Brexit

[knight66]

Well, even 18 months later it was clear a lot of politicians were still clueless by their proclamations of how we could or could not do such and such in or out of a customs union. They were also making daft comments on what the likes of Switzerland and Norway could and could not do. That included Corbyn very recently. If they can't get their heads round this, they can't lead.

Mike

[Que]

How predictable... 

Brexit: Jeremy Corbyn declines to support plan to keep UK in single market

"His spokesman said keeping the UK in the single market as it stands, could undermine Mr Corbyn's plans to intervene in British industry and reverse privatisation if he wins power."

Off course, Corbyn's grandiose plans with British industry....Good luck with that when the economy takes a nose dive...
And there is no reason why EU rules would prevent the reversal of privatisations per se, as long as fair competition is maintained... Does Corbyn think that British protectionism will go down well with future trading partners? 

He basically makes the same mistake as the Tories: an isolated nationalistic agenda without giving consideration of the consequences for international aspects of the British economy. The fantasy of "splendid isolation"..
Corbyn wants access to the Single Market without accepting the rules on fair competition, sure......

So, either Corbyn needs to change his mind or Labour needs to change its leadership, or else the Commons' vote on the Single Market that was designed by the Lords is dead on arrival.....

Q

[Que]

And some see a 2nd referendum as the better way out instead of relying on Corbyn:

Pro-Europeans, don't fight to stay in the single market. It's the wrong battle.
Forget the amendment the Lords has voted for. A people's vote on the Brexit deal is the true prize – all else is distraction


A 2nd referendum seems to me hard to achieve, and probably hard to win...
The electorate will likely be even more confused by the current situation than it was the last time around.

Q

[Que]

Neil Kinnock on Labour and the Single Market:

"The objections to supporting EEA membership from some in the upper reaches of the Labour Party seem to centre on claims that it would either restrict a Labour government's freedom of socialist action, or that it would mean ignoring our supporters who voted to leave the EU, or both.

The first of these claims is based on falsehood. The EEA is open to member states of the EU or the European Free Trade Association. Neither the EEA nor the EU are part of the socialist superstate of neocon delusion or of the global capitalist adventure playground of infantile leftist illusion.

The EEA is a mixed-economy agreement of 31 democracies "to promote continuous and balanced strengthening of trade and economic relations between the contracting parties with equal conditions of competition and the respect of the same rules".

None of that prevents public ownership, social initiative, improving tax justice, promoting employment or advancing the welfare state – as so many instances in current member states show."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/neil-kinnock-corbyn-single-market-brexit-eu-labour-row-a8347606.html

[Mr. Minnow]

And there is no reason why EU rules would prevent the reversal of privatisations per se, as long as fair competition is maintained... D
Q

I can't say the fair competition rules are something I've read a great deal about, but as I understand it there's nothing in them that says particular public services have to be privatised, or that a privatised public service can't be renationalised: it's just that if a service is privatised, then fair competition must apply. If that's right, I'm struggling to see why Corbyn thinks there's a problem.

Both main parties seem to be heading for a crunch point soon. For Labour that's the Commons vote on the EEA amendment passed in the Lords. If Corbyn doesn't back it there will be real trouble, this time quite possibly from the membership rather than just the malcontents on the backbenches. For the Tories, it's which customs option they decide to back. Both have been rejected by the EU already so in that sense it's academic, but whichever one gets the nod is going to alienate a big chunk of her own party. Up until now I've been sceptical of the idea that Brexit could end up splitting the two big parties, but such is the scale of the divisions in each party I'm beginning to wonder if it just might happen.

It's incredible to see the Brexiteers still spouting the same bollocks as two years ago, but special congratulations must go to Ruth Lea, who in barely two minutes managed a full house in Brexit Bullshit Bingo on the subject of the single market and Irish border:

"I can't see why a technological solution can't work."

"Who cares if there's a bit of smuggling across the Irish border?"

"The EU's stance is just a negotiating ploy."

"What about the way trade is conducted between the EU and Norway?" (Norway is in the single market and even then has border checks with Sweden)

"....or the trade between the EU and Switzerland?" (Switzerland is also in the single market, which the Brexiteers insist we have to leave)

"What about the example of the US/Canada border?"  (border checks again)

"Of course a technological solution can work, stop being such a pessimist."

It's hard to tell if they genuinely believe this crap, or know it's bullshit but are grimly sticking to it so they can blame the EU when it all goes tits up. 
   

[Que]

Up until now I've been sceptical of the idea that Brexit could end up splitting the two big parties, but such is the scale of the divisions in each party I'm beginning to wonder if it just might happen.

I'm starting to wonder if a 2nd referendum would be a way out for both divided parties?

Q

[Mr. Minnow]

I'm starting to wonder if a 2nd referendum would be a way out for both divided parties?

Q

It might be something they would go for if they could see no other way out, but whether it would actually solve anything I'm not so sure. The 2016 referendum showed just how lousy a device it is when you have a public which has been deliberately and systematically lied to over many years. Then you have to look at current polling, which shows a small shift to Remain, but basically a country still split down the middle. If Leave were to win again that would be it, we'd be out for the foreseeable future and the Brexit ultras would be claiming a mandate for the hardest possible Brexit. Even if Remain were to win, unless there's a significant shift in the polls the margin of victory would probably be a narrow one - certainly not a win decisive enough to settle the issue, as happened in the 1975 referendum. That would just put us back to square one, except we'd also have Farage back and banging on about "unfinished business" (which is how he said he'd describe a narrow Remain win during the 2016 campaign when he thought Leave would lose - as luck would have it, a 52-48 victory was his example of a narrow Remain win which would constitute unfinished business).

[Que]

You are right, a new referendum with any other result than remaining in the EU would replicate the mess resulting from the previous one.... 

I'll be curious to see if Labour can pull off a leadership change....
Unless something happens on the side of Labour, May's govt is going to sleep walk into Brexit.
With or without a transition deal, depending on whether the UK agrees on a special status for NI.

I expect any split of parties or any other form of realignment of British politics after Brexit.

Q

[Mr. Minnow]

You are right, a new referendum with any other result than remaining in the EU would replicate the mess resulting from the previous one.... 

More specifically, anything other than a decisive Remain win would replicate the current mess. I'd say it would need to be at least 60-40, and preferably more than that. No sign of it yet though.

I'll be curious to see if Labour can pull off a leadership change....
Unless something happens on the side of Labour, May's govt is going to sleep walk into Brexit.

It really depends on the views of the membership, which until now has been very pro-Corbyn. If Corbyn changes his policy to supporting the EEA amendment that's fine. If not, the membership might well start wondering if a change of leader is needed. It's not certain though, and even if it happened it's hard to see who would succeed him. Ideally it would be someone on the same page as Corbyn in terms of domestic policy, but also willing to offer a more pro-European policy. There's no way the self-styled "moderates" would get someone to their liking: the membership is rightly furious with them for the way they've sought to undermine Corbyn from day one, and in any case I don't see a Tory-lite candidate getting much traction in the country in the current political climate.

[Mr. Minnow]

Saw a bit of tonight's Newsnight, talking about the Irish border. Their political editor said that one cabinet minister was annoyed with Michel Barnier for visiting the border and had said "does Barnier really want to be responsible for restarting the Troubles?". So it would seem that the UK government's inability to even agree its negotiating position, let alone come up with a workable solution for the Irish border - which has only become a problem because of Brexit in the first place - is Barnier's fault. It's so obvious when you think about it, isn't it?

[Que]

Yes, the Brexiteers better brush up their blame game.... because the signs still are that the Irish are going to play hard ball..... 

Since any transition deal needs consent of the European Parliament and ratification by all member states, the deadline is quickly approaching.If there is no deal this summer, it's going to be an immediate hard Brexit.


The EU's negotiator, Michel Barnier, said in Brussels that "a little progress" had been made in talks since March, but "some in the UK have yet to assume all the consequences of their decisions" – including, as he noted, "leaving 750 international agreements".

[Mr. Minnow]

Yes, the Brexiteers better brush up their blame game.... because the signs still are that the Irish are going to play hard ball..... 

As is the EU, which has stated clearly that Ireland has its full support on the border issue. But it's not a problem according to Rees Mogg:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/15/pessimism-about-customs-impasse-after-rees-mogg-remarks

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Rees-Mogg said May "ought not to take Brussels too seriously about the Irish question" when seeking a customs deal.

"The commission hides behind faux concern for the Irish border undermining the single market ...

Yes Jacob, why would the EU really be bothered about protecting the integrity of one of the fundamental pillars of the EU? It's obviously just a ploy. No need to take it seriously at all. What could possibly go wrong? Dear god.

This from the man who said a few days ago that he didn't need to visit the border to understand the problem because he talked to the DUP.

[André]

Dardanelles is forgotten, Gallipoli is forgiven. Brexiteers to eat more doners, less fish&chips as May and Erdogan waltz together, touting expansion of trade talks.


https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/president-erdogan-theresa-may-post-brexit-trade-turkey-a8351531.html?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_todayworld

[Mr. Minnow]

Facepalms at the ready folks.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/22/eu-trade-talks-australia-new-zealand-brexit-commonwealth

But remember, we have to leave the EU to increase our trade with other countries. Global Britain, etc..

[Que]

Brexit has been a mess in slow motion right from the start, but the iceberg is quickly coming into sight - with the engines running at full speed and a broken rudder.... With panic and anger as a result:

EU officials tear into UK's 'fantasy' Brexit negotiating strategy as talks turn bitter

Some interesting point the EU made:

On the European space project Galileo, which was virulently opposed by the UK at its conception, but which it now wants not only to continue to use but also remain party to running it:

The EU says British demands to retain the same access to Galileo as a member state are unreasonable. Though officials say Britain could potentially still use the system, they do not want to give British defence firms the right to build or run parts of it because they say that would effectively give the UK, a third country, the power to turn off the EU system for member states.
Officials also pointed out that the UK itself had signed off the security rules restricting non-EU countries from running parts of system, as one of the 28 European Council members, before it knew it was going to leave.

On the European arrest warrant:

EU negotiators complain that the British side "do not understand" that Britain will not be able to use the European arrest warrant after Brexit, with Theresa May again having pledged to stay in the system just three months ago.
"There are member states that simply cannot extradite their own nationals to a non-member of the EU. This is a constraint that unfortunately will apply once the UK is outside," the senior official said.
"The European arrest warrant is simply not available. I don't think you can expect member states to change their constitutions in order to continue extraditing their nationals to the UK. [...]
Brussels says the best the UK can hope for is to conclude a separate extradition treaty with the EU, as well as bilateral agreements on procedures like intelligence sharing.

Yes, Germany (for instance).... why not change the non-extradition clause on nationals in your constitution, to make an exception for the UK? 

And note that  these are all problems that don't go away even if the UK opts for a soft Brexit....

Q

[Mr. Minnow]

Brexit has been a mess in slow motion right from the start, but the iceberg is quickly coming into sight - with the engines running at full speed and a broken rudder.... With panic and anger as a result:

EU officials tear into UK's 'fantasy' Brexit negotiating strategy as talks turn bitter

Some interesting point the EU made:

On the European space project Galileo, which was virulently opposed by the UK at its conception, but which it now wants not only to continue to use but also remain party to running it:

The EU says British demands to retain the same access to Galileo as a member state are unreasonable. Though officials say Britain could potentially still use the system, they do not want to give British defence firms the right to build or run parts of it because they say that would effectively give the UK, a third country, the power to turn off the EU system for member states.
Officials also pointed out that the UK itself had signed off the security rules restricting non-EU countries from running parts of system, as one of the 28 European Council members, before it knew it was going to leave.

On the European arrest warrant:

EU negotiators complain that the British side "do not understand" that Britain will not be able to use the European arrest warrant after Brexit, with Theresa May again having pledged to stay in the system just three months ago.
"There are member states that simply cannot extradite their own nationals to a non-member of the EU. This is a constraint that unfortunately will apply once the UK is outside," the senior official said.
"The European arrest warrant is simply not available. I don't think you can expect member states to change their constitutions in order to continue extraditing their nationals to the UK. [...]
Brussels says the best the UK can hope for is to conclude a separate extradition treaty with the EU, as well as bilateral agreements on procedures like intelligence sharing.

Yes, Germany (for instance).... why not change the non-extradition clause on nationals in your constitution, to make an exception for the UK? 

And note that  these are all problems that don't go away even if the UK opts for a soft Brexit....

Q

I saw a bit of a select committee hearing yesterday at which the head of HMRC was being asked to provide detailed analysis of the "customs partnership" and " max fac" options, including questions such as when each option could realistically be operational. Both options have already been dismissed by the EU as non-starters, but you'd never guess that from watching this. Even now the cabinet is split over which one to go for, as if it mattered. The only "new" thinking appears to be a vague suggestion that maybe we could have a hybrid of the two, because clearly a hybrid of two non-starters is bound to be accepted by the EU. They really are utterly insulated from reality, but time is now running out fast and it won't be long before reality intrudes.

[Mr. Minnow]

Daniel Hannan was on Newsnight tonight. It was put to him that the reason the Brexit negotiations are such a shambles is that the Tory party is fundamentally split from top to bottom, including the cabinet, therefore the government simply cannot even work out what its position should be (let alone come up with a workable plan to implement said position). No, said Hannan, that's not the problem: the problem is that remainers in parliament are doing the EU's work for it by trying to stop Brexit, so there's no need for the EU to offer us a good deal. Isn't it great to see Brexiters taking responsibility for the consequences of their actions?

[Que]

The general feeling in other member states is that the political instability of the UK is increasingly likely to be an obstacle to come to any agreement: no divorce settlement, no transition deal, nothing... Increasing the chances of an immediate hard "cliff edge" exit.

Let's hope for a last minute transition deal (without a long term trade deal)....
If worse comes to worse, the EU might offer an extension of the negotiations. Which would be a political decision based on the expectations on the development of the political situation in the UK.
In either case, end of 2020 will be the real cut off date - because the EU is not going to drag this into the term of the new EU budget.

Q

[Mr. Minnow]

He's at it again:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/27/jacob-rees-mogg-urges-may-to-revive-her-no-deal-threat-to-brussels

So we hold a gun to our own head and threaten to pull the trigger if the EU doesn't give us what the government wants (granted, the government still hasn't managed to decide what it wants, but never mind). "Give us what we want or the UK gets it" - the EU will be quaking in its boots at that one.

Rees Mogg makes as much sense as Alex Deane, a Brexiter who sometimes appears on BBC discussions, who said that the UK's solutions to the Irish border are perfectly reasonable and the EU needs to get real. Not the Brexiters, who spent years campaigning to get us out of the EU but never bothered to come up with a plan for how to do it if they won, and now blame "EU intransigence" when their desperate back of a fag packet "solutions" are exposed as unworkable. Oh no. They're not to blame. They're never to blame. It's the EU's fault.

[Que]

The general feeling in other member states is that the political instability of the UK is increasingly likely to be an obstacle to come to any agreement: no divorce settlement, no transition deal, nothing... Increasing the chances of an immediate hard "cliff edge" exit.

Let's hope for a last minute transition deal (without a long term trade deal)....
If worse comes to worse, the EU might offer an extension of the negotiations. Which would be a political decision based on the expectations on the development of the political situation in the UK.
In either case, end of 2020 will be the real cut off date - because the EU is not going to drag this into the term of the new EU budget.

Q

Similar comments in the Irish Times

Very different referendums raise concern for the Union.
Ideology rather than practical politics still dominates UK Brexit discourse

Meanwhile, the adults at the Bank of England revealed this week they are preparing for a disorderly Brexit. They have, I think, spotted that the UK is drifting precisely towards that outcome. The Brexiteers know that if they can stop anybody actually doing anything, hard Brexit happens in a short while.

Fasten your seatbelts..... 

Q