You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
July 22, 2018, 11:53:27 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Brexit  (Read 1152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Orval Wintermute

Re: Brexit
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2018, 07:39:55 AM »


As for the next person that says "no deal is better than a bad deal".... Well, I'm not entirely sure what I want to do to them but I'm 140% sure it's illegal.
No deal means a hard Irish border, there would be no alternative. Under WTO rules for the EU to remain a legal trading bloc it has to put custom checks in place on it's external borders. And Lord only knows what that means for the Good Friday agreement.
Airbus would have to stop all UK operations or anything that used UK suppliers as it wouldn't be legal to fly those planes.
UK ground crews wouldn't be allowed to service EU or Canadian commercial aircraft as mutual recognition of the legally required qualifications goes out of the window.
Export of food and medical supplies from the UK to the EU either slows to a trickle or stops completely because mutual recognition of safety checks stops, imports of some medical supplies will stop because of the because some things can't be exported just using WTO rules, there have to be certified safety checks in place.
The supply of nuclear medicines will come to a virtual stand still, a cheap and reliable supply of isotopes used for diagnosis from France, Switzerland etc. will no longer be available and the UK will have to rely on Canadian production which is more expensive and in the pasted has been unreliable at best. 99mTc has a half life of slightly over 6 hours, having a production source that's 4 hours away compared to having one that's 16 hours makes a huge difference to effective and reliable treatment.

And those are just some of the most obvious problems.

But "the will of the people", "Brexit means breakfast", "£350M a week for the NHS" all means "no deal is better than a bad deal"  ::)

Online Eye of HorusTopic starter

Re: Brexit
« Reply #26 on: July 03, 2018, 08:43:31 AM »
But "the will of the people", "Brexit means breakfast", "£350M a week for the NHS" all means "no deal is better than a bad deal"  ::)

I’m inclined to think that Polymorph is right about a lot of Leave voters caring the most about sovereignty (that or immigration - and those people aren’t so interested in macroeconomics either). For a lot of them, “potentially poorer” is a fair trade for “potentially freer”.

So economic arguments bounce off, or get rubbished as fake news propaganda, while the “will of the people” is “out of the EU” with not so much interest in the specifics. Even the specifics are things that were never EU-controlled to begin with (which won’t give us more sovereignty) or hands our rights and lawmaking powers over to a group of MPs that doesn’t even comprise all of Parliament (which surely makes us LESS free).

Anyway, today in Brexit news: Another (alleged) plan has been put forward to the UK cabinet, with a meeting to decide on Friday. Mentions “a single market trade deal” that will go by some other name for branding purposes, though I’ve no idea how that will work because the EU has not budged from the start that single market = free movement.

Offline Orval Wintermute

Re: Brexit
« Reply #27 on: July 04, 2018, 06:03:10 PM »
I think for a large portion of Leavers it's not sovereignty as much as identity.
There are a whole host of reasons (real, imagined and somewhere in between) that made a large section of Leavers feel as if they don't belong in there own in their towns.
Manufacturing is gone, wages are down, automation, immigration, jobs for life have gone, underfunded infrastructure etc.
I saw one of Tommy Robinson's video's (I think it was for Channel 4, so legit journalism not his normal rantings) and he was talking about how 20 years ago everyone had a job ,the high street was busy and there were no mosques. Now there are lots of people out of work or at least in really low paying jobs, the high street is dead and the shops that do remain are mostly run by immigrants and there are 12 mosques. It's so much that Robinson is a racist (which he is) it's more he lacks a sense of self or at least his imagined self doesn't fit the real world, so he blames all the problems on immigrants.
So the UK leaves EU, Britain becomes Great again just like it was when 1/5th of the globe was pink and the Tommy Robinson's of this world are returned to their rightful place in the universal order. However the world has moved on since then, gunboat diplomacy doesn't work anymore and nobody is going to give the UK preferential treatment just because it's Great Britain that's telling them too. But question any of that and you're a traitor.


As for the new plan, the rumors swirling round are that it's like the Swiss model. The problem with that is the EU hates the Swiss model, it's been slowly built up over 20+ years has never been completely ratified and both sides disagree about what some of the agreements actually mean. So even if the cabinet agrees, odds are the plan is DOA in Brussels.

Online Eye of HorusTopic starter

Re: Brexit
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2018, 04:44:44 AM »
No word yet from the EU negotiating team in response to the plan, although they’re probably waiting for it to be presented at the actual talks.

However, the Brexit secretary David Davis has just resigned his post - along with his next-in-line replacement...and their next-in-line replacement!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/08/david-davis-resigns-as-brexit-secretary-reports-say


Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer | Dasha's skirted secretary
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Brexit
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2018, 03:52:23 PM »
I think for a large portion of Leavers it's not sovereignty as much as identity.
There are a whole host of reasons (real, imagined and somewhere in between) that made a large section of Leavers feel as if they don't belong in there own in their towns.
Manufacturing is gone, wages are down, automation, immigration, jobs for life have gone, underfunded infrastructure etc.
I saw one of Tommy Robinson's video's (I think it was for Channel 4, so legit journalism not his normal rantings) and he was talking about how 20 years ago everyone had a job ,the high street was busy and there were no mosques. Now there are lots of people out of work or at least in really low paying jobs, the high street is dead and the shops that do remain are mostly run by immigrants and there are 12 mosques. It's so much that Robinson is a racist (which he is) it's more he lacks a sense of self or at least his imagined self doesn't fit the real world, so he blames all the problems on immigrants.

So the UK leaves EU, Britain becomes Great again just like it was when 1/5th of the globe was pink and the Tommy Robinson's of this world are returned to their rightful place in the universal order. However the world has moved on since then, gunboat diplomacy doesn't work anymore and nobody is going to give the UK preferential treatment just because it's Great Britain that's telling them too. But question any of that and you're a traitor.


As for the new plan, the rumors swirling round are that it's like the Swiss model. The problem with that is the EU hates the Swiss model, it's been slowly built up over 20+ years has never been completely ratified and both sides disagree about what some of the agreements actually mean. So even if the cabinet agrees, odds are the plan is DOA in Brussels.


Lots of good points here. Many of those who voted Leave feel that they have been left behind, or even cheated, by the triumphal chariot of financial progress and globalization in the last forty years, by Thatcher, Blair and Cameron and their policies, by the corporate elites and by dumped wages and slimmed-down offices. They're not interested in going to Thailand or Africa for a summer vacation and many of them don't have the ready cash for it, they're not thrilled with being able to buy cheap electronics gadgets from China or the US, or keeping up a personal online presence, or acquiring a house in Spain (much easier and smoother due to the EU). Instead they want safety and security at home, reliable schools for their kids or grandchildren, more cops, and for Britain to remain definitely British (or English). And those issues just aren't what most politicians tend to talk about anymore.

I think it's also clear that these people are being exploited by the very figures who pose as Hard Brexit spokesmen. People like Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees-Mogg want a return to the old, socially stratified and class-ridden England, to a country where people knew their place and many of them had few or no dreams beyond survival. They think Britain has become bloated and puffed up with silliness and stupidity since the days of WW2 - if everything that began with the Attlee cabinet in 1945 was stripped away they hope Britain would become richer, more inventive, tougher and cooler - even without an empire anymore. These guys don't care for ordinary people, not at all, they want the UK to become like a mix between the country of a hundred years ago and the ideas of Ayn Rand and Ann Coulter.

In his resignation letter, Boris wrote that the dream pof a hard and proud Brexit was dying, smothered by too much negotiations and too little cowboy talk and UK exceptionalism (not his precise words, but that's what he meant). I hope he's right about that, and that politicians will be able to draw the right conclusions.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer | Dasha's skirted secretary
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Brexit
« Reply #30 on: July 09, 2018, 04:07:33 PM »
Edit: a winter vacation in Thailand or Africa, of course. No one in their right mind in Europe would go for a beach vacation in Thailand in July or August, at the height of the monsoon. :D

Offline Mechelle

Re: Brexit
« Reply #31 on: July 09, 2018, 05:02:48 PM »
My debut on this thread, but what a 24 hours this has been in British politics.

About 24 hours ago, it was announced that a woman  had died, quite probably as a result of inadvertent poisoning by Russian agents, but she has been nearly forgotten as the Conservative brexiters storm on in pursuit of their own ambitions, irrespective of the damage to the country (not that many of the Labour party have been too impressive either).
An hour later, David Davies resigns - he does have some sort of honourable motive, I suppose, as he felt he could not support Theresa May's proposed "soft brexit" deal, although he took plenty of time to think about it.

Then, several hours later still, Boris Johnson resigns too, with no thought of the crisis with Russia. His only motives are ever what is best for Boris Johnson. See how he toasted Theresa May for the success of her deal, then talked about Britain becoming a colony of the EU as a result of the same deal. I am incandescent about what a disgrace he is! Actually, I think it would be a good time for him to go on holiday to Thailand about now, and then he can fight with Trump about who played the bigger part in their fantasies about rescuing that football team.

Who knows what the outcome of this will be - I certainly don't - but it is possible that we could have a national unity government with the sensible people on each side coming together and excluding the chancers and extremists. I doubt it will happen in reality, but it most be the most likely time since the war.


Online Eye of HorusTopic starter

Re: Brexit
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2018, 06:03:47 AM »
Then, several hours later still, Boris Johnson resigns too, with no thought of the crisis with Russia. His only motives are ever what is best for Boris Johnson. See how he toasted Theresa May for the success of her deal, then talked about Britain becoming a colony of the EU as a result of the same deal. I am incandescent about what a disgrace he is!

No argument there. Based on the way he acts, I would hazard that Johnson is the same kind of malignant narcissist as Donald Trump, albeit more intelligent (despite his fondness for the “harmless idiot” strategy, which to be fair is often effective - provided you’re already in a position of wealth and power to begin with, of course).

Who knows what the outcome of this will be - I certainly don't - but it is possible that we could have a national unity government with the sensible people on each side coming together and excluding the chancers and extremists. I doubt it will happen in reality, but it most be the most likely time since the war.

I don’t see that happening realistically, though the political betting sites are going haywire (currently, the favourites are another election in 2019, with no overall majority but Labour having most seats, and Jeremy Corbyn as next prime minister, although the runners up in all of the above options are very, very close). And as much as I think the new, revamped Labour would be far better for the country than the current Conservatives, I feel like Labour would also descend into some deep divisions over Brexit should they be elected before its completion.

Corbyn might just be enough of a democrat to back a people’s vote even if it led to a revocation of Article 50, but I doubt he’d be able to unite all of Labour (plus enough SNP guys and Conservative rebels) to get it through Parliament.

Online Polymorph

Re: Brexit
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2018, 06:11:22 PM »
I feel like Labour would also descend into some deep divisions over Brexit should they be elected before its completion.



Well that's something we can at least agree on. Labour is already deeply divided on the issue. To take the vote on customs union membership as an example, 3 Tory MP's rebelled against the Conservative whip to vote against the government. 74 Labour MP's defied the Labour whip ordering them to abstain to vote against and 15 defied the whip to vote in favour.

I never did understand why there were Remain websites urging Remainers to vote Labour at the last general election, did they not bother to read the party's manifesto? Labour supporters would no doubt disagree, but their official position of no second referendum, leaving the customs union and free movement and then renegotiating a new deal was really not much different to the Torys. Before the election I'd assumed the Liberals would do quite well as they were the main party against leaving and backing a second referendum and instead their vote fell from 8% to 7.5% and the majority of the small handful of seats they gained were from the equally pro europe SNP. If the 48% had all put aside party differences to vote for the Liberals we would not be having this discussion at all as they would have won by a landslide and overturned the result.

Offline Missy

Re: Brexit
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2018, 06:41:20 PM »
Partisanship is antithetical to a healthy and functional democracy

Online Eye of HorusTopic starter

Re: Brexit
« Reply #35 on: July 13, 2018, 02:53:37 AM »
It is certainly a problem in the U.K. that some constituencies would vote for a donkey as long as it was wearing the right colour rosette. It’s why parties can parachute their higher-ups into “safe seats”, and is also one of the reasons behind the high level of voter apathy in this country. That said, the large number of new voters mobilised for the referendum and the 2017 election, together with recent grassroots campaigns like Unseat, have begun to shake things up slightly.

I never did understand why there were Remain websites urging Remainers to vote Labour at the last general election, did they not bother to read the party's manifesto?

Labour was united behind its “six tests” for a Brexit deal. Since it was vanishingly unlikely that the Tories would achieve them, it would point towards Parliament voting “reject and renegotiate” if implemented as per the manifesto - theoretically resulting in either a damage-limiting soft Brexit, or potentially even an eventual revocation of Article 50 if the EU refused an extension (since Labour is also united behind avoiding a No Deal outcome).

The Tories on the other hand had a significant faction pushing for hard Brexit / No Deal, which remainers want to avoid, and the websites probably wanted to avoid splitting the progressive vote by throwing their support behind the Liberal Democrats, who would never have gained enough seats to counter the Tory / UKIP merge.

To be fair, Labour’s position is far from watertight. In opposition, they have the luxury of being able to pick apart Tory plans (or lack thereof) while avoiding major scrutiny themselves. They are able to call for things that, while objectively sensible (“exact same benefits as EU membership”) won’t fly assuming Brexit is actually to be implemented. Their general ambiguity allowed both Remainers and Brexiteers to believe they were on their side for a while, though the time for this is running out. Some polls (though not all) suggest that picking up Remainer votes in some swing constituencies will benefit them more than picking up Brexiteer votes in others, so they will have a dilemma on their hands if another election comes before Brexit Day.

Before the election I'd assumed the Liberals would do quite well as they were the main party against leaving and backing a second referendum and instead their vote fell from 8% to 7.5% and the majority of the small handful of seats they gained were from the equally pro europe SNP. If the 48% had all put aside party differences to vote for the Liberals we would not be having this discussion at all as they would have won by a landslide and overturned the result.

The Liberals were never realistically going to make big gains. As well as their lack of concentrated support (an unfair disadvantage in our First Past The Post voting system), they are still mistrusted by a lot of people for their actions in the last coalition government. There may also have been a perception that, because they had no chance, they were just promising any old bullshit they liked.

The Lib Dem manifesto appealed to Remainers who were willing to refight the referendum. The Tory manifesto appealed to Brexiteers, but mis-stepped with a lot of other hubristic hard right nonsense that alienated some of its traditional base. The Labour manifesto appealed to the social issues that had made people vote Brexit in the first place, which at least some Remainers could also get behind, and mobilised some non-voters as well as people who were willing to vote tactically to get anything better than the hard Brexit promised by the Tories. Between those two, the Lib Dems had little room to manoeuvre.

Online Polymorph

Re: Brexit
« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2018, 02:54:35 PM »
The Liberals were never realistically going to make big gains. As well as their lack of concentrated support (an unfair disadvantage in our First Past The Post voting system), they are still mistrusted by a lot of people for their actions in the last coalition government. There may also have been a perception that, because they had no chance, they were just promising any old bullshit they liked.



Well we had the chance to change that too in another referendum. The results in that one were not even close. Proportional representation was overwhelmingly rejected. The Liberals would of course benefit from such a system, but then again if they had calculated the 2015 general election results by PR we would most likely have had a Tory/UKIP coalition with 49.6% of the vote. In the latest election only the main three parties would have passed the most usual threshold to have seats (usually 4%-5%). Unless of course you included some kind of regional weighting mechanism even the SNP with 3% of the national vote would be excluded under most countries rules who already have PR.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer | Dasha's skirted secretary
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Brexit
« Reply #37 on: July 15, 2018, 06:45:46 AM »
Theresa May reveals that Trump advised her she should have sued the EU (and thereby treated them as an enemy of the nation) rather than accept any serious negotiations with them. Where, in what court should she have sued them? Silence.

 This is Nigel Farage-style politics, this is just the kind of bullheaded action Trump loves.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/15/theresa-may-donald-trump-told-me-to-sue-the-eu

Online Polymorph

Re: Brexit
« Reply #38 on: July 15, 2018, 11:35:31 AM »
Theresa May reveals that Trump advised her she should have sued the EU (and thereby treated them as an enemy of the nation) rather than accept any serious negotiations with them. Where, in what court should she have sued them? Silence.

 


Actually you are asking the wrong question. The UK, and any other member state for that matter can sue the EU in the ECJ. There is also the ICJ Which is part of the UN and is the arbiter of the Vienna convention which sets down international law concerning signatories of treaties which is essentially what membership of the EU is. The UK has taken the EU to court in the ECJ before and in fact won the ruling in its favour all without making the EU an enemy of the nation.

The more relevant question would be, on what grounds? Unless there is something I've missed I cannot think of anything that would constitute a breach of the treaty.

Online Eye of HorusTopic starter

Re: Brexit
« Reply #39 on: July 15, 2018, 02:12:18 PM »
Either way, it's tempting to peg it as just another example of Trump's fundamental lack of understanding about how the processes of government work.

Louise, reading your link, I see that May "also said she believed she could trust Trump at his word". I hope that's just diplomatic solidarity and not what she really thinks, because otherwise she's an even blinder fool than I already took her for.

Well we had the chance to change that too in another referendum. The results in that one were not even close. Proportional representation was overwhelmingly rejected. The Liberals would of course benefit from such a system, but then again if they had calculated the 2015 general election results by PR we would most likely have had a Tory/UKIP coalition with 49.6% of the vote.

Sort of. The reform that was voted on was the Alternative Vote system where candidates are ranked, and its failure was more or less a foregone conclusion based on apathy from the reformers about promoting and explaining the campaign (e.g. Nick Clegg's "miserable little compromise" comment), which led to apathy from voters (the turnout was a pathetic 42%). AV wouldn't have affected the outcome of the 2015 election significantly, based on an analysis by BT.

You are right that full PR (or even a Single Transferrable Vote system, which avoids some of the list-based "safe seating" of PR) would have significantly boosted UKIP. Now, I will freely admit that I despise UKIP and almost everything they stand for, and that I consider them to basically be a trojan horse for the far-right wing of the Conservative party. But, PR promotes coalitions, which at the end of the day are usually more moderate, more compromise-based and only slightly slower at passing laws than a single-party government.

So while I would still vehemently oppose UKIP by writing to MPs, petitioning, trying to convince anyone who'll listen not to vote for them, and calling for their removal if and when they break the parliamentary code of ethics, I would not oppose a voting system that allowed people who support smaller parties to see their votes reflected in Parliament.

In the latest election only the main three parties would have passed the most usual threshold to have seats (usually 4%-5%). Unless of course you included some kind of regional weighting mechanism even the SNP with 3% of the national vote would be excluded under most countries rules who already have PR.

Presumably Scotland, Wales and Ireland would be treated as devolved regions, as they are now. There's no particular reason not to give the same treatment to the various parts of England too, although I could see most MPs scoffing at the idea.

Online Polymorph

Re: Brexit
« Reply #40 on: July 15, 2018, 03:07:42 PM »
PR promotes coalitions, which at the end of the day are usually more moderate, more compromise-based and only slightly slower at passing laws than a single-party government.


Online Polymorph

Re: Brexit
« Reply #41 on: July 15, 2018, 03:18:40 PM »
Ooops!

Sorry, in the past this may have been true, but the opposite seems to be the case in several countries around Europe at the present time where there are coalitions built with hard right or far right groups and the traditional centre right. This tends not to lead to a more moderate coalition but one that swings drastically towards the right.

Offline gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer | Dasha's skirted secretary
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: Brexit
« Reply #42 on: July 15, 2018, 03:27:43 PM »

Actually you are asking the wrong question. The UK, and any other member state for that matter can sue the EU in the ECJ. There is also the ICJ Which is part of the UN and is the arbiter of the Vienna convention which sets down international law concerning signatories of treaties which is essentially what membership of the EU is. The UK has taken the EU to court in the ECJ before and in fact won the ruling in its favour all without making the EU an enemy of the nation.

The more relevant question would be, on what grounds? Unless there is something I've missed I cannot think of anything that would constitute a breach of the treaty.


No, precisely. I guess I was formulating that one a bit loosely, because wanting to convey just how obnoxious Trump was making himself (and also being short for time) but I wished to hint at how dim-witted Trump was if he thought the UK would have any chance at all of winning such a massive lawsuit in some major international court, by just pointing to supposedly conceited or overbold statements by the EU:s negotiators. Even more so if Britain would bring said  lawsuit without even have made any serious attempts at negotiating, beyond drawing up a list of Borisesque Brexit demands, with some cherry-picking tossed in, and saying to the EU: "this is what we want to see, guys!", period.

Trump wants negotiations or deals to be like that, my way or the highway, with contempt mixed in - but then he is against international treaties and multilateral negotiations as such. I plainly think he sees traditional multilateral diplomacy as sort of, the (commie) unions of politics, a realm where he and his henchmen are not able to impose themselves, one by one, as the undisputed Boss. Or even write the book of rules for the negotiations, by themselves.

Online Eye of HorusTopic starter

Re: Brexit
« Reply #43 on: July 15, 2018, 04:51:44 PM »
Sorry, in the past this may have been true, but the opposite seems to be the case in several countries around Europe at the present time where there are coalitions built with hard right or far right groups and the traditional centre right. This tends not to lead to a more moderate coalition but one that swings drastically towards the right.

Hmm you’re right, there have been a few of those (and the EU didn’t help it’s image by stamping down on the hard-left Greek government during the bailout crisis). However I think this is less a sickness of the voting system than a sickness of wider politics in the last decade, which was bound to lead to more nationalist and right-wing sentiments. To wit:

We have had several decades now of neoliberal economics (globalised economies without the vital globalised legislation to regulate them), which have not always been good for wealth inequality and the prospects of the average citizen. The EU is playing catch-up now with its pan-Europe regulations (including a pretty awesome bill against tax-evasion) but the damage had been done.

We have had the banking crash, where every government opted to impose austerity rather than reform, fuelling hardship for citizens and anger at “elites”.

And we have had the refugee crisis, which the EU mishandled by trying to treat its southern states as unpaid border guards, forgetting that many of these states simply haven’t seen much multiculturalism and had time to adjust. Many of the richer northern states also behaved appallingly, refusing to shoulder a fair share of the burden - although this was often due to self-made political constraints, because they had allowed immigration and islamophobia to become the scapegoats of choice for their own economic failings.

I wished to hint at how dim-witted Trump was if he thought the UK would have any chance at all of winning such a massive lawsuit in some major international court, by just pointing to supposedly conceited or overbold statements by the EU:s negotiators. Even more so if Britain would bring said  lawsuit without even have made any serious attempts at negotiating, beyond drawing up a list of Borisesque Brexit demands, with some cherry-picking tossed in, and saying to the EU: "this is what we want to see, guys!", period.

Yes. The press here in the U.K. have painted the EU negotiators as unreasonable at every turn - but beyond the understandable impossibility of crafting a better relationship for a non-member state than for a member state, they really haven’t. The EU is not exactly the epitome of goodwill and liberal democratic values, but they managed to organise a starting point between twenty seven governments, all freely available on the internet, while the U.K. has dithered and squabbled and hidden behind secrecy for months after the EU was ready to sit down and talk.

Now granted, everyone but the U.K. public (courtesy of our tailored government statements and press stories) is fully aware that the U.K. has always been in an atrociously weak negotiating position, but we have done nothing to help ourselves nor to engender goodwill from the EU. Safeguard EU citizens rights on day 1? Nope, try and use them as a bargaining chip before finally, painfully arriving at the same result regardless.

You may be right that the EU will push back on a lot of our latest White Paper as cherry picking (they must be so, so tired of reiterating this point to our U.K. diplomats), even if they are going in with a constructive mindset. But this may be exactly what some Brexiteer MPs want - either because they see amputation from the EU as worth any price (even a No Deal result), or because they genuinely live in a mental bubble where No Deal isn’t that bad, or because like Rees Mogg and Farage they have links to vulture capitalist firms who stand to profit from a fire sale of U.K. assets following a No Deal.

Online Eye of HorusTopic starter

Re: Brexit
« Reply #44 on: July 17, 2018, 03:15:33 AM »
Several of the amendments put forward by hard-Brexit MPs have scraped through parliament, although they could well have been defeated if fewer opposition MPs had been absent:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/brexit-live-chequers-plan-dead-082500301.html

Particularly bizarre, a cabinet minister had to resign in order to support the government’s original position instead of the new one put forward by hard-Brexiteers.

Some claim that the amendments make the White Paper less workable and therefore more likely to be rejected by the EU, although this may be exactly what hard-Brexiteers want (see previous post).

Offline avarus

  • Lord
  • Bacchae
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2017
  • Location: The Netherlands
  • Gender: Male
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: Brexit
« Reply #45 on: July 20, 2018, 05:47:07 AM »
TBH, from our side of the water this is starting to look like it's getting ridiculous. Of course, even though on the EU side we're balancing the interests of 27 member states the mission is simple: "get the most without making it easy on the UK". Now I understand that the UK was suddenly faced with having to organise a departure without ever having envisaged how this Brexit thing would even look like (and if anything else this thread shows that this debate is mostly ongoing) but at this point the political situation in the UK seems unrepairable. At least not in time to get anything arranged. As a result of that we might just get that no-deal hard Brexit. As of that, at the moment we're scrambling to keep things moving in March despite everything.

TBH, the UK was never truly a part of this European project. There is just too big a divide between the culture of the Anglosphere and the various government cultures on the continent. Clearly close enough for the deepest of friendship, but also distant enough to make sharing the proverbial house impossible. I understand that from the luxury of that island it is preferable to keep an arm's length, unfortunately most of us do not have that option. As of this, within the process of the integration and progress of the EU, the UK has always had a foot on the brakes where France, Germany and the Benelux were trying to operate the gas pedal (yes, the EU is an automatic car, probably a BMW because the blinkers are obviously not working). The problem is with the exceptionalism policy of the UK they have always shown bad faith and the tendency to take as much as possible without ever contributing, despite its political clout making it one of the most prominent members. It was always the threat of leaving, coupled with the demand for more exceptions to the EU rules and more special treatment that has left a general bad taste in the mouth of many Europeans.

In addition, although we recognise the importance of the economic ties, the way the internal politicking of the UK has washed over to our side has also caused some raised eyebrows, such as Theresa May threatening war over Gibraltar (what the hell was that about? Besides, bring it on! :P (no seriously don't bring it on. We would most probably win but you know... Both sides have nukes and I like my house in its current non-molten state)), the whole hoopla over the UK customs allowing importers to shirk import duties of goods destined for the rest of the EU, then there's also the constant stream of unreasonable demands (basically the demands are that the UK wants even more than it had before but now they're not paying for any of it for some reason?) after which the EU is painted for some reason as the unreasonable boogeyman by UK politicians for refusing such an unfair cherry-picked treaty (once again posturing for their home audience).

In short, I don't see this working out in any way that will satisfy both the EU and the UK and what I gather from this thread there will also be no deal that will satisfy both Brexit camps in the UK itself. Maybe a no-deal Brexit would thus actually be best. It will instantly reveal the most prominent pain points for both sides which can then immediately be fixed, the less important points coming after. Plus since we're by then actually being faced with the problem itself, rather than the prospect of a problem we might be able to work out compromises that are better for both parties on a case by case basis. Also, I think the breathing room Brexit will create will be good for both sides.

Also, here's another solution, we create a buffer between the two entities that we can all agree on:

Offline Mechelle

Re: Brexit
« Reply #46 on: July 20, 2018, 07:13:03 PM »
Very good post, and I can't really do it justice by replying in the depth it deserves.

However, in brief, a couple of quick points are:

Many of us in Britain are keen on the European project. The referendum result was very narrow, don't forget. It's ironic indeed that some more of the more deprived places which have benefitted from EU funding, and have signs pointing that out, seem to be the most likely to vote to  leave the EU. I really wouldn't expect the Conservative party, who don't win seats in those areas, to prioritise funding there after departure, especially when the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland have to be kept on board.

Having said that, though, while the English Channel forms a natural buffer between Britain and the continent, there is also the land border with the Republic of Ireland to consider. There are no easy answers to this ; it could become a hard border with the risk of reigniting the troubles, or the two sections of Ireland could merge, with Northern Ireland ceding from the United Kingdom, which would be unfortunate for the Conservative and Unionist party who are responsible for this mess. Either way, I doubt many prominent Brexiters would attempt to provide any solution.

Online Oniya

Re: Brexit
« Reply #47 on: July 20, 2018, 07:54:45 PM »
It's ironic indeed that some more of the more deprived places which have benefitted from EU funding, and have signs pointing that out, seem to be the most likely to vote to  leave the EU. I really wouldn't expect the Conservative party, who don't win seats in those areas, to prioritise funding there after departure, especially when the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland have to be kept on board.

This sounds very familiar - I share your frustration.

Online Polymorph

Re: Brexit
« Reply #48 on: Yesterday at 12:27:49 AM »
Theresa May threatening war over Gibraltar (what the hell was that about? Besides, bring it on! :P


Theresa May did not threaten war over Gibraltar, that was the media spinning Lord Howard's reference to the UK's equal commitment to the Falkland Island's as long as the local inhabitants democratically voted to remain British. What Theresa May actually stated was;

Downing Street said May had called Fabian Picardo, the chief minister of Gibraltar, on Sunday morning to say the UK remained “steadfastly committed to our support for Gibraltar, its people and its economy”.
She said Britain would never enter into arrangements that would bring the territory under Spanish rule against the “freely and democratically expressed wishes” of its residents, and promised to include the local administration in the Brexit process.
Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, also used robust language. “We’re going to look after Gibraltar. Gibraltar is going to be protected all the way because the sovereignty cannot be changed without the agreement of the people of Gibraltar ,” he said.


This was the comment by Lord Howard:

“Thirty-five years ago this week, another woman prime minister sent a taskforce halfway across the world to defend the freedom of another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country, and I’m absolutely certain that our current prime minister will show the same resolve in standing by the people of Gibraltar,” Howard told Sophy Ridge on Sunday on Sky News.