Brexit Thread IV - They're laughing with us, not at us

[innonimatu]

You're giving a bad rep to cephalopods, they're considered curious and intelligent animals. Bears, on the other hand, must be russian nationalists...
Think about getting an osterich for an avatar, it would fit your attitude better. Popular support for the "EU project" is crumbling and even its friends point out its problems, but just keep ignoring them. That will make those problems go away, surely.

For those who want to actually discuss ideas and read stuff, here's some more relevant remarks from that speech. Those who comment without reading it will miss the point that the author was against brexit and thinks it was not the best choice. He resigned over the way it was handled.

The destination of post Brexit Britain comes into this. Unless it threw itself into core Europe, including both the Euro and Schengen – which in my view was never going to happen – or unless it commits to being the Trotskyite
- or is it Bannonite and Farageist - vanguard of a revolution which it intends to export, aiming at the dismantlement of the Union, the UK has, for a couple of decades, really only had 2 choices.

It could seek to stay firmly INSIDE the outer perimeter fence of the EU, staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, driving the Single Market project forward, playing an active role in certain common policies and opting out of others, insulating itself to the degree possible from the effects ofmonetary, banking, fiscal and political integration, and entrenching itself in an outer tier, which ultimately it would either occupy alone, or find subsequently some others whose conception of their end destination within the EU matched ours.

This was essentially where David Cameron, no enthusiast for most facets of European integration, was seeking to head. His ultimate view was that choosing to live outside the outer perimeter fence would be much more difficult. And that formal gains of sovereignty would either be outweighed by loss of real decision - making control across swathes of the economy. Or entail severe losses from the UK of business sectors, notably regulated goods and service sectors, whose business model was constructed around Single Market and Customs Union Membership. And that, contrary to the illusions running through the debate even now, does not just mean a bunch of privileged, incumbent multinationals. The effects would ripple right down supply chains to SMEs across the country.

Many Remainers obviously are very exasperated that Cameron did not make a more enthusiastically European case. But most do not themselves now argue that we should be joining the euro, banking union or Schengen. And if they did, they would not get 20% of the public. The reality is that if they could reverse Brexit, they would therefore want essentially his deal with tweaks. Our real choice has been outer tier membership of one key pillar of the Union, or full out, for a good many years now.

But he lost that case in the referendum.

The alternative is to leave, live outside the outer perimeter fence, and then decide how far outside you want to go and on what. The history of the last 28 months has shown that, strangely enough, virtually all the national objectives and preoccupations we had when we were within, remain national objectives and preoccupations when we are out.

As Xavier Bettel, the Luxembourg PM, summarised Brexit in a sentence better than anyone:
“They were in with a load of opt-outs. Now they are out and want a load of opt-ins”.

One last remaining comment from the speech that seems relevant to me is this:

British trade flows with Belgium are well in our top 10, as they will have been with that part of the world for most of the last 500 years, not something one hears in Brexit Britain

The historic permanence of trade links in the North Sea is not something that can be overturned through a simple political action, or in any short period of a few years. The hundred years war, the dutch-english wars, the french-english wars, none of those chocked out trade there. WW2 did but only for a few years, and it was an all-out war. Trade among those countries is a long-term historic feature of the region. Brexit, whatever the outcome, will not cut those links: some political accommodation will happen. And on this I believe that the breakup of the EU outcome is a more likely outcome that what Rogers believes, if the EU side tries to force those links to be severely restricted. The many threats rising from a non-agreement ("hard brexit" are finally dawning not just on the UK government but also on some politicians in the continent.

 

[Arakhor]

I've been saying since well before the referendum that this whole thing was an exercise in stupidity. There was no way we could ever get a better deal by Leaving and nothing has changed since.

 

[Senethro]

You're giving a bad rep to cephalopods, they're considered curious and intelligent animals. Bears, on the other hand, must be russian nationalists...

I'm just impressed with how good you are at switching vocabularies while keeping a straight face throughout it all. You use these valid criticisms of western nations and institutions but somehow the values invoked are absent from the defenses of Russia.

 

[Takhisis]

Indeed, it was conveniently forgotten. I was referring to some heated arguments we had at the time of the attack on that country. Time does tell.

It's yet another bad decision by Cameron.

Regarding brexit, there's a rather interesting speech from the former UK ambassador with his current take on the issues around it. I found it worth reading, even if I disagree in some points. Not many, actually.

One I particularly agree with is this:

Third, and related to this, as was so brilliantly analysed by Peter Mair in his great book Ruling the Void, if you increasingly, at both European and national level, evacuate the space for genuine sharp political choices about direction, the public concludes that you may be able to change the people at the top of the system – though in the EU, you cannot even really do that – but you cannot really change the policies.

I once had the slightly dubious pleasure at one of the Permanent Representatives’ lunches with the then President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, of questioning whether the politics of the broad church Grand Coalition in the Parliament working alongside the Commission of Jean Claude Juncker were really likely to make Juncker’s supposed “Commission of the last chance saloon" a success, or were more likely to force any non Grand Coalition opposition to conclude that the only way to oppose was to aim to pull the entire temple down.

There is a point there, and the EU does have several flaws, which can be solved, yet. Breaking up the EU and leaving Kaczynski, Orbán, the British Conservatives, etc. to their own devices to be swallowed up by Putin is not the solution.

 

[innonimatu]

I though you'd have gotten it: I'm not russian, I'm "western". The fact that I don't jump on the UK government's bandwagon regarding strange events with russian spies nearby the UKs chemical weapons labs (just a coincidence, surely) does not make me any more russian that bot believing in Saddam's WMD made me iraquian, or Qaddafi's viagra troops made me Libyan.

It's yet another bad decision by Cameron.

There is a point there, and the EU does have several flaws, which can be solved, yet. Breaking up the EU and leaving Kaczynski, Orbán, the British Conservatives, etc. to their own devices to be swallowed up by Putin is not the solution.

I don't believe in the need to surrender democratic accountability (which is necessary in a larger state) for fear of foreign bogeyman. The EU does not play a role on european defense policy, NATO does. And NATO absolutely dwarfs any other military power in the world. The idea that the EU is required to prevent european wars, compete with china, or keep Russia at bay just has no connection to reality. Like much that is invoked by conservatives, it is an excuse to maintain the status quo.

The funny thing is that Cameron was being a conservative when he attempted to keep the UK in the EU. Rogers gets it right when he calls bot the brexiters revolutionaries. And they just can't agree on where they want to lead their revolution to. The fact left out of his comments is the alternative to the tories, a leftist labour party. Hardly trotskyist, but it does open the possibility of a brexit towards more public investment and more regulation, not less (the race to the bottom that the tory brexiteers seem to want). Wether such a government can success in face of predictable hostile reactions from "investors" is a good question, but what should leftists do?

Give up, act like dr. Pangloss and convince themselves that they already live in the best possible world, nothing they can do to improve it? The end of history is upon us, the wealthy will rue the world and must be appeased because they won finance? Even though it was states that "saved" them as recently as 2008, with public money?

 

[Arakhor]

Today's update on Brexit: not nearly as bad as some have been saying, but yet more confirmation (if any were needed) that the Disunited Kingdom is only arguing with itself over this whole affair.

 

[Yeekim]

Regarding brexit, there's a rather interesting speech from the former UK ambassador with his current take on the issues around it. I found it worth reading, even if I disagree in some points. Not many, actually.

A brilliant speech. I read through all the 21 pages, and I'll probably do this at least once more.

I'm, however, quite baffled how @innonimatu could read and agree with something that makes such a clear and compelling case against his Euroscepticism.

 

[Hrothbern]

Today's update on Brexit: not nearly as bad as some have been saying, but yet more confirmation (if any were needed) that the Disunited Kingdom is only arguing with itself over this whole affair.

yeah
And from that same article the EU negotiators busy with the gift wrap up to mask the loss of face for May.

EU contacts close to the negotiations tell me they want to use lots of aspirational, inspirational language in the paper on EU-UK future relations; words like unprecedented, unique, deep and special.

also

The current UK excitement centres on the details the prime minister will agree to in the EU-required, legally binding guarantee that there will be no hard (customs) border for Northern Ireland, whatever kind of economic relationship the EU and UK end up with after Brexit.
And the counter-noise from Brussels and in the European press?

None

European consumers of news are not interested in political contortions over Brexit. They want to know if and when a deal is done.

Katya Adler, who wrote that article, the Europe Editor of BBC (with inside EU contacts....), is still not really spelling out what the situation is, she never did in any article I read from her, always wrapping up too blunt observations if any...
but in this article she is better as usual.
She has to after all... being too far away with her articles from the reality of the final showdown would be inconvenient as well.

Perhaps kind of appropiate:
From the 80ies the Swedish rockband "Europe" performing "The Final Countdown"
We're leaving together,
But still it's farewell
And maybe we'll come back
To earth, who can tell?
I guess there is no one to blame
We're leaving ground (leaving ground)
Will things ever be the same again?
It's the final countdown
The final countdown
Oh

 

[Yeekim]

I don't believe in the need to surrender democratic accountability (which is necessary in a larger state) for fear of foreign bogeyman.

The "fear of foreign bogeyman" is irrelevant here, at least for most of EU. While Putin is not a bogeyman but painfully real, I agree that at least you Portuguese don't need to worry about him. There is a larger picture here.
You speak of loss of democratic accountability, but you are looking at it from obsolete perspective.
EU is democratic. The fact that one can't change EU wide-policies through casting one's vote in a national election does not make it undemocratic, no more than the fact that one can't change national policies by casting one's vote at the municipal election makes that nation undemocratic.

People cooperate out of necessity. First civilizations were born because people needed to cooperate in order to tame the floods of rivers. The larger the number of people cooperating, the more they can achieve. Each individual having less weight in decisionmaking is an inevitable tradeoff there.

Today's states need to deal with a plethora of cross-jurisdictional problems. Those problems are pressing, complex, and numerous enough that treaties between sovereign states - especially smallish states, like those in Europe - are no longer sufficient to adequately address them - much like treaties between sovereign cities and villages stopped being sufficient long ago.
(This evidently does not mean there is no longer place for a city- or village-level decisionmaking, or diplomacy between those entities.)
And yes, this process (progress?) is neither cut-and-dry nor inevitable. After all, peoples who have refused to embrace even Neolithic Revolution are still around... but they exist at our mercy, more or less.

People cling to sovereign nation-states out of habit, reluctant to realize that formal sovereignty of those is largely illusory and limited by lack of actual ability to achieve desired outcomes.
Those who speak of "taking back control" don't realize that you can't take back what was never yours.

This inertia, and unwillingness to adopt the role of an EU citizen, rather than merely a citizen of a particular Member State, may well doom the EU... but this is not a good thing.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm, however, quite baffled how @innonimatu could read and agree with something that makes such a clear and compelling case against his Euroscepticism.

I never pretended that membership in the EU has no benefits to it. Nor that it will be easy for a country to extricate itself from it. The speech is not really a defense of EU, but a denunciation of the unpreparedness of the UK to the kind of exit it is going into. The UK indeed was not one of those countries that suffered the most from loss of sovereignty, their causes for complaint on the EU were fewer that those of many other countries where past governments had not demanded opt-outs.

The problem I see with the EU, and the reason I've come to reject it fully, is that over the past 15 years of painfully obvious crisis the responses from its bureaucracy and from the "europhiles" has been "further integration". Which is the exact opposite of what is necessary were the EU to survive for its good points: as a regulatory cooperation framework, as a diplomatic alliance, as a "mutual defense treaty" in economic issues. If further integration is the price of keeping these (which never requires this mush integration, the euro and the budged treaties are entirely unnecessary), then the price is not worth paying. European countries typically have over 10 million people, this is not a small village. They are capable of running a modern state on their own. The demise of small countries had been declared once before, due to international trade and new technology... same arguments. At the end of the 19th century, when a handful of empires ruled the whole world. It turned out that this was neither inevitable nor the end state of history after all.

In my opinion it has become very clear that further integration is politically impossible and attempting it will lead to violent breakup, rather that peaceful one. There are skeptics in the EU that want out simply to avoid becoming entangled in that. My own issue with further integration is not that it will ultimately lead to conflict and breakdown, but that the reason it will lead to that is the destruction of democracy as the "price" of integration, and the violent reaction to this from the people who are being pushed down for lack of political representation at the tables where the decisions are made. That loss in itself, not its possible future violent consequences, is what I reject, therefore even if my guess about violent breakup is wrong I still oppose this EU. For all the talk about "defending the european social model", the reality is that inequality has increases within each country, "convergence" between countries has turned into divergence in some cases (and others will follow...), trade policy has become extremely liberal to the detriment of several countries and the benefit of others, and he "middle classes" and "working classes", which is to say the majority of the population, are getting shafted. This is not progress.

Going back to brexit, what I have been saying is that the UK's position is stronger that it looks from the outside, and the EU weaker. They are very unprepared, and split, true. But the EU also has a host of problems. My guess is that the EU front during this negotiations is, well, a facade. Cutting trade with the UK is very disruptive on both sides of the channel, and not really something the EU can threaten the UK with and then do.

 

[Arakhor]

If "cutting trade" is the term for having to trade on WTO terms, that's not a threat but the actual outcome of not being in a customs union and having no applicable trade treaties. Almost nobody actually wants that to happen.

 

[Silurian]

Meanwhile work has began on turning the M26, to the south east of London, into a lorry park.

I like the way they did not tell the local MP.

 

[Yeekim]

I never pretended that membership in the EU has no benefits to it. Nor that it will be easy for a country to extricate itself from it. The speech is not really a defense of EU, but a denunciation of the unpreparedness of the UK to the kind of exit it is going into.

While the unpreparedness of UK has been quite spectacular, it has obvious reasons.
"Preparing" would have required sober analysis.
Sober analysis would have shown Brexit for what it is - a colossal, unnecessary exercise of self-harm.

European countries typically have over 10 million people, this is not a small village.

But it effectively is.

They are capable of running a modern state on their own.

Depends on how you define "modern". Depends on what you expect from your state.

The demise of small countries had been declared once before, due to international trade and new technology... same arguments. At the end of the 19th century, when a handful of empires ruled the whole world. It turned out that this was neither inevitable nor the end state of history after all.

No, it is not inevitable - at least not for everyone. As I pointed out, some people still live like we all did before Europe was even settled first. They have every right to scoff at those who called social and technological change inevitable.

the reason it will lead to that is the destruction of democracy as the "price" of integration, and the violent reaction to this from the people who are being pushed down for lack of political representation at the tables where the decisions are made. That loss in itself, not its possible future violent consequences, is what I reject, therefore even if my guess about violent breakup is wrong I still oppose this EU.

Why would destruction of democracy be the price of integration? Is unified, federal Germany now less democratic than the HRE was?
Both EP and the Council are democratic bodies where democratically elected representatives make policy.
That the people don't follow what is going on in those bodies, that they don't bother to show up for EP elections, that they remain largely fixated on the ever more meaningless sideshow in national parliaments... well, that is their own failing. But I see no reason why it should not change given time.

For all the talk about "defending the european social model", the reality is that inequality has increases within each country, "convergence" between countries has turned into divergence in some cases (and others will follow...), trade policy has become extremely liberal to the detriment of several countries and the benefit of others, and he "middle classes" and "working classes", which is to say the majority of the population, are getting shafted. This is not progress.

The European middle classes and working classes have it better than most anywhere else in the world.
The trends you speak of are not irreversible and we don't need to revert to tribalism to change them either.
EDIT:

Going back to brexit, what I have been saying is that the UK's position is stronger that it looks from the outside, and the EU weaker. They are very unprepared, and split, true. But the EU also has a host of problems. My guess is that the EU front during this negotiations is, well, a facade. Cutting trade with the UK is very disruptive on both sides of the channel, and not really something the EU can threaten the UK with and then do.

How you can believe something like this after reading through the essay you yourself posted, is quite honestly beyond me.
1) Cutting trade (i.e. trade on WTO terms) would be disruptive, yes, but not nearly as much for EU than for UK.
2) Giving to UK in-group privileges without in-group responsibilities would be a lot, lot, lot worse or EU. Will never happen.
3) What will most likely happen is a "transition period" of unspecified length of time (years? decades?) where the UK will be a part of Single Market with all of the obligations but none of the rights.

 

[Hrothbern]

3) What will most likely happen is a "transition period" of unspecified length of time (years? decades?) where the UK will be a part of Single Market with all of the obligations but none of the rights.

The wheels are turning in that direction. No longer cliff edges at the horizon, no time date.

Secret plans to allow an extension of the transition period in the Brexit withdrawal agreement could result in the UK living under all EU rules well beyond the 21 months so far negotiated, the Guardian can reveal.
The expected offer of an extension is designed to convince Arlene Foster, the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, that the “backstop” plan to avoid the creation of a hard border on the island of Ireland will never come into force.
It is also likely that the UK would need to make additional budget contributions on top of its £39bn divorce bill to cover the extra timeit would benefit from EU membership. It would not, however, have any representation in the bloc’s decision-making institutions despite the extra period under EU law.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ns-for-brexit-extension-option-to-appease-dup

The true Brexiteers will not like it at all. The Will of the People and all.
But taking negotiation time, also for other FTA deals, to get "it" right is a strong argument, whether genuine or not.
And if good enough, convenient enough, for Parliament, the true Brexiteers are I guess cornered: What can they do ?
I guess that some Brexiteers will say let us vote away with a referendum that "deal" of (eternal ?) postponement. But that opens the box of Pandorra, risking whatever position they had.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The wheels are turning in that direction. No longer cliff edges at the horizon, no time date.



The true Brexiteers will not like it at all. The Will of the People and all.
But taking negotiation time, also for other FTA deals, to get "it" right is a strong argument, whether genuine or not.
And if good enough, convenient enough, for Parliament, the true Brexiteers are I guess cornered: What can they do ?
I guess that some Brexiteers will say let us vote away with a referendum that "deal" of (eternal ?) postponement. But that opens the box of Pandorra, risking whatever position they had.

I'd guess it would be virtually indefinite
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...nite-customs-union/ar-BBOgSXm?ocid=spartandhp
Its a lot better than a hard Brexit and it gives May the slightly facesaving chance to claim its not permanent even if it effectively is for the forseeable future
The Brexiteers will hate it and enough of them will vote against it that May will have to rely on Opposition votes for it to get through Parliament

 

[Takhisis]

I don't believe in the need to surrender democratic accountability (which is necessary in a larger state) for fear of foreign bogeyman.

I thought you were a brexit supporter.

 

[mitsho]

The historic permanence of trade links in the North Sea is not something that can be overturned through a simple political action, or in any short period of a few years. The hundred years war, the dutch-english wars, the french-english wars, none of those chocked out trade there. WW2 did but only for a few years, and it was an all-out war. Trade among those countries is a long-term historic feature of the region. Brexit, whatever the outcome, will not cut those links: some political accommodation will happen.

I just want to ask for clarification on this point from what must probably seem ages to you (the top of this page): Why? What does the medieval wool trade have in common with modern supply chain logistics? This argument seems to argue for a stasis of history - and that just seems very strange.

Also, these regions have had as long traditions to other regions, being those the Baltic Sea or the North-Southern corridor from Germany to the Alps to Italy (you know, along the Rhine). What makes those trade connections special?

And going back, doesn‘t Northern Ireland have a longer connection to the Republic of Ireland, so no amount of Brexit will severe that tie?

I have no interest in debating here, but this point made me curious.

 

[really]

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1050774444740882432
Sky Newses political correspondent was in town today to interview the Tainaiste and he visited a Brexit preparedness road show hosted by the Irish government.

Newsworthy interview with
@simoncoveney
incoming on Sky News.. till then in Galway, Ireland’s extraordinary business preparedness roadshow involving €5000 grants, advice, €100 millions subsidised loans for Brexit affected business. There is nothing like this happening in U.K.:

Randomly I considered going to that but there was a storm and I decided to work from home instead.

One government website aimed at Irish owned businesses.
www.prepareforbrexit.com

 

[innonimatu]

I just want to ask for clarification on this point from what must probably seem ages to you (the top of this page): Why? What does the medieval wool trade have in common with modern supply chain logistics? This argument seems to argue for a stasis of history - and that just seems very strange.

Also, these regions have had as long traditions to other regions, being those the Baltic Sea or the North-Southern corridor from Germany to the Alps to Italy (you know, along the Rhine). What makes those trade connections special?

And going back, doesn‘t Northern Ireland have a longer connection to the Republic of Ireland, so no amount of Brexit will severe that tie?

It's not about the wool trade, it's about geography and the difficulty of suddenly cutting long-lasting relations. Social (and economic) inertia. History just supplies examples of how trade continues even during or past major wars. Brexit is nothing compared to such wars. Assuming catastrophe for trade due to brexit is excessively alarmist. Drama sells, thus the media and the opinion makers will talk about it. I don't thing that it will go nicely in the first few days, but things will be sorted out quickly. One way or the other, though not to the benefit of those who were most unprepared.

 

[Takhisis]

So Britain is screwed, then.