EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[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.

[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!!

[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.

[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!!

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.

[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.