Main Menu

Brexit

Started by vandermolen, May 01, 2017, 10:14:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mr. Minnow

#720
Quote from: Iota on November 19, 2018, 05:48:27 AM
Indeed. Your restraint becomes you.

:)

The government's response to the UN report is tediously predictable:

Amber Rudd "signals shift on Universal Credit".

One question later, Rudd claims the UN report is "discredited" because of of its "extraordinary political language". So, shoot the messenger then. Of course, Alston did what Rudd and co would never dare to do: he actually talked and listened to the people on the receiving end of government policy. So what does he know?

vandermolen

#721
Probably only visible in UK but very funny I think (my wife is a sign-language interpreter):

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46241508/viral-fame-for-brexit-sign-language-interpreter
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

Que

#722
A Brexit Compromise Nobody Likes: What Could Be More English? (NewYork Times)

Honestly, I think May might get her way....  ???

Simply because: a) British politics is unable to come up with an alternative, and b) it is still better than no deal at all...
Tory Brexiteers wanted to topple May, but didn't succeed. And there is no parliamentary majority for their preferred option of no deal.
Corbyn wants to get rid of the Tory government and renegotiate a magical exit deal with the EU himself, after new general elections. But these general elections are not going to happen. And perhaps for the best, since Corbyn is as clueless on the EU as the rest of  Westminster and Labour is also divided on Brexit.
A 2nd referendum.... Well, unless strong popular support emerges to remain in the EU, it's not going to happen either.

I do however wonder, considering the present deal, why Britain wouldn't go all the way and remain (fully) in the internal market - in addition to being part of the customs union ("Norway-plus")? Frictionless trade!! The reasons why this 2nd best option next to full membership, that has been staring us in the face right from the start, did not emerge are not rational but purely political.

This lesson had to be learned the hard way, and I think this option might come back on the table after the transition period.

Q

steve ridgway

Why couldn't David Cameron simply have told us it was impossible to leave the EU in the first place? :'(

Que

Quote from: 2dogs on November 23, 2018, 06:50:11 AM
Why couldn't David Cameron simply have told us it was impossible to leave the EU in the first place? :'(

Anything is possible, but membership of the EU is and always has been hugely beneficial to the UK - in both economical and geopolitical terms -  and any alternative arrangement will come at a cost. The more distant the new relationship, the higher costs.

Q

Mr. Minnow

Quote from: Que on November 23, 2018, 02:18:07 AM
A Brexit Compromise Nobody Likes: What Could Be More English? (NewYork Times)

Honestly, I think May might get her way....  ???

Simply because: a) British politics is unable to come up with an alternative, and b) it is still better than no deal at all...
Tory Brexiteers wanted to topple May, but didn't succeed. And there is no parliamentary majority for their preferred option of no deal.
Corbyn wants to get rid of the Tory government and renegotiate a magical exit deal with the EU himself, after new general elections. But these general elections are not going to happen. And perhaps for the best, since Corbyn is as clueless on the EU as the rest of  Westminster and Labour is also divided on Brexit.
A 2nd referendum.... Well, unless strong popular support emerges to remain in the EU, it's not going to happen either.

The government knows very well that there is very little chance of this deal being passed by the Commons. One story which has been officially denied - but sounds highly plausible - is that they're banking on the markets going crazy when the Commons votes it down, which will then be used to justify putting it to the Commons for a second attempt in the hope that enough MPs will be spooked by the markets and fall into line. Maybe some MPs would, but it's at best doubtful that enough would do so. The No-dealers and the DUP may only make up a small fraction of the Commons, but given the current parliamentary arithmetic there are probably enough of them to vote it down a second time. The only way that doesn't happen is if Labour backs down on a second vote and decides to vote for it, but that would be a hugely risky move for Corbyn to make given Labour has a large and very pro-EU membership. It would also mean that if May's deal goes through on Labour votes, the party might be partially tainted by a failed Brexit, even if they could argue that they opposed it on the first vote and only backed it reluctantly on the second to avoid something worse. And all of that is before you take into account the purely tribal issue of asking people in the Labour party to bail out a Tory government (and a really bloody nasty Tory government at that). 

QuoteI do however wonder, considering the present deal, why Britain wouldn't go all the way and remain (fully) in the internal market - in addition to being part of the customs union ("Norway-plus")? Frictionless trade!! The reasons why this 2nd best option next to full membership, that has been staring us in the face right from the start, did not emerge are not rational but purely political.

This lesson had to be learned the hard way, and I think this option might come back on the table after the transition period.

Any Norway-type option means accepting freedom of movement. That rules it out, since the immigration issue was of such importance in the Leave side winning. Sad, but unfortunately true.

Que

Quote from: Mr. Minnow on November 23, 2018, 03:22:03 PM
The government knows very well that there is very little chance of this deal being passed by the Commons. One story which has been officially denied - but sounds highly plausible - is that they're banking on the markets going crazy when the Commons votes it down, which will then be used to justify putting it to the Commons for a second attempt in the hope that enough MPs will be spooked by the markets and fall into line. Maybe some MPs would, but it's at best doubtful that enough would do so. The No-dealers and the DUP may only make up a small fraction of the Commons, but given the current parliamentary arithmetic there are probably enough of them to vote it down a second time. The only way that doesn't happen is if Labour backs down on a second vote and decides to vote for it, but that would be a hugely risky move for Corbyn to make given Labour has a large and very pro-EU membership. It would also mean that if May's deal goes through on Labour votes, the party might be partially tainted by a failed Brexit, even if they could argue that they opposed it on the first vote and only backed it reluctantly on the second to avoid something worse. And all of that is before you take into account the purely tribal issue of asking people in the Labour party to bail out a Tory government (and a really bloody nasty Tory government at that).

Is your conclusion that a second referendum is the only way out? If not, how do you think this will play out?

QuoteAny Norway-type option means accepting freedom of movement. That rules it out, since the immigration issue was of such importance in the Leave side winning. Sad, but unfortunately true.

Three points on that. Which doesn't mean you're right on the political side of the matter!
1. Any immigration issues the UK might have are largely of its own making. We discussed before the UK decision in the past not to apply any restrictions on immigrants from the new member states to the East. Also, once these immigrants are in the UK, it doesn't apply restrictive measures that allowed under EU law, by lack of any proper system of registration.
Greed (cheap labour) and incompetence, I would say....  ::)
Policies on immigrants from non-EU countries are the sole responsibility of the UK.
2. The system of the European Economic Area (EEA) does allow for more policy freedom/restrictions for the non-EU countries, though with the current UK opt outs differences are not huge.
3. I think a negotiation strategy by which the UK would have sought a Norway style relationship with some additional restrictions on the free movement of persons, would have been successful. Instead, the UK rejected free movement altogether, as well as the jurisdiction of the ECJ...

Q

Mr. Minnow

#727
Quote from: Que on November 23, 2018, 11:35:54 PM
Is your conclusion that a second referendum is the only way out? If not, how do you think this will play out?

A second referendum seems unlikely at present, albeit possible. That said, if the deal is voted down in the Commons - which looks very probable, since Brexiter and DUP demands to alter parts of it can't possibly be met as it's now done and being signed tomorrow - that will concentrate minds. It may then be that a second referendum is the only option left if it's clear that there is complete parliamentary gridlock. But even then, the Commons would still have to pass legislation for a second referendum, and it's by no means clear that the numbers for that would be there, even in a gridlock scenario. It seems just as likely that in the chaos immediately following a Commons rejection of May's deal, both Brexiters and Remainers would try to seize control of the situation and push for a form of Brexit more to their liking. In addition to the five cabinet Brexiters who were apparently trying to push May to change elements of her deal, tomorrow's Telegraph says that another group of five cabinet Remainers are working on an interim Norway-type plan B so there is something on the table which would avert the chaos of a no deal Brexit. I'd normally take anything in the Tory press with a liberal pinch of salt, but this story does sound plausible.

It has to be said that a second referendum is a risky option. It could easily be lost, and even if Remain were to win, I don't think it would settle the issue, not unless the margin were at least 60-40, preferably more like 70-30 (and while the polls have been showing a majority for Remain for a while, it's still close - about 53-47 I think). One objection is that it would lead to disillusionment with politics among people who voted leave, especially among those who voted for the first time in their lives. A related objection is that this in turn could provide fertile ground for the far right to capitalise. Those are genuine risks, but on the other hand, when it becomes clear to leave voters that Brexit isn't going to provide solutions to their grievances - indeed it is likely to make those problems worse - that will lead to disillusionment anyway. You can be damn sure that the leading Brexiters won't take a shred of responsibility for the consequences of a failed Brexit. They will blame everyone but themselves, especially remainers, thus perpetuating the current division.

Another element in this which has to be taken into account is that the Brexit ultras' stalled attempt to oust May might well be back on if her deal is voted down. They don't have the numbers to trigger a no confidence vote yet, but clearly, if May's deal falls she is a lot more vulnerable, especially if she puts it to the Commons a second time in the wake of panic in the markets but it's then voted down again (which it might well be). The problem for Rees Mogg and co is that even if they get the numbers for a no confidence vote, there is a distinct possibility that May might win it, and under Tory party rules she couldn't then be challenged again for at least a year. If she were to win such a vote fairly comfortably she'd probably stay on, though if she only just scraped over the line it's possible she could go. If she were to go, that then takes us into a Tory leadership election and the possibility - indeed, likelihood - of a true Brexit believer replacing her. Any such leader would probably try for a Canada-type deal, though that doesn't solve the Irish border problem and every forecast I've seen rates it as a lot more economically damaging than a Norway-type option - oh yes, and it's not at all clear that a Canada-type deal would have any more chance of getting through the Commons than May's deal. A Norway-type deal might, but obviously that's not something that May or any other Tory leader is going to support. Labour might, but they couldn't enact it unless they win a general election, and the Tories aren't going to vote for an election since they're terrified of losing it. Maybe if the above mentioned cabinet Remainers get their Norway-for-now plan off the ground it could pass, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one, since cabinet Brexiters will be pulling just as hard in the opposite direction.

As all this shows, we're currently in the political equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting. The only thing I'm currently pretty confident of predicting is that the Commons will vote down May's deal. What happens after that, god knows.

QuoteThree points on that. Which doesn't mean you're right on the political side of the matter!
1. Any immigration issues the UK might have are largely of its own making. We discussed before the UK decision in the past not to apply any restrictions on immigrants from the new member states to the East. Also, once these immigrants are in the UK, it doesn't apply restrictive measures that allowed under EU law, by lack of any proper system of registration.
Greed (cheap labour) and incompetence, I would say....  ::)
Policies on immigrants from non-EU countries are the sole responsibility of the UK.
2. The system of the European Economic Area (EEA) does allow for more policy freedom/restrictions for the non-EU countries, though with the current UK opt outs differences are not huge.
3. I think a negotiation strategy by which the UK would have sought a Norway style relationship with some additional restrictions on the free movement of persons, would have been successful. Instead, the UK rejected free movement altogether, as well as the jurisdiction of the ECJ...

Q

All of what you say here is true, but I'm afraid the logic horse has long since bolted when it comes to immigration.

steve ridgway

Regarding immigration and justice I think it would just be nice if the UK government had the final say on these matters.

The new erato

Quote from: 2dogs on November 24, 2018, 08:37:26 PM
Regarding immigration and justice I think it would just be nice if the UK government had the final say on these matters.
The problem with these things are that they tend to work in both directions.

Que

#730
Quote from: Mr. Minnow on November 24, 2018, 03:58:24 PM
As all this shows, we're currently in the political equivalent of a Jackson Pollock painting. The only thing I'm currently pretty confident of predicting is that the Commons will vote down May's deal. What happens after that, god knows.

I think if you look at all different possibilities, a rejection of the deal will lead to an exit without a deal. Because for another deal you need: 1) agreement by the EU to extend the negotiations, 2) a new UK government that wants a closer relationship with the EU.
It's not going to happen, which means that all remainers in parliament - possibly, or even orobably, after an initial rejection that leads to a stalemate  - will support the deal, together with May loyalists.

My two cents, anyway.... 

The only possible alternative I can see, is an accidental no deal exit,. Caused by remainers and Corbyn loyalists overplaying their hand.

Q

André

The Washington Post has this article about the UK's "usefulness" to the US after the Brexit.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/who-becomes-the-uss-best-friend-in-europe-after-britain-leaves-the-eu/2018/11/24/3b17ab2a-ec15-11e8-8b47-bd0975fd6199_story.html?utm_term=.328eece4a726


Cold reality rules foreign relations. Loin des yeux, loin du coeur... ::)

Iota

#727 - Another very useful summary, Mr. Minnow.

I too am nervous about a second referendum, mainly because a Remain win (however slender) is by no means certain, and the alternative seems an even more cast iron gloom than present, but also for the other ramifications you mention.
It's heartening to hear that Telegraph report that Cabinet insiders are working on a Norway type option should the need arise, there are so many lunatics with hands on the levers of power in Asylum HQ currently, and we don't hear enough common sense arguments from Tory Remainers (presumably fearful of their own membership too). It's never a nice feeling being cannon fodder in a battle being fought out in the upper echelons of power, but particularly so when the stakes are so high and the matter under discussion is so fundamentally irrational. : (



Quote from: Que on November 25, 2018, 02:15:25 AM
I think if you look at all different possibilities, a rejection of the deal will lead to an exit without a deal. Because for another deal you need: 1) agreement by the EU to extend the negotiations, 2) a new UK government that wants a closer relationship with the EU.
It's not going to happen, which means that all remainers in parliament - possibly, or even orobably, after an initial rejection that leads to a stalemate  - will support the deal, together with May loyalists.

My two cents, anyway.... 

I wonder if this takes into account how much the EU also want to avoid a 'no deal' Brexit? They also have a lot to lose, not as much as the UK I know, but as talks are about the economic self-interest of both sides, perhaps ways will be found.

Mr. Minnow

Quote from: Que on November 25, 2018, 02:15:25 AM
I think if you look at all different possibilities, a rejection of the deal will lead to an exit without a deal. Because for another deal you need: 1) agreement by the EU to extend the negotiations, 2) a new UK government that wants a closer relationship with the EU.
It's not going to happen, which means that all remainers in parliament - possibly, or even orobably, after an initial rejection that leads to a stalemate  - will support the deal, together with May loyalists.

My two cents, anyway.... 

The only possible alternative I can see, is an accidental no deal exit,. Caused by remainers and Corbyn loyalists overplaying their hand.

Q

After an initial rejection by the Commons all bets are off. It is indeed possible that Labour might reluctantly back it if it's put to a second vote, but asking Labour's hugely pro-EU membership  to swallow the party bailing out a Tory government by backing May's deal is a big ask to put it mildly. And then there's the PLP, some of whom are so fanatically anti-Corbyn that they'd vote against May's deal a second time if the party line were to support it on a second vote. 

Of course, we're assuming that an initial rejection of the deal would quickly lead to a second vote in the Commons, but that's by no means certain. 

Que

#734
Quote from: Iota on November 25, 2018, 06:47:36 AM
I wonder if this takes into account how much the EU also want to avoid a 'no deal' Brexit? They also have a lot to lose, not as much as the UK I know, but as talks are about the economic self-interest of both sides, perhaps ways will be found.

Indeed the EU wants to avoid a no deal Brexit, but right now their best bet is the deal with May.
Previously there were already indications that the EU would agree to extending the negotiations in case of general elections or a referendum. But that window of opportunity would be quickly closing - EU elections are in mid May and the UK would have to leave before that moment. If Labour would take over after a general election, the only feasible option would be an immediate Norway-for-now.... maybe...

Q

vandermolen

Quote from: 2dogs on November 23, 2018, 06:50:11 AM
Why couldn't David Cameron simply have told us it was impossible to leave the EU in the first place? :'(
Indeed  :(
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

Mr. Minnow

Quote from: 2dogs on November 23, 2018, 06:50:11 AM
Why couldn't David Cameron simply have told us it was impossible to leave the EU in the first place? :'(

Because:

1. Like most of his party he'd been quite happy to scapegoat the EU for the UK's problems, for which his own party and indeed Cameron himself bear a substantial degree of responsibility. Having spent years happily trashing the EU and struggling to find a good word to say about it, it was hardly credible when he got to the referendum campaign and suddenly had to start saying, "you know that club we're in that I told you was really awful? Well leaving it would be a really bad idea!".

2. Leaving the EU isn't actually impossible. It's just a really, REALLY bad idea, as the ongoing farce so eloquently demonstrates.

Quote from: Que on November 25, 2018, 09:35:13 AM
Indeed the EU wants to avoid a no deal Brexit, but right now their best bet is the deal with May.
Previously there were already indications that the EU would agree to extending the negotiations in case of general elections or a referendum. But that window of opportunity would be quickly closing - EU elections are in mid May and the UK would have to leave before that moment. If Labour would take over after a general election, the only feasible option would be an immediate Norway-for-now.... maybe...

Q

Ironically, having spent the last two years telling us that "no deal is better than a bad deal", May has now decided that a bad deal is better than no deal. While for the EU, no deal really would be better than a bad deal, since a bad deal from the EU's perspective is one that lets the UK have its cake and eat it Brexit, which would undermine the EU by encouraging others to leave.

May apparently wants a TV debate with Corbyn. That's the same May who refused to debate with him in last year's snap election. She's also going to be travelling around the country to sell her deal to the public, but while she's anxious for us to hear what she has to say about it, she's not so keen on us having a vote to say if we approve or not.

There seems to be a bit of momentum building behind the Norway option. Assuming the Commons rejects May's deal on December 11th, it looks likely that this will be put forward as a way of avoiding a no deal Brexit, even if it's only as an interim solution.

However this farce plays out, I sincerely hope it ends up splitting the Tory party. Cameron only called the referendum in the first place in a vain attempt to resolve internal Tory divisions and as a way of avoiding the loss of further votes to UKIP. It would be poetic justice indeed if a referendum which was called solely for the benefit of the Tory party, and which looks likely to inflict considerable economic damage on the country (to say nothing of reducing us to an international laughing stock), ended up being the catalyst for a split that screws them over for years to come.

JBS

Is there no politician who is willing to stand up and say that Remain needs to go back onto the table?

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

Mr. Minnow

Quote from: JBS on November 26, 2018, 04:45:11 PM
Is there no politician who is willing to stand up and say that Remain needs to go back onto the table?

Those pushing for another referendum are arguing that Remain should be one of the options on the ballot paper. May has said she won't support another referendum in any circumstances (though she was adamant she wouldn't call a snap election, until she called a snap election). Labour's position is to push for a general election, and if they can't get that (which they probably can't), a referendum. Corbyn doesn't seem keen on another referendum, but he may just feel that if Labour takes the risk of calling for it, it's probably best done once May's deal has been voted down and gridlock ensues. Then he could argue that it's not his preferred option but the deadlock needs to be broken. If he calls for it before then you can be sure the cry will go up that he's trying to "block Brexit", and despite the mindboggling insanity of this farce that line of attack could still be effective. Even now, when leave voters are asked for their opinions, the most common refrain is "just get on with it!". One opined that Britain should just walk away from the EU to show them that "we mean business". Quite how a single country can stare down a bloc of 27 he neglected to mention. 

steve ridgway

Quote from: Mr. Minnow on November 26, 2018, 04:37:56 PM
having spent the last two years telling us that "no deal is better than a bad deal", May has now decided that a bad deal is better than no deal.

But she's telling us that it's a good deal and the only possible deal. It's no wonder a referendum is essentially a random process with the public who are generally not experts in these issues being fed so much disinformation :(.