Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

It looks like control of fisheries will remain in the hands of the EU:

Plans to take back control of UK fisheries the moment Britain leaves the EU appear to have been abandoned in the face of united EU opposition, dealing a significant blow to the ambitions of the environment secretary, Michael Gove.

Gove put repatriating control of fisheries at the heart of his post-Brexit strategy. But as the negotiations to secure the terms of a transition deal go to the wire in Brussels, the UK has backed down.

This wasn't a small part of the leave campaign with Gove himself invoking his adopted father whose business he alleged was destroyed by quotas. There are probably larger concerns at the moment but it will be interesting to see if pro-Brexit newspapers make hay with this.

First Up

demfad wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I suppose its possible that revelations of how the Brexit campaign was manipulated could galvanise the UK parliament to halt this lunacy but can you see that happening?

The extra bile/immediate blame apportioning with the Russian poisoning must be related to the attack on their democratic process in the EURef by Russia.
If the Cambridge Analytica story opens the can of worms or if another big event happens e.g. The indictment of a Brexit figure by Mueller then that could force ref2.
The potential can of worms with CA is who in official
Vote leave dealt with them, what did they know etc. Etc.
Remember even the DUP paid AggregateIQ (sister company) money.
This is only going to get worse not better.

Depends what you mean by "force" another referendum. The only authority that can intervene to do that is parliament. It would need enough MPs of whatever party to agree - and in effect cause the disintegration of the Tories (for sure) and probably Labour.

I don't think there is enough MPs with the conviction and courage to put the country before their seat, or abandon their party system.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It looks like control of fisheries will remain in the hands of the EU:



This wasn't a small part of the leave campaign with Gove himself invoking his adopted father whose business he alleged was destroyed by quotas. There are probably larger concerns at the moment but it will be interesting to see if pro-Brexit newspapers make hay with this.

Just to clarify, SFAIK the issue is whether the UK will take control of its fisheries from Brexit day or whether the EU will retain control of them during the transitional period. If the UK has climbed down, it will likely be only to a position whereby they accept that control of fisheries will only pass at the end of the transitional period, and not at the beginning.

In the long term, the EU and the UK still need a fisheries agreement. Most fish caught by the UK fleet is landed at non-UK ports, and sold to non-UK consumers, while most of the fish landed in the UK and eaten by UK consumers is caught by non-UK boats. (The UK market has quite different tastes from the continentals.) It'll be very disruptive for both fleets and the associated industries if this can't continue. Plus, both sides have a common interest in ensuring prudent conservation of fish stocks, which for obvious reasons can only be done collaboratively. All that, though, is a matter for the post-Brexit UK/EU trade deal, not for the Withdrawal Agreeement.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Depends what you mean by "force" another referendum. The only authority that can intervene to do that is parliament. It would need enough MPs of whatever party to agree - and in effect cause the disintegration of the Tories (for sure) and probably Labour.

I don't think there is enough MPs with the conviction and courage to put the country before their seat, or abandon their party system.

There is not. This can only happen if one of the major parties changes its position and backs a second referendum, and the other is sufficiently divided that they are unable to prevent it.

Realistically, I do not see this happening. Brexit will proceed.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Depends what you mean by "force" another referendum. The only authority that can intervene to do that is parliament. It would need enough MPs of whatever party to agree - and in effect cause the disintegration of the Tories (for sure) and probably Labour.

I don't think there is enough MPs with the conviction and courage to put the country before their seat, or abandon their party system.

There is not. This can only happen if one of the major parties changes its position and backs a second referendum, and the other is sufficiently divided that they are unable to prevent it.

Realistically, I do not see this happening. Brexit will proceed.

I agree

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This wasn't a small part of the leave campaign with Gove himself invoking his adopted father whose business he alleged was destroyed by quotas. There are probably larger concerns at the moment but it will be interesting to see if pro-Brexit newspapers make hay with this.

I was expecting a climbdown given all the drip drop of allowing some countries continued access , but not a complete capitulation this early.

It was supposed to be about the small fisherman. There's a finite amount of fish and large boats are more efficient.
http://britishseafishing.co.uk/cornelis-vrolijk/

In November 2014 the British media reported that a single Dutch trawler, the Cornelis Vrolijk, had the right to catch 23% of England’s entire fishing quota (1). To put this into perspective the entire small inshore fishing fleet for the whole England is given 4% of the quota.
...
the vessel lands all of its catch in the Dutch port of IJmuiden

Water John

Brexit will happen. What we realistically hope is that, in the end, the UK stays in the CU and SM.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Brexit will happen. What we realistically hope is that, in the end, the UK stays in the CU and SM.

Corbyn is OK with the Customs Union but has redlines over the Single Market because it would prevent the (re)nationalisation of key industries.

It's almost as if he wants to buy votes by giving people jobs for life. Really it's just another form of corporate welfare but bypassing the trickle down.


So both sides want to take back control and a generous helping of cake.

Water John

If LB and some Tories see the CU as ok, then that would be half the problem solved. A good start. Over negotiations one would see what agreement could be worked out on the SM. Corbyn might have notions, but the reality of power will mean having to make choices.

Leroy42

Looks like transition deal is close. The EU have, apparently, called a meeting this week to discuss it and the news in the UK is that something is pretty close and they can move on to the trade deal.

trellheim

Correct. The Danes and the Dutch redlines on Brexit would have fishing in there

As for reversing Brexit, if Parliament voted to reverse the Article 50 process tomorrow it would strike off a crisis of confidence in the political system there (not civil war, no Wars of the Roses here, or Cromwell getting the Rump to sling their hook , but you know what I mean )

In the UK - I'm over weekly at the moment - Theres a deep sense of being sold a pup by a lot of folk, but not enough to say "hold everything". The extreme danger for the remainers is forcing the majority into the Dunkirk Spirit " we will fight on alone etc etc " as once that happens the Brexiteers have the country behind them fully.

Leonard Hofstadter

And the UK is still agreeing to the backstop (if what Michel Barnier just said is to be believed), the precise text needs to be clarified but the principle has been agreed.

Bernard Jenkin still complaining about the border and basically saying it will be the EU's fault if there is a border because the UK Government doesn't want one.

trellheim

Withdrawal agreement draft ( source DExEu)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691366/20180319_DRAFT_WITHDRAWAL_AGREEMENT.pdf

With respect to the DRAFT PROTOCOL ON IRELAND/NORTHERN IRELAND, the negotiators agree that a legally operative version of the “backstop” solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, in line with paragraph 49 of the Joint Report, should be agreed as part of the legal text of the Withdrawal Agreement, to apply unless and until another solution is found.

(chuckle) can-kicking in the extreme ...

Nody

trellheim wrote: »

Withdrawal agreement draft ( source DExEu)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/691366/20180319_DRAFT_WITHDRAWAL_AGREEMENT.pdf




(chuckle) can-kicking in the extreme ...

I'm not sure DUP will accept that to be honest; it basically writes a deal with one side that does not include their agreement (I know it's seen as internal politics but DUP don't want to see a difference). That could put things at it's tip if they are to flip May's government or not on the issue (it's a lose / lose for them but DUP are fanatics so I can easily see them vote against the deal on principle alone).

Professor Moriarty

captainspeed wrote: »

And the UK is still agreeing to the backstop (if what Michel Barnier just said is to be believed), the precise text needs to be clarified but the principle has been agreed.

Bernard Jenkin still complaining about the border and basically saying it will be the EU's fault if there is a border because the UK Government doesn't want one.

Good luck selling that to the DUP.

MrPudding

Skedaddle wrote: »

The French checks may still be in the UK as the juxtaposed border controls are a bilateral agreement between the two that don't really get impacted by this. It's the rules of the border that change.

Either way, you're going to have huge queues in both directions as trade will still have to somehow go on.

From a logistical point of view, you can't really let trucks into France and have then choke up inside the ports. That's why you have to have the checks in the UK for France and France for the UK. Otherwise, it would become impossible and you'd have trucks stuck on ferries.

The problem is where are they going to do all these checks? The infrastructure in place is deigned for current needs, not checking every single vehicle. How are they going to build all that and recruit and train the necessary staff by next year?

There isn't really a precedent for this level of disruption. Most borders are either very old and have evolved, or have come about in quite conflicted areas of the world without much trade anyway. The sheer volume of goods that move across those borders and the level of integration of the economies will make any kind of checking like that extremely logistically difficult.

What's being proposed is just incredibly disruptive and can't but have economic consequences.

This stuff is all fine and well in some right wing politician's imagination. Implementing it will just be absolutely chaos.

It's a bit like asking someone to unscramble an egg.

I use Portsmouth and Ouistreham pretty much every week. Neither of them were geared up for this. A couple of weeks ago one of the ferries coming into Portsmouth was late, so two ferries arrived as once. It was utter chaos. My boarding and departure was delayed for over an hour because the port could not handle vehicles coming off two ferries at he same time, while trying to load another ferry.

I am not an expert on this kind of thing, but from seeing how Portsmouth works (or doesn't work as the case may be) it seems to me that any delays in getting vehicles out of the port, be they cars or lorries, will cause major problems.

Ouistraham is even worse. They have 3 lanes for checking cars and only one for trucks. They do have a fairly large area, but not large enough I fear.

MrP

J Mysterio

Man, this is huge. Fantastic news.



From a UK perspective though... Another huge climb down. What happened to "no UK PM could ever agree to this?". Those were strong words.

Sam Russell

J Mysterio wrote: »

Man, this is huge. Fantastic news.

From a UK perspective though... Another huge climb down. What happened to "no UK PM could ever agree to this?". Those were strong words.

They have not agreed to it yet. It is all coloured white, while most of Euratom is coloured green.

There is that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' little hurdle. Will the EU insist on everything agreed on the withdrawal agreement by Friday - or nothing?

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

They have not agreed to it yet. It is all coloured white, while most of Euratom is coloured green.

There is that 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed' little hurdle. Will the EU insist on everything agreed on the withdrawal agreement by Friday - or nothing?

The deadline for agreeing everything in the Withdrawal Agreement (or nothing) is not Friday; it's next October.

What has been agreed today is this; If a Withdrawal Agreement is concluded next October, it will contain "a legally operative version of the “backstop” solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, in line with paragraph 49 of the Joint Report". If the UK doesn't sign up to a "legally operative version" of the backstop by October, there'll be no Withdrawal Agreement, no transition period and a hard Brexit (and a hard border, of course).

What hasn't been agreed is this: the terms of the "legally operative version" of the backstop. The EU has put forward draft terms; parts of these draft terms are now considered settled (e.g. provisions relating to the Common Travel Area), parts are agreed as to the policy outcome but not as to the exact text (e.g. provisions relating to the single electricity market), and parts are not yet agreed either as to text or policy outcome (e.g. provisions as to the common regulatory area).

Significantly, what has been agreed (as to both text and policy) includes a provision relating to the areas of North-South co-operation in which there is to be full regulatory alignment. It's agreed that these will include environment, health, agriculture, transport, education, tourism, energy, telecommunications, broadcasting, inland fisheries, justice, security, higher education and sport. In other words, this will be a very broad arrangement, not a narrow one confined to beef and dairy produce, and similar high-volume cross-border trades, as some on the UK side were at one time advocating.

At this point reaction of the DUP is the thing to watch. But after what happened in December you have to assume that Teresa will have kept them onside, and not taken them for granted.

LeinsterDub

https://www.open-britain.co.uk/background_briefing_seven_broken_promises_on_transition


Excellent post from Open Britain listing 7 of the many broken brexit promises.

The seven promises that were made were:

A transition period will be about ‘implementing’ the future relationship, not negotiating it
The UK will not pay money to the EU after March 2019
The UK will not have to abide by EU rules during transition
The UK will ‘take back control’ of fisheries policy
Free movement will end in March 2019
The UK will have new trade deals ready to come into force on 29 March 2019
The implementation period would last for two years and should not be time limited

Leroy42

So the NI question has been pushed back again. It seems, IMO, that the EU despite their claims, do not count NI and Ireland as the top of their agenda (understandably but no less important for Ireland's POV).

We had the unclear December fudge, and now an apparent transition deal, neither of which deal with the issue except to say that it must be dealt with.

Now I understand that that doesn't mean it is off the table by any means, but the time to sort things out is at the start, before it can be used as a bargaining chip.
I am starting to get concerned that this will end up as a fudge with Ireland paying the price.

Nate--IRL--

Leroy42 wrote: »

So the NI question has been pushed back again. It seems, IMO, that the EU despite their claims, do not count NI and Ireland as the top of their agenda (understandably but no less important for Ireland's POV).

We had the unclear December fudge, and now an apparent transition deal, neither of which deal with the issue except to say that it must be dealt with.

Now I understand that that doesn't mean it is off the table by any means, but the time to sort things out is at the start, before it can be used as a bargaining chip.
I am starting to get concerned that this will end up as a fudge with Ireland paying the price.

What would you have like to have seen in the draft text??

Nate

trellheim

So the NI question has been pushed back again. It seems, IMO, that the EU despite their claims, do not count NI and Ireland as the top of their agenda (understandably but no less important for Ireland's POV).

We had the unclear December fudge, and now an apparent transition deal, neither of which deal with the issue except to say that it must be dealt with.

Now I understand that that doesn't mean it is off the table by any means, but the time to sort things out is at the start, before it can be used as a bargaining chip.
I am starting to get concerned that this will end up as a fudge with Ireland paying the price.

In all fairness I have been thinking the exact same for the last hour or two , this lets the Brits do Trade before locking down NI

Leroy42

I think at this stage we should be expecting some short of outline of what the final outcome on the NI question will actually be. They haven't even settled on what the positions are, never mind working on achieving them.

We are no closer to knowing what is coming at us from April 2019 than we were in 2016. It seems they are able to get agreement on other areas but are prepared (the EU) to allow the UK to continue to push out the date of when decisions are actually going to happen.

If a hard border is indeed required, the time frames means that it is almost a given that we cannot achieve the required infrastructure and systems in time.

Nate--IRL--

Would not a hard Border only arise if there is breakdown in negotiations?

Or is the current text allowing for that also?

Nate

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think at this stage we should be expecting some short of outline of what the final outcome on the NI question will actually be. They haven't even settled on what the positions are, never mind working on achieving them.

The EU position is very well defined and they can't force the UK to define theirs

Leroy42

The latest deal seems to cement the December agreement (which the UK claimed was merely a talking point) into a backstop position. In other words if the other two options (technical solution to allow frictionless border or the UK remains in the CU) are not delivered then NI becomes separate in regulatory terms from Great Britain.

The problem is that none of these options are remotely achievable. NI cannot be seen to be separated, the technology does not exist. So the only realistic solution is to remain in CU, which is never going to float in the UK.

So what is the point of postponing the inevitable? Why are the EU allowing the UK to simply push this further down the track? Are they hoping that at some stage the UK will cave, but they have shown no indication that they will to this point.

My worry is that this will become a last minute "deal breaker" and as such with a deal so close both sides will simply fudge it. The EU, seeing that continued trade with the UK is almost within reach and thus avoiding many of the issues that could arise may see it as a price worth paying.

EU have shown before that no one country is above the long term future of the EU (Ireland & Greece for example) and I fear that will happen again.

So the UK avoid a hard brexit but we are left with a border. Effectively we are left to pay the price

Leroy42

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The EU position is very well defined and they can't force the UK to define theirs

Of course they can. No movement until you define your final position on NI.

When, how,how much, what will happen in X, Y & Z.

Nate--IRL--

Leroy42 wrote: »

Of course they can. No movement until you define your final position on NI.

When, how,how much, what will happen in X, Y & Z.

So even if they sign up to the backstop you won't trust them. What would make you trust any answers they give on the above?

To me - I can see this draft falling down on the Border question anyway, there's very little chance the UK will sign up to what they agreed to in December. I can't see this text being ratified in time.

Nate

Professor Moriarty

Still more uncertainty. The problem is the same for all concerned. You must begin to plan and focus your resources on whatever outcome you think is likely. The more uncertainty continues, the more governments and business will assume a hard Brexit whatever the witterings of the Tories. This will then become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Leroy42

Its not about trust, but yes I do trust a country like GB to stick to international agreements. If not, then what is the point of the negotiations in the first place?

I totally agree that this looks like it will be nothing more than a postponement of the final hard brexit but it is because of that that I don't understand why the EU are doing it.

If they are pretty sure that there is no solution (other than NI to remain) then why even go along with this fudge? They have continually allowed, from day 1, the UK to fudge seemingly awaiting on the UK coming up with a plan, but we are still no closer to that than on day 1.

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

The latest deal seems to cement the December agreement (which the UK claimed was merely a talking point) into a backstop position. In other words if the other two options (technical solution to allow frictionless border or the UK remains in the CU) are not delivered then NI becomes separate in regulatory terms from Great Britain.

The problem is that none of these options are remotely achievable. NI cannot be seen to be separated, the technology does not exist. So the only realistic solution is to remain in CU, which is never going to float in the UK.

Seems to me that NI's future has just been guaranteed. NI will remain in the EU, there won't be another viable solution.

Leroy42

J Mysterio wrote: »

Seems to me that NI's future has just been guaranteed. NI will remain in the EU, there won't be another viable solution.

Yes, that is my reading of it as well, but th (at will never be accepted in the UK. Only two weeks ago May stated that no PM could ever accept that.

So why the fudge. They (EU) have agreed a step when they know the UK has no intention/ability to deliver on it. So why even bother?

It gives the PM some more breathing space. Look at how they have sold the December agreement. "People said we couldn't get a Phase 1 deal but we did" is how the PM and the cabinet have sold it.

And this will be another one. They will focus on being able to undertake trade negotiations after March 2019 (which was always the case I think) as the big win.

IMO, this just means that NI is simply going to be collateral damage and we will end up paying the price. Its just a continuation of the 'lets park that there for the moment' that has been going on since Day 1.

Nate--IRL--

There will be no transition deal without a solution to the Border question however, they form parts of the same treaty. So that is going to concentrate minds.

Nate

J Mysterio

The UK cabinet have essentially accepted that NI will remain in customs union I think, they just are keeping schtum about it as the DUP will have a fit. They seem to be a bit slow to realise what just happened and dont seem to be able to articulate a poisition on it.

If it comes to it, May will call their bluff about bringing down the government as Parliament will be so weary of the process they will pass the eventual deal. If the DUP were to bring the Tories down *following* their signing of the deal, it could actually work in the Tories favour as they have 'sacrificed their government to get Brexit for Britain'

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Sand states that Blair was hoping to bin the Tories by letting in so many EU migrants. If there's any more info on this, I would be very interested. Perhaps Blair had plans to streamline citizenship applications and was confident of winning the next election so that the requisite 5 years could pass for these EU nationals to be eligible to vote. Only Ireland, Sweden and the UK declined to put restrictions on Eastern EU migration in place following their accession to the EU.

The claim is by Andrew Neather, a former advisor to several figures inside the Labour party, including Blair himself. Neather made the claim in 2009, in a Telegraph article. The exact phrasing is "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." The assumption being these new arrivals would be Labour voters, not Tory.

Neather claims that Labour leaders may have privately supported this, but they were not going to argue for migration on the benefits of multiculturalism, let alone party political advantage. So the instead the dubious economic benefits were the argument made.

You can believe or disbelieve Neather - none of the Labour figures are going to confirm his claim. But its certainly clear that something dramatic happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s to long term migration into the UK. Firstly, in the ten years to 1998, migration into the UK averaged 304 thousand people annually. For the 10 years after 1998 to 2008 this leaped to 535 thousand people annually. This is just an average, many years were much higher again.

For another perspective, 1998 was the first year in the records when net migration into the UK breached 100,000. It jumped from just 48,000 net migrants in 1997 to 140,000 in 1998 and has climbed and climbed since to 333 thousand in 2015: this net figure is still higher than annual immigrant only figures in any year preceding 1998.

The UK experience of migration over the past 20 years is abnormal. The UK had seen nothing like it previously. Brexit is part of the collateral damage. The problem is none of the parties, Tory, Labour, LibDem or UKIP for that matter want to represent the voters behind Brexit. The parties want more Global Britain. So we're going to see more turmoil, like Brexit, between the voters and their supposed representatives while this works itself out.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

The claim is by Andrew Neather, a former advisor to several figures inside the Labour party, including Blair himself. Neather made the claim in 2009, in a Telegraph article. The exact phrasing is "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." The assumption being these new arrivals would be Labour voters, not Tory.

Neather claims that Labour leaders may have privately supported this, but they were not going to argue for migration on the benefits of multiculturalism, let alone party political advantage. So the instead the dubious economic benefits were the argument made.

You can believe or disbelieve Neather - none of the Labour figures are going to confirm his claim. But its certainly clear that something dramatic happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s to long term migration into the UK. Firstly, in the ten years to 1998, migration into the UK averaged 304 thousand people annually. For the 10 years after 1998 to 2008 this leaped to 535 thousand people annually. This is just an average, many years were much higher again.

For another perspective, 1998 was the first year in the records when net migration into the UK breached 100,000. It jumped from just 48,000 net migrants in 1997 to 140,000 in 1998 and has climbed and climbed since to 333 thousand in 2015: this net figure is still higher than annual immigrant only figures in any year preceding 1998.

The UK experience of migration over the past 20 years is abnormal. The UK had seen nothing like it previously. Brexit is part of the collateral damage. The problem is none of the parties, Tory, Labour, LibDem or UKIP for that matter want to represent the voters behind Brexit. The parties want more Global Britain. So we're going to see more turmoil, like Brexit, between the voters and their supposed representatives while this works itself out.

How can any party represent Leave voters? Nobody, including themselves, knows what they voted for.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How can any party represent Leave voters? Nobody, including themselves, knows what they voted for.

UKIP did and they only got 4m votes and no seats.

UKIP ran almost entirely on an anti-immigration platform, with EU the target.

But why would any mainstream party run on a platform of making the country worse off?

Labour gets ridiculed in the media for being anti-business, when Brexit could be the biggest anti-business thing that has ever been done.

Sure you can argue that globalisation is wrong etc, but that is to ignore that other countries don't agree and as such no single country is going to turn to clock back (even the US will struggle and they are by far the biggest).

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

UKIP did and they only got 4m votes and no seats.

UKIP ran almost entirely on an anti-immigration platform, with EU the target.

But why would any mainstream party run on a platform of making the country worse off?

Labour gets ridiculed in the media for being anti-business, when Brexit could be the biggest anti-business thing that has ever been done.

Sure you can argue that globalisation is wrong etc, but that is to ignore that other countries don't agree and as such no single country is going to turn to clock back (even the US will struggle and they are by far the biggest).

UKIP promised a variety of things and they're not in power to deliver them. Not that they were deliverable anyway. It would be fine if people had been voting for UKIP based on their Brexit manifesto. But this was a referendum so there was no definitive definition of what Brexit meant. Did Joe Bloggs vote for Boris's Brexit? Farage's? A Brexit that only Joe Bloggs can imagine?

Labour is a disaster. If they were halfway decent, the Tories would be in opposition instead of leading Labour by 3 points in the latest poll.

Angry bird

Must admit that it's come as a surprise, nonetheless a welcome one. The hard Brexiteers have a choice, reject and fresh election or continue the pretence. The reaction will be interesting and I do think that at some point an election is required, when is hard to say.

For us, while risks remain, the border issue is moving in the right direction. I expect some more DUP toys being thrown out of the pram but I'd say the recent release of monies to NI was the bribe accepted.

Water John

Some here seem to be looking for a, grand capitulation, on the UK side. That is not desirable. This gradual erosion of their position is far more in our interests.
It helps mainstream public and politicians in the UK to accept and adapt to it.
The EU side is winning so lets keep pushing in the one direction, gradually.

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How can any party represent Leave voters? Nobody, including themselves, knows what they voted for.

I think its difficult because Brexit voters had many different motivations, but its not impossible. It is what representative politics is about afterall. Simon Wren-Lewis took an overview of a dozen polls taken of Leave voters. His conclusion was Brexit was a vote against globalisation and social liberalism, the two issues being connected by immigration. Its certainly open to more study, but I think Ganesh's view that the 'permanently aggrieved' can and should be ignored is both outrageously arrogant and as seen in Brexit, mistaken. These people and their concerns need to be represented. The UK is desperately in need of PR voting.

What we can be very, very clear on is that the driving force behind Brexit was not desperately seeking a more global Britain, with free trade deals around the world. Unfortunately, this is what the Tory's want, so it is the Brexit that is being delivered.

Either British political classes reconnect with the interests of their voters, or we'll continue to see political turmoil in the UK. Because the 52% are not going to be satisfied with a Singapore-on-Thames Brexit.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

I think its difficult because Brexit voters had many different motivations, but its not impossible. It is what representative politics is about afterall. Simon Wren-Lewis took an overview of a dozen polls taken of Leave voters. His conclusion was Brexit was a vote against globalisation and social liberalism, the two issues being connected by immigration. Its certainly open to more study, but I think Ganesh's view that the 'permanently aggrieved' can and should be ignored is both outrageously arrogant and as seen in Brexit, mistaken. These people and their concerns need to be represented. The UK is desperately in need of PR voting.

What we can be very, very clear on is that the driving force behind Brexit was not desperately seeking a more global Britain, with free trade deals around the world. Unfortunately, this is what the Tory's want, so it is the Brexit that is being delivered.

Either British political classes reconnect with the interests of their voters, or we'll continue to see political turmoil in the UK. Because the 52% are not going to be satisfied with a Singapore-on-Thames Brexit.

One can be specific in hindsight. But the fact remains, all that is certain is that Leave voters voted for 'a Brexit'. That's all. Many voted for Brexit in a fit of incoherent rage such is the Tweedledum Tweedledee nature of British politics. Their needs won't be met by Brexit either.

Regarding who voted for Leave, this report's research suggests that there were three distinct categories only one of which could be seen as 'The Left Behind'. So not alone were there diverse reasons for voting Leave, there were diverse cohorts of people who would have very little in common other than they wanted 'a Brexit'. Satisfying diverse cohorts of people, the 52%, with widely differing and conflicting expectations won't happen under whatever Brexit emerges.

Leroy42

But how else to achieve Brexit?

If they move away from the EU then they have little choice but to open to other countries, either than or see a massive fall in GDP and living standards. And I really doubt anybody voted to be out of a job or pay significantly higher taxes.

SO I don't agree that the tories version of Brexit is not what people wanted. Whether they really understood it is a different matter.

But, IMO, they wanted to see GB move away from the EU. From the regulations, the payments, the bureaucracy, the fishing quotas. They never wanted the Euro for example.

But clearly to achieve all of that they would need to step outside the EU (unless the EU caved which would then spell the end of the EU anyway) and how did people think they were going to make up the difference.

Sand

Leroy42 wrote: »

UKIP did and they only got 4m votes and no seats.

UKIP ran almost entirely on an anti-immigration platform, with EU the target.

I don't think UKIP is representing anti-globalisation, or anti-immigration views. UKIP is very much a single issue party: exit the EU. The revolution ends there, and so has the party. If there was more to it, if it had a bigger cause then it would still be relevant.

Farage is the son of a stockbroker. Farage himself is an ex-City of London banker/trader. He's married an Irishwoman and a German. He is very much plugged into the globalist/metropolitan elite. He's called for the UK to accept more Syrian refugees, rejected talks of caps on immigration and the UKIP immigration policy in 2015 is not exactly radically different to anything the Tories would produce. I think Farage is actually quite liberal on immigration: it is the UKIP base which was pushing hard for more restrictions.

Farage is going to be quite happy with the Tory style Brexit. He might criticise the outcome as not being good enough, but Singapore-on-Thames is just fine for him and his class.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

The claim is by Andrew Neather, a former advisor to several figures inside the Labour party, including Blair himself. Neather made the claim in 2009, in a Telegraph article. The exact phrasing is "to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." The assumption being these new arrivals would be Labour voters, not Tory.

Neather claims that Labour leaders may have privately supported this, but they were not going to argue for migration on the benefits of multiculturalism, let alone party political advantage. So the instead the dubious economic benefits were the argument made.

You can believe or disbelieve Neather - none of the Labour figures are going to confirm his claim. But its certainly clear that something dramatic happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s to long term migration into the UK. Firstly, in the ten years to 1998, migration into the UK averaged 304 thousand people annually. For the 10 years after 1998 to 2008 this leaped to 535 thousand people annually. This is just an average, many years were much higher again.

I don't know what to make of this to be honest. I'm wondering if Neather has some sort of agenda that I'm unaware of. I'm not dismissing this, I'm just skeptical. Why would Labour abandon a base of reliable, working class voters in favor of legions of foreigners who would take years to qualify for citizenship and that's if they can be bothered to stump up the £1,236 and then vote reliably. And that's before I get into things like the surprising number who are
more than happy to see the drawbridge raised. I don't think this is the whole story. I'm surprised Nigel Farage didn't make hay with this. That Telegraph link is dated October 2009.

Sand wrote: »

For another perspective, 1998 was the first year in the records when net migration into the UK breached 100,000. It jumped from just 48,000 net migrants in 1997 to 140,000 in 1998 and has climbed and climbed since to 333 thousand in 2015: this net figure is still higher than annual immigrant only figures in any year preceding 1998.

I don't think anyone on any side of the debate can deny the surge in migrants to the UK.

Sand wrote: »

The UK experience of migration over the past 20 years is abnormal. The UK had seen nothing like it previously. Brexit is part of the collateral damage. The problem is none of the parties, Tory, Labour, LibDem or UKIP for that matter want to represent the voters behind Brexit. The parties want more Global Britain. So we're going to see more turmoil, like Brexit, between the voters and their supposed representatives while this works itself out.

Whatever about the big three, the impression I got of the "global Britain" narrative espoused by the likes of Farage and his colleagues at UKIP was that they needed a counterargument to the economic argument used (perhaps overused) by the remain side so the idea that the commonwealth (which is 55% of the GDP of the EU once the UK is removed) would sign wonderful trade deals with the UK and strengthen historical ties was born. It's nonsense but then it's only purpose was to get Leave over the 50% threshold. I don't otherwise see any push for global Britain among UKIP politicans, members or supporters. I think they just wanted to regain power from the EU and limit the number of migrants entering the UK.

Sand wrote: »

Farage is the son of a stockbroker. Farage himself is an ex-City of London banker/trader. He's married an Irishwoman and a German. He is very much plugged into the globalist/metropolitan elite. He's called for the UK to accept more Syrian refugees, rejected talks of caps on immigration and the UKIP immigration policy in 2015 is not exactly radically different to anything the Tories would produce. I think Farage is actually quite liberal on immigration: it is the UKIP base which was pushing hard for more restrictions.

Farage is going to be quite happy with the Tory style Brexit. He might criticise the outcome as not being good enough, but Singapore-on-Thames is just fine for him and his class.

Wait, Farage called for more refugees to be taken in and is liberal on immigration? I've watched more of him on Youtube and TV than any other politician and don't recall anything like this.

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

One can be specific in hindsight. But the fact remains, all that is certain is that Leave voters voted for 'a Brexit'. That's all.

Regarding who voted for Leave, this report's research suggests that there were three distinct categories only one of which could be seen as 'The Left Behind'. So not alone were there diverse reasons for voting Leave, there were diverse cohorts of people who would have very little in common other than they wanted 'a Brexit'. Satisfying diverse cohorts of people, the 52%, with widely differing, and conflicting expectations won't happen under whatever Brexit emerges.

Again, this is what representative politics is about: representing the voters concerns. I wholly agree there were different motivations on the Leave side. Why is it impossible to represent them, whilst it is not remarkably difficult to represent the Remain side? Lets not pretend the Remain vote was much more unified, or even better informed than the Leave voters. Plenty of Remain votes were based on fear rather than any deep understanding of the issues and the trade-offs.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

I don't think UKIP is representing anti-globalisation, or anti-immigration views. UKIP is very much a single issue party: exit the EU. The revolution ends there, and so has the party. If there was more to it, if it had a bigger cause then it would still be relevant.

Farage is the son of a stockbroker. Farage himself is an ex-City of London banker/trader. He's married an Irishwoman and a German. He is very much plugged into the globalist/metropolitan elite. He's called for the UK to accept more Syrian refugees, rejected talks of caps on immigration and the UKIP immigration policy in 2015 is not exactly radically different to anything the Tories would produce. I think Farage is actually quite liberal on immigration: it is the UKIP base which was pushing hard for more restrictions.

Farage is going to be quite happy with the Tory style Brexit. He might criticise the outcome as not being good enough, but Singapore-on-Thames is just fine for him and his class.

That was quite rightly called tokenism on the part of Farage. It would have been a couple of hundred genuine refugees at most. Something that was going to happen anyway. Farage isn't liberal on immigration. Never has been. In his latest wheeze, Farage wanted Britain to adopt Trump's extreme vetting policies.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

Again, this is what representative politics is about: representing the voters concerns. I wholly agree there were different motivations on the Leave side. Why is it impossible to represent them, whilst it is not remarkably difficult to represent the Remain side? Lets not pretend the Remain vote was much more unified, or even better informed than the Leave voters. Plenty of Remain votes were based on fear rather than any deep understanding of the issues and the trade-offs.

It's impossible to represent them because you don't know what 'they' want. Nobody does because there is no 'they'.

I disagree completely regarding Remain. They knew exactly what they were voting for. More of what existed. They lived Remain for decades. They knew exactly what would happen if they won.

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's impossible to represent them because you don't know what 'they' want. Nobody does because there is no 'they'.

So you agree with Ganesh? The UK political class can expect there to be a 'permanently aggrieved' minority, and can/should ignore that minority? The UK ought to get used to continued political instability then.

I disagree completely regarding Remain. They knew exactly what they were voting for. More of what existed. They lived Remain for decades. They knew exactly what would happen if they won.

I don't agree. Firstly, the Remain vote included reluctant Euroskeptics who voted on the basis of party loyalty or fear of economic disturbance. This was the single biggest reason for voting Remain. Love of Europe, or fear of the UK becoming isolated was a minority issue. Measured by how long ago they had determined their vote, they were as convinced or conflicted as Leave voters. Less than a third believed the UK had the best of both worlds. And Cameron was not offering the EU, business as usual. His campaign for Remain was on the basis of the EU being reformed. There was always going to be changes, but what those changes were and how realistic they were was likely debatable.

So its not remarkable that a vote can have many different motivations and causes behind it.