EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Montmorency]

Dang. I missed the truth again. Some days I wonder how I manage to get from A to B.

Bro Mr. Fermanagh, we offer one another disagreement often enough without apparent friction. What blooms dolorous in those few instances you snap so bitterly?

[Pannonian]

Our cable news and broadcasters do the same (without even touching on print media). This is because they have the mission of reaching a broad audience, making entertainment and profitability the priorities - even in the case of the technically non-commercial NPR. Contra Seamus, this contributes to a pervasive conservative slant by default. FOX is sui generis because it was designed from the outset with an ideological agenda rather than a strictly commercial one (which is just the 'submerged' ideology of capitalism).

Returning to Brexit, the EU has released a couple of statements regarding temporary arrangements for road and air traffic in the case of No Deal. How do these affect the outlook?

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/p...-its-position/
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/p...he-parliament/

I think this covers the permits problem, raised by the Haulliers Association. Which allows us to look at the customs problem. We don't have the infrastructure or personnel to enforce a customs regime. The trade minister says we will effectively throw open the borders (not enforce the regime at the border). Our agriculture minister says we will enforce the regime. As you can see, that's two ministers saying contradictory things. And in case you want to dismiss the agriculture minister as holding a lesser office, he's the bookmaker's favourite to be the next PM when the Tories stab May in the back. And the trade minister was the one who welcomed the EU-Japan trade deal in January, proclaiming that it will bring greater prosperity to the UK in years to come, forgetting we're leaving the EU in March (and thus being flamed by readers for being an effing idiot).

NB. throwing open the border kills our agriculture and manufacturing industry. The latter looks to be a lesser problem now, as it's leaving anyway due to the loss of JIT. The former is why the agriculture minister assured panicked farmers that we will be enforcing a customs regime. Which we don't have the infrastructure or manpower for. However, enforcing a customs regime results in delays. Which is problematic for produce that can spoil. Hence the food industry is warning against Brexit.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bro Mr. Fermanagh, we offer one another disagreement often enough without apparent friction. What blooms dolorous in those few instances you snap so bitterly?

You have a tendency to respond to those points with which you disagree without acknowledging those areas of commonality that do exist; coupled with your propensity to post both voluminously and with a somewhat 'black and white' evaluative tone, you come over somewhat dismissive to me.

As a communication scholar, I am well aware that such may not be your intent (and I presume very probably is not), and I am virtually certain that you bear me no personal animus, but at 55 with 45 years as a political observer -- and NOT one of the self-chosen ignorati endlessly numbed with the latest talent discovery or reality show soap opera -- it does sometimes rub me the wrong way.


If often find myself taking week-long breaks from the backroom to adjust my own attitude. As an academic, the line between the personal and the intellectual is not as sharply drawn as it probably should be in this age of websites, posts, and tweets.


And please call me Seamus. If we are going to go for titles and the like it gets too stuffy, and mister's not the correct formal title anyway.

[Gilrandir]

And please call me Seamus. If we are going to go for titles and the like it gets too stuffy, and mister's not the correct formal title anyway.

"Master" will be closer to the mark.

[Montmorency]

You have a tendency to respond to those points with which you disagree without acknowledging those areas of commonality that do exist; coupled with your propensity to post both voluminously and with a somewhat 'black and white' evaluative tone, you come over somewhat dismissive to me.

This is a well-established personality trait of mine, but at least it isn't personal - if you read my posts it's clear I interact with everyone that way eventually. It's more readily available for me to address disagreement than agreement, and indeed it is to the disagreement I seek to elicit a treatment from the readers; I hope that my silence gets interpreted as agreement or a lack of comment. I might also be less intense here than if the Backroom existed offline, since textual interaction affords more time to think. I tend to elide smoothing niceties of the general sort offline, making my default posture by turns a markedly reserved or abrasive one. Since in my mind the Backroom is the place for 'unrestricted political conversations', that's what I conform my presentation toward.

Usually if I feel I'm drafting a gratuitous post it's easier for me to refrain from posting at all than to modify my approach. I do at times try to post more graciously, but without feedback on that score I don't know how well I'm doing.

I will make an effort to accommodate your feelings, but barring a concussive blow to the head or other epiphany my personality won't change. The way I see it there are two ways to orient my reception: take my tone in stride if it's my standard, or call me out when I'm being more of a bitch than you are willing to tolerate.

If often find myself taking week-long breaks from the backroom to adjust my own attitude. As an academic, the line between the personal and the intellectual is not as sharply drawn as it probably should be in this age of websites, posts, and tweets.

I'm sorry.

your propensity to post both voluminously

Ironically, the less activity in a space there is the more active I become. This too manifests offline.

and with a somewhat 'black and white' evaluative tone

I hedge my evaluations much of the time though.

[Beskar]

Pannonian, do you support the agenda of the www.theindependent.group ? It seems that it might be up your street, at a glance.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Master" will be closer to the mark.

Kind of you, Gil', though it would be "doctor" in fact. UT - Austin Summer 1997. Hook 'em Horns!

[Pannonian]

Pannonian, do you support the agenda of the www.theindependent.group ? It seems that it might be up your street, at a glance.

Without a new centrist party, I would have voted Lib Dem. If TIG turns into a party fielding a candidate in my constituency, I'll vote for them in the next election, and possibly the one after that, to give the new party a chance to strike roots. TIG has the advantage over both the Tories and Labour in that the front bench would not be batshit insane, and I, an ordinary joe off the street, do not feel superior to them in intellect, as I do the Tory and Labour front benches. It's remarkable that the extremely low bar, do not be an idiot, already produces better talent than the cabinet and shadow cabinet. And do not be a produces better policy than both.

[Gilrandir]

Kind of you, Gil', though it would be "doctor" in fact. UT - Austin Summer 1997. Hook 'em Horns!

I meant like Master Kenobi.

[Pannonian]

What is the Single Market? Professor Michael Dougan explains the key facts

Britain under Thatcher was one of the main drivers of this.

[Pannonian]

With a month to go until Brexit, and the government having promised a substantial vote on the matter, May has again postponed the vote. How is this acceptable?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is the Single Market? Professor Michael Dougan explains the key facts

Britain under Thatcher was one of the main drivers of this.

Indeed. And, as has been evidenced before in this thread, most of the pro-brexit voices would be entirely happy with Britain reverting to the connection it shared with Europe under the EEC. That's not the part that engendered the 'leave' votes.

[Pannonian]

Indeed. And, as has been evidenced before in this thread, most of the pro-brexit voices would be entirely happy with Britain reverting to the connection it shared with Europe under the EEC. That's not the part that engendered the 'leave' votes.

Rory cites the ECJ as his main barrier. The ECJ is the arbitrator for EU law, which primarily means common market law. Someone said that the UK is generally a law-abiding country. Which shows in the ECJ's overwhelmingly pro-UK body of judgements (around 95% of disputes involving the UK going in favour of the UK). Rory and other Brexiteers don't like the idea that a non-British institution can rule on UK affairs, even if said institution is overwhelmingly pro-UK. Hence the idea of unilaterally reneging on bi and multilateral agreements/treaties. And resulting from that, hence the EU's determination to nail everything down in law and not taking the UK's word for it. I've read about this kind of behaviour before, but it was usually from the bad guys during the inter-war years, when the Axis countries unilaterally left international bodies because the latter weren't amenable to their ambitions. Britain, so I read, were the good guys, supporting international bodies and obeying international treaties and so on. I was proud of Britain's behaviour from that period, standing up to the unilateralist bad guys, and being part of the new international community after the war as well. So I'm confused by our behaviour today.

In other good news, "Ministers are planning a hardship fund for Britons hardest hit by a no-deal Brexit with cash handouts for those left out of work, leaked document reveals".

[Furunculus]

in addition to the many fine qualities you have taken time to elucidate; it is also an activist court driving forward its guiding mandate of ever closer union.
it has a remit that is wider than single market regulation, and yet also when necessary very capable of reinterpreting the treaties in order to define new areas of activity as falling under the single market regs it rules.

it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.

[Pannonian]

in addition to the many fine qualities you have taken time to elucidate; it is also an activist court driving forward its guiding mandate of ever closer union.
it has a remit that is wider than single market regulation, and yet also when necessary very capable of reinterpreting the treaties in order to define new areas of activity as falling under the single market regs it rules.

it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.

Can you point me to examples of where the ECJ has driven ever closer union over the borders of the UK's sovereignty? Because I'll point you to the demands made by other countries as preconditions for trade agreements. In many cases, they want more work visas or even free movement which is one of May's red lines. In the case of the US, there is a massive list that amounts to dropping EU standards. How is this better?

[Furunculus]

seems like a good start:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...2.2017.1281652

or this:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010...egal-political


it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.

[Pannonian]

seems like a good start:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...2.2017.1281652

or this:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010...egal-political


it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.

What is your view on ever closer union with the US?

[Furunculus]

a swift diversion to another another tendentious question?

firstly:
1. let us be clear, that any attempt to infer a plan for political union with the US would be a little dishonest. there is no comparison to be made between the political ambitions of the EU and the trade ambitions of US.
2. in principle I don't have a problem with chlorine washed chicken or hormone grown beef on a food safety basis. this is mainly because unless an area of activity is subject to catastrophic harm, over a time period that cannot be easily dealt with within the normal political horizon, then I prefer regulating based on demonstrable harm rather than the precautionary principle. food standards is a separate point entirely, but there is no food safety issue.

[edyzmedieval]

Postponing the exit will only make it worse IMHO - this should not have happened in the first place. Leave properly, and in orderly fashion, as you desire, or stay. Why 2 years and still no order?

[Beskar]

Why 2 years and still no order?

Because the whole thing is a sham.

For a start, the referendum was meant to be a remain victory with the government using tactics employed against the Scottish referendum. Whilst economic arguments might have won out for Scotland to remain, they severely underestimated the leave campaign of promise everything paradise from fantasy land for everyone and anyone. David Cameron shot himself in the foot and went "Well, that's that" and left. The Brexit leaders Nigel and Boris went "Well, we did this for the Popularity. Brexit would suicide... nevermind the fact we're totally incompetent" and they ran off to do their own thing. This left the biggest poo-fest in the hands of someone who actually voted for remain to lead the country into Brexit, Theresa May. Theresa May has a pretty horrible track record in cabinet and made a terrible job of our police force, but because she was a conservative of the supposed law & order party, this flew past people blindly.

There is also the fundamental problem of "What is Brexit?". You see, the leave campaign was completely unaccountable and promised everything to everyone, with lies blazoned across their own campaign bus. So you got a mixture of people who want to join leave the EU but remain in the EFTA, People who want to keep everything great about the EU except the part about smelly east Europeans coming in, then you go others who believe Britain can revive the Empire with a "Commonwealth Union" of sorts, and others with an outdated view of Britains position on the world stage that somehow without the 'shackles of Europe' we will soar like an eagle and dominant the seas & trade for a thousand years. All the nuance ends up thrown out the regardless of what anyone actually voted for because "Brexit means Brexit" which the entire thing hijacked by radicals who just want to see the world burn.

So you have a leader who no one wants, who is left to deal with the biggest international crisis of our current time against her will and better judgement, in the probably one of the biggest toxic British political environment in a long time with a barely tied together coalition government with the lunatic fringe minority grouping of Northern Ireland who would like the government to somehow detach Northern Ireland from the Republic Ireland and slap it somewhere near the North of England with a land-border despite the better judgement of all Irish peoples on bothsides of the border, the European Union and the United Kingdom itself.


Personally, I would love to see a second referendum. Not because "hurr durr you voted remains and just want to steal our Brexit!" like the Brexiteers would like you to believe. It is because the whole thing is a total sham and we actually need to get some paddles to steer us out of poo-creek with our head screwed on. There needs to be a well-defined referendum with multiple options of what people want or willing to accept. There should be things like "Remain", "Theresa May's Deal". "EFTA", "Opt-Out of Everything/Hard Brexit". Then we should get to vote, then when the results come out, we actually got something, even if it is as a country choosing to have a Hard Brexit, it has been done and decided. Instead of this constant wishy-washy time-wastey nebulous "Brexit means Brexit" we have had to endure for the last two years of deals, no deals, promised-nonsense deals which certainly would not be agreed to, etc. If we want to vote to see everything burn as a country, let's actually do that, opposed to pouring petrol upon ourselves because people voted to have free money because it was on the side of a bus.

[Pannonian]

Because the whole thing is a sham.

For a start, the referendum was meant to be a remain victory with the government using tactics employed against the Scottish referendum. Whilst economic arguments might have won out for Scotland to remain, they severely underestimated the leave campaign of promise everything paradise from fantasy land for everyone and anyone. David Cameron shot himself in the foot and went "Well, that's that" and left. The Brexit leaders Nigel and Boris went "Well, we did this for the Popularity. Brexit would suicide... nevermind the fact we're totally incompetent" and they ran off to do their own thing. This left the biggest poo-fest in the hands of someone who actually voted for remain to lead the country into Brexit, Theresa May. Theresa May has a pretty horrible track record in cabinet and made a terrible job of our police force, but because she was a conservative of the supposed law & order party, this flew past people blindly.

There is also the fundamental problem of "What is Brexit?". You see, the leave campaign was completely unaccountable and promised everything to everyone, with lies blazoned across their own campaign bus. So you got a mixture of people who want to join leave the EU but remain in the EFTA, People who want to keep everything great about the EU except the part about smelly east Europeans coming in, then you go others who believe Britain can revive the Empire with a "Commonwealth Union" of sorts, and others with an outdated view of Britains position on the world stage. All the nuance ends up thrown out the regardless of what anyone actually voted for because "Brexit means Brexit" which the entire thing hijacked by radicals who just want to see the world burn.

So you have a leader who no one wants, who is left to deal with the biggest international crisis of our current time against her will and better judgement, in the probably one of the biggest toxic British political environment in a long time with a barely tied together coalition government with the lunatic fringe minority grouping of Northern Ireland who would like the government to somehow detach Northern Ireland from the Republic Ireland and slap it somewhere near the North of England with a land-border despite the better judgement of all Irish peoples on bothsides of the border.

The referendum campaign was asymmetrical. One side had something concrete to be examined, with promises to be held accountable for. The other merely had to say everything but, and even its supporters say that its promises did not have to be kept. The implementer of the result has also promised different things to different people, with a track record during implementation of breaking her promises. All these promises are mutually exclusive except via an agreement, that was defeated in Parliament by the biggest margin in recorded history. Where's the solution?

[Beskar]

Where's the solution?

Second Referendum. It is really the only way.

As things are looking, we would will probably go spiralling out of the EU through an economic crash, getting royally screwed over by anyone and everyone. The government will have completely no legitimacy and nothing will get done as the country would be completely polarised on the subject there is simply no sight of a middle ground with a parliament who are completely incapable to reflect the will of it's citizen body. Even if the supposed savour Corbyn takes the reins, the country would be further plunged into turmoil. Next decade of politics would be a quagmire and when order is finally restored, the country would be a shell of its former self and probably the act of union would be completely dissolved with the countries independently rejoining the European Union.

As much as Furunculus might like a hard Brexit, I don't think in a million years he would like to see the outcome I just predicted.

[Pannonian]

Second Referendum. It is really the only way.

As things are looking, we would will probably go spiralling out of the EU through an economic crash, getting royally screwed over by anyone and everyone. The government will have completely no legitimacy and nothing will get done as the country would be completely polarised on the subject there is simply no sight of a middle ground with a parliament who are completely incapable to reflect the will of it's citizen body. Even if the supposed savour Corbyn takes the reign, the country would be further plunged into turmoil. Next decade of politics would be a quagmire and when order is finally restored, the country would be a shell of its former self and probably the act of union would be completely dissolved with the countries independently rejoining the European Union.

As much as Furunculus might like a hard Brexit, I don't think in a million years he would like to see the outcome I just predicted.

The ever closer union that Furunculus crows about at least gives us a voice in what that union consists of, with arbitration bodies that are overwhelmingly pro-our world view. The list of demands submitted to the Trump administration by lobbyists in return for any US-UK trade deal wouldn't stand a chance of passing if submitted to the UK public in a proper election, with electoral laws applying (which they did not for the referendum, since the referendum was supposedly only advisory and thus not worthy of such stringent rules). When the US-UK trade deal is agreed, do we get to vote on whether or not to accept it, or whether to stay close to our current world view?

Throughout all this, the constant is a bare majority against whatever is posed (apart from May's deal that Furunculus supports, that has the biggest majority in history against it). The biggest support for a solution that can be defined and examined is for EU membership, that barely missed the half way mark in 2016, and according to all polls is in a majority now.

BTW, you mean when Corbyn takes the reins. It's a horsey metaphor.

[Furunculus]

Second Referendum. It is really the only way.

As things are looking, we would will probably go spiralling out of the EU through an economic crash, getting royally screwed over by anyone and everyone. The government will have completely no legitimacy and nothing will get done as the country would be completely polarised on the subject there is simply no sight of a middle ground with a parliament who are completely incapable to reflect the will of it's citizen body. Even if the supposed savour Corbyn takes the reign, the country would be further plunged into turmoil. Next decade of politics would be a quagmire and when order is finally restored, the country would be a shell of its former self and probably the act of union would be completely dissolved with the countries independently rejoining the European Union.

As much as Furunculus might like a hard Brexit, I don't think in a million years he would like to see the outcome I just predicted.

both you and pann gloss over the equally complicit fairy tales remain told over the consequences of remaining.

i don't want hard brexit, as i have said many times i support mays deal, even suggesting we should align with all the goods regs required for northern ireland.

no i wiuldnt want the apocalypse you describe, but nor too do i believe that would emerge from no deal. you might consider the move from euro social democracy to an oz/ca market economy to be a disaster, but i do not share that view.

[Beskar]

no i wiuldnt want the apocalypse you describe, but nor too do i believe that would emerge from no deal. you might consider the move from euro social democracy to an oz/ca market economy to be a disaster, but i do not share that view.

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

[Furunculus]

Why ever not ?

[Gilrandir]

Second Referendum. It is really the only way.

In a deeply cloven society it will solve nothing. If the stay side wins, the argument will continue, with the leave side clamoring for a third referendum.

[Beskar]

Why ever not ?

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

In a deeply cloven society it will solve nothing. If the stay side wins, the argument will continue, with the leave side clamoring for a third referendum.

I call for a definite referendum and not a wishy-washy one. That makes a big difference in itself. The country is certainly not 50/50 Hard Brexit despite the rhetoric. It is more like 80/20 Hard Brexit. Having Theresa May's deal as an option will attract the majority of the Brexit votes and it might even attract people who voted remain initially just to get the whole thing over. It would have a serious chance of winning and would circumvent parliament gridlock. Under alternative vote, it would also attract all those who want Hard Brexit which would be eliminated first.

[Gilrandir]

I call for a definite referendum and not a wishy-washy one. That makes a big difference in itself. The country is certainly not 50/50 Hard Brexit despite the rhetoric. It is more like 80/20 Hard Brexit.

So the UK has a special law that differentiates a referendum from a definite referendum, and you would like to hold the latter?

And you may call for whatever you wish (wish-wash), only the results of it seem to be far from definite. The figures that you expect may be far from what the referendum would yield. And what then? Call for still a more definite referendum? The problem is not in referenda, but in the society which is likely to stay as divided as it is now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In a deeply cloven society it will solve nothing. If the stay side wins, the argument will continue, with the leave side clamoring for a third referendum.

This is correct.

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

What would the question even be?

Take the Deal or leave without one?

Take the Deal or stay?

Two Referendums?

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