Brexit Thread V - The Final Countdown?!?

[Arakhor]

Parliament does agree

No they don't and they'll no doubt prove that tomorrow.

 

[uppi]

Naturally, despite spending two years saying that no deal is better than a bad deal, the PM will be voting against a no-deal Brexit.

It is her deal after all. After she has agreed it with the EU and brought it before Parliament, she can hardly say it is a bad deal, can she? And I actually agree with her: at this point the deal would be the best way forward for all sides. It is not the best deal that was possible, but there is no time machine to go back and improve it or find an alternative solution.

Well I'm specifically worried about the effects within the politics of each country. As much as Brussels is blamed for this, that, and blah blah blah it's still the national governments holding all the cards. I read most of this Reclaiming the State book, it's by leftist Euroskeptics, and one of the (imo) most perceptive points they've made is that the EU represents a form of problem-avoidance for national politicians. It gives them cover for pushing policies that are unpopular and might be politically impossible, except that these politicians can point to the EU and say "we must do this: there is no alternative."

Yes, this has been my opinion since several years. I think it is improving, because some people have learned to pay more attention to what the EU is doing - and how national politicians control that - but this is still far to easy. Unfortunately, I don't know how to fix this, except for giving it time - time we might not have. However, I don't think that going back to nationalism warring each other every few decades is the answer either.

 

[Takhisis]

(4)No deal will turn out just fine over the medium to long term.

Please provide valid information sources and logically sound reasoning backing at least one of the three claims you've just made. I've even numbered them for your convenience.

Also this one I've just added, please.

 

[Arakhor]

It is her deal after all. After she has agreed it with the EU and brought it before Parliament, she can hardly say it is a bad deal, can she? And I actually agree with her: at this point the deal would be the best way forward for all sides. It is not the best deal that was possible, but there is no time machine to go back and improve it or find an alternative solution.

If someone spends two years actively working towards a terrible deal and ruthlessly attempting to suppress all opposition towards it, it rings just a little bit hollow when she then tries to pretend that it's the other MPs who are "playing politics" in rejecting it.

 

[Takhisis]

If someone spends two years actively working towards a terrible deal and ruthlessly attempting to suppress all opposition towards it, it rings just a little bit hollow when she then tries to pretend that it's only the other MPs who are "playing politics" in rejecting it.

FTFY.

 

[Hrothbern]

I want to emphasize that I do not believe leaving the EU is without costs, or that it is easy to do it in a way that minimizes those costs.

yes
The UK is of such a size and level... compare it for example with Japan, being about twice the size as the UK... that a lot is possible in a consistent coherent government policy for a long term. Something that is more available in Japan.

Problem is that what functioned in the past does not always apply in the future.
China cheap exports changed the world. What Japan did, what Korea did, is now done in a much bigger style by China and the other Asian tigers will catch up behind China for the stuff needing cheapest labor and not the most modern equipment.

It's not so much trading wars, but trading alliances with walls around alliances that emerge now.

I see the WTO tariffs go up everywhere in the future and developed countries grouping together (except the US being big enough)... grouping together with highering trade walls around them and lowering trade walls between them. Trade walls from tariffs and barriers from standards.
Underdeveloped countries that do not impose a threat (with cheap labor combined with modern physical assets and/or knowledge) for domestic economies of the developed countries getting (at least from the EU) special lower tariffs (this is a standard possible exception within the WTO rules).

EDIT
I see the same happening to some degree with global capital.
The EU has since 2009 an active policy to keep capital more within the EU cq Europe and is developing standards to hinder for example big Chinese investments and contracts that pose a risk for the domestic economies.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I suspect that the HoC may well vote tomorrow against the principle of the UK Leaving without a deal.

Frankly most of us in the UK would prefer a deal, but the EU Commiision simply isn't prepared to agree anything.

But a majority against the principle of no deal is not a majority for requesting an extension nor for issuing a revocation re A50.

So the UK will likely leave the EU without a deal.

 

[Yeekim]

No deal will turn out just fine over the medium to long term.

Please provide valid information sources and logically sound reasoning backing at least one of the three claims you've just made.

Well, in the long term we're all dead, so I believe Oerdin is right there at least.

 

[Takhisis]

Reading back through stuff, the Bank of England forecasts that there's a 1.in.4 chance of the UK being in an outright recession in a year.

 

[Takhisis]

Well, in the long term we're all dead, so I believe Oerdin is right there at least.

ei vit - I mean I politely disagree with such a notion. See above (xpost).

 

[Cheetah]

The effective remedy would be for the EU's current treaties to be reworked and replaced with treaties that prioritize social rights above the rights of capital in all cases.

I have no objections to this, but people keep voting centre-right and rightwingers into power in the member states and the EU parliament, so that's not easily doable...

A larger EU-PR office would be justly called a ministry of propaganda, since PR is, perhaps ironically, just a propaganda term for propaganda

Haha true. But I fear most don't understand the nuances of those terms as well as you do.

I want to emphasize that I do not believe leaving the EU is without costs, or that it is easy to do it in a way that minimizes those costs.

Which is fair enough. But if the actual cost-reward difference is much more towards your expectations than mine, then I must reassess my position on the EU.

 

[Arakhor]

Frankly most of us in the UK would prefer a deal, but the EU Commiision simply isn't prepared to agree anything.

This may have slipped your notice, but that MPs were voting on a deal indicates that you're just straight-up wrong.

But a majority against the principle of no deal is not a majority for requesting an extension nor for issuing a revocation re A50.

Not yet, no. That's waiting until Thursday.

 

[Akka]

Frankly most of us in the UK would prefer a deal, but the EU Commiision simply isn't prepared to agree anything.

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.

Downright frightening.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The effective remedy would be for the EU's current treaties to be reworked and replaced with treaties that prioritize social rights above the rights of capital in all cases. A larger EU-PR office would be justly called a ministry of propaganda, since PR is, perhaps ironically, just a propaganda term for propaganda

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.

 

[Yeekim]

This may have slipped your notice, but that MPs were voting on a deal indicates that you're just straight-up wrong.

The easiest deal in human history remains elusive.

 

[innonimatu]

A vote of no confidence only only requires 50% + 1 votes to pass. The government has a majority of 3 with the DUP. As you noted the Tory MPs will not vote for an election at a time of Corbyn's choosing.

The 2/3 majority is for a government motion to call an election.

So, how long before either Parliament orders her to revoke Article 50 or the whole stinking edifice that is this joke of a government collapses in a foetid mass around her ankles?

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. As I mentioned, they already voted against doing that. And then burned through the time that would be necessary to do it.

I guess our feet-dragging legislature will need to vote down no deal explicitly before they will be honest enough to admit that it has to be revokation of article 50. They want to maintain the fiction (which nobody will believe and nor should they) they they gave it a reasonable shot. Everybody knows that Brexit was overwhelmingly unpopular in the HoC.

I feel like revoking Article 50 is the likeliest outcome

I'm sure that revocation of article 50 through parliament is not on the cards. If there was any will and ability to revocate brexit, it would have been through calling a new referendum. That gave it the democratic cover the anti-brexit MPs needed. When there was still time to do it, they refused to do it. They were too afraid. They won't overcome that fear now.

It will be exit and that will be it. A delay may happen but will have to be the EU asking for it. And I don't see that happening unless Germany's government kicks a lot of butts in Brussels. Time is against such a move being possible.

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. But I'm saying it still, despite the lack of adequate preparations having been done. May's incompetence in my opinion is only not having prepared better for it.

 

[uppi]

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.

 

[Yeekim]

It will be exit and that will be it.

For once I hope you're right.

 

[innonimatu]

I have no objections to this, but people keep voting centre-right and rightwingers into power in the member states and the EU parliament, so that's not easily doable...

People in many countries are voting center-right and right recently because the old left became center-right, it ceased being an alternative.

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.

So what have the romans done for the UK, really? That the people of the UK can't do for themselves? If you look for salvation from abroad you are just not doing your politics right!

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.

At some point those MP must realize that they can't pretend they're without responsibility for the outcome, the thing becomes too much of a farce. Frankly I thought that by now we'd be past that time already. But it looks like it will be played right to the end. I also thing it'll be just another meaningless vote, that will be May's answer and justification to do nothing. The one open possibility for things changing would be the EU offering to drop the "backstop" at the last instant.

For once I hope you're right.

Do keep in mind that I see brexit as the less damaging path to start dismantling the EU. I'm guessing at a series of (imho) very likely outcomes in the next couple of years if the UK-EU relation becomes a politically hostile one.

 

[Arakhor]

As I mentioned, they already voted against doing that. And then burned through the time that would be necessary to do it.

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.