and no deal is popular among the dimmer parts of the population, who are disturbingly numerous, what else do you expect to be discussed. "No deal is better than a bad deal", said our PM.

So what the hell were all the PMs doing while May was negotiating the deal? At no point has anyone mentioned,"btw, let's get cracking on next years budget"?!?!?

[Pannonian]

So what the hell were all the PMs doing while May was negotiating the deal? At no point has anyone mentioned,"btw, let's get cracking on next years budget"?!?!?

May tried to get away with seeming to keep the bus promise, "We send 350m to the EU every year; let's give it to the NHS instead". Except that firstly, it's that amount split over a number of years; secondly, it's not accounted for by savings from EU contributions, but by increasing taxes. That was her headline policy, but it was an tiny amount compared with the expected drops in tax revenue from any no deal. That's the point. All policies make a tiny impact when set against the effect on the economy that Brexit has. See the Common report where it spells out that our trade with the EU, by far our biggest trading partner, will drop in volume by 95% in the event of no deal. And not in ways that Furunculus and his beloved theorists reckons can be accounted for by clever measures, but a concrete bottleneck that cannot be avoided. Or the NI-Eire border, where the UK is obliged by treaty to keep a practically open border, but the biggest party in NI, which the UK government is obligated to, wants a hard border. Where economies and even communities ignore a border that has been practically non-existent since the GFA.

Let me point you to one of the headline Brexit issues: fishing rights. Fishing communities voted to leave the EU in order to have exclusive access to their fishing grounds, rather than share access as sold by the UK government. A clearcut case of voting to protect their own interests, wouldn't you say? Except that the market for their catch is within the EU27. What is caught in British fishing grounds is prized in France and Spain, but rarely eaten in the UK. Most of the fish that British people eat is caught outside British waters. Hence the spectacle of Grimsby overwhelmingly voting for Brexit, but asking to be excused from the effects of Brexit as their economy is dependent on access to the EU.

Brexit is the biggest issue in UK politics since WW2. The decision to leave the EU is probably the stupidest policy decided by the British people ever. Completely against all evidence and logic.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So logistically you are telling me that there was been no time for the PMs to take a break from Brexit and vote on let's say a prison reform bill? Do they have to be talking about Brexit every single second?

Let me ask you this, if I asked you for a list of acts passed by parliament in the past two years, are you telling me that that number is zero?

[Pannonian]

So logistically you are telling me that there was been no time for the PMs to take a break from Brexit and vote on let's say a prison reform bill? Do they have to be talking about Brexit every single second?

Let me ask you this, if I asked you for a list of acts passed by parliament in the past two years, are you telling me that that number is zero?

I haven't heard of any significant actions by the government in the past couple years outside firefighting (literal in the case of Grenfell) and budgets, where small changes are dwarfed by the impact of Brexit. Everything is dependent on the kind of Brexit we have. Like I said, if we have no deal, which a disturbingly large proportion of the population would vote for, so utterly thick they are, the Treasury's revenues drops by an amount roughly the size of our Defence budget. And that's just the money part. There's also managing the continued flow of food and other critical supplies; hence the government's plans to take control of imports should there be no deal, as how shipping space is used becomes a survival issue for the first time since WW2. Should we allow a free market of goods as advocated by FM theorists? Or should we first ensure that this country gets enough food to eat, enough safe water to drink, enough medical supplies to ensure no one dies needlessly, and enough power to tide things over until we decide enough is enough and go crawling back to the EU to beg for readmission? The shipping space is limited. Extremely limited should there be no deal. And yet,


That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

The above is a pretty popular view in the UK. "No deal is better than a bad deal".

[Furunculus]

at least you're quoting me accurately this time. much obliged. ;)
still a false choice being presented in Husar's article tho...

[Fragony]

May tried to get away with seeming to keep the bus promise, "We send 350m to the EU every year; let's give it to the NHS instead". Except that firstly, it's that amount split over a number of years; secondly, it's not accounted for by savings from EU contributions, but by increasing taxes. That was her headline policy, but it was an tiny amount compared with the expected drops in tax revenue from any no deal. That's the point. All policies make a tiny impact when set against the effect on the economy that Brexit has. See the Common report where it spells out that our trade with the EU, by far our biggest trading partner, will drop in volume by 95% in the event of no deal. And not in ways that Furunculus and his beloved theorists reckons can be accounted for by clever measures, but a concrete bottleneck that cannot be avoided. Or the NI-Eire border, where the UK is obliged by treaty to keep a practically open border, but the biggest party in NI, which the UK government is obligated to, wants a hard border. Where economies and even communities ignore a border that has been practically non-existent since the GFA.

Let me point you to one of the headline Brexit issues: fishing rights. Fishing communities voted to leave the EU in order to have exclusive access to their fishing grounds, rather than share access as sold by the UK government. A clearcut case of voting to protect their own interests, wouldn't you say? Except that the market for their catch is within the EU27. What is caught in British fishing grounds is prized in France and Spain, but rarely eaten in the UK. Most of the fish that British people eat is caught outside British waters. Hence the spectacle of Grimsby overwhelmingly voting for Brexit, but asking to be excused from the effects of Brexit as their economy is dependent on access to the EU.

Brexit is the biggest issue in UK politics since WW2. The decision to leave the EU is probably the stupidest policy decided by the British people ever. Completely against all evidence and logic.

It's the smartest thing ever, 40% of your trade will get more expensive, 60% will become cheaper. On tops, you won't have to listen to the ultra-undemocratic Brussel anymore. As it is now you loose more than you gain

[Pannonian]

It's the smartest thing ever, 40% of your trade will get more expensive, 60% will become cheaper. On tops, you won't have to listen to the ultra-undemocratic Brussel anymore. As it is now you loose more than you gain

Where's the evidence backing your assertions? Show proof. Or stop BSing. Or alternatively, come over here post-Brexit and join us in the post-Brexit utopia you are so keen on.

[Pannonian]

at least you're quoting me accurately this time. much obliged. ;)
still a false choice being presented in Husar's article tho...

May's deal is conforming to the EU's regulations without a say in making them, and requiring the EU's permission to alter the situation. Is any of the above incorrect?

FT article, reported on The Guardian:


Chris Grayling, transport secretary, has warned the cabinet that trade on the key Dover-Calais route could be cut by up to 87 per cent in the event of a disorderly exit, as checks and customs controls are introduced in France.

The pro-Brexit Mr Grayling has written to colleagues seeking approval for the chartering of ships, or space on ships, to operate on alternative routes, bypassing likely blockages in the Strait of Dover.

He has also requested cabinet approval to increase the capacity at three ports with trade links with the EU but with considerably longer journey times: Ramsgate, Sheerness and Immingham.

One official has apparently warned that Britain would face Soviet-style empty shelves in the supermarkets, as perishable fruit and veg would rot before it made it through customs....

If this happened, the government would also find itself having to choose what to prioritise -- medicines, equipment or food.

One official has apparently joked that “It’s gearboxes versus pâté,”

Are you taking responsibility for this yet?

[Fragony]

Where's the evidence backing your assertions? Show proof. Or stop BSing. Or alternatively, come over here post-Brexit and join us in the post-Brexit utopia you are so keen on.

Always the same thing, 'why don't you come live here', not going to I do not like England I do not want to live there it is a depressing place. But that has nothing to do with Brexit, I can't stand the overall sadness there it creeps up on you. You can easily find where your trade goes yourself

[Pannonian]

Always the same thing, 'why don't you come live here', not going to I do not like England I do not want to live there it is a depressing place. But that has nothing to do with Brexit, I can't stand the overall sadness there it creeps up on you. You can easily find where your trade goes yourself

Have you read the above article about preparations for "disorderly Brexit"? What do you think about the choice between machine parts and food? Do you think that we should stop importing fresh foodstuffs? What priority would you put medical supplies at? Should perishable medical supplies also be put on the backburner?

[Furunculus]

May's deal is conforming to the EU's regulations without a say in making them, and requiring the EU's permission to alter the situation. Is any of the above incorrect?

FT article, reported on The Guardian:




Are you taking responsibility for this yet?

On goods, yes. The open europe explainer details all this very adequately. Have you read it yet?

Ft article details consequence of disorderly no deal exit, not the backstop which you got your knickers in a twist about when I said I'd be quite happy to sit within it.

Go. Boil. Your. Head.

[Fragony]

Have you read the above article about preparations for "disorderly Brexit"? What do you think about the choice between machine parts and food? Do you think that we should stop importing fresh foodstuffs? What priority would you put medical supplies at? Should perishable medical supplies also be put on the backburner?

It's alarmist, the Netherlands is probably your most important trade import and that is not going to change, most you guys can grow yourself. If the EU did not stop our tech because France doesn't like it we could do much much more. Trade won't stop that is a needless worry. Medicine is something your scientists excel in, you are truly innovative we kinda rely on what you guys already figured out, you shouldn't worry that much about these things so much, it are scare tactics. You don't realise that that it is the EU that is scared because it is their comfortable bliss that is falling apart when the brits leave, some eastern countries will leave as well, hopefully we as well, not realistic now because of current of the political landscape and the exclusion of populist parties but it's just a matter of time. No populist referendum has ever been in favour of the EU, so europhiles banned referendums, wrong answer. It are a scary lot, 1984 is so eighties

[Husar]

I'm having regrets about posting that article. Some people could think I were somehow involved in or knowledgeable about Brexit when I just like to watch a ship sink, eh, fly, I mean fly.

You also tried to answer something for me a page or two ago, Furunculus, and I'm not sure I understand it. British politics and finance are probably so different and so much more sophisticated than on the mainland, that Britain is better off without us.

And just because it's good for our friendship, I want to mention this again: Open Europe is sort of neoliberal and wants to advance corporate rule.

[Pannonian]

I'm having regrets about posting that article. Some people could think I were somehow involved in or knowledgeable about Brexit when I just like to watch a ship sink, eh, fly, I mean fly.

You also tried to answer something for me a page or two ago, Furunculus, and I'm not sure I understand it. British politics and finance are probably so different and so much more sophisticated than on the mainland, that Britain is better off without us.

And just because it's good for our friendship, I want to mention this again: Open Europe is sort of neoliberal and wants to advance corporate rule.

Have you heard about Plan A+? It's the ERG's latest effort, or perhaps it may be more accurate to describe it as the ERG's latest repackaging of their fundamental plan: to break the UK away from Europe and turn it towards the US. Funnily, a large part of the turn against foreigners that Brexit taps into is the blame for the competition for domestic resources in the post-financial crash age. Yet Plan A+ devotes a lot of its energy to deregulating the UK financial markets and normalising with the US. The US, of course, being where the financial crash originated due to its deregulation. Both US demands and ERG plans also coincide in taking the NHS apart. And there will also be normalising agricultural and consumer standards with the US, which is hugely unpopular in the UK.

Oh well, never mind all that. Never mind the British government preparing to take control of shipping space as I'd said they were planning to. Furunculus says it's for a different reason, and is only for "disorderly Brexit", so that's fine then. I'm surprised he didn't catch me on the differing numbers as well: I'd said 95% reduction, the government says only 87%. I'd got something else wrong as well: I'd said that the imports would prioritise food and other critical supplies, but the government prioritises machine parts instead. Never mind all that, as Furunculus has me bang to rights. I'll now go and boil my head as he suggests.

[Furunculus]

Straw man.

I think it should be quite clear by now that broadly support the wa/pd and not the erg.

[Beskar]

At what point in this mess would you agree that revoking Article 50 might be a good idea, Furunculus?

Just curious if the Brexit deal ever got so bad that you might consider just remaining. Or is No Deal Brexit still preferable?

[Furunculus]

I believe monty already asked this question.

My answer was: alien invasion.

Because I will not assent to political union via endless economic integration and institutional QMV.

But, right now, I'm quite content with the deal proposed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Based on the votes I am seeing today, I honestly don't think the MPs have the balls to go through with it. My understanding is that after today, Parliament now has authority over the direction the government takes if May's deal falls flat. Meanwhile they have declared the whole government to be illegally stonewalling Parliament by not disclosing the Brexit legal advice used to generate this deal.

Farage has left the UKIP, Tory's are inching closer to a vote of no contest, and the Northern Ireland parties have turned against May.
I'm afraid that the British people have simply lost their institutional knowledge of government from the elites down to the public.

But I guess Furunculus would prefer the incompetence of a familiar face, than endure the benefits of a French-German management.

[Furunculus]

no.
i DEMAND a system of governance that leaves people free choice, and total understanding that they will bear the consequences of their choices.
i also have ENORMOUS confidence in the process of parliament, even where it produces results i don't like.

[Montmorency]

Based on the votes I am seeing today, I honestly don't think the MPs have the balls to go through with it. My understanding is that after today, Parliament now has authority over the direction the government takes if May's deal falls flat. Meanwhile they have declared the whole government to be illegally stonewalling Parliament by not disclosing the Brexit legal advice used to generate this deal.

Farage has left the UKIP, Tory's are inching closer to a vote of no contest, and the Northern Ireland parties have turned against May.
I'm afraid that the British people have simply lost their institutional knowledge of government from the elites down to the public.

But I guess Furunculus would prefer the incompetence of a familiar face, than endure the benefits of a French-German management.

Or seize the EU and re-establish it as the beginnings of the Human Union.

Can we just say the Moon is enormous ancient battleship and an alien invasion is coming to reclaim it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

no.
i DEMAND a system of governance that leaves people free choice, and total understanding that they will bear the consequences of their choices.
i also have ENORMOUS confidence in the process of parliament, even where it produces results i don't like.

I have brought this up before, directed more towards Fragony though. The choice was never solely In or Out, but there is always the hard path of Reform. Why give up what Parliament worked hard for (the British Euro exception, the special treatment in the EU, etc.) and commit to this self destructive path when you could achieve the same thing, without the mess and the needless political pain and suffering of your people through EU Reform?

Backing away from commitments is lazy, there is nothing to be proud about it, "free choice" and other flowery language is just that. The most substantial things in life are the ones we continually put effort into.

[Beskar]

Or seize the EU and re-establish it as the beginnings of the Human Union.

Can we just say the Moon is enormous ancient battleship and an alien invasion is coming to reclaim it?

Time for the Terran Federation?

[Furunculus]

I have brought this up before, directed more towards Fragony though. The choice was never solely In or Out, but there is always the hard path of Reform. Why give up what Parliament worked hard for (the British Euro exception, the special treatment in the EU, etc.) and commit to this self destructive path when you could achieve the same thing, without the mess and the needless political pain and suffering of your people through EU Reform?

Backing away from commitments is lazy, there is nothing to be proud about it, "free choice" and other flowery language is just that. The most substantial things in life are the ones we continually put effort into.

i too I have brought this up before:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053786505&viewfull=1#post2053786505

[Montmorency]

Time for the Terran Federation?

Do not want "service guarantees citizenship".


I have brought this up before, directed more towards Fragony though. The choice was never solely In or Out, but there is always the hard path of Reform. Why give up what Parliament worked hard for (the British Euro exception, the special treatment in the EU, etc.) and commit to this self destructive path when you could achieve the same thing, without the mess and the needless political pain and suffering of your people through EU Reform?

Backing away from commitments is lazy, there is nothing to be proud about it, "free choice" and other flowery language is just that. The most substantial things in life are the ones we continually put effort into.

You make it sound as though the UK has a specific duty to reform the EU or attempt to before leaving. Too close for comfort to the rhetoric wielded against refugees and immigrants.

[a completely inoffensive name]

i too I have brought this up before:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053786505&viewfull=1#post2053786505

I see how you can come to Brexit then. But that is if you take the politicians at their word. My concern is that prior to the vote, many politicians seem eager to dump their failures as statesmen on the EU and paint it as a boogeyman never expecting you would actually vote to leave!



You make it sound as though the UK has a specific duty to reform the EU or attempt to before leaving. Too close for comfort to the rhetoric wielded against refugees and immigrants.

Duty, responsibility, obligation, expectation...not sure the right word for it. I have an idealistic view of political unions, as I view political unions highlight a willingness of people to move beyond local tribalist mentalities. Europe has been a very violent place historically. What a shame to throw away a project because you couldn't be bothered by it. Did the North have a duty to keep the South in the US by force? Or did we justify it by appealing to some higher ideology about "the Union" that we wished to see fulfilled?

[Montmorency]

I see how you can come to Brexit then. But that is if you take the politicians at their word. My concern is that prior to the vote, many politicians seem eager to dump their failures as statesmen on the EU and paint it as a boogeyman never expecting you would actually vote to leave!



Duty, responsibility, obligation, expectation...not sure the right word for it. I have an idealistic view of political unions, as I view political unions highlight a willingness of people to move beyond local tribalist mentalities. Europe has been a very violent place historically. What a shame to throw away a project because you couldn't be bothered by it. Did the North have a duty to keep the South in the US by force? Or did we justify it by appealing to some higher ideology about "the Union" that we wished to see fulfilled?

You could argue that states have a duty to encourage human flourishing. But even that doesn't directly translate to [any of those words] toward reform or 'sticking it out'. As you know, I'm all for political union. But don't rely on wrong or shaky premises in rhetoric.

With the Civil War, again, there were many political and geopolitical reasons justifying the use of force by the North. AFAIK idealistic or ideological motivations (those that existed contemporarily in 1860) were at least as much pinned around the necessity of abolition as "liberty and union" for its own sake. Beyond that I contribute that all free peoples (used semi-ironically) have a duty to destroy slaver states like the CSA or Nazi Germany/Japan (or, Pol Pot's Cambodia), because their very existence is nigh-apocalyptic. They might as well be cultists chanting "Blood for the blood god, skulls for the skull throne." Destroying them is almost invariably a utilitarian victory.


Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter -- with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It's a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.

I have issued the command -- and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad -- that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness -- for the present only in the East -- with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language.

Always gives me goosebumps.

[Furunculus]

I see how you can come to Brexit then. But that is if you take the politicians at their word. My concern is that prior to the vote, many politicians seem eager to dump their failures as statesmen on the EU and paint it as a boogeyman never expecting you would actually vote to leave!



Duty, responsibility, obligation, expectation...not sure the right word for it. I have an idealistic view of political unions, as I view political unions highlight a willingness of people to move beyond local tribalist mentalities. Europe has been a very violent place historically. What a shame to throw away a project because you couldn't be bothered by it. Did the North have a duty to keep the South in the US by force? Or did we justify it by appealing to some higher ideology about "the Union" that we wished to see fulfilled?

Always true that [all] nations of europe as they have divested power to the EU have flailed around to disguise their powerlessness [and] shed blame for their ineptitude even where they yet retain power. But don't mistake this event as something sprung new born from the despair of the 2008 crash, brought to fruition by the foolish promise of cameron in 2014. It is a 40 year dispute.

I have a practical view of unions, as would I argue do the majority of britons. It was not thrown away lightly, as mentioned above it is a dispute brewing for forty years. A decision finally made after cameron demonstrated beyond doubt that britain could not remake the eu in a way that would shield it from the consequence of ever-closer-union.

[Pannonian]

One part of the legal advice that May was so keen to cover up is that, should the EU consider the UK to be showing bad faith, the EU can unilaterally break NI away from the UK in terms of the customs position. Or to be precise, to leave NI with the backstop that had previously applied to the whole of the UK, but break GB away from that arrangement as the UK has shown bad faith.

May's deal, folks.

[Kagemusha]

When i look at this whole mess. I am starting to think that there will be another referendum and GB will revoke article 50. It is just a hunch, though dont hang me for it. :shrug:

[Fragony]

When i look at this whole mess. I am starting to think that there will be another referendum and GB will revoke article 50. It is just a hunch, though dont hang me for it. :shrug:

Would be fair I guess, because it is so devided and everybody has good arguments those who oppose brexit should get another chance to get their say imho, a brexit is a big thing and maybe not everyone thought it over well enough because of course there will be consequences, not as bad as some think but there will be some. Personally I hope the vote won't be any different, probably worse because of the bullying. The UK is a triple A nation you can't just mess with them

[Pannonian]

Would be fair I guess, because it is so devided and everybody has good arguments those who oppose brexit should get another chance to get their say imho, a brexit is a big thing and maybe not everyone thought it over well enough because of course there will be consequences, not as bad as some think but there will be some. Personally I hope the vote won't be any different, probably worse because of the bullying. The UK is a triple A nation you can't just mess with them

May agreed to give away Northern Ireland. Spain is messing with Gibraltar. If Brexit goes ahead there is a high likelihood of Scotland going its own way. And the UK's capital is strongly against Brexit.

What do you think of the Department of Transport's preparations for a "disorderly Brexit"? Do you think it is a good thing that the UK government is preparing for actions unprecedented outside WW1 and WW2? Do you think it is a good thing for the British people that their government feels the need to take these measures?

[Fragony]

May agreed to give away Northern Ireland. Spain is messing with Gibraltar. If Brexit goes ahead there is a high likelihood of Scotland going its own way. And the UK's capital is strongly against Brexit.

What do you think of the Department of Transport's preparations for a "disorderly Brexit"? Do you think it is a good thing that the UK government is preparing for actions unprecedented outside WW1 and WW2? Do you think it is a good thing for the British people that their government feels the need to take these measures?

Well it should be up to you, me myself would gladly accept any negative consequences, they would be minor and the benefits huge. If you look at the bigger picture there so many good reasons to leave, in the south of europe countries are basicly bankrupt and about to topple, do you want to be a part of that it is going to cost you billions. New referendum would make sense. If Scotland goes their own way that's also up to them, they are going to miss you, what use is Scotland anyway, Haggis is nice though. Gibraltar would be a loss but what are you doing there anyway

[Pannonian]

Well it should be up to you, me myself would gladly accept any negative consequences, they would be minor and the benefits huge. If you look at the bigger picture there so many good reasons to leave, in the south of europe countries are basicly bankrupt and about to topple, do you want to be a part of that it is going to cost you billions. New referendum would make sense. If Scotland goes their own way that's also up to them, they are going to miss you, what use is Scotland anyway, Haggis is nice though. Gibraltar would be a loss but what are you doing there anyway

You're calling the break up of the UK "minor consequences"?

[Fragony]

You're calling the break up of the UK "minor consequences"?

Yeah, market isn't going to go away, you won't be excluded that is scaremongering, it will just be a little bit more expensive but you will hardly notice it. It's the ideogical side about the thing that is at peril and that is not your problem, but Brussel's. At some point you loose legitimacy and are no more than a brick on the wall. For Brussel it is so. Netherlands an Belgium also broke up in the past, I do not feel welcome in Belgium but there's no problem, I understand why, Drunk Dutch people often misbehave

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You're calling the break up of the UK "minor consequences"?

Then it is a win for the EU and an, eventual, single European government. Either they watch as you slice yourself back up into the old "countries" and then reclaim what they want, or you repudiate your own request for sovereignty and return to them as a chastised example for the others to play ball.


Not sure it is down to those two options, but your comments suggest such a forced choice Pan'

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Y... I understand why, Drunk Dutch people often misbehave

Last I checked, this is not a uniquely Dutch characteristic.

[Pannonian]

Then it is a win for the EU and an, eventual, single European government. Either they watch as you slice yourself back up into the old "countries" and then reclaim what they want, or you repudiate your own request for sovereignty and return to them as a chastised example for the others to play ball.


Not sure it is down to those two options, but your comments suggest such a forced choice Pan'

Approval ratings for the EU have gone up across the EU27 since the Brexit result, even before the agreement was finalised with the UK's submission. Grumblings about this and that imperfections about the EU are dwarfed by the example of British Euroscepticism. I expect that, should the UK leave with no deal as Frag is encouraging us to do (the consequences are minor compared with the potential benefits), pro-EU feeling will rise yet further as the UK tries to orientate itself towards the US, with the example of a failing state looking across the Atlantic right at their doorstep, compared with their existing local community. I certainly predict the next generation in the UK will be the most pro-EU yet.

And the EU has practically bent over backwards to accommodate the UK, even now. The official advice to the ECJ is that the UK can unilaterally revoke article 50, allowing it to reintegrate into the EU on previous terms, rather than have to go through the gauntlet of readmission by all 27 states. The backstop exists, not because the EU wants to punish the UK, but because the UK signed a bilateral treaty with the RoI, independent of the EU's authority if facilitated by its existence, that the UK has to adhere to. Since the UK has shown indications of being willing to unilaterally deny that treaty, the RoI has to look to whoever has the power to back them, to back them. The EU's ability to unilaterally decide the UK has been acting in bad faith is there because, well, throughout the negotiation process the UK has been acting in bad faith, repeatedly making agreements with the EU whilst claiming to the UK press that this is only for show, that they have no intention of keeping those promises. Hence the EU negotiators' statement that they can read the UK press too.

In just about every way Brexiteers have been the most duplicitous, feckless political movement I've ever seen gain power in the UK.

[Gilrandir]

If Scotland goes their own way that's also up to them, they are going to miss you, what use is Scotland anyway, Haggis is nice though. Gibraltar would be a loss but what are you doing there anyway

I like it when foreigners readily give away somebody else's country, bit by bit.

[Fragony]

I like it when foreigners readily give away somebody else's country, bit by bit.

Isn't that what the EU is all about? You got a lot to love

[Gilrandir]

Isn't that what the EU is all about? You got a lot to love

What part of the Netherlands has the hateful EU carved away?

[Fragony]

What part of the Netherlands has the hateful EU carved away?


We pay too much, they block innovations, meddle with things that should be ourserselve to handle. It isn't all their fault it are national pro-EU parties that are to blame mostly, but the EU doesn't benefit us at all, for advanced countries it is a hindrance, a useless overhead

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I like it when foreigners readily give away somebody else's country, bit by bit.

Such a move has already insured "peace in our time."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What part of the Netherlands has the hateful EU carved away?

Just wait. The EU could class big chunks of the place as economically and climatologically irresponsible and let the sea take them back rather than expending carbon to keep them dry.

[Beskar]

Do not want "service guarantees citizenship".

Used to that being the United Citizen Federation. But Terran Federation/Republic/etc is a common sci-fi trope for global government.

My favourite is Mass Effect in how they go "Well, they won't agree to anything, so nations exist, but anything space and beyond is the Alliance".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Used to that being the United Citizen Federation. But Terran Federation/Republic/etc is a common sci-fi trope for global government.

Not sure if that line, 'Service guarantees citizenship,' was Verhoeven or Neumeier. It was not RAH.

Heinlein's Federation did accord the suffrage only to those who had performed a term of federal service. He was a bit nebulous about the non-military service slots, but the idea being that to be granted the suffrage, you had to have placed the needs of the community above your own for a few years of under-rewarding, possibly difficult, or potentially dangerous service on behalf of the community. RAH's concept involved the suffrage, public service careers such as law enforcement, and the right to run for office as the ONLY rewards of said service. All other rights and obligations were the same for voting and non-voting citizens. RAH also noted that your suffrage could only be exercised after completing your service -- if you went career you might get a pension, but no vote until you were done serving.

Neat concept, but works better in fiction than reality. In reality too many of the power elites would work to ensure that their child's term of service was almost risk free and the non-voters would probably end up as 'second class' citizens in practice, rather than equal in all but the suffrage.

[Beskar]

Not sure if that line, 'Service guarantees citizenship,' was Verhoeven or Neumeier. It was not RAH.
I recognised it from the movie - Starship Troopers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTz9nIUkGc

I didn't recognise the names, but wikipedia says the following: "Starship Troopers is a 1997 American military science-fiction action film directed by Paul Verhoeven and written by Edward Neumeier. It originally came from an unrelated script called Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine, but eventually licensed the name Starship Troopers from a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein."

So it could have been from them and not Heinlein (not read the books).

[Pannonian]

Ministers will have the power to overrule doctors’ prescriptions in case medicines run out after Brexit.

In related news.


In a 17-page report the council, which is expected to bear the brunt of a no-deal Brexit because of the critical Dover-Calais trade route, said it might have to deal with 10,000 lorries parked or stacked on its roads if the UK crashes out of the EU.

Under a multi-agency contingency plan codenamed Operation Fennel, freight traffic management would be put in place to move lorries away from the main arteries of the M20 and A20. The plan is to try to keep the main M20 open for normal traffic with contingency plans for 200 additional officers to mitigate disruption and enforce mandatory truck-driving breaks.

[Montmorency]

It's a good day to die,
When you know the reasons why,
Citizens, we fight for what is right,
A noble sacrifice,
When duty calls, you pay the price,
For the Federation I will give my life!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIsv1YOFNys


A neat song, but not a model for society.

[Pannonian]

no.
i DEMAND a system of governance that leaves people free choice, and total understanding that they will bear the consequences of their choices.
i also have ENORMOUS confidence in the process of parliament, even where it produces results i don't like.

Doesn't the above require an informed electorate? And towards that end, at least reasonably truthful and open politicians? Some of the Leave shenanigans would, if they had occurred in a GE, have resulted in the candidate being thrown out by the electoral commission, yet, because they happened in a referendum, have been let go without official investigation. I have never seen a more untruthful political campaign in the UK than Leave, and that was by a distance, yet that does not matter as you've got over the line, and Brexiteers keep pressing this point. Does truth and information matter in politics? Or is it only the winning that matters?

Also, when you are fanatical about sovereignty, does it apply against all foreign countries, so that we control our own destiny without foreign influence? Or does it only apply against Europe? Is foreign influence good when you're talking about America and Russia?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I recognised it from the movie - Starship Troopers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMTz9nIUkGc

I didn't recognise the names, but wikipedia says the following: "Starship Troopers is a 1997 American military science-fiction action film directed by Paul Verhoeven and written by Edward Neumeier. It originally came from an unrelated script called Bug Hunt at Outpost Nine, but eventually licensed the name Starship Troopers from a science fiction novel by Robert A. Heinlein."

So it could have been from them and not Heinlein (not read the books).

Exactly what I was saying. And I have read SST on at least 4 occasions. Great read.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's a good day to die,
When you know the reasons why,
Citizens, we fight for what is right,
A noble sacrifice,
When duty calls, you pay the price,
For the Federation I will give my life!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIsv1YOFNys


A neat song, but not a model for society.

That was nieumeier. His take is that all nationalism is fascism.

[Furunculus]

Great read as always.
https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/1207/1015924-brexit-backstop-uk/

[a completely inoffensive name]

https://youtu.be/XvAsR4O4W0w

[Furunculus]

Since we've descended to p00pposting -

Jezza has got your back in the fight against teh neolibz:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/100414/jeremy-corbyn-blasts-neoliberal-eu-he-calls

[Pannonian]

Corbyn is a Brexiteer. Quelle surprise. Anyone who's done due diligence on him would have known that he's been a Eurosceptic for the whole of his career, taking after his idol Tony Benn. What Europhilic Corbynistas have to ask themselves is, is it more importance to follow Corbyn and take his Brexiteer direction, or is it more important to follow their Europhilism, against Corbyn's wishes? Corbyn is wildly popular among Labour members. Europe is wildly popular among Labour members. The two are mutually exclusive.

[Husar]

Since we've descended to p00pposting -

Jezza has got your back in the fight against teh neolibz:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/100414/jeremy-corbyn-blasts-neoliberal-eu-he-calls

The guy is crazy, but what can you expect from a Brit? :clown:

The EU has both neoliberal and non-neoliberal policies, as do most countries to varying degrees. A union that is made up of and controlled by neoliberal countries, would obviously have neoliberal policies, that's not rocket science. I have no idea what he thinks a Brexit controlled by a neoliberal British government would achieve for Britain in terms of fighting neoliberalism, but maybe he has some weird delusions about how he will win the next election and establish the UKSSR or something. You never know with a British person. :rolleyes:

[Pannonian]

The guy is crazy, but what can you expect from a Brit? :clown:

The EU has both neoliberal and non-neoliberal policies, as do most countries to varying degrees. A union that is made up of and controlled by neoliberal countries, would obviously have neoliberal policies, that's not rocket science. I have no idea what he thinks a Brexit controlled by a neoliberal British government would achieve for Britain in terms of fighting neoliberalism, but maybe he has some weird delusions about how he will win the next election and establish the UKSSR or something. You never know with a British person. :rolleyes:

Putting it another way, countries do better in power blocs than outside. That's why these blocs exist, and how these blocs treat countries weaker than them is proof that these blocs are beneficial to the countries inside them. And out of all the economic blocs, the EU is the most closely aligned to how Britain likes to think of itself. A great deal of freedom and opportunity, but with support for the less prosperous areas, and an expectation of a certain level of quality across society. If every statement on Europe has to be truthful and made in the context of alternatives, there would be a significant majority in favour of the EU. It's taken incredible amounts of falsehood and deception to give the EU the image that it has in the UK.

[Fragony]

Putting it another way, countries do better in power blocs than outside. That's why these blocs exist, and how these blocs treat countries weaker than them is proof that these blocs are beneficial to the countries inside them. And out of all the economic blocs, the EU is the most closely aligned to how Britain likes to think of itself. A great deal of freedom and opportunity, but with support for the less prosperous areas, and an expectation of a certain level of quality across society. If every statement on Europe has to be truthful and made in the context of alternatives, there would be a significant majority in favour of the EU. It's taken incredible amounts of falsehood and deception to give the EU the image that it has in the UK.

Wrong block

[Pannonian]

Wrong block

Which is the right bloc then?

[Fragony]

Which is the right bloc then?

A Dutch Anglo Alliance of course. Together we have more petunia's than everybody

[Pannonian]

A Dutch Anglo Alliance of course. Together we have more petunia's than everybody

Typical Brexit supporter. Promising something that does not exist. Should we band together to breed unicorns and leprechauns?

[Montmorency]

That was nieumeier. His take is that all nationalism is fascism.

Following from all nationalism being "low-ambition globalism", I would offer that nationalism seeks to exhaust ways to pillage its own country before advancing to fascism.
:eyebrows:



Since we've descended to p00pposting -

Jezza has got your back in the fight against teh neolibz:

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/100414/jeremy-corbyn-blasts-neoliberal-eu-he-calls

No shilling for neolibz! Now, there are some good questions to be asked about the contents of that article.


Mr Corbyn told fellow European politicians that Labour would "respect" the Brexit vote, which he also blamed on falling real wages and a spike in child poverty.

Respect a vote that will decrease wages and increase child poverty? lol

What I'd really be interested to know about Corbyn is, aside from the "respect the vote" guff, does he have an argument for why his socialist vision for Europe is better advanced outside the EU than inside?

His alternative to the current UK place in the EU is:


"We are confident that Labour’s alternative plan could command a majority in the British parliament, bring our country together and unlock the negotiations for our future relationship with the EU."

The party is calling for a "new, comprehensive customs union" with the European Union as well as seeking access to the EU’s single market to allow "frictionless trade" and avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland.

What's the difference between current EU-UK and alternative EU-UK? Is it like the difference between NAFTA and USMCA? The UK doesn't have the American brawny margin for free errors, to spin in circles and end where you started. And if this alternative agreement is sure to gain majority support among the electorate and Parliament, why bother following through with Article 50 Brexit? My impression is, cancel Brexit and go forward with the popularly-mandated renegotiation on the basis of your sound and widely-approved alternative except, you know, from less of a position of precarity and weakness.

Hopefully there is some strategy I'm not aware of.



Typical Brexit supporter. Promising something that does not exist. Should we band together to breed unicorns and leprechauns?

Well, nothing exists until you fight for it and bring about change. Gentlemen, we can engineer a unicorn. We have the technology. We have the capability to build the world's first unicorn. The United Kingdom will be that unicorn. Better than it was before. Better, stronger, faster."

[Pannonian]

Following from all nationalism being "low-ambition globalism", I would offer that nationalism seeks to exhaust ways to pillage its own country before advancing to fascism.
:eyebrows:




No shilling for neolibz! Now, there are some good questions to be asked about the contents of that article.



Respect a vote that will decrease wages and increase child poverty? lol

What I'd really be interested to know about Corbyn is, aside from the "respect the vote" guff, does he have an argument for why his socialist vision for Europe is better advanced outside the EU than inside?


Something to do with restrictions on state aid I think. The argument given by his fellow hard leftists is that nationalisation is only possible outside the EU. Even though it exists within the EU. Even though railway nationalisation, his flagship policy, can be done right now, within EU rules. Jeremy Corbyn isn't very bright.

[Montmorency]

Something to do with restrictions on state aid I think. The argument given by his fellow hard leftists is that nationalisation is only possible outside the EU. Even though it exists within the EU. Even though railway nationalisation, his flagship policy, can be done right now, within EU rules. Jeremy Corbyn isn't very bright.

I hope there is another explanation, but I'm not dedicated enough to do the reading. :blush:

[Husar]

And out of all the economic blocs, the EU is the most closely aligned to how Britain likes to think of itself.

Britain likes to think of itself as a glorious empire that is better off carving out a place under the sun for itself, at least quite a significant portion of Britain. That's why the Brexit is happening after all.


A Dutch Anglo Alliance of course. Together we have more petunia's than everybody

If this is an "us vs. them" scenario, we should invade you guys real quick again. If you pick economic competition, we pick military competition. We'll see which one's better overall.

[Fragony]

Typical Brexit supporter. Promising something that does not exist. Should we band together to breed unicorns and leprechauns?

Scandivian countries Will want to be in as well. Strongest economic power ever. Key to succes is leaving the EU, a meerling expensive overhead.. We should leave the UN as well

[Furunculus]

What I'd really be interested to know about Corbyn is, aside from the "respect the vote" guff, does he have an argument for why his socialist vision for Europe is better advanced outside the EU than inside?
What's the difference between current EU-UK and alternative EU-UK? Is it like the difference between NAFTA and USMCA? The UK doesn't have the American brawny margin for free errors, to spin in circles and end where you started. And if this alternative agreement is sure to gain majority support among the electorate and Parliament, why bother following through with Article 50 Brexit? My impression is, cancel Brexit and go forward with the popularly-mandated renegotiation on the basis of your sound and widely-approved alternative except, you know, from less of a position of precarity and weakness.

state aid.
but he does not have any ability to demand that 27 other nations dismantle the rules that allow them to cooperate on trade. it is not within his gift, particularly as in his view the eu is a fundamentally teh-neolibz organisation.

he also doesn't like non-regression in the areas May negotiated on employment, environment and social policy (the flanking policies that sit around the single market regs), because...
... well, because he doesn't trust the British parliament/people to deliver those things for him. safer to have them imposed from outside!

[Pannonian]

UK can unilaterally revoke article 50. If article 50 is revoked, membership continues on same conditions as before, including all previously negotiated privileges.

[Furunculus]

UK can unilaterally revoke article 50. If article 50 is revoked, membership continues on same conditions as before, including all previously negotiated privileges.

including the financial and medical regulatory bodies that are buisy decamping to foriegn parts?

[Pannonian]

including the financial and medical regulatory bodies that are buisy decamping to foriegn parts?

Probably not. Are you blaming them for preparing for Brexit?

[Furunculus]

Probably not. Are you blaming them for preparing for Brexit?

No, not at all. Just making sure we're all clear where we stand (in order of undesirability):

1. Membership of the EU was unnacceptable after Cameron's re-negotiation
2. Membership of the EU was more unnacceptable before Cameron's re-negotiation
3. Membership of the EU would be even more unnacceptable without the regulatory bodies
4. You'd have to be a complete raving lunatic to believe we'd be happy to re-join with: no-rebate / schenghen / eurozone

So, where at stage 3 out of 4 out four on the eupocalypse scale. Not looking good...

p.s. there is also an option zero:
0. Membership of the EU would have worked with Cameron's deal + wide option to avoid ever closer union

[Pannonian]

No, not at all. Just making sure we're all clear where we stand (in order of undesirability):

1. Membership of the EU was unnacceptable after Cameron's re-negotiation
2. Membership of the EU was more unnacceptable before Cameron's re-negotiation
3. Membership of the EU would be even more unnacceptable without the regulatory bodies
4. You'd have to be a complete raving lunatic to believe we'd be happy to re-join with: no-rebate / schenghen / eurozone

So, where at stage 3 out of 4 out four on the eupocalypse scale. Not looking good...

Unless you'd like to quantify 1 and 2, which are conclusions without definitions, and 4, which is another conclusion which you concede this satisfies anyway, where does May's deal stand in relation to 3? You've actually mentioned something concrete there (regulatory bodies) which you're unhappy with within the EU, but you've said that May's deal is satisfactory to you. So where does May's deal leave the UK wrt the EU's regulatory bodies? And directly related to that, how would you prefer the UK's regulations, and what would the results of that preference be? And also related to that, is there a mandate for that preference? If so, please present.

[Furunculus]

i don't have to provide any details on #1 and #2.
if the last ten years of debate have failed to sink in, why should one last hurrah on my part make any difference!

may's deal ain't great, but remember; i am a pragmatic and reasonable middle-of-the-road kinda guy. ;)

may's deal provides:
1. an exit from ever closer union
2. the promise of close alignment on goods regulation to minimise disruption to trade in goods
3. non-regression on flanking policies (a key objective of mine)
4. regulatory freedom on services (anything else would be deeply inappropriate outside of membership)
5. robust institutional relationship
some other people may also like:
6. an end to freedom of movement
7. an end to large payments to the EU
8. keeping full alignment on competition policy (if you are teh-neolibz)

[Husar]

Looks like we got a little delay:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/theresa-may-postpones-brexit-deal-meaningful-vote-eu

Seems like May needs a different deal and the EU does not want a different deal given the British base demands.
It's almost as if nobody really wants this deal, but there is also neither time nor political will/room for a different deal.

Is Britain headed into a no-deal Brexit or will someone give in and change everything before then?
What if May revokes Article 50 to stay and then triggers it again in April to buy time to renegotiate? Political suicide?

[Pannonian]

Looks like we got a little delay:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/10/theresa-may-postpones-brexit-deal-meaningful-vote-eu

Seems like May needs a different deal and the EU does not want a different deal given the British base demands.
It's almost as if nobody really wants this deal, but there is also neither time nor political will/room for a different deal.

Is Britain headed into a no-deal Brexit or will someone give in and change everything before then?
What if May revokes Article 50 to stay and then triggers it again in April to buy time to renegotiate? Political suicide?

AFAIK internal treaty norms and presumably the legalese would prevent any revocations in bad faith which this would be. The EU27 would treat it as though the UK had never revoked it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

BBC world news here in the USA seems to be suggesting that the "sub rosa" preferred strategy for the EU is to have this vote fail and then have Parliament revoke article 50 or call a referendum to do the same. They were suggesting that a no deal exit would force the "leave" crowd to capitulate (did not use those words).