EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Husar]

Well, Trump weighed in with some great advice for May: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-to-sue-the-eu

Theresa May has revealed that Donald Trump advised her to “sue the European Union” rather than negotiate with the 27-country bloc, in a private conversation that the US president referred to during his visit to the UK on Friday.

Makes me wonder which court would be responsible.

[rory_20_uk]

Exactly the first thought I had on the matter.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Resurrect the PCIJ maybe?

[AE Bravo]

Now it's time to develop your case: what did this have to do with NATO? The crisis developed over a month, and various countries, in particular UK and France, were calling for regime change within a couple of weeks of the outset. From my perspective the best that could have managed through NATO command would have been to set of stringent operational parameters at the outset to the effect of hitting Gaddafi hard for a few weeks and using the leverage of potential reintensification to force all parties into negotiations.

Because these actions brought about the expectation of a NATO intervention, prompting or initially sustaining the rebellion. In fact, the strategy of the rebel political wing depended on forthcoming NATO intervention which they had grounds to expect based on the early signals of support by its members. Would they have dared to challenge the regime without NATO support? Not likely. I do understand your position of being precise about NATO high command and how responsible it is definitively, but I see this connection to be enough proof of its ability to unleash rather than restrain.

I don't think the fact that Russia feels entitled to a regional sphere of influence is a good argument against NATO, and in fact its very levying implies that in the short term taking NATO out of the picture would be destabilizing in favor of Russia. In the same way, various Ukrainian factions desiring a closer relationship with Europe to balance against Russia has not made a case against the EU or other European associations. ('Ukraine can't surrender aspects of sovereignty to EU! It already surrendered them to Russia!' Mafia knows you can't juggle business arrangements.)

Ultimately NATO expansion is a distraction, because Russia under Putin has long felt it needs a much broader role in Europe and throughout the world; between 1990 and 2008, Russia was rebuilding. NATO is a pretext for an aspect of a long-term development, not an instigator in its own right. And don't leave out domestic developments, the continuing need around Obama's first term for Putin to consolidate power, growing public unrest with the government, examples of governments falling to popular unrest around the (Arab) world...

Right but you are still starting from a position of Russia’s sense of entitlement rather than it responding to NATO’s offensive posturing. Russian military planners and policy makers now assume that the only way to stop NATO's encroachment on Russia's perceived spheres of influence is to clearly signal red lines and act firmly to defend Russia's interests as it was done with respect to Georgia and Ukraine. Russia made it clear that it is not afraid of taking risks if its needed for enforcing its definition of core geopolitical interests.

As for domestic developments, wouldn't you describe the critics of Russia and supporters of western hegemony in the international system to be the dominant group, constraining attempts to reach out to Russia in a meaningful way? Especially in the US's current political climate.

Military buildup, by the way, will never bring any of our aspirations to fruition. Putin would love to be able to play along in such an easy, no-stakes (for him) contest, the kind of posturing he thrives on before his base.

(How many more tens of billions $ have NATO countries added to their military budgets since 2014? More than Russia's entire yearly defence budget? Welfare for people, not for military industrial complex pl0x.)

You're right. I oversimplified.

[Elmetiacos]

The fiasco continues as the late Theresa May, for fear of losing the vote in Parliament, has now been forced to accept amendments to her white paper by the Brexit mujaheddin which wreck it and mean that ultimately, Davis, Johnson and the others have resigned over what hasn't happened anyway. This also reduces the chance of the EU negotiators being able to accept the paper from "cat in Hell" down to "snowball in Hell".

In other news, I get to say "I told you so". Just as I predicted back in this thread the latest immigration figures are out and the result of Brexit, no doubt to the delight of the not-at-all xenophobic or racist people who voted for it, is more Pakistanis, Indians and Africans entering the UK. 'Kippers up and down the land will no doubt be raising a toast even as I type to this triumph in promoting a multi-racial and multi-cultural Britain.

[Pannonian]

Can any Brexit supporters respond to the points in Anna Soubry's speech here?

[Furunculus]

In other news, I get to say "I told you so". Just as I predicted back in this thread

the latest immigration figures are out and the result of Brexit, no doubt to the delight of the not-at-all xenophobic or racist people who voted for it, is more Pakistanis, Indians and Africans entering the UK. 'Kippers up and down the land will no doubt be raising a toast even as I type to this triumph in promoting a multi-racial and multi-cultural Britain.

Thanks, enjoyed going back two years to see what was discussed.
Found these two gems:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053707265
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053710468

Re: immigration - there are good reasons to be against freedom of movement:

The problem is that it essentially means unrestricted mass migration, which is something that has never had the consent of the people. Quite the reverse. It is objectively true to say that the electorate is actually quite supportive of immigration per-se (among the most positive in the EU in fact!), but does demand that there is "control of immigration".

Now, this is the problem, but the 'solution' was even worse: In order to mitigate the problem of unrestricted mass migration from the EU the gov't (both labour and conservative), they brutally clamped down on immigration from the rest of the world. Including countries that are widely recognised as our extended family. The Anglosphere nations, largely.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where 5% of the worlds population hoovered up over half of the 'allocation' of immigration, with 90% having to fight over the rest.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where Janek the unskilled bob-a-job guy with a conviction back home for violent assault could come and stay as he pleased, but Marie-Jeanne the Post-Doc biologist from Canada was on an endless fight with the Home Office to extend her stay six more months, after being in living here for six years.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where we've introduced a regime that benignly smiles on anyone from across the channel, while hounding people out of the country who have been british citizens for fifity years.

What we ended up with is a daft situation where Arjun the third generation immigrant from India has to jump through endless hoops to bring his intended wife back from the home country, while looking on as europeans drift in and out of the country with an absolute entitlement to permanent residence.

Yes, these examples are deliberately extreme, but they are a perfectly reasonable prism through which to view Freedom of Movement.

Now, if someone holds the view that immigration should be completely unrestricted then I have two things to say to them: 1. Fair enough, I get that your frustrated at seeing FoM with the EU end, and; 2. First, you need to win that argument with the electorate.

[Husar]

What we ended up with is a daft situation where 5% of the worlds population hoovered up over half of the 'allocation' of immigration, with 90% having to fight over the rest.

That never seems to bother you classical liberals when it comes to wealth or income allocation, so why here?
Everyone can get to the UK if they just want it enough, no?!? Are you arguing for immigration socialism and quotas instead of using merit and efficiency?

[Furunculus]

you can make the argument that neo-liberals care for nothing but cheap labour for business, but that doesn't really go anywhere now does it?

[Pannonian]

Any Brexit supporters care to answer Anna Soubry's points?

[Fragony]

That never seems to bother you classical liberals when it comes to wealth or income allocation, so why here?
Everyone can get to the UK if they just want it enough, no?!? Are you arguing for immigration socialism and quotas instead of using merit and efficiency?

What merit

[Pannonian]

you can make the argument that neo-liberals care for nothing but cheap labour for business, but that doesn't really go anywhere now does it?

Soubry makes the point that those with "gold plated pensions and inherited wealth" won't be affected, and it is they who argue that "the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs will be worth it in regaining their sovereignty". She also argues that "people didn't vote to make themselves poorer". Given the discrepancy between what Leave promised in their campaign and what they're ending up with, especially the hard/no deal Brexit angled for by Rees-Mogg, how does that square with your outrage that such a small percentage of the population has such a large percentage of its wealth? Should Brexit go ahead if it ends frictionless trade with the EU? NB. her point about modern trade and industry before you talk about new markets.

[Furunculus]

That point still doesn't really go anywhere, as framed by Husar, but to address your points:

By my reckoning, lefties have cost the country 0.5% gdp growth, compound for about the last twenty years.
By my reckoning, the likes of Clegg et-al were equally deceitful/hopeful in promising an EU that would be the same in future.
Sorry, do I have "outrage" that such a small percentage of the population has such a large percentage of its wealth?
Brexit should go ahead if it ends frictionless trade with the EU, I consider it slightly immoral that the great tariff wall of the EU adds so much 'friction' to trade with the developing world. Obviously, as a free-trader, I want minimal friction all round.

[Husar]

you can make the argument that neo-liberals care for nothing but cheap labour for business, but that doesn't really go anywhere now does it?

No, it does not, because unlike my question, it is not related to what you said. Unless you're admitting to being a neoliberal or that they run your country. Neoliberals will get their cheap labor anyway.

What merit

The merit of being born in the right place. When you say British jobs for British workers, you're applying exactly the same standard.

[Pannonian]

The Electoral Commission have found Leave guilty of breaking electoral law and have fined one of their carrier mules, and handed over the case to the police with the admission that it deserves more action that's not within their power.

And May's government have broken a pairing agreement a Labour MP, agreeing to pair off with said Labour MP who's just given birth and is on maternal leave, then having their MP vote anyway.

Does Parliament have effective sovereignty any more, or does it not matter as long as Leave get their wish?

[Montmorency]

Because these actions brought about the expectation of a NATO intervention, prompting or initially sustaining the rebellion. In fact, the strategy of the rebel political wing depended on forthcoming NATO intervention which they had grounds to expect based on the early signals of support by its members. Would they have dared to challenge the regime without NATO support? Not likely. I do understand your position of being precise about NATO high command and how responsible it is definitively, but I see this connection to be enough proof of its ability to unleash rather than restrain.

So long as we're being precise, I challenge you to clarify who exactly the rebels were expecting help from: Was it NATO? Was it Europe? Was it the US?

Now recall that you said this:

I don't think the financial setbacks are something that can inhibit the US from managing a post-NATO order.

Is NATO really the crux of the matter here, if nothing changes but the existence of NATO?

I think you're too caught up in the identification of the name NATO with the history of "Western" actions, you end up losing sight of an organization like NATO not being an organic entity but a vehicle and front for the action of individual members - which is what it was created for in the first place.

Right but you are still starting from a position of Russia’s sense of entitlement rather than it responding to NATO’s offensive posturing. Russian military planners and policy makers now assume that the only way to stop NATO's encroachment on Russia's perceived spheres of influence is to clearly signal red lines and act firmly to defend Russia's interests as it was done with respect to Georgia and Ukraine. Russia made it clear that it is not afraid of taking risks if its needed for enforcing its definition of core geopolitical interests.

As for domestic developments, wouldn't you describe the critics of Russia and supporters of western hegemony in the international system to be the dominant group, constraining attempts to reach out to Russia in a meaningful way? Especially in the US's current political climate.

This was my whole point. The Western order IS (as of yet) dominant, and Russia has identified its interests with undermining that order. Both the US and Russia are now set into an intractable conflict in which there is no return to a status quo because both sides seek to neutralize the capacity of the other side to resist the imposition of their side's interests.

That's why I called the conflict "quasi-existential" - the object to be eliminated is not the existence of any country as sovereign state, but the ability to maintain a sovereign foreign policy that could be used to harm the other side.

Who can back down when the fight is over the destruction of national power? I can't reiterate enough that this conflict is not about a concrete disagreement between parties, not something that can be resolved with rhetoric, or horse-trading, or good-will concessions.

You're right. I oversimplified.

That wasn't aimed at you, since you weren't (?) advocating for a US or NATO or EU need to rearm to deter Russia. It was not aimed at a specific person.

Re: immigration - there are good reasons to be against freedom of movement:

Without diving very deep into UK immigration history, there are signs that your hypotheticals don't represent the UK experience with immigration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...United_Kingdom

Looking at the graph on net migration, before freedom of movement there was 1-2 to 2/3 less immigration to the UK, unclear what national breakdown but apparently not many from what was later the EU. With freedom of movement of persons, EU intake increased by orders of magnitude but non-EU immigration increased concomitantly. EU-source immigration has always been much lower than non-EU (i.e. all other sources) immigration, and without more information it doesn't look obvious that at any point EU immigration suppressed, or allowed the suppression of, non-EU immigration. So your take on the allocation of immigrants is probably wrong.

The wiki entry points out that a lot of the "Janek" influx is cyclical, not permanent in nature, and indeed one of the primary advantages of a free movement regime is its facilitation of such short-term stays for work, education, etc. It would be useful to find data comparing immigrant populations on this factor.

But I didn't address your point that residency is more difficult to attain as a procedural matter for Commonwealth and other citizens than EU members. First we should realize that this is by definition, since the UK had freedom of movement within the EU and not without. Second, if your point was that the UK government from the recent past imposed more restrictions on immigration from outside the EU (in order to balance the overall numbers given the influx from the EU), it's again not obvious from the numbers and should be justified with some references. Third, if you are correct and if you like British subjects so much, you ought to advocate for lesser imposed restrictions and hurdles on that demographic so that more can come and stay more easily. Another 50-100K a year from Canada plus the rest shouldn't approach so uncomfortably close to a regime of absolute unrestricted immigration as to overwhelm your British affinity, should it? Especially taking account that UK net immigration has been numerically at least half of net immigration since the millenium. This could all be done without entanglement with any EU-faced policy (though now made moot by Brexit).

[Pannonian]

That point still doesn't really go anywhere, as framed by Husar, but to address your points:

By my reckoning, lefties have cost the country 0.5% gdp growth, compound for about the last twenty years.
By my reckoning, the likes of Clegg et-al were equally deceitful/hopeful in promising an EU that would be the same in future.
Sorry, do I have "outrage" that such a small percentage of the population has such a large percentage of its wealth?
Brexit should go ahead if it ends frictionless trade with the EU, I consider it slightly immoral that the great tariff wall of the EU adds so much 'friction' to trade with the developing world. Obviously, as a free-trader, I want minimal friction all round.

How would this all round frictionless trade work? NB. we still have to comply with WTO regulations, unless you want to break free of the WTO as well.

[Furunculus]

EU-source immigration has always been much lower than non-EU (i.e. all other sources) immigration, and without more information it doesn't look obvious that at any point EU immigration suppressed, or allowed the suppression of, non-EU immigration. So your take on the allocation of immigrants is probably wrong.

I don't know why you believe this, and no, I do not believe I am.

How would this all round frictionless trade work? NB. we still have to comply with WTO regulations, unless you want to break free of the WTO as well.

Do you recognise that the EU custom's union is a protection racket for internal business?
"You can sell us your coffee beans, but who, if you want to add value to your export by grinding them then you'll pay a much higher tariff!"
"p.s. we're very sorry you're poor, would you like some gender diversity officers from our national aid quango?"

[Pannonian]

I don't know why you believe this, and no, I do not believe I am.

Do you recognise that the EU custom's union is a protection racket for internal business?
"You can sell us your coffee beans, but who, if you want to add value to your export by grinding them then you'll pay a much higher tariff!"
"p.s. we're very sorry you're poor, would you like some gender diversity officers from our national aid quango?"

I live in England. As the US has shown, others will screw us given the opportunity. Why do we need to volunteer the opportunity? And you still haven't answered the question of how you propose we should follow WTO regulations. Unless your answer is that we should withdraw from the WTO as well.

In other news, the EU has voted to ban imports of palm oil. Is this a good thing or a bad thing in your view? Do you think the EU is unfairly penalising farmers in third world countries who rely on palm oil as a cash crop?

[AE Bravo]

So long as we're being precise, I challenge you to clarify who exactly the rebels were expecting help from: Was it NATO? Was it Europe? Was it the US?

The rebels viewed NATO intervention as vital in light of the government’s superior military resources. Like I said, the early signals of support from NATO countries brought about the expectation of support from NATO itself.

Is NATO really the crux of the matter here, if nothing changes but the existence of NATO?

I think you're too caught up in the identification of the name NATO with the history of "Western" actions, you end up losing sight of an organization like NATO not being an organic entity but a vehicle and front for the action of individual members - which is what it was created for in the first place.

I am responding to your claim regarding NATO not being an instigator per se. NATO’s security strategies from the 1990s embraced various concepts of sovereign inequality, ranging from humanitarian interventionism, democracy promotion, regime change, countering rogue states, and the global war on terror. A dangerous precedent is set by its missile defense system as well, which is bereft of any international treaty or political assurances to regulate and constrain its advancement.

This was my whole point. The Western order IS (as of yet) dominant, and Russia has identified its interests with undermining that order. Both the US and Russia are now set into an intractable conflict in which there is no return to a status quo because both sides seek to neutralize the capacity of the other side to resist the imposition of their side's interests.

That's why I called the conflict "quasi-existential" - the object to be eliminated is not the existence of any country as sovereign state, but the ability to maintain a sovereign foreign policy that could be used to harm the other side.

Who can back down when the fight is over the destruction of national power? I can't reiterate enough that this conflict is not about a concrete disagreement between parties, not something that can be resolved with rhetoric, or horse-trading, or good-will concessions.

The fact that this framework exists to prevent potential Russian aggression makes hostilities a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think its absence has the potential to be destabilizing in favor of Russia, you cannot ignore the current state of affairs that are destabilizing in favor of western powers.

You’ve mentioned this before and used a similar approach to China. Why is that? Where is the proof of a problem that a new framework won’t fix?

[Montmorency]

I don't know why you believe this, and no, I do not believe I am.

But you said

Now, this is the problem, but the 'solution' was even worse: In order to mitigate the problem of unrestricted mass migration from the EU the gov't (both labour and conservative), they brutally clamped down on immigration from the rest of the world. Including countries that are widely recognised as our extended family. The Anglosphere nations, largely.

The rebels viewed NATO intervention as vital in light of the government’s superior military resources. Like I said, the early signals of support from NATO countries brought about the expectation of support from NATO itself.

So you mean, the United States?

I am responding to your claim regarding NATO not being an instigator per se. NATO’s security strategies from the 1990s embraced various concepts of sovereign inequality, ranging from humanitarian interventionism, democracy promotion, regime change, countering rogue states, and the global war on terror.

This is the US national orientation from the same period.

A dangerous precedent is set by its missile defense system as well, which is bereft of any international treaty or political assurances to regulate and constrain its advancement.

This is specifically a US technology. Anyway, we should not be made to feel rueful by complaints against a purely defensive technology that literally cannot be used except against large missiles. If Russia or China are concerned about the mitigation of their second strike capability, they ought to invest in a defense system of their own. If it were admissible as a bargaining chip, I would support looking into whether we can outright gift some aspects of this technology to shut them up.

You keep talking about US orientations and practices, yet name NATO as though it were the source or chief expression. NATO isn't managing small-force combat operations in dozens of countries. Are you sure you aren't just hostile to a concept of a Transatlantic Alliance, which is what NATO formalizes?

The fact that this framework exists to prevent potential Russian aggression makes hostilities a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think its absence has the potential to be destabilizing in favor of Russia, you cannot ignore the current state of affairs that are destabilizing in favor of western powers.

It was not a self-fulfilling prophecy until recently, or was it? If it was, then only in the sense that any dominant order (status quo) attracts (revisionist) challengers. I'm not extensively read on Putin's career, but to my knowledge even he found use in international institutions in his early years at the top.

I think it has been stabilizing in favor of Western powers, especially in the 20th century. The problem now is exactly that it is being destabilized, and there is no easy answer. If overwhelming Russian intransigence through diplomatic or economic means were a simple proposition, its undertaking would be favorable. For the time being the only prospects for the present conflict are stalemate or surrender. I prefer stalemate until the logic of the "liberal alliance" can be changed to a more social democratic one (at least), which I believe would be constitutionally resistant to Russian blandishments and techniques.

You’ve mentioned this before and used a similar approach to China. Why is that? Where is the proof of a problem that a new framework won’t fix?

Refresh my memory? Anyway, I have been saying even in this chain of posts I am in favor of a new framework. China is clearly a much bigger challenge to US standing than Russia. (No wonder the two are eager to embrace each other). China has a neo-colonial/mercantilist program to bend the world toward its interests which it calls "community of common destiny". I hope the "West" can offer the same in more collaborative fashion under leftist and democratic principles.

[Furunculus]

But you said

"Now, this is the problem, but the 'solution' was even worse: In order to mitigate the problem of unrestricted mass migration from the EU the gov't (both labour and conservative), they brutally clamped down on immigration from the rest of the world. Including countries that are widely recognised as our extended family. The Anglosphere nations, largely."

you misunderstand me: I question whether your skim reading a wiki article leaves you in a sound position to come to the conclusion you have.

[Pannonian]

Would Brexit supporters be in favour of a no deal exit?

[Fragony]

Would Brexit supporters be in favour of a no deal exit?

Seems to be heading that way regardless, the deal is hardly a deal.

More EU lulz, Druncker is confabulating korsakovski that he is. He doesn't remember being drunk at the Nato-top, his leg hurted. My leg also has hurted at times like that and I also don't remember it but it must have been funny just like the Nato-top summit, I was also very cheerful and couldn't stand straight and liked hugging and kissing, I heard.

Attention, Druncker was not drunk, I repeat, Druncker was not drunk. I say it twice because that's how he sees things

[rory_20_uk]

Would Brexit supporters be in favour of a no deal exit?

Lets imagine things the other way around. If the UK was independent and the EU said we had two years to join or they'd tear up every single agreement with them, throw us out of every joint enterprise from intelligence sharing, drug trafficking to aircraft routing what would we say? "Gosh, we best do what they say!"

What if the USA was to threaten the same - become the 51st state (with the Royals as the hereditary governor) or else they'd leave NATO, remove us from intelligence sharing and all trade? Would we again say "We'd better make the special relationship even more special!"

[Pannonian]

Lets imagine things the other way around. If the UK was independent and the EU said we had two years to join or they'd tear up every single agreement with them, throw us out of every joint enterprise from intelligence sharing, drug trafficking to aircraft routing what would we say? "Gosh, we best do what they say!"

What if the USA was to threaten the same - become the 51st state (with the Royals as the hereditary governor) or else they'd leave NATO, remove us from intelligence sharing and all trade? Would we again say "We'd better make the special relationship even more special!"

So if it came down to no deal, you'd support it whilst blaming the EU?

[rory_20_uk]

So if it came down to no deal, you'd support it whilst blaming the EU?

You going to address me post?

[Pannonian]

You going to address me post?

Why would I have any strong feelings about that? I voted for the status quo. I didn't ask for no deal. Did you?

[Montmorency]

you misunderstand me: I question whether your skim reading a wiki article leaves you in a sound position to come to the conclusion you have.

Yes, let me try it this way: what's your basis for your claim?

Lets imagine things the other way around. If the UK was independent and the EU said we had two years to join or they'd tear up every single agreement with them, throw us out of every joint enterprise from intelligence sharing, drug trafficking to aircraft routing what would we say? "Gosh, we best do what they say!"

What if the USA was to threaten the same - become the 51st state (with the Royals as the hereditary governor) or else they'd leave NATO, remove us from intelligence sharing and all trade? Would we again say "We'd better make the special relationship even more special!"

This angle brought up a connection to the fore:

Trump exits Iran deal. 'Worst deal ever, we'll negotiate a much better one this time!' Iran deal was multilaterally negotiated according to the geopolitical parameters of its time. In a different era, negotiating a similar deal is impossible or much less favorable.

So, timing and context affect the process and the outlook. It's not just that it comes down to bad timing for the UK though, a complex and deep set of arrangements like EU membership is sure to be destabilizing to sever, for all parties involved, much more so than a more traditional diplomatic pact. More so even than a mere body of rules on trade and customs.

"But it was promised that we could leave at any time." On paper, yes, but in practice it's like melding as a conjoined twin into someone's body, then ripping yourself out again once all the bone is set, vascular network enmeshed... At this time the EU is too drunk, per Fragony, to successfully perform the delicate surgeries necessary for an amicable and propitious result.

In short, this type of enmity and chaos is almost assured when picking apart such a tangled clump of economics and politics. I predict no more large countries will attempt to leave the EU, unless during a whole-cloth unraveling.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lets imagine things the other way around. If the UK was independent and the EU said we had two years to join or they'd tear up every single agreement with them, throw us out of every joint enterprise from intelligence sharing, drug trafficking to aircraft routing what would we say? "Gosh, we best do what they say!"

What if the USA was to threaten the same - become the 51st state (with the Royals as the hereditary governor) or else they'd leave NATO, remove us from intelligence sharing and all trade? Would we again say "We'd better make the special relationship even more special!"

You would put pride above security?