Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

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

Remarkable in the sense that it highlights the absurdity of using an atrociously timed, binary referendum to attempt to settle such a complex issue. How do you square your immigration-loving University student with reluctant remain voting Conservative centrists? Or libertarian globalists with working class left wingers?

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

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.

No, I agree with myself. There will always be permanently aggrieved minorities. Just because a few Little Englanders latched onto their wildy diverse grievances and misled them doesn't mean their needs are being met. Quite the opposite. Brexit was never the means by which they would be satisfied. Not least because nobody actually knows what 'they' wanted.

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.

Of course Remain voters were diverse and would have differing reasons for voting Remain. But that's not my point. My point is that Remain voters, regardless of their reasons for voting, knew what it was like to be part of the EU for decades. Sure, Cameron offered to work towards reforming the EU but voters knew what it was like to live as part of the EU and what it would very probably be like in the future. Leave voters hadn't a clue what they were voting for. And they still don't. Every red line that the Leave campaigners had promised to maintain has been erased by the EU.

Sand

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Leave voters hadn't a clue what they were voting for. And they still don't. Every red line that the Leave campaigners had promised to maintain has been erased by the EU.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because we're going round in circles on this. I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

Pretending that they didn't understand that there would be an economic cost reads as an attempt to de-legitimise their view.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because we're going round in circles on this. I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

Nothing to do with the various lies they were told? I do wish someone could explain what 'exiting the EU' actually means. Then I would be clear as to what Leave voters were voting for.

Pretending that they didn't understand that there would be an economic cost reads as an attempt to de-legitimise their view.

I'm not pretending anything. In fact, I never mentioned economic matters at all.

Harika

I don't think immigration was put deliberately into the UK, but people from Eastern Europe were welcomed, and as most of them learned English in school, the UK was a logical destination, compared to France or Germany. Even as those mostly worked and put in more than they got out of the social system they were the scapegoats of the austerity politic and the anti EU sentiment was riding on that easy target that has no lobby to defend itself.

Sam Russell

Sand wrote: »

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because we're going round in circles on this. I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

Pretending that they didn't understand that there would be an economic cost reads as an attempt to de-legitimise their view.

It would be interesting to contrast the Scottish Indy ref and the EU ref.

The Scottish one was fought on economics - would Scotland be better off as an independent country or better off staying within the UK? Would oil revenues be enough to sustain an independent Scotland? Would Scotland be allowed to remain in the EU and use Sterling? etc. etc.

The EU referendum was fought on the leave side by emotions. Take back control, Brussels unelected bureaucrats (despite the fact that the UK has many unelected bureaucrats but call them Civil Servants), £350m a week for the NHS (which holds an extraordinary emotional attachment to the people of the UK). Less immigration (despite the fact that EU immigration was minuscule in comparison with non-EU migration). etc. etc.

If Scottish ref had been fought on emotion, (Take back control, etc.) would they have succeeded in getting their independence? If the EU ref had been fought on real facts, would the result have been the other way, and would it have been decisive for a generation?

Water John

Sam, it shows the crucial role, in framing any debate. The one who gets to set the agenda has a great start.

Thargor

Interesting Facebook story on Johnson since before the referendum, I suppose if they had a functioning media that quote might have been put to him at some point on camera:

Bit cynical

I think one of the optimistic aspects of the agreement from Ireland's point of view is that the UK will be able to negotiate and ratify its own trade deals with countries outside the EU. This was one of the principles on the UK side and the EU accepting this is good for Ireland.

Dont be at yourself

Sky News pretty openly framing today's agreement on NI as a "fudge", "kicking the can down the road".

LeinsterDub

Theresa May faced a storm of protest over a transition deal struck with Brussels after conceding a series of her high-profile Brexit demands and agreeing to the “back stop” plan of keeping Northern Ireland under EU law to avoid a hard border with the Republic of Ireland.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/19/uk-and-eu-agree-terms-for-brexit-transition-deal


Just as day follows night the Tory outrage begins. We'll have 2 months of attempted Tory row backs now before the EU comes and tells the kids yard time is over time to get back to work.

Anthracite

Sand wrote: »

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because we're going round in circles on this. I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

Pretending that they didn't understand that there would be an economic cost reads as an attempt to de-legitimise their view.

The point has been made by me and others that there are probably dozens of mutually exclusive reasons why people voted for Brexit.

As a super-simple example, you have some who voted for Brexit as the EU is too left-wing, and some who voted for it because they feel the EU is too right-wing.

One or both of those constituencies is going to be disgusted with the outcome (likely the latter).

Sand

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/19/uk-and-eu-agree-terms-for-brexit-transition-deal


Just as day follows night the Tory outrage begins. We'll have 2 months of attempted Tory row backs now before the EU comes and tells the kids yard it over its time to get back to work.

No other outcome is reasonably possible. NI under EU legislation to ensure no border in Ireland, and the UK-EU maintaining the closest possible alignment so that the 'sea border' between NI/UK and the border between EU/UK is as light as is possible. If the UK plays it right, it could use the NI/UK trade concerns to get some allowances made in the EU/UK deal.

The DUP will kick up a fuss, but I think if the UK's feet are held to the fire we'll see a Tory-Labour pact to get the deal through the HoC. Labour wont benefit from being seen to force the UK into a 'no-deal' Brexit for purely party political reasons. I think if May had sense back in 2016 she would have approached Labour for some sort of national unity government.

Water John

JRM on Newsnight very unhappy with interim deal, but willing to accept if the final deal is to his liking. Says, 'nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, overides paragraph on backstop NI and ROI alignment and will use his vote accordingly'.

Stupid clown, walks across the live camera, on the next guest, leaving the studio.

demfad

Just so people are aware of significance of CA story to Brexit campaign.
Nix said to the actor that CA often work under a different name when circumstances dictate. AggregateIQ is a Canadian sister company of CA with the same address in Toronto that performs some of the tech/backend work for CA. All 5 Leave campaigns paid AggregateIQ monies during the election campaign. Official vote leave, the one headed by Johnson and Gove, pays them £3.8million out of their TOTAL expenditure of £7m.

First of all: In 2016 a google search returns splat for AggregateIQ.
Ergo ALL 5 leave campaigns coordinated (illegal) to use kryptonite Cambridge Analytica hiding behind a company called AggregateIQ. 2 ex CA chiefs were working for the official Leave campaign.

There is more: Kogan who robbed the Ocean system off Kosinski for CA was a professor in St Petersburg (previously unknown). CA were involved with a now sanctioned Russian company.
Parent group SCLs then owner Teschuiz has many connections to Russia. A partner of his is Dmitri Firtash. He was Manaforts Russian oligarch connection on the ground in Ukraine.

Manafort and Kushner sought and hired CA for Trump.

Note also that Nix offered the actor the use of Trolls for political campaigns. What trolls do CA subcontract I wonder? What trolls did they use in the Trump election?

Hopefully people are now starting to grasp the scale of this global operation against democracies.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think one of the optimistic aspects of the agreement from Ireland's point of view is that the UK will be able to negotiate and ratify its own trade deals with countries outside the EU. This was one of the principles on the UK side and the EU accepting this is good for Ireland.

This has purely token value. While it's symbolically important that during the transition period the UK is free to negotiate, sign and ratify trade deals with third countries, in reality the UK's limited, inexperienced trade negotiating resources will be largely taken up with negotiating the UK's most important trade deal of all; with the EU. During this period they won't have much capacity to take trade negotiations with third countries much further than "Hi! Nice to meet you!"

Besides, third countries will have no desire to commit to a trade deal with the UK until they know the UK's trading relationship with the EU. So even if the UK did devote signficant resources to trade negotiations with third countries, they'd find very slow progress being made; it would be very much in the interests of the third countries to string the thing out until after the UK/EU trade deal is done.

Peregrinus

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.

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

No. The EU's primary objective here is not “continued trade with the UK”; it’s the preservation and protection of the Single Market. Their stance on the border has never been a special favour to Ireland; it has reflected where they think their interests lie. There is no reason to expect this to change.

There was fudge in December. There is still fudge, but less fudge. In both cases the fudge in in the EU’s interests, which is why the EU agreed to it.

The position now is that the UK has agreed that “a legally operative version of the ‘backstop’ solution” will appear in the Withdrawal Agreement. And they have also implicitly accepted that that the WA won’t include the Tories' promise to the DUP of no intra-UK trade barriers.

They haven’t fully accepted the text of the legally operative version but they have agreed that, if they fail to agree the text of that, there will be no WA. So a hard Brexit (and a hard border) is still a possible outcome here.

One way or another, we’ll know by October (and possibly earlier; an intensive series of UK/EU discussions on the border issues is timetabled for April).

If the EU had insisted that the UK accept the draft text on the legally operative version now, one of two things would have happened. The UK might have refused, the negotiations would have crashed, and we would now know that we are heading for a hard Brexit and a hard border. That’s a bad outcome, obviously. Or, the UK might have accepted. That wouldn’t actually lock anything in, since the WA isn’t finalised until October, and isn’t legally binding until some time shortly before March 2019. In the meantime, negotiations might have collapsed over other issues. Or, the government might have fallen because the DUP and/or the ultra-Brexiteers couldn’t stomach acceptance of the “legally operative version” text, and the government falling and being replaced by a more Brexity one would again lead to the collapse of the negotiations.

You say above:

Leroy42 wrote: »

Are they hoping that at some stage the UK will cave, but they have shown no indication that they will to this point.

On the contrary, everything indicates that the UK government will cave; they have caved consistently on every issue of significance since the these negotiations began. The secret is in the timing; they cave at a point where it is too late for the ultras to do anything about it beyond the nuclear option of bringing down the government.

Of course, a strategy likes this works consistently until it fails to work just once, at which point the show is over. And that could still happen, and if and when it does we are looking at a hard Brexit and a hard border. But there is no advantage to the EU, or to Ireland, in provoking this at a time when it doesn’t have to happen. At this point we’ve got a further concession out of the UK; they have agreed that the Withdrawal Agreement will provide for full regulatory alignment as the default solution. That’s a concession they have been able to make (fingers crossed!) without causing the ultras to bring them down. The next thing they’ll need to cave on is accepting wording for the text on full regulatory alignment but, the closer to October they cave on that, the more likely it is that they will survive the cave, which is the outcome we want.

My prediction; the UK will cave on this, in return for the insertion into the agreement of a clause referring to Option A (super-duper trade deal) and Option B (magic technology) and committing both parties to negotiating in good faith and with best endeavours to agree one of those options to be implemented in place of full regulatory alignment.

The downside risk of this strategy for us is that we may find ourselves looking at a hard border with relatively little notice. But, whatever the notice period, a hard border is going to be, well, hard for us; knowing about it a year in advance isn’t hugely better than knowing about it six months in advance. And certainly it makes more sense to bear that risk than to provoke a hard border now by collapsing the talks when that may not be necessary.

BonnieSituation

JRM acting rational of course...

Telegraph wrote:

Jacob Rees-Mogg to fling fish from trawler on Thames in protest for fishermen 'betrayed' by May's Brexit dealTheresa May is facing a Brexit backlash from Tory MPs over her "abject betrayal" of Britain's fishermen with rebels planning a fishing boat protest on the Thames.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, leader of a 60-strong group of Eurosceptic Conservative MPs, and others are due to board a boat and pass by Parliament throwing fish into the Thames in protest at the alleged “sellout”.

A Brexit transition deal agreed with Brussels allows the EU to maintain control of Britain’s territorial waters until the end of 2020, which protestors described as “a potential death sentence” for the British fishing fleet.
...
[/]
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/19/jacob-rees-mogg-fling-fish-trawler-thames-protest-fishermen/

[behind pay wall]

Peregrinus

Finally, just to add one point. I think the main reason why somebody would want to bring about the collapse of the negotiations for a withdrawal agreement is the belief, or at any rate the hope, that only the impending prospect of the horrors of a no-deal Brexit will wake their British public out of their sleep-walk into disaster, and set in train a political reaction that might ultimately lead to Brexit being deferred and ultimately called off.

Myself, I don't regard this a realistic. I think UK Remainers cling to it not because it's a realistic hope of Remaining, but because it's the only hope of Remaining.

But it's not only UK Remainers who think of this as a possibility; UK Leavers do as well. It is precisely this possibility which prevents them from collapsing the talks over all the (to them, highly unwelcome) concessions that May has made.

But the closer Brexit day approaches, the less plausible it is that a collapse of the Withdrawal Agreement talks could ultimately lead to the cancellation of Brexit. Therefore, if I'm right, as time goes on the ultra-Brexiters should be more and more willing to contemplate collapsing the negotiations over one of May's concessions. Which is why a series of salami-like concessions, rather than one big chunky concession, is the rational strategy for May.

Zubeneschamali

Sand wrote: »

I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

I agree with you that pointing out economic costs now is beside the point: those costs were clearly flagged by the UK Government before the vote (although they didn't cost a Hard Brexit).

But I disagree that voters were clear on what they were voting for. What sort of Brexit? Norway? Switzerland? Turkey? Singapore? There are enormous differences, and the vote didn't say anything about which one voters would prefer.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But the closer Brexit day approaches, the less plausible it is that a collapse of the Withdrawal Agreement talks could ultimately lead to the cancellation of Brexit.

I don't agree. I think cancelling Brexit is a 100-1 longshot at this stage, but the path might go:

Final, final deal emerges at the talks, and is very much dictated by the EU. The DUP and the Eurosceptics balk and bring down the Government.

Labour romp home in the election, and immediately ask for talks extension and membership of CU. EU says no worries, we have that plan on our shelf of plans. Extended talks period begins, and talks reveal to the UK public that a Norway option (or whatever) will cost a lot, and give less control than they have now.

People continue to ask "What exactly is the point of Brexit again?". Eventually Labour organize a referendum on the new deal, with Brexit on the new agreed terms or Remain as the options, and Remain wins.

In this scenario, only collapse at the last minute with an election can help.

dr.fuzzenstein

Sand wrote: »

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree because we're going round in circles on this. I'd just like to note Leave voters were clear on what they were voting for. To exit the EU and reject the direction of travel that their country was on.

Pretending that they didn't understand that there would be an economic cost reads as an attempt to de-legitimise their view.

And to mark this glorious and momentous decision, a special set of stamps has been designed.



To call Brexit anything other than Underpants Economics is delusion, plain and simple.

Peregrinus

Thanks for this. Couple of thoughts:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't agree. I think cancelling Brexit is a 100-1 longshot at this stage, but the path might go:

Final, final deal emerges at the talks, and is very much dictated by the EU. The DUP and the Eurosceptics balk and bring down the Government. . . .

Is an election inevitable at this point? Could the fall of May be followed not by a general election (which, I agree, Labour would likely win) but by a new Tory leader, who would pursue a somewhat harder Brexit (and, inevitably, end up with a no-deal Brexit)?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

. . . Labour romp home in the election, and immediately ask for talks extension and membership of CU. EU says no worries, we have that plan on our shelf of plans. Extended talks period begins, and talks reveal to the UK public that a Norway option (or whatever) will cost a lot, and give less control than they have now.

People continue to ask "What exactly is the point of Brexit again?". Eventually Labour organize a referendum on the new deal, with Brexit on the new agreed terms or Remain as the options, and Remain wins.

In this scenario, only collapse at the last minute with an election can help.

Timing, here, is everything.

The Art 50 notice period is due to expire in March 2019, if not extended. Once it does expire, the UK is no longer a member and, after that, there is no possiblity of Remain. Remain gets replaced at this point with Rejoin. And Rejoining is a much, much bigger deal than Remaining would have been.

So, it crucially matters when the UK seeks to change course. They need to do so in sufficient time to seek unanimous consent from the EU-27 (because unanimous consent is needed) to exend the Art 50 notice period.

Brexiters in the past have assumed, and asserted, that the EU needs UK trade, that getting a sweet deal would be the easiest thing ever, that the German car manufacturers would have Merket dancing to their "be nice to Britain" tune, etc, etc. It turned out to be all rubbish.

But remainers are at risk of making the same mistake. The EU is not gagging to keep the UK on board. Disappointed as they are at Brexit, it hasn't been followed by a domino-like seqence of Grexit, Spexit, Frexit and Italexit as was threatened or promised. They have looked at the prospect of Brexit and decided they can live with it, and be OK. And they're conscious that it's not all downside. They won't have to listen to the constant whingeing any more, or put up with a spineless UK political establishment that is too gutless to confront lies and misinformation about the EU at home. Above all, once Brexit is complete, they won't ever have to go through Brexit again.

So, I wouldn't assume that if the UK turns around and says "can we extend the Art 50 notice period [with a view to just possibly calling the whole thing off at some future point]?", the EU-28 will necessarily fall on this offer with glad cries. At this point, some of them would have somewhat mixed feelings about the prospect of the UK not leaving after all. And they'd be conscious that in five years time there'll be yet another UK election, with the possibility of yet another volte-face.

So I think the answer might well be along the lines of "Tell you what - how about, instead of extending the Art 50 notice period, we let Art 50 take effect in March 2019 as planned and instead we exend the transitional period, for long enough for you to think about whether you want to reapply for membership, and sign an Accession Agreement?" That would keep the UK in, or get them back into, the single market and the customs union, while they worked out what they really wanted to do, and (if what they really want turns out to be EU membership) satisfied the EU-28 that this was a mature and enduring decision, and that they were going to approach EU membership in a way which sought to ensure that the whole Brexit shemozzle was unlikely to recur.

Essentially, the UK would be asking the EU-27 to extend the Art 50 notice period to give the British more time to think about whether serving Art 50 notice in the first place had been such a good idea. And the course of the negotiations so far has generally created the impression that the UK doesn't face up to any hard question until they are forced to, so extending the Art 50 notice period might not be such a good idea; it wouldn't be taken as an opportunity to think about things so much as an opportunity to put off thinking about things.

So the UK might have to go a bit of work to get everybody to buy into extending the Art 50 period. And, depending on when all this happens, they simply might not have time to complete that work. It only requires one member state to remain dubious about the value of extending the Art 50 period, and Art 50 cannot be extended.

Ellian

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't agree. I think cancelling Brexit is a 100-1 longshot at this stage, but the path might go:

Final, final deal emerges at the talks, and is very much dictated by the EU. The DUP and the Eurosceptics balk and bring down the Government.

Labour romp home in the election, and immediately ask for talks extension and membership of CU. EU says no worries, we have that plan on our shelf of plans. Extended talks period begins, and talks reveal to the UK public that a Norway option (or whatever) will cost a lot, and give less control than they have now.

People continue to ask "What exactly is the point of Brexit again?". Eventually Labour organize a referendum on the new deal, with Brexit on the new agreed terms or Remain as the options, and Remain wins.

In this scenario, only collapse at the last minute with an election can help.

In this hypothetical scenario, do you see the UK keeping it's rebate and outside the Euro? Keeping sterling (and more importantly the ability to deflate your own currency and avoid the problems Greece face) is a red line for quite a lot of remainers I know in the UK - for pragmatic economic reasons.

Peregrinus

Ellian wrote: »

In this hypothetical scenario, do you see the UK keeping it's rebate and outside the Euro? Keeping sterling (and more importantly the ability to deflate your own currency and avoid the problems Greece face) is a red line for quite a lot of remainers I know in the UK - for pragmatic economic reasons.

If Brexit is called off before March 2109 (or if the Art 50 notice period gets extended and then Brexit is called off before the extended period expires) then the default is that the UK remains a member on its current terms, including opt-out from the Euro, opt-out from Schengen, budget rebate, etc, etc. The only way it wouldn't happen this way is if a deal was done to accept the withdrawal of the Art. 50 notice, in return for the UK accepting some change to its current terms of membership.

But if the Art 50 notice takes effect, and then the UK seeks to rejoin, then the default is that the UK must accept the Euro, join Schengen, etc, etc, since these are standard requirements for any state seeking admission to the Union. The only way this wouldn't happen is if the EU sought to encourage or facilitate the UK rejoining by agreeing to reinstate some of the special terms from which it had benefited during its first period of membership. So far as I know this would require unanimous agreement among the EU-27.

This is one of the reasons why I say above that Rejoin would be much bigger deal than Remain.

(With regard to the Euro in particular, there's a separate discussion going on within the EU about the problems that were manifested as a result of the Global Financial Crisis, and discussions about what changes should be made so that the Euro stands up better in such circumstances. If the UK were seeking to Rejoin and were being asked to accept the Euro, these two discussions would obviously become linked, since the UK would be invited to joint a reformed Euro system, and indeed to have a significant voice in the reform of the system.)

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is an election inevitable at this point? Could the fall of May be followed not by a general election (which, I agree, Labour would likely win) but by a new Tory leader, who would pursue a somewhat harder Brexit (and, inevitably, end up with a no-deal Brexit)?

I don't think the DUP will prop up another Tory PM - they have not enjoyed propping this one up much.

The EU is not gagging to keep the UK on board.

Agreed, but at the same time, Brexit is going to be pointless and costly for the EU, and Hard brexit doubly so. If they can avoid it, they will, even if the UK continues to be the annoying racist Uncle at the dinner table for the forseeable. There is just too much cash involved.

Zubeneschamali

Ellian wrote: »

In this hypothetical scenario, do you see the UK keeping it's rebate and outside the Euro?

I think the UK would only remain on current terms. There is no way the UK would swallow some punishment like giving up the rebate or Sterling as well as renouncing Brexit.

But this is all very unlikely at this stage.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think the DUP will prop up another Tory PM - they have not enjoyed propping this one up much.

They might, if (a) the reason May has fallen is that she's not Brexity enough, and (b) not supporting a Tory government under, e.g., Davis means a general election and a likely Corbyn victory.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Agreed, but at the same time, Brexit is going to be pointless and costly for the EU, and Hard brexit doubly so. If they can avoid it, they will, even if the UK continues to be the annoying racist Uncle at the dinner table for the forseeable. There is just too much cash involved.

I don't think that continued UK membership is something the EU will pay any price to secure. Remember the UK will be in the position of supplicant here; the EU will be in a position to try to use its leverage to eliminate any aspect of UK membership that it has found especially troublesome, and will be tempted to do so. If you think the EU will be largely driven by the amount of cash involved, then it will certainly cross their mind that this might be a good opportunity to press for a review of the UK's unique budget rebate arrangements.

Plus, remember, unanimous agreement of the EU-27 is needed to extend the Art. 50 period. Even if it is in all their interests, it may take some time to get them all to see that.

Time, basically, would not be on the UK's side here.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the UK would only remain on current terms. There is no way the UK would swallow some punishment like giving up the rebate or Sterling as well as renouncing Brexit.

I agree. But the net effect is that the UK would be asking the EU to pretend as if the whole of the past three years had not happened.

And I don't see the EU accepting this unless they are given some very good reason to believe that the whole of the past three years cannot happen again. So something would have to change in the UK's commitment to the EU.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But this is all very unlikely at this stage.

Wildly unlikely. Too many improbable events have to unfold in just the right way in too short a time for this to be a realistic possibility.

Enzokk

Sand wrote: »

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.

That is an interesting way to frame this. Yes there would be years that immigration was higher in that period, but there would be years it was lower as well. So highlighting that some years had higher immigration than the average is weird, unless you state there were years of lower immigration which is redundant because you are talking about an average.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

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.

Are these the same polling companies that had the Conservatives with a majority before the last election? Only Yougov had the result as a hung parliament at any stage and all of the rest underestimated the Labour result by 40-60 seats. Seeing as we are talking about one result that could be an anomaly, but I would not be surprised if Labour comfortably wins if there is a new election this year. This would be due to austerity and concerns about the NHS in the main and not too much about Brexit.

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.

Farage is a snake oil salesman that is on video of saying different outcomes for the UK after Brexit that he now completely opposes. He was okay with a Norway style deal, until he wasn't. He is out for himself and it is a little sickening that he will be getting an EU pension once the UK leaves the EU. He will be happy to keep taking EU money for his "service" to the EU while saying how bad they are. That is the lowest of the low in my opinion.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

They might, if (a) the reason May has fallen is that she's not Brexity enough, and (b) not supporting a Tory government under, e.g., Davis means a general election and a likely Corbyn victory.

The DUP are not really very brexity, though. They supported it (with mysterious cash from nowhere in particular), but Arlene for one stands to lose a lot if there is a hard border, as do many folks who have voted DUP recently.

And the DUP do not really give a monkeys about Tory vs. Labour in Westminster, it's all about votes in NI. A hostile govt in Westminster may make them more popular - they are a party of protest and defiance, not the sorts for the compromise and negotiation needed in government.

Plus, remember, unanimous agreement of the EU-27 is needed to extend the Art. 50 period. Even if it is in all their interests, it may take some time to get them all to see that.

Agreed - even one member state with a grudge could force a hard Brexit. But I don't see how that would be in any member states interests, unless the smaller states want to start shaking down the EU for favours: "Give us the money or the UK gets it!!".

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

And I don't see the EU accepting this unless they are given some very good reason to believe that the whole of the past three years cannot happen again. So something would have to change in the UK's commitment to the EU.

The UK inside the EU is clearly better for the European Project than the UK outside. We all know they are slowing it down, but they are the 3rd most populous member state, 12% of the total population.

And what if they do leave? In the unlikely Brexiteer scenario, they make a go of it and undermine the cohesion of the EU by encouraging Euroscepticism.

In the more likely disastrous scenario, they become a less stable state on the edge of Europe - fragmenting as Scotland leaves and applies to join the EU, constantly whining and pursuing the EU in trade talks like an annoying ex, politically unstable as living standards take a dive, street protests get the riot police treatment, EU citizens decamp home en masse - it'll be a mess for decades.

sink

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is an election inevitable at this point? Could the fall of May be followed not by a general election (which, I agree, Labour would likely win) but by a new Tory leader, who would pursue a somewhat harder Brexit (and, inevitably, end up with a no-deal Brexit)?

I don't think there could simply be another leader instated as it would not solve the fundamental problem for the Tory party, that there is no commons majority for any defined course. There are enough Tory rebels in the Anna Soubry / Ken Clarke camp to block any legislation to would facilitate a no-deal Brexit. Even without a withdrawal agreement, parliament will be required to pass legislation to enact control over areas where the EU no longer has a role, e.g. food safety, aerospace etc. The rebels can continue to tack on amendments to any future legislation demanding the government go back and negotiate a withdrawal agreement and customs union membership. If the government can't pass it's own policy agenda it has to call an election.

Leroy42

sink wrote: »

I don't think there could simply be another leader instated as it would not solve the fundamental problem for the Tory party, that there is no commons majority for any defined course. There are enough Tory rebels in the Anna Soubry / Ken Clarke camp to block any legislation to would facilitate a no-deal Brexit. Even without a withdrawal agreement, parliament will be required to pass legislation to enact control over areas where the EU no longer has a role, e.g. food safety, aerospace etc. The rebels can continue to tack on amendments to any future legislation demanding the government go back and negotiate a withdrawal agreement and customs union membership. If the government can't pass it's own policy agenda it has to call an election.

It really is a fecking mess isn't it?

Even the party in government, not even a majority to start with, can't agree on what it is doing or what it wants.

On something as fundamentally important as this, the main party really should have a single approach before embarking on such an endeavour.

I think deep down most people know that even an election want bring any clarity to the situation. The UK is caught in the bind of knowing what it wants, but knowing that what it wants is either impossible or of possible deeply damaging.

MrPudding

Leroy42 wrote: »

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

I have seen some articles that calculate they would have had around 60 seats after the 2010 GE if PR had been in place. I can't help but wonder if we would have had a Brexit vote if they had actually had this kind of representation in parliament.

Dragging their (and the other Euro-sceptic) views out into the open and having discussions about the EU and immigration in parliament, in public might have taken some of the heat out of it.

MrP

J Mysterio

I'm satisfied now that the backstop has been guaranteed (again).

The Brexiteers can do what they want, that aside.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

Are these the same polling companies that had the Conservatives with a majority
before the last election? Only Yougov had the result as a hung parliament at any
stage and all of the rest underestimated the Labour result by 40-60 seats.
Seeing as we are talking about one result that could be an anomaly, but I would
not be surprised if Labour comfortably wins if there is a new election this
year. This would be due to austerity and concerns about the NHS in the main and
not too much about Brexit.

The one I quoted was the latest poll and is actually a Yougov poll. To paraphrase, there are lies, damn lies and polls. But they are as best an indicator as you'll get.

Skedaddle

The best case scenario from an Irish point of view now would be for the DUP to go absolutely bonkers and pull support for the UK Government, triggering a general election within 14 days.

Tropheus

Skedaddle wrote: »

The best case scenario from an Irish point of view now would be for the DUP to go absolutely bonkers and pull support for the UK Government, triggering a general election within 14 days.

Can't see them do that as they know Corbyn is lurking in the background.

Water John

The DUP, like JRM will grumble, throw a few shapes, similar to JRM throwing, fish into the river, but do nothing.
If the fishermen of the UK think that, JRm gives a flying f**k about them, they are very deluded.

MrPudding

Water John wrote: »

The DUP, like JRM will grumble, throw a few shapes, similar to JRM throwing, fish into the river, but do nothing.
If the fishermen of the UK think that, JRm gives a flying f**k about them, they are very deluded.

Yeah, it is a special kind of deluded to think JRM give any kind of sh1t about any "normal" people. Personally I can't believe he is actually going to touch fish. Are you sure be isn't going to send one of his boys to do the throwing?

MrP

pixelburp

We live in a world where a trust-fund, billionaire real estate tycoon - a New Yorker at that - managed to persuade just under half the vote that he was a champion of the blue collar worker, and a cure to the swamp of 'coastal elites' apparently corrupting Washington.

It's not exactly a stretch to imagine a stereotype of the English upper-class like Reese Mogg getting the working classes on his side; it has literally worked for his ilk countless times throughout the history of Parliament. It's standard operating procedure at this stage in English politics.

jobbridge4life

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, it is a special kind of deluded to think JRM give any kind of sh1t about any "normal" people. Personally I can't believe he is actually going to touch fish. Are you sure be isn't going to send one of his boys to do the throwing?

MrP

His Nanny surely.

If England allow this man anywhere close to actual power they deserve everything they get.

Leroy42

It pretty muted the response. JRM and IDS have both seemingly taken the view of its worth it to get out. So red lines are gone, once they can claim Brexit day, the actual details are not that important.

Or is it that they are simply biding their time since nothing is agreed until later in the year?

bob mcbob

Water John wrote: »

The DUP, like JRM will grumble, throw a few shapes, similar to JRM throwing, fish into the river, but do nothing.
If the fishermen of the UK think that, JRm gives a flying f**k about them, they are very deluded.

Yes agreed but below is an extract from the Herald Scotland.
As half of the current Scottish Tory MPs come from the North East fishing area, they will be out of a job otherwise.

ANGRY Scottish Conservative MPs have warned Theresa May that they are prepared to collapse her Government if she reneges on a “fundamental pledge” to give Britain’s fishermen full sovereignty over UK waters from 2021.

The Herald has been told that the group of 13 Scottish Tory MPs feel the issue is “totemic”; that after years, from Ted Heath onwards, when Conservatives were accused of letting down the fishing industry, they could not be seen to be doing so again.

J Mysterio

Rees-Mogg has clarified that he is not a 'fish thrower'.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-reesmogg-brexit-protests-fishing-thames-uk-waters-eu-transition-period-a8264556.html

Sam Russell

If Britain get back their fishing rights and their waters, where does that leave us? Surely there would be an expectation that we should get enhanced rights to our own waters, at least exclusive rights to 12 miles or 20 km from the shore for boats under a certain agreed size. It would be a small change that was rejected in the past.

Our fishing rights are a very large proportion of EU rights and will increase with the withdrawal of the UK.

Sam Russell

J Mysterio wrote: »

Rees-Mogg has clarified that he is not a 'fish thrower'.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-reesmogg-brexit-protests-fishing-thames-uk-waters-eu-transition-period-a8264556.html

I presume his nanny refused to do the throwing.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

This has purely token value. While it's symbolically important that during the transition period the UK is free to negotiate, sign and ratify trade deals with third countries, in reality the UK's limited, inexperienced trade negotiating resources will be largely taken up with negotiating the UK's most important trade deal of all; with the EU. During this period they won't have much capacity to take trade negotiations with third countries much further than "Hi! Nice to meet you!"

Besides, third countries will have no desire to commit to a trade deal with the UK until they know the UK's trading relationship with the EU. So even if the UK did devote signficant resources to trade negotiations with third countries, they'd find very slow progress being made; it would be very much in the interests of the third countries to string the thing out until after the UK/EU trade deal is done.

I agree that it is unlikely that a trade deal with a third country will actually be concluded during the transition period. Rather, what is significant is that we now know that whatever the nature of the final deal between the UK and the EU, the UK will be free to negotiate with third countries.

This was one of the principles of Brexit as interpreted by the UK government and this principle has now been accepted by the EU. Had it not been accepted, then a deal of any sort would have been impossible and this would, of course, have been very bad for Ireland - hard border, trade tariffs and all that.

Still a lot to do, of course, but reason for cautious optimism I think.

Water John

With Brexit, UK gets back its fishing grounds, at the end of the transition period. The Scots Tory MPs are thus arguing a strawman. They know that. Its in the intervening period is what the fishermen were looking for.