Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[Akka]

I know I'm nearly alone here in saying that the UK's best interests are and were all along in simply exiting without any deal, once the EU placed on the table obviously unacceptable conditions.

"if you're not in the EU, you won't get the benefit of being in the EU"
"THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE, HOW DARE YOU, TYRANTS ?!"

 

[innonimatu]

Didn't we already establish that that it's the Government that decides the motions and the timescale, and the Speaker who chooses the amendments? Parliament didn't burn through any time as that it is not in its power to do so.

Given enough time they could have simply replaced the government, called another election. Parliament refusing to do so was the point at which I said here that it became powerless. But it still could topple the government and hope that the EU would take that as a signal to wait before locking on the exit. It could support a different government without calling a General Election, I believe, removing May from the post of PM. If enough MPs actually were determined to stop brexit?

They are not.

"if you're not in the EU, you won't get the benefit of being in the EU"
"THAT'S UNACCEPTABLE, HOW DARE YOU, TYRANTS ?!"

How is what I defended, exiting without a deal, wanting to get the benefit of being in the EU?
Exit is exit, that's it. No deal. That should have been the working principle for the UK's policy from the moment of the vote result. A deal might be nice, but only if it was possible and favorable, preparation should be for no deal.

 

[Silurian]

Parliament can order all it wants, it does not mean May will do it. The sole practical remedy parliament has to compel a government that won't do as the parliamentary majority wants is to replace it.

This does not make sense.

 

[innonimatu]

It's the system you have... think about using this demonstration of dishonesty and irresponsability as an opportunity to push for changes to it!

 

[Silurian]

It's the system you have...

Your post still does not make sense.

 

[Arakhor]

You seem to underestimate the political deadlock in which we are in. The Tories already tried to get rid of May and failed, but refuse to back a vote of no-confidence as that would endanger their jobs. When the "majority" party don't want something to happen, it usually doesn't happen.

 

[Akka]

How is what I defended, exiting without a deal, wanting to get the benefit of being in the EU?
Exit is exit, that's it. No deal. That should have been the working principle for the UK's policy from the moment of the vote result. A deal might be nice, but only if it was possible and favorable, preparation should be for no deal.

You said, in the very specific part that I posted which left nothing to interpretation, that said "no-deal" exist was the only possibility left "once the EU placed on the table obviously unacceptable conditions" (sic).
What were such "obviously unacceptable conditions" save the UK not having the benefit of being in the EU once it left it ?

 

[innonimatu]

Just reviewed what the professional tea-leaves readers wrote. The Economist, which has been campaigning for a revocation of brexit, is guarded on forecasts and does not even make a headline of an extension. It means that they can't do a good reading and dare not sully their reputation. Blomberg has a headline about an extension being "inevitable", but puts inevitable in quotes and the text pushes no certainties. They're hedging. Meaning that they see a gulf between what they (and most of their readers) wish and what may happen in a very short time. Finally, the tory unofficial publication writes about a third vote or "betrayal". Meaning there too is little appetite for a second referendum or even an extension.

I wonder how the vote about leaving with no deal will go tomorrow. It's not meaningless even if it is expected that most MPs will vote against, the number of those voting for matters.

@Akka, consider what the purpose of the withdrawal agreement is. No such agreement is mandated by the EU Treaty. The purpose of the agreement is to serve as a new treaty between the UK and the EU. Because allegedly one could not be done in two years this "bridge" treaty called withdrawal agreement was to be done.
If the preconditions set by the EU are not acceptable for the UK, the best thing the EU can do for itself is to seek treaties with different parties, remain unencumbered by a disadvantageous treaty with the EU, and just let the EU have no treaty with the UK. This is the very basics of negotiating any agreement. You try to get a deal you feel are worthwhile, or walk. This is what I have been saying since the start. So what objections do you have with what I said?
It was not what the UK's government did, they didn't walk and instead did a deal, just couldn't get it actually approved. So the country will leave without a deal. One can still be made in the future of conditions change.

The idea that the UK cannot simply leave because "benefit of being in the EU" is yours and of the remainers. I very much doubt it was ever one of those who voted there for leave. And the argument against postponing is that it is far more damaging to keep playing this game of deal or no deal over an impossible deal than simply leave already. This should have been obvious from the start.

 

[brennan]

No deal is amazingly unpopular in the Commons, they won't let it happen.

No deal is chaos, and the EU won't let that happen - they've as much as said that should it look like no deal is about to happen they will automatic ally grant an extension so that it can't happen.

A deal that can be agreed on is clearly impossible and will never happen.

Its either delay, pretend that something can be salvaged and then revoke A50 or simply revoke A50.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, we'll never know if there could have been a deal that would have passed Parliament, as that would have required competence, cooperation and just a little humility from the Prime Minister.

 

[innonimatu]

No deal is amazingly unpopular in the Commons, they won't let it happen.

I've pointed it out before and will repeat now: no deal is the the default outcome if nothing else is done.

No deal is chaos, and the EU won't let that happen - they've as much as said that should it look like no deal is about to happen they will automatic ally grant an extension so that it can't happen.

Just as Parliament's one way to take control was to replace the government and they chose not to do it, the EU's one option to stop no deal was to offer a better deal and they chose not to do it.

Its either delay, pretend that something can be salvaged and then revoke A50 or simply revoke A50.

Delay is looking less appealing and more appalling, who wants more of this? Revocation of article 50 is simply out of the realm of the possible: they can't do it without cover of a new referendum and didn't even manage to get the courage to call one.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The idea that the UK cannot simply leave because "benefit of being in the EU" is yours and of the remainers. I very much doubt it was ever one of those who voted there for leave. And the argument against postponing is that it is far more damaging to keep playing this game of deal or no deal over an impossible deal than simply leave already. This should have been obvious from the start.

The HardBrexit option was always avaliable
Except the UK is only recently went about finding out what it means to go back to WTO rules, how hard it is to get a FTA with other countries such as India, how much of the UK economy relies on JIT and RORO.
Instead of telling the public what a hardbrexit will mean, and preparing for these changes its buried its head into the sand, UK needed to prepare for the transitition like the EU which has been preparing for this over the last year while the UK is only now deciding to do things like stockpile food.

I expect a hardbrexit followed by resignation of the current UK government
Then all the hardbrexiters will just blame the EU.

Dose the UK even have a plan how its going to deal with Ireland and Gilbertar when they Hardbrexit ?

 

[Samez]

...
I expect a hardbrexit followed by resignation of the current UK government
Then all the hardbrexiters will just blame the EU.

Probably the way to go - the question is if there will be a delay of hard brexit or not.
To my understanding in case of hard brexit and closed borders between Ireland and Northern Ireland the peace treaty in NI theoretically becomes void. I don't expect the troubles to come back in the first weeks but a lot of active politics would have to be undertaken to not get there before end of the year - and as we can already see now even with new elections a new government will probably be again a weak one, as there is no real leader to ralley behind.
Gibraltar will be interesting to see but TBH I know too little to predict anything regarding this area of the continent.

 

[Takhisis]

Dose the UK even have a plan how its going to deal with Ireland and Gilbertar when they Hardbrexit ?

Do take into account the recent opinion on the Chagos/Diego García issue by a certain international court.

 

[innonimatu]

Do take into account the recent opinion on the Chagos/Diego García issue by a certain international court.

I actually liked the UK's reaction to that: we don't obey your rulings, get stuffed.

It's not as if Mauritius has any legitimate claim to those islands either. It is ridiculous that Mauritious is claiming different inlands more than 2000km away because at one point they were administered as part of the same colonial domain. It would be similarly ridiculous to claim "self-determination" for a small archipelago that could not possibly be self-sufficient in any way. This was just Mauritius' government doing a land grab. It takes a lot of gall to claim those islands because "self-determination" while at the same time offering to sell other islands to India. Apparently self-determination can be ceasing to be part of the British Empire and becoming part of an Indian Empire. And this is not even getting into the issue of politics within Mauritius, and Indioa's repeated meddling there...

Except the UK is only recently went about finding out what it means to go back to WTO rules, how hard it is to get a FTA with other countries such as India, how much of the UK economy relies on JIT and RORO.
Instead of telling the public what a hardbrexit will mean, and preparing for these changes its buried its head into the sand, UK needed to prepare for the transitition like the EU which has been preparing for this over the last year while the UK is only now deciding to do things like stockpile food.

The UK has plenty of people who knew about what it means to cease being part of the EU. I dislike the paternalistic attitude of "the people were deceived". You don't get to just assume that they could not possibly have voted against what you favour unless they were deceived.

The EU is as unprepared as the UK. And if the UK starved, so would Ireland. Of course neither will, so talk of stockpiling food was always a bit absurd. The real issues of concert are labour stoppages due to failures of JIT supply chains. Economic damage, which I'd rather the UK didn't suffer.
Hell, Puerto Rico was devastated and left without electricity for months and the sky didn't fell. Venezuela was supposedly "starving" for years and has been days without power, and the disaster-hungry media isn't yet reporting widespread looting or a revolution there. So I'm sure the UK can endure a few days of supply disruptions as chains for retail sales adapt to any bureaucratic changes. There will be economic damage, lost productivity, but no scenes of public despair. And I'm sure the UK could withstand the worst the EU might do to it in the wildest dreams of the most crazy of all the EU bureaucrats. Which certainly won't happen anyway, the trade partners of the UK in the EU have no desire for disruption.

 

[Akka]

@Akka, consider what the purpose of the withdrawal agreement is. No such agreement is mandated by the EU Treaty. The purpose of the agreement is to serve as a new treaty between the UK and the EU. Because allegedly one could not be done in two years this "bridge" treaty called withdrawal agreement was to be done.
If the preconditions set by the EU are not acceptable for the UK, the best thing the EU can do for itself is to seek treaties with different parties, remain unencumbered by a disadvantageous treaty with the EU, and just let the EU have no treaty with the UK. This is the very basics of negotiating any agreement. You try to get a deal you feel are worthwhile, or walk. This is what I have been saying since the start. So what objections do you have with what I said?
It was not what the UK's government did, they didn't walk and instead did a deal, just couldn't get it actually approved. So the country will leave without a deal. One can still be made in the future of conditions change.

The idea that the UK cannot simply leave because "benefit of being in the EU" is yours and of the remainers. I very much doubt it was ever one of those who voted there for leave. And the argument against postponing is that it is far more damaging to keep playing this game of deal or no deal over an impossible deal than simply leave already. This should have been obvious from the start.

This is an incredibly long rant to actually not answer the question I asked : "What were such "obviously unacceptable conditions" save the UK not having the benefit of being in the EU once it left it ?".
And yes the UK can "simply leave". I certainly hope it does. I don't know how you put in your brain that anyone thought "it can't" but it seems it's an artefact of your ability to rebuild reality when you don't like it - EU has certainly been MUCH MORE aware of a "no-deal" exit than the UK itself actually.

 

[Hrothbern]

No deal is amazingly unpopular in the Commons, they won't let it happen.

What you want is not always what you get.
I think there is a serious but small chance that no-deal happens by accident because the Commons are not able to handle what they want.

No deal is chaos, and the EU won't let that happen - they've as much as said that should it look like no deal is about to happen they will automatic ally grant an extension so that it can't happen.

The EU wants to continue a soft border in Ireland.
The UK had no proposals for a solution on that when they came to the negotiating table in March 2017.
Not for a no-deal WTO-FTA target, not for a no-deal WTO bare bone. There was no proposal from the UK how to comply to the Good Friday Agreement.

The other aspects of a no-deal, that other chaos, that economy, is already handled by the bare bone deals (from planes to London City finance).
It really does not matter much for the EU whether there is a WTO or a Canada style FTA future relation. The difference in damage is too small.

The only thing really worthwhile for the EU in economical terms is a Customs Union or a closer relationship. Regardless the estimates of the total size of damage, such a relation would reduce the damage to around 50%. A full BRINO to perhaps 75%.
A Customs Union would also solve most of the Irish border issue.

It's up to the Commons:
If they really want to avoid that no-deal, they have to accept the EU red line to secure a soft Irish border
How ?
There are many ways.
If the Commons want in majority a Customs Union almost everything is solved.
And I think that choice on a soft-Brexit is where the real struggle is, in the Commons (not in the EU).
The partisan interests and the struggle with the WTO-FTA factions & the Remain factions, confusing that choice.

I see the Remain (new referendum) faction totally capable of causing the accident of a cliff edge no-deal.

The EU has no cards (it can play) at all there.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The UK has plenty of people who knew about what it means to cease being part of the EU. I dislike the paternalistic attitude of "the people were deceived". You don't get to just assume that they could not possibly have voted against what you favour unless they were deceived.

The EU is as unprepared as the UK. And if the UK starved, so would Ireland. Of course neither will, so talk of stockpiling food was always a bit absurd. The real issues of concert are labour stoppages due to failures of JIT supply chains. Economic damage, which I'd rather the UK didn't suffer.

Hell, Puerto Rico was devastated and left without electricity for months and the sky didn't fell. Venezuela was supposedly "starving" for years and has been days without power, and the disaster-hungry media isn't yet reporting widespread looting or a revolution there. So I'm sure the UK can endure a few days of supply disruptions as chains for retail sales adapt to any bureaucratic changes. There will be economic damage, lost productivity, but no scenes of public despair. And I'm sure the UK could withstand the worst the EU might do to it in the wildest dreams of the most crazy of all the EU bureaucrats. Which certainly won't happen anyway, the trade partners of the UK in the EU have no desire for disruption.

Venezula has the words oil largest oil reseves and was the richest of all the countries in South America, it is weird to think that this would be a good example to bring up and wave in the face of the Hard brexiteers
Yeah No i would rather have experts trainned in economics, logisitcs and planning at least prepare for a transition into a hard brexit.

Urh the UK is going to have to set a single WTO tarrif rate on importing foods stuff, it tired to copy paste the EU WTO qoutas but got smacked down by Russia
So can you tell me during a hard Brexit how exactly the UK is going to do about importing food stuffs, how high should it set import food tariffs ?

As for people being decieved, points to the current US President
Some people have to learn by urinating on the electrical fence.

 

[Hrothbern]

So can you tell me during a hard Brexit how exactly the UK is going to do about importing food stuffs, how high should it set import food tariffs ?

The no-deal tariff list of the UK will be made public before the vote today on no-deal.
We will know soon.
I guess lots of zero tariffs.

 

[EnglishEdward]

It's still incredible just how people can still manage to put the blame on the EU after three whole years of the UK acting like clowns.
It's not even possible to caricature, the reality IS a caricature already.

I don't put the blame entirely on the EU, nor on its member states who (with the possible exception of RoI seeking unification), have very obediently kept out of it.
And much responsibiliy lies with those UK politicians who have not only campaigned against the 2016 democratic referendum decision, but have repeatedly
slunk off to the continent to urge the EU negotiators to be as unreasonable as possible in the hope that that will thwart the UK's exit from the EU.

The EU may be a capitalist club but its a mostly rational capitalist club that
has done more for social rights in the UK than our governments for the last 40 years.

Would you care to provide some concrete examples?

In my opinion the most significant change in social rights in the last 40 years in the UK is gay marriage; nothing to do with the EEC/EC/EU.

Changes such as: (a) Freedom of Information Acts (b) minimum wage (c) updating of 1972 equal pay act to include equal pay for work of equal value,
(d) anti-stalking law (e) requiring employers to show compliance about racial discrimination and (f) ban on upskirting photos/videos are purely UK initiatives.

And many of its initiatives such as Data Protection, GPRS; and Working Time directives have merely added to costs without providing benefits.

The no-deal vote tomorrow will very likely be meaningless, because it will not specify any realistic alternative. At this point an extension seems to be quite pointless. The only question is whether there will be a final no-deal or no-Brexit vote or whether the UK Parliament will just continue making meaningless discussions until they will be surprised that they don't have a deal on March 29.

Very well summed up.

Urh the UK is going to have to set a single WTO tarrif rate on importing foods stuff, it tired to copy paste the EU WTO qoutas but got smacked down by Russia
So can you tell me during a hard Brexit how exactly the UK is going to do about importing food stuffs, how high should it set import food tariffs ?.

I understand that the WTO rules on Quotas and Tariffs are different.

The no-deal tariff list of the UK will be made public before the vote today on no-deal.
We will know soon.
I guess lots of zero tariffs.

We shall see if Liam Fox's lot are really that stupid.

But then it may be Phil Hammond making that call.