EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

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

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.

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.

Since we've descended to p00pposting -

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

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk...al-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.





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.

[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...ingful-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...ingful-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).

[Furunculus]

I honestly don't think that the EU wants us in any more.
two and a half years of chaos and dire warnings after the vote and its still basically 50:50.
If art50 is revoked that leaves the EU with its second biggest member as a major headache for another generation.
blocking ever closer union every time they have a bright idea.

A pretty good exposition of the point above:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...last-two-years

[Pannonian]

I honestly don't think that the EU wants us in any more.
two and a half years of chaos and dire warnings after the vote and its still basically 50:50.
If art50 is revoked that leaves the EU with its second biggest member as a major headache for another generation.
blocking ever closer union every time they have a bright idea.

A pretty good exposition of the point above:
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...last-two-years

Given all the lies that Brexiteers have told about the EU, and the degree of hatred they have for the EU, what do you expect? However, what Brexit has brought up is an equally intense fondness for the EU that there has not been before. Before Brexit, Eurosceptics have been allowed to use the EU as a scapegoat for all ills, while even Europhiles merely mildly liked the EU as a background fact. Post Brexit, the country is polarised. Leave won the vote. Leavers should own responsibility for the state of the country as they've brought it.

[Fragony]

Given all the lies that Brexiteers have told about the EU, and the degree of hatred they have for the EU, what do you expect? However, what Brexit has brought up is an equally intense fondness for the EU that there has not been before. Before Brexit, Eurosceptics have been allowed to use the EU as a scapegoat for all ills, while even Europhiles merely mildly liked the EU as a background fact. Post Brexit, the country is polarised. Leave won the vote. Leavers should own responsibility for the state of the country as they've brought it.

Yeah, give Them the billions you can keep

[Furunculus]

However, what Brexit has brought up is an equally intense fondness for the EU that there has not been before. Before Brexit, Eurosceptics have been allowed to use the EU as a scapegoat for all ills, while even Europhiles merely mildly liked the EU as a background fact. Post Brexit, the country is polarised.

what useful proportion of the electorate feels this way?

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39...ull-report.pdf

Clue - table 1 page 119
Stay and increase EU’s powers = 4% (2017)
Work for single European government =3% (2017) altho, to be fair it has ticked up from the year before (2.0%!)

Clue - figure 1 page 121
European identiry stands at 17% - altho, to be fair is has ticked up in recent years (15%!)

[Pannonian]

what useful proportion of the electorate feels this way?

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39...ull-report.pdf

Clue - table 1 page 119
Stay and increase EU’s powers = 4% (2017)
Work for single European government =3% (2017) altho, to be fair it has ticked up from the year before (2.0%!)

Clue - figure 1 page 121
European identiry stands at 17% - altho, to be fair is has ticked up in recent years (15%!)

What numbers turned up for the pro and anti Brexit rallies? Pro Brexit rallies muster around 5k. Anti Brexit rallies muster over 100 times that. Anti Brexiteers aren't going to go away. They're going to get more numerous and more intense in their belief after the effects of Brexit kick in.

If there is a vote before no deal and remain, which would you vote for? If the former, will you own responsibility for all the consequences of your vote?

[Pannonian]

Note for those who haven't been paying close attention: remember the Brexiteers have been holding up the ECJ as an example of how the UK yields sovereignty to an outside body. Despite the fact that any multilateral agreement must entail yielding in some part. Despite the fact that the ECJ has favoured the UK disproportionately (IIRC around 95% of UK-other disputes went in the UK's favour). That the ECJ is separate from the EU's administration, as any court should be, is ignored by Brexiteers; anything with "Europe" in the title is automatically taboo, hence withdrawal from Euratom and ECHR. The UK argued that, once article 50 had been invoked, it could no longer be revoked. The EU argued that, if the UK wanted to revoke, it must require the unanimous support of the other 27 countries to revoke, as per any new application to join. The ECJ ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke, on the grounds of sovereignty.

1. The UK says article 50 can no longer be revoked (we have no power and it's the EU's fault).
2. The EU says the EU27 must agree for article 50 to be revoked (we demand power).
3. The ECJ says it's entirely within the UK's power to revoke (the UK is sovereign).

Funnily enough, out of the above three, it is only the ECJ that has defended the UK's sovereignty.

And further to that, the UK government last night postponed a scheduled vote on May's deal. A previous vote ensured that Parliament has the right to oversee the process before any Brexit can take place. But now the government is arguing that it can bypass Parliament until Brexit is a fait accompli. And so, the day after the maligned ECJ has upheld the UK's sovereignty, the UK government has suspended Parliament's rights, in the name of Brexit.

[Furunculus]

What numbers turned up for the pro and anti Brexit rallies? Pro Brexit rallies muster around 5k. Anti Brexit rallies muster over 100 times that. Anti Brexiteers aren't going to go away. They're going to get more numerous and more intense in their belief after the effects of Brexit kick in.

If there is a vote before no deal and remain, which would you vote for? If the former, will you own responsibility for all the consequences of your vote?

irrelevant - versus the comprehensive BES 2018 report.

no deal, of course. the eu wasn't good enough before, it wasn't good enough with cameron's deal, it certainly isn't good enough as the status quo minus medicine & financial regulators. it feels like you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here: this isn't simply a on-balance dry economic cost/benefit analysis. and i'm pretty sure i've pointed that out to you before.

but as I said: i support the deal, which seems only proper given that I am a pragmatic and reasonable middle-of-the-road kinda guy. ;)

[Pannonian]

irrelevant - versus the comprehensive BES 2018 report.

no deal, of course. the eu wasn't good enough before, it wasn't good enough with cameron's deal, it certainly isn't good enough as the status quo minus medicine & financial regulators. it feels like you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here: this isn't simply a on-balance dry economic cost/benefit analysis. and i'm pretty sure i've pointed that out to you before.

but as I said: i support the deal, which seems only proper given that I am a pragmatic and reasonable middle-of-the-road kinda guy. ;)

Do you support not allowing Parliament to vote on the deal?

[Furunculus]

Do you support not allowing Parliament to vote on the deal?

constitutionally, i'm in favour of:
1. the executive having responsibility for negotiating foriegn treaties
> though i'm happy to recognise that the EU is so pervasive that brexit is practically a domestic issue
2. that government legal advice should remain private
> to ensure that governments can ask for and receive comprehesive and non-evasive advice

but more than anything i'm in favour of [the process] of parliament and how gov't responds to the demands of a political constitution (rather than a legal one), so I'm quite accepting of the fact that parliament will have a 'meaninful' vote and got an extensive precis of the legal advice.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sounds like a nearly perfect 50/50 split.

So, how does your system work? If it really is split 50/50 do you let the Lords break the tie, let the Sovereign make the call, or toss a coin?