Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[Oerdin]

That is just not a very intelligent statement. The red lines were nothing more than stating what Brexit means so that the will of the people could be carried out. I agree, the European Commission did everything in its power to obstruct that, thus why they have been bad faith actors, but your position is nonsensical to the extreme. Saying Brexit must mean the UK leaves the EU is just stating the obvious even if we call that a red line.

 

[Senethro]

You used to say that that UK held all the cards in negotiations and it was only a matter of time before the EU capitulated!

 

[Kyriakos]

If there is no deal at least the uk keeps the 30 odd billion euros it would have to pay. That isnt much, but it can use it the german way, by having its companies bribe foreign govs to secure massive contracts

 

[AmazonQueen]

If there is no deal at least the uk keeps the 30 odd billion euros it would have to pay. That isnt much, but it can use it the german way, by having its companies bribe foreign govs to secure massive contracts

We've been doing that for years anyway, as have most western nations.

 

[Kyriakos]

:-o but that is corrupt and illegal.
So germany
Many eu
Wow

 

[AmazonQueen]

:-o but that is corrupt and illegal.
So germany
Many eu
Wow

Scandals I can remember offhand have involved Sweden, UK and Germany, but not the EU, which isn't involved in selling arms to non-EU members.

 

[Arakhor]

That is just not a very intelligent statement. The red lines were nothing more than stating what Brexit means so that the will of the people could be carried out. I agree, the European Commission did everything in its power to obstruct that, thus why they have been bad faith actors, but your position is nonsensical to the extreme. Saying Brexit must mean the UK leaves the EU is just stating the obvious even if we call that a red line.

As I'm sure you know, no one ever defined what leaving the EU actually meant in practice, other than vacuous non-statements ("Brexit means Brexit") or oceans of wish-fulfilment. If democracy crystallised for all time around the Will of the People 2.5 years ago, why not find out what the people actually want?

 

[Hrothbern]

That hardly sells the Michael Barnier (not the Theresa May deal) no real withdrawal deal to us.

Many of us in the UK perceive that "no deal" is indeed the European Commission's perspective.
They and I know that an arrangement whereby the UK cannot leave the
EU Customs Union without the permission of the EU is not a deal.

Let me repeat to get the context back :

No deal on the Irish issue means no deal with the EU above the level of bare bone WTO.
If that no deal is preferred, there is indeed no benefit in any negotiation.

The EU has as condition that any deal needs for a start a decent solution for the Irish border, also the Withdrawal deal.

From Day 1 after the referendum the Irish border issue was clear: A hard Brexit would mean a hard border.
That hard border could ignite the tensions and risk a revival of the Troubles.
That's the elephant in the room, completely overshadowed by all the talk about money and other Brexit stuff, overwhelmed by tactics towards the EU, how to cave them in.
There has been in the UK newsmedia coverage not so much on the igniting part of that issue... it was called the Irish border.... and considering the sensitive nature of that conflict completely understandable IF everybody accepts an understanding on that issue. Recognising the severity but low key in public.
But low key does not mean you can ignore that elephant in the room.

The EU made as first proposal for the Irish issue that NI would get a special status with a soft border. That would leave free how the deal would become of the other 98% of the UK.
NI would not only be protected against the risks of violence escalation, but also get a special status which would make it interesting for investments in a higher level economy, generating higher wages than now (do mind that unemployment in NI is low while it has a very low GDP per Capita, and gets per year 10 Billion GBP aid from Westminster to pay social and health care, at risk from further austerity).

Now... May was not interested in a free market Brexiteer Canada FTA++ and Corbyn had mentioned he wanted a customs union ++++++... so why not going to a deal that was a May-style customs union ++++++.
This was all a free choice of the UK. That May used anti-democratic and anti-parliamentary tricks to be the only one negotiating cannot be blamed on the EU.
Barnier even offered in between to the Brexiteers to prepare a Canada FTA (which would fit well with that special status of only NI).
But always and for every new whim of May... including a soft Irish border.
Not to the financial benefit of the EU (the EU will continue to aid NI financially regardless what), not for the glory of a bigger EU... just a pragmatical solution for the people of NI, Ireland... and a clear signal to all small EU members that they would not need to be afraid of any big third countries ignoring and bullying them.

And the UK, or better England has quite a track record of ignoring and bullying Irish people.
Here some articles, starting with one today from a former Irish ambassador to the UK, Bobby McDonagh: explaining that the EU was key in finding peace and not Westminster.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/28/ireland-peace-process-brexit-eu-uk
And here by coincidence released today from the UK national archives (the 30 year term) some from the attitude of Margaret Thatcher on the Irish issue. The exact opposite attitude as that was needed for peace. She was aware of that somehow, because she admitted that she did not know how to get peace. But she did know that her boys had to fight (more).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-files-show-thatchers-gloom-over-irish-border

Now... with the EU trying to STAY the peacekeeper, low-key in public statements on the issue, but Ireland taking the role to be more articulated, and the NI population already clear by voting in majority Remain...
Why then is the EU blamed to have that condition ?
Why is the EU blamed for some devilish trick to chain the UK in the Withdrawal deal ?

The plain moral question for me is:
how can you be in favor of a no-deal or any deal without accepting a minimal surgery to keep the peace process of NI intact with a local soft border ?
Once that is accepted, the negotiation becomes normal again.

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm. The eu wants smaller countries not bullied, but drives core (as in old eurozone) and old members to ruin. Does not compute. Dont you think that you are somewhat starry eyed re why eu focuses on ni?
For starters, ni may leave the uk if distanced. So it is always a nice point to base a blackmail on. Eu cares next to not at all about most of its members, and maybe we will get to see a very amusing lack of reaction when the baltic protectorates inevitably get sucked back to their previous overlord's sphere.

 

[Hrothbern]

Hm. The eu wants smaller countries not bullied, but drives core (as in old eurozone) and old members to ruin. Does not compute. Dont you think that you are somewhat starry eyed re why eu focuses on ni?
For starters, ni may leave the uk if distanced. So it is always a nice point to base a blackmail on. Eu cares next to not at all about most of its members, and maybe we will get to see a very amusing lack of reaction when the baltic protectorates inevitably get sucked back to their previous overlord's sphere.

Kyr
You are on this topic blinded by negative bias to the EU expressing everything in political terms that are at most a side effect only.
You seem really to believe that Germany is holding the cards.
The EU is a set of countries.
And I am living in the country that founded together with Belgium and Luxumbourg the Benelux, the proto-EU in 1944. In effect an economic repair of the split up of the Low Lands in 1830 after the freedom war of Belgium. Several earlier attempts, starting already in 1841 failed in achieving a customs union.

And the UK is NOT a founding country of the EU. The only founding country struggling is Italy. And if you dive deep in the GDP development of Italy, you will see that its growth was fine until the GFC. They did since 1960 much better than France. And Spain on its turn did better than Italy. And the big issue with Italy is that it stopped investing in its infrastructure and industry since then. Just like this great plan of their current government is hardly investing in the economy. (just like the UK since Thatcher). And Spain had too many vanity projects from corruption.

Because we were small we united in practical issues.
And if the UK and the US had not torpedoed an earlier attempt in the 1930ies, that proto EU would even be older, and perhaps already extended with Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland.
A bunch of small countries.

Because of economy of scale effects of land size and population, small countries are in much harder need to trade frictionless. For that proto Hanseatic group, the total size would still be less than Germany, the economic potential still be smaller than Germany.
It did not happen and after the war the primary focus was transparency of coal and steel production between France, Germany and Italy, because that equals transparency of military production and allows avoiding of government subsidised overcapacity.
The secondary focus was food. There was a shortage of food in WW2 and not much surplus before the war, and the population was growing like rabbits.
The third focus was the economy. The US had proven that a thriving economy is much more important than military parades. That economical growth very much helped by the biggest single market in the world at short distances with all the motorways. We had to catch up on the continent and fast. And we did.

Small countries did and do benefit more from the EU than big countries because the big countries can handle more kinds of trade WITHIN their national borders.
And do not misunderstand the power in the EU of the small countries. They are just more diplomatic and in public more low-key because they are smaller.
Only the veto right of each country, whatever the size, should make that clear. Whereby noted that some East-European countries do not have the diplomatic understanding how to handle that power in an harmonious way. It will lead to other voting systems. France BTW much more inclined to move there than your friend Germany.

The big countries will easier make the headlines of international news. Sure, that's the bias of the international newsmedia. And the UK got always more attention because the language is English.
And everybody and his dog in the international newsmedia is spelling doom on the EU since decades..... pffff.... what a waste of ink.

Kyr, stay on the ground

 

[Takhisis]

I was going to post this last night but my wifi screwed me.

The 2016 referendum was leave or remain.

If a second referendum just asked the same question it would not solve anything. It would not give a mandate for the type of Brexit if leave won again, so it is quite possible that parliament would still be unable to agree on the type of Brexit.
If Remain won by a small margin leave would start the campaign for a third referendum, claiming that most Brexiteers wanted the May deal and not the Mogg no deal. They would claim they were not given the opportunity to vote on the best Brexit.

So you have to have three options Mogg, May or Stay. But then the question has to be agreed.

What I was saying is that already in 2016 neither those asking the question nor those answering it understood the question.

I think the point of STV is that it encourages tactical voting but tactical voting occurs in all systems, even FPTP. Remainers can't vote tactically, theres only 1 option that allows Remain. The only people who could vote tactically are those who wanted Brexit but not at the cost of either of the Brexit options.

All voting systems can be gamed, sure, but FPTP is one of the worst, up there with the plurality-at-large method employed by Iran.

No. Cause we trust our batrachian mps to not risk their 3k euro/month salaries by messing with the actual constitution. Either way, iirc almost no constitutional laws ever changed here.

Your lexicon betrays the fact that you really have been translating Lovecraft.

But, more seriously, listen to Hrothbern.

 

[Silurian]

What I was saying is that already in 2016 neither those asking the question nor those answering it understood the question.

People understood the question in 2016 but most did not know how many balls would have to be juggled. This was not helped by different Brexiters saying different things.

The 2016 referendum could have been worded to confuse some Leave voters to vote remain by mistake. It is a legal requirement for the referendum question to be tested with the electorate so that they vote the way they intend too. Understanding the outcome is a separate problem.

See section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/104

 

[innonimatu]

The EU has as condition that any deal needs for a start a decent solution for the Irish border, also the Withdrawal deal.

From Day 1 after the referendum the Irish border issue was clear: A hard Brexit would mean a hard border.
That hard border could ignite the tensions and risk a revival of the Troubles.

At least one of the two sides (the UK and the EU) must decide to have a "hard border", for one to be done. The EU is free to not move towards a hard border. Will it?

Only if the EU/Ireland do not implement a hard border and then the UK does one, will the EU be able to blame the UK for igniting tensions. Accusing the UK of causing a "hard border" in Ireland when when what the UK was demanding in the negotiations was free trade for goods and movement for citizens is pure hypocrisy. It was the EU that rejected that in the negotiations, and put many other demand on the table in order to allow this free transit. From the start, all along, it was the EU threatening a hard border in case it didn't get a deal to its liking.

On the Irish border issue, the EU has negotiated in bad faith form the start. What it claimed to wish was not what it actually proposed or demanded in the negotiations. The UK would be fine with making a deal to have a "soft border". What the UK had been refusing was to allow the EU to dictate laws and regulations in the UK side of that border, or to allow the EU to force a split of the UK into two separate regions with different laws. No country would accept such a demand from outside. The UK's resistance to that demand is entirely reasonable, as the EU would likewise refuse to have the UK dictate laws or regulations on its side.

Now either the EU, wishing to avert a "hard border", trusts the UK and keeps a soft border with it in Ireland, or it doesn't. Tying a soft border agreement to other demands is negotiating in bad faith when the EU claims that a "soft border" is its number one priority and wish. Truth is, it isn't. The border was the EU's number one problem, an impediment to making demands from the UK in exchange for market access. Because if the EU just granted a soft border in Ireland, the UK would have all it really needed.
So right at the start the EU's negotiators ruled out a simple "soft border" agreement, and sought to frame the issue the other way around: alleged that it was the UK that would impose a "hard border".
That is a lie, has all along been a lie. And the incompetent british government should have denounced it in day one and refused any negotiation whatsoever while the story was framed this way. The truth is that the EU is deliberately threatening a hard border unless the UK accepts having the EU dictating its internal market rules. They EU is under no obligation to impose a hard border. They can choose, like the UK would, to have a soft border and trust each other not to "cheat" on trade, product quality and immigration.
It is true that the EU have good reason to distrust the UK. But if they do, and want to implement a "hard border". that is the EU0's decision, their action. They must own up to the fact that it is the EU, due to its own strategic choices, voluntary choices, that is risking igniting tensions in Ireland. And it is the EU that is imposing this hard border on its member the Republic of Ireland, against the wishes of the irish government.

 

[innonimatu]

The only founding country struggling is Italy. And if you dive deep in the GDP development of Italy, you will see that its growth was fine until the GFC.

Just wait until france's government has to do some hard choices...
As for Italy, it was doing fine until the Euro. It accumulated unmanageable debt before the GFC, the doom was already locked in due to the Euro membership: they could not deal with that debt through means other that wage deflation or default. The EU prohibits defaults (it's bell all about bailing out the "systemically important", meaning politically influent) and pushes countries to do debt deflation. Which in turn deepens economic crisis, causes more suffering (and deaths!) among the population that a devaluation of the currency would, and does not actually reduce debt fast enough to get countries out of a permanent "brink of crisis" situation.

Because of economy of scale effects of land size and population, small countries are in much harder need to trade frictionless.

And does that actually require a political union? Because that is what the EU has become. What was wrong with the OECD alternative? What is wrong with having low-friction trade and still keep national specificities? It happened for a few decades after WW2 in Europe. Which happens to have been Europe's most prosperous decades. If "economic growth" is the overriding priority, even at that the EU's aspect of political union has failed so far: that growth has plunged as the EU replaced the EEC and centralized more powers. On the terms of its own propaganda, the EU is a failure. The promises of increased economic growth that were made to justify ramming through and new treaty have been shown to be false.

The third focus was the economy. The US had proven that a thriving economy is much more important than military parades. That economical growth very much helped by the biggest single market in the world at short distances with all the motorways. We had to catch up on the continent and fast. And we did.

Small countries did and do benefit more from the EU than big countries because the big countries can handle more kinds of trade WITHIN their national borders.

The US has proven that a large market allows for efficiencies of scale if you are producing standard, not very complex products. This applied to the second industrial revolution products. It does not seem to apply now. We have moved beyond that simplicity.
Corporations seek to "diversify" products, one corporation often controls dozens of brands and thousands of different models. They might as well be made separately. Indeed it would be better competition-wise.

The american giants, that had grown allegedly due to the strength of the large US market, fell before the onslaught of companies from smaller countries. Before the EU or any big transnational trade treaties existed. US Steel was trounced by small european producers with more modern technology. General motors took a trashing from smaller and poorer Japan's Toyota, and from European brand, even Fiat and Volvo made inroads into the US market in the 70s and 80s! This all happened before the EU existed, when the EEC was only beginning. The "big european market" was not necessary for this at all. It's a lie. At the same time the big american market, that sould have given competitive advantages to america companies, was being invaded by the companies from the "midget nations"! The big market argument is simply not true, history proves it is not true except under very specific conditions (high protectionism and/or standard products with little variations and consumers happy with that).

 

[uppi]

Only if the EU/Ireland do not implement a hard border and then the UK does one, will the EU be able to blame the UK for igniting tensions. Accusing the UK of causing a "hard border" in Ireland when when what the UK was demanding in the negotiations was free trade for goods and movement for citizens is pure hypocrisy.

That's quite a reversal of what actually happened, even for you. It was the UK government that wanted to limit freedom of movement - it explicitly stated so.

It was the EU that rejected that in the negotiations, and put many other demand on the table in order to allow this free transit. From the start, all along, it was the EU threatening a hard border in case it didn't get a deal to its liking.

To avoid a hard border, there needs to be a customs union. It is as simple as that. Who is very reluctant to enter a customs union, right now again?

 

[innonimatu]

That's quite a reversal of what actually happened, even for you. It was the UK government that wanted to limit freedom of movement - it explicitly stated so.

Where can I find their proposal at the tipe to do so on the irish border, regarding irish and UK citizens? Find it and quote or link to it, please. Until you do I'll keep my claim.

To avoid a hard border, there needs to be a customs union. It is as simple as that. Who is very reluctant to enter a customs union, right now again?

The EU is. They demand that the US should apply EU regulations and laws within the UK. That is not a necessary requirement to have a customs union. It is the EU's choice to make the customs union depend on that extra demand.

Please take note of one thing: the EU's negotiating position on this issue is totally one-sided: the UK is forced to accept that laws and regulations to be made by the EU will automatically apply within the UK, but the UE absolutely refuses that laws and regulations to be made by the UK will apply within the EU.
This is negotiating in bad faith, crystal clear to me from day one. They are making unreasonable demands and then blaming the UK for the consequences of those being (naturally) refused. If the EU had any good will to solve the irish border issue they would have proposed some more equitable deal. The truth is, they don't care about Ireland. They do care about gaining commercial advantages and that overrides any concert over increasing troubles in Ireland. Ireland is mere roadkill in this. And that is something I warned the irish here a long time ago.

 

[Silurian]

Only if the EU/Ireland do not implement a hard border and then the UK does one, will the EU be able to blame the UK for igniting tensions. Accusing the UK of causing a "hard border" in Ireland when when what the UK was demanding in the negotiations was free trade for goods and movement for citizens is pure hypocrisy. It was the EU that rejected that in the negotiations, and put many other demand on the table in order to allow this free transit. From the start, all along, it was the EU threatening a hard border in case it didn't get a deal to its liking.

Where can I find their proposal at the tipe to do so on the irish border, regarding irish and UK citizens? Find it and quote or link to it, please. Until you do I'll keep my claim.

From Mrs May

“But let me be clear, we are not leaving the European Union only to give up control of immigration again...

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-course-with-backbenchers-seeking-soft-brexit

May is against free movement of people

 

[innonimatu]

Controlling immigration does not equal a hard border. Numerous countries do away with visas and allow movement of people across borders without checks, where those borders are isolated. They are by default treated as visitors/tourists and will only face difficulties if trey try to work in the other country.

Ireland and the UK did away with controls at the border in 1971, through the Common Travel Area. This predates both state's entry in the EU, in 1973. From the UK government's position paper on the EU negotiations in early 2017 (published only some months later):

Section 2: Maintaining the Common Travel Area and associated rights
The Common Travel Area and associated rights
18.
The Common Travel Area (CTA) is a special border-free zone comprising the UK, Ireland,
the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The CTA arose to facilitate the principle of free
movement for British and Irish citizens between the UK, Ireland and the Islands, and the
reciprocal enjoyment of rights and entitlements to public services of citizens when in the
other’s state. The CTA’s internal borders are subject to some immigration restrictions
but not, or only to a minimal extent, border controls. The CTA arrangement established
cooperation between the immigration authorities of its members to provide a pragmatic
response to the movement of people within it, including other nationalities who remain
subject to immigration control.
19.
The CTA was formed before either the UK or Ireland were members of the EU and means
that reciprocal rights for Irish and UK citizens operate separately and alongside those
rights afforded to EU nationals. It is a partly administrative arrangement and has been in
place for most of the period since the Irish Free State was established in 1922. The CTA
is reflected in each state’s application of national immigration policy. In its current form
the CTA was put on a statutory footing in the UK by the Immigration Act 1971. Under
Ireland’s immigration law, British citizens are outside the definition of ‘non-national’ and
are therefore exempt from immigration law.
20.
Although it precedes the Belfast (‘Good Friday’) Agreement, the principle of free
movement between the UK and Ireland carries symbolic significance in implementing the
Agreement’s commitment to the continued respect of the civil, political, social and cultural
rights of the communities in Northern Ireland. It is a tangible example of East-West
cooperation between the UK and Ireland, which is explained in more detail in Section 4,
including its significance in the context of the Agreement
[...]
27.
For its part, the UK wants to continue to protect the CTA and associated reciprocal bilateral
arrangements. This means protecting the ability to move freely within the UK and between
the UK and Ireland with no practical change from now, recognising the special importance
of this to people in their daily lives, and the underpinning it provides for the Northern Ireland
political process. As the Irish Government has stated: “the CTA ... has a vital role for the
peace process in facilitating mobility of people across the island”. The UK recognises, and
is committed to protecting on a reciprocal basis, the ability for British and Irish nationals to
work without hindrance across the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
[...]
33.
Wider questions about the UK’s future operation of its whole border and immigration
controls for EEA nationals (other than Irish nationals) can only be addressed as part
of the future relationship between the UK and the EU, and further highlights the need
to move to this next phase of negotiations as quickly as possible. When considering
the nature of the CTA as a border-free zone, it is important to note that immigration
controls are not, and never have been, solely about the ability to prevent and control entry
at the UK’s physical border. Along with many other Member States, controlling access
to the labour market and social security have long formed an integral part of the UK’s
immigration system. The nature of this range of control mechanisms means that the UK is
confident that it will be able to: maintain existing movement to the UK from within the CTA
without requiring border controls, as now; respect Ireland’s ongoing EU free movement
obligations; and put in place a new UK immigration system and controls for EEA citizens.

The UK and Ireland already have a deal in place that solves the issue of travel across the border for its citizens. The only reason this deal may cease is if the EU imposes that it be terminated.

What May said before the referendum was conditioned by the fact that she was campaigning against brexit had wanted to strike fear about the consequences of leaving. She was a remained. After brexit was voted for, the UK's position in the negotiations was falling back on the CTA in case of no deal.

You may not like May, and I agree with the sentiment. But I must also acknowledge the fact that in the irish border issues, the UK's government has presented reasonable proposals that would solve most of the problems, had the EU been willing to deal in good faith. They haven't.

I have been paying attention to this issue. The EU and the way it works is my pet political concern. I'm not saying that it negotiated in bad faith just because I dislike Brussel's bureaucrats. I'm saying it because I noticed how in the negotiations (not what gets published in the mass media) the EU's position has constantly been one of extorting from the UK a complete capitulation. This is the usual way the EU bureaucracy deals, maximizing tactical advantages, making exorbitant demands sure that they are big and important and will get their way.... but they forget strategic weaknesses that will be exposed in the event of a no deal. The other party has the rules stacked against them, but that other party can always refuse to play.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Controlling immigration does not equal a hard border. Numerous countries do away with visas and allow movement of people across borders without checks, where those borders are isolated. They are by default treated as visitors/tourists and will only face difficulties if trey try to work in the other country.

Sure, anything is possible in this world... as long as your partners agree to sign the deal. What you are asking here is that Poland lets down Polish nationals living in the UK bringing good money to their home country, and this with basically nothing in return. Why would Poland agree on that?

Ireland and the UK did away with controls at the border in 1971, through the Common Travel Area. This predates both state's entry in the EU, in 1973. From the UK government's position paper on the EU negotiations in early 2017 (published only some months later)

Sure, but since then, Ireland has built its economy in attracting US companies interested to get the cheapest access to the EU single market. Thanks to the EU, Ireland grew from one of the poorest European countries to one of the richest. Why would Ireland renounce on that? Just to be able to import things from the UK whereas it could import them from continental Europe without renouncing to its preferential position?

I have been paying attention to this issue. The EU and the way it works is my pet political concern.

If the EU is your pet political concern, you should pay more attention to the reason why it exists in the first place. The EU is nothing else than 27 sovereign countries which signed mutual agreements because they were beneficial to them. In ignoring this, your struggle against it won't be very effective.

I'm not saying that it negotiated in bad faith just because I dislike Brussel's bureaucrats. I'm saying it because I noticed how in the negotiations (not what gets published in the mass media) the EU's position has constantly been one of extorting from the UK a complete capitulation.

A deal to be signed should be beneficial to both parties. I still fail to understand how it would be beneficial for the 27 sovereign nations which are members of the EU, including Finland, to grant a preferential status to the UK that they wouldn't even have for themselves. Why would Finland, among others, harm itself in such a way?

 

[Kyriakos]

I must be like that king who could not see that Cordelia actually loved him. Only in this variation of the play Cordelia first stole all his money and then sold him to slavery.
Poor ceurdelia, so missunderstood; if only people saw with their heart