Brexit discussion thread III

Peregrinus

Rain Ascending wrote: »

Agreed. There was a lot of discussion this morning here about how David Davis was trying direct some messages our way, over here on this side of the Irish Sea. The reality is that the number one negotiation going on at the moment is within the UK, as to the shape and direction of the country in the short, medium, and long term.

His messaging should be seen as part of a broader pattern of trying to shut down alternative voices and perspectives in that UK-internal debate:

• Supreme Court insisting on Parliament having it's say: "enemies of the people"
• People advocating for the protection of the GFA: "look no Executive, the GFA is failing anyway"
• Electoral Commission investigating coordination within the various Leave campaigns: "don't pay attention to them, sure haven't half of the board expressed support for Remain - can't trust their judgement"
• EU sectoral briefing documents: "the EU is punishing us again"
• Irish government expressing concern and fighting its own corner: "they are looking over their shoulder at Sinn Féin"

As communication strategies go, it's dirty, but effective up to a point ...

It's effective up to a point, if the point is pleasing Brexiteers at home.

It's completely ineffective, if not positively counterproductive, if the point is helping the UK get the Brexit deal it wants.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's effective up to a point, if the point is pleasing Brexiteers at home.

It's completely ineffective, if not positively counterproductive, if the point is helping the UK get the Brexit deal it wants.

Sorry, speaking as somebody who lives on and will be very affected by the re-imposition of a border - there is still no certainty about what will happen here, despite Leo's protestations that the deal is 'bulletproof'.
Just this week the campaign against a border was stepped up again. The impression is that the British have gotten what they wanted (be vague, and kick it down the road and use it as a bargaining chip later) in this regard.

Bigus

blanch152 wrote: »

I think it is dreadful the way that many Irish people have taken to gloating over what will happen to the UK post-Brexit.

The UK are our closest neighbours, they are our biggest trading partner, they are our closest allies within the EU, many of us have relations and friends living and working there. We should be sad and sympathetic rather than happy and gloating.

An attitude that we should be taking a ringside seat to the UK devouring itself is just so wrong on so many levels.

I now think we in Ireland should Embrace the EU more ,even go as far as converting to Lhd drive cars trucks and buses , tune out BBC +
sky news , and finally brush up our European language skills, and onwards and upwards. That's how Brexit has made me feel, the further we get away from the empire the better.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Sorry, speaking as somebody who lives on and will be very affected by the re-imposition of a border - there is still no certainty about what will happen here, despite Leo's protestations that the deal is 'bulletproof'.
Just this week the campaign against a border was stepped up again. The impression is that the British have gotten what they wanted (be vague, and kick it down the road and use it as a bargaining chip later) in this regard.

That impression is definitely wrong. The British have not got what they wanted. if the December deal were what they wanted, they wouldn't be desperately trying to wriggle out of it.

They can definitely escape from it at the cost of not having a Withdrawal Agreement. But all but the insanely ideological recognise that as too high a price to pay. What they are trying to do right now is find a way of escaping from it while still getting a Withdrawal Agreement, but it's the agreement they made in December that is stymieing that.

You are correct to think that we need to keep the pressure up, and not let the UK off the hook here. But it is completely wrong to think that there was ever any prospect of getting this done-and-dusted in December, so that we would now not be in a position of needing to keep up pressure. December was never going to be anything but "satisfactory progress" towards a Withdrawal Agreement and, no matter what the UK said that represented "satisfactory progress", it would still be meaningless if, in the event, the UK never went ahead and completed a Withdrawal Agreement.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

That impression is definitely wrong. The British have not got what they wanted. if the December deal were what they wanted, they wouldn't be desperately trying to wriggle out of it.

They can definitely escape from it at the cost of not having a Withdrawal Agreement. But all but the insanely ideological recognise that as too high a price to pay. What they are trying to do right now is find a way of escaping from it while still getting a Withdrawal Agreement, but it's the agreement they made in December that is stymieing that.

You are correct to think that we need to keep the pressure up, and not let the UK off the hook here. But it is completely wrong to think that there was ever any prospect of getting this done-and-dusted in December, so that we would now not be in a position of needing to keep up pressure. December was never going to be anything but "satisfactory progress" towards a Withdrawal Agreement and, no matter what the UK said that represented "satisfactory progress", it would still be meaningless if, in the event, the UK never went ahead and completed a Withdrawal Agreement.

I didn't say it should have been 'done and dusted'. I think language like 'bulletproof' should have been avoided though because, as yet, (as Barnier said) we 'don't have an operational solution'.

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say it should have been 'done and dusted'. I think language like 'bulletproof' should have been avoided though because, as yet, (as Barnier said) we 'don't have an operational solution'.

We do have an operational solution, and the UK agreed to it in December. They stay in alignment with the EU and there is no Border.

Peregrinus's suggestion that they either comply or leave with no Withdrawal Agreement is true, but it's like saying that someone who loaned you a fiver 'til payday can either pay you back or shoot himself to avoid paying.

They cannot in practical terms leave without an agreement, and the agreement will say no border. What that means for the UK after the withdrawal agreement comes into effect is their problem.

FrancieBrady

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We do have an operational solution, and the UK agreed to it in December. They stay in alignment with the EU and there is no Border.

Peregrinus's suggestion that they either comply or leave with no Withdrawal Agreement is true, but it's like saying that someone who loaned you a fiver 'til payday can either pay you back or shoot himself to avoid paying.

They cannot in practical terms leave without an agreement, and the agreement will say no border. What that means for the UK after the withdrawal agreement comes into effect is their problem.

Don't mean to be argumentative, but what Barnier was talking about was 'an operational solution' for what the UK are currently proposing. And they are proposing the entire UK leaving the CU and Single Market.

Leroy42

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Don't mean to be argumentative, but what Barnier was talking about was 'an operational solution' for what the UK are currently proposing. And they are proposing the entire UK leaving the CU and Single Market.

But they cannot do that and maintain an open border. If it wasn't for the GFA I don't think any of this would even be being discussed. The UK really don't care about putting up a border, the whole idea of Brexit is putting up borders against EU.

The UK can leave the EU as a whole, a thus a border. They can either not leave or make NI separate to avoid a border.

Thats it really. The choice is pretty stark and pretty clear and all the talk from Davies, TM etc is just that, trying to buy time to find a solution to a problem they have no idea how to solve.

You seem to be under the impression that the UK are trying hard to avoid a hard border on the basis of some duty of care or whatever. They aren't (IMO). They are stuck because of an agreement they signed 20 years ago which no one ever foresaw as having this impact. The smallest part of the union is now the driving factor on its future, it must be galling to those in Westminster.

There is only two ways a deal can be done. Either the UK accept one of the two options of the EU agree to give in to the UK. Whilst I think many in the EU would like to do that, the effects of that would be enormous and probably spell the end of the EU itself. Why would other nations continue to abide by the rules if the UK can operate outside of them?

Hungary, Italy etc etc. The EU has many problems and the UK seem to think that their deal can be seen in a void, without any knock on effects

Zubeneschamali

FrancieBrady wrote: »

what Barnier was talking about was 'an operational solution' for what the UK are currently proposing. And they are proposing the entire UK leaving the CU and Single Market.

My point is that the Withdrawal Agreement will say they stay in alignment so that there is no border until they figure out Barnier's operational solution. They don't have to come up with it before the Agreement is in place, or before Brexit day, or before the transitional period ends.

They don't ever have to come up with it for all we care.

LeinsterDub

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I didn't say it should have been 'done and dusted'. I think language like 'bulletproof' should have been avoided though because, as yet, (as Barnier said) we 'don't have an operational solution'.

It's a legally the base of a legally binding agreement. How much more bulletproof is there? Keeping in mind that we can't compel the UK to do something they don't want. If they decide to walk away with absolutely no agreement then all agreements thus far will be void.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We do have an operational solution, and the UK agreed to it in December. They stay in alignment with the EU and there is no Border.

Just to note that here I mean we on the island of Ireland have an operational solution for our immediate problem. I do not mean that May and Davis have an operation solution for having cake and eating it.

Leroy42

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's a legally binding agreement. How much more bulletproof is there? Keeping in mind that we can't compel the UK to do something they don't want. If they decide to walk away with absolutely no agreement then all agreements thus far will be void.

Is it? I'm was under the impression that nothing was actually signed or entered into. It was an agreement on a basis to move forward.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's a legally binding agreement.

It's not. It's an agreement about some of the terms that are to be included in a legally binding agreement that the EU and the UK are negotiating. There'll be no legally binding agreement until they have negotiated the other terms, and signed, and ratified it on both sides, and there's the best part of a year to go before all that happens.

So we don't have a legally binding agreement for an open border. What we hve is agreement that there'll be no legally binding agreement that doesn't include an open border. The UK can still take the no-deal route if they really want to. There is nothing we can do to stop that. There never was. The whole point about agreements is, well, if people don't agree, there's no agreement.

FrancieBrady

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It's a legally binding agreement. How much more bulletproof is there? Keeping in mind that we can't compel the UK to do something they don't want. If they decide to walk away with absolutely no agreement then all agreements thus far will be void.

What 'legal agreement'?

Edit: Peregrinus has already dealt with that.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not. It's an agreement about some of the terms that are to be included in a legally binding agreement that the EU

Sorry I meant it will be the base of a legally binding agreement . Nothing is agreed till everything is agreed and all that.

LuckyLloyd

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think they will "leave" the EU next march and declare victory, but the "transition period" will be EU membership with a few stickers on it and it will drag on for many, many years, eventually becoming the new normal.

No way will they pull the trigger on a hard customs border with 100km queues, mass factory layoffs, food shortages in the shops, riots, baton charges etc.

Brexiteers will either move on (Boris) or return to the shadows (Gove).

The fly in that ointment is that I don't believe for a single second that the EU would desire a rolling never ending "transition" period. It is in the EU's interests that Brexit becomes Brexit and the EU move on with the UK as a third party. The Transition period is just that: a period of time with a defined end.

LuckyLloyd

blanch152 wrote: »

I think it is dreadful the way that many Irish people have taken to gloating over what will happen to the UK post-Brexit.

The UK are our closest neighbours, they are our biggest trading partner, they are our closest allies within the EU, many of us have relations and friends living and working there. We should be sad and sympathetic rather than happy and gloating.

An attitude that we should be taking a ringside seat to the UK devouring itself is just so wrong on so many levels.

Nah - they are in a post reason phase of political and societal discourse. To be sympathetic is to condone the pathetic state of their democracy. Remember that - as part of a national act of self harm - they have paid no regard to the impact on the island of Ireland. Our objective needs to be loudly and forcefully voicing our concerns and making sure they are prioritised as part of the EU negotiations. But after that it's bye bye, many happy Brexits. Britain simply isn't a nice place to be right now. Their society is ugly and it will likely take a decade for it to be unwound in the right direction.

LuckyLloyd

flatty wrote: »

You are mixing the sharp end of the tory party with the swathe of normal people who are just trying to make ends meet, and completely forgetting that seventeen million people did not vote to brexit at all.

And that seventeen million people have crumbled and failed to keep up any level of pressure or protest. You can see it on Question Time each week - so many young people saying 'well I voted Remain but now I just want us to leave to get our independence back'. For shame England, for shame.

Sam Russell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And that seventeen million people have crumbled and failed to keep up any level of pressure or protest. You can see it on Question Time each week - so many young people saying 'well I voted Remain but now I just want us to leave to get our independence back'. For shame England, for shame.

I do not think that Question Time, or the BBC should be taken in any way as a serious barometer of public opinion.

The programme picks its audience and leads the discussion through its picked panel members who are selected to make a 'good' TV programme, not to advance public opinion or to advance political discourse. They are trying to make dramatic TV - and then do it all again next week.

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

I do not think that Question Time, or the BBC should be taken in any way as a serious barometer of public opinion.

The programme picks its audience and leads the discussion through its picked panel members who are selected to make a 'good' TV programme, not to advance public opinion or to advance political discourse. They are trying to make dramatic TV - and then do it all again next week.

That may well be true, but the BBC is seen as a serious media outlet, and QT is seen as a serious program. So people watching it are likely to view it as representative.

Combine that with the overwhelming support for Brexit in the national press, a strong contingent of the cabinet and a vocal amount of MP's and it is very easy to understand why the majority of people accept this as a good idea.

We are removed from, both physically and mentally. We are not in the housing estates, we don't see the closed down coalmines. We don't have the handup of history telling us that we used to be great, that we used to rule the world..

Those remainers that seem to want to just get on with, I think they simply see that no amount of evidence is going to change this course. They seemed resigned to the idea that only by doing this will the chance of change ever happen. I they are right. If Brexit was stopped tomorrow what would that achieve?

Farage, JRM, IDS, Boris et al, would restart the campaign all over again. Nothing would actually be resolved. For better or worse, some version of Brexit is going to happen. Uk will leave the EU. What form that takes, the impact of it, and the future is what is in question.

Lemming

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And that seventeen million people have crumbled and failed to keep up any level of pressure or protest. You can see it on Question Time each week - so many young people saying 'well I voted Remain but now I just want us to leave to get our independence back'. For shame England, for shame.

Bold emphasis mine to follow below.

Leroy42 wrote: »

That may well be true, but the BBC is seen as a serious media outlet, and QT is seen as a serious program. So people watching it are likely to view it as representative.

Combine that with the overwhelming support for Brexit in the national press, a strong contingent of the cabinet and a vocal amount of MP's and it is very easy to understand why the majority of people accept this as a good idea.

What you didn't see int he national press, was any mention of the several large protests up and down the length of England a couple of weeks ago. I know; I was at one. Leeds had several thousand people march through its streets. I had friends at a simultaneous event in Exeter and I know of others elsewhere. Now google the British press for mention of the above. Meanwhile, they wax lyrical over 'Our man Nige' having someone else toss fish into the Thames so he wont get his hands dirty.

Despite the BBC's protestations to the contrary on notions of bias; me thinks the lady doth protest too much. The BBC have wound themselves in four-square behind the cabinet on Brexit.

Mezcita

Lemming wrote: »

Bold emphasis mine to follow below.



What you didn't see int he national press, was any mention of the several large protests up and down the length of England a couple of weeks ago. I know; I was at one. Leeds had several thousand people march through its streets. I had friends at a simultaneous event in Exeter and I know of others elsewhere. Now google the British press for mention of the above. Meanwhile, they wax lyrical over 'Our man Nige' having someone else toss fish into the Thames so he wont get his hands dirty.

Despite the BBC's protestations to the contrary on notions of bias; me thinks the lady doth protest too much. The BBC have wound themselves in four-square behind the cabinet on Brexit.

Not exactly millions of people taking to the streets though is it? It basically seem like people (on both sides) are willing to take a "wait and see" approach to this. The full magnitude of the whole thing will then unfold after it's too late to change course.

I think Brexit simply has to happen for the UK to realise what they are giving up. But also because it's the only way that meaningful change will ever happen over here.

I've lived here for a couple of years now and it's actually staggering how little discussion this all gets on a daily basis. My European colleagues are all planning on jumping ship the moment things turn bad. But the UK crew are carrying on as if nothing is actually going to happen.

Let them roll the dice. They will lose but only then will things start to change here.

EdgeCase

In my interactions with people in England, I've found people have adopted a "oh well! We're here now we might as well go ahead with it. How bad can it be?" type of approach.

They're generally not really aware of the significance of it (even in business circles) and there's an assumption that it will all be "grand" or it's a big fuss about nothing.

Also if you raise it, you're very likely to be more or less told to shut up too. It's either "boring" or you're somehow trying to "undo democracy" by even debating it.

Most people don't care / don't engage on it at all really. Also many people I've spoken to have no idea what the EU does and seem to see it as either negative or irrelevant to them.

There's also a very definite assumption in business that there's no problem at all and that they'll just be able to trade as normal and anyone who says otherwise is a "remoaner" or just making a fuss about nothing.

The attitude I get on the northern Ireland border issue is that it's "the Irish being awkward as usual".

One guy didn't even seem to understand that Ireland wasn't in the UK and went on a rant about the SNP ?!

I'm not saying that uninformed debate is unique to England, but don't assume that most people have any idea how significant what they're about to do is.

It reminds me a lot of the early days of the financial crisis here. You'd all sorts of armchair experts and commentators telling us that the housing market and banks were as solid as rock and using all sorts of special Irish exceptionalism arguments, while all the actual experts had been warning of impending doom and were ignored.

BonnieSituation

For all the talk of the Commission being "unrepresentative" and "unelected", it sure does go about its business in a rather serious and considerate fashion... It's not all Rosey f course, but it's examples like that below that I love what the EU does for us citizens.

The Guardian wrote:

EU moves to ban sale of lower-quality branded food in eastern Europe

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2018/apr/11/eu-moves-ban-sale-lower-quality-branded-food-eastern-europe?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Not to mention roaming and credit card charges and the impending GDPR implementation etc.

ancapailldorcha

It's apparently quite the sticking point over there. Here's a piece from The Economist for anyone who is interested:

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21724408-dual-foods-furore-hints-eastern-mistrust-west-eastern-europeans-think-western-food

The Commission being unelected isn't something I'm terribly joyous about but it does seem to do a good job. Ultimately though, the Parliament is elected and people seem to care less about that in terms of voting turnout than their own national and local elections.

LeinsterDub

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Commission being unelected isn't something I'm terribly joyous about but it does seem to do a good job. Ultimately though, the Parliament is elected and people seem to care less about that in terms of voting turnout than their own national and local elections.

People don't seem to care the civil service isn't elected why the concern over the commission?

PopePalpatine

LeinsterDub wrote: »

People don't seem to care the civil service isn't elected why the concern over the commission?

AFAIK, the civil service doesn't have as much input into legislation as the European Commission.

sink

PopePalpatine wrote: »

AFAIK, the civil service doesn't have as much input into legislation as the European Commission.

Every scrap of legislation in this country is drafted by the civil service so civil servants still have a very significant influence. The only difference is it is the Dáil which proposes it, whereas in the EU the commission has sole power propose EU legislation (usually at the request of the council or the parliament but also off of their own bat). It was designed this way as the Commissions mandate is to maintain a balance so no state is treated overtly negatively or positively by proposed legislation. Can you imagine the type of legislation that PiS or Fidesz would propose (WWII reparations and other such populist nonsense). It somewhat prevents the EU being used for political theatre to drum up domestic support.

EdgeCase

I think the main thing to remember is it's not intended to be a federal government. It's still very much an intergovernmental organisation in many respects and the most powerful body is, at least as argued by many people, the Council of the European Union - the national governments either as line ministers on a particular topic, or as heads of government.

While the Commission proposes, the council of ministers and the parliament hold the actual legislative authority.

Also directives are implemented through the filter of national parliaments.

It's a bit of an unusual set up but it isn't really intended to replace national governments or be a federal body as there's no real political consensus on ever doing that. So, you've a work around that allows governments to cooperate and pool sovereignty in defined areas.

It's a unique form of super national government, but I think trying to compare it to a federal state is where things start to go wrong. It isn't one. So you can't really draw a direct comparison with the USA, for example.

It's also always a work in progress. So don't expect perfection. Nobody has ever done anything quite like the EU before. So things will glitch from time to time. It's a pretty decent system for what it is but always need to be worked on, monitored and tweaked.

It's also pretty necessary for what are a group of small and medium countries to remain internationally relevant.

How the UK handles itself out on its own will be interesting to watch. It's not something it has ever really done outside of the Empire role.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Commission being unelected isn't something I'm terribly joyous about but it does seem to do a good job. Ultimately though, the Parliament is elected and people seem to care less about that in terms of voting turnout than their own national and local elections.

That's because most candidates campaign under their own party and don't engage on EU affairs. This weakens EP democracy, this is why EP elections are always protest votes and in the vacuum of festering ignorance a group such as UKIP emerges.

Leroy42

The EU need to learn the lesson then. Why are the voters so disengaged from EU elections? WHy do they feel that it should be a protest vote? Clearly the EU is suffering from a communication deficit, not just in the UK but across nearly all the countries.

Many people simply do not know, or care, what the EU does. They see Brussels as this meeting place where PM's go off to shake hands etc.

A large part of that falls down to how national politicians have treated the EU. Everything bad is the fault of the EU. Take the turf cutters. Why are the TD's not standing up and stating that they agree with this, and that whilst the EU are pressing for it, even if the EU doesn't it will be brought in anyway.

Until you change that narrative, the EU will always be viewed as nothing more than a club for the elite

flatty

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

You are mixing the sharp end of the tory party with the swathe of normal people who are just trying to make ends meet, and completely forgetting that seventeen million people did not vote to brexit at all.

And that seventeen million people have crumbled and failed to keep up any level of pressure or protest. You can see it on Question Time each week - so many young people saying 'well I voted Remain but now I just want us to leave to get our independence back'. For shame England, for shame.

Dear me. The audience on question Time is hand picked.
What on earth is an average punter who voted remain supposed to do? They cannot change the political system. The mainstream media is controlled by the brexiteers. The Labour Party is the only currently viable alternative, and they also seem to want to brexit. Even if they didn't, teresa may will prostitute herself to any and all in order to stay in power, and hence will not call an election under any circumstances. The only remaining hope is parliament voting down her deal, but even then, she has worded it so that simply means the hardest of brexits, as I cannot see her resigning. She is utterly venal.
You tell me then, what should the average remain voter do?
Let's face it, if Ireland had a similar leadership, the Lisbon treaty would have been vetoed by democratic mandate, and there is nothing any ordinary Joe soap could have done about it.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hungary, Italy etc etc. The EU has many problems and the UK seem to think that their deal can be seen in a void, without any knock on effects

Brexit is barely on the radar on continental news channels.


It's been off-loaded to the EU. No continental leader is loosing sleep over the proceedings. It's a complete non-issue. It's not in a void because no one cares. The Swiss are pissed that their banking deals are on hold till Brexit is over though.


EU has given the UK enough rope - if they still shoot themselves in the foot it's their own fault.
Barnier: UK can change mind on single market until end of 2020

BonnieSituation

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It's apparently quite the sticking point over there. Here's a piece from The Economist for anyone who is interested:

https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21724408-dual-foods-furore-hints-eastern-mistrust-west-eastern-europeans-think-western-food

The Commission being unelected isn't something I'm terribly joyous about but it does seem to do a good job. Ultimately though, the Parliament is elected and people seem to care less about that in terms of voting turnout than their own national and local elections.

They are elected in a roundabout way given that they are appointed my national governments who are elected (in our case by the Dáil), who are elected by the people.

There is a case of "too much democracy", as proven by brexit and as proven by the insane American system of electing EVERYBODY!

Peregrinus

flatty wrote: »

Dear me. The audience on question Time is hand picked.
What on earth is an average punter who voted remain supposed to do? They cannot change the political system. The mainstream media is controlled by the brexiteers. The Labour Party is the only currently viable alternative, and they also seem to want to brexit. Even if they didn't, teresa may will prostitute herself to any and all in order to stay in power, and hence will not call an election under any circumstances. The only remaining hope is parliament voting down her deal, but even then, she has worded it so that simply means the hardest of brexits, as I cannot see her resigning. She is utterly venal.
You tell me then, what should the average remain voter do?

He or she should vote for the Liberal Democrats, or another party committed to a Remain policy.

You say that "the Labour Party is the only currently viable alternative", but that's only true so long as the average Remain voter keeps voting Labour. The average Remain voter can't make Labour the only viable alternative, and them complain that Labour is the only viable alternative.

LuckyLloyd

flatty wrote: »

Dear me. The audience on question Time is hand picked.
What on earth is an average punter who voted remain supposed to do? They cannot change the political system. The mainstream media is controlled by the brexiteers. The Labour Party is the only currently viable alternative, and they also seem to want to brexit. Even if they didn't, teresa may will prostitute herself to any and all in order to stay in power, and hence will not call an election under any circumstances. The only remaining hope is parliament voting down her deal, but even then, she has worded it so that simply means the hardest of brexits, as I cannot see her resigning. She is utterly venal.
You tell me then, what should the average remain voter do?
Let's face it, if Ireland had a similar leadership, the Lisbon treaty would have been vetoed by democratic mandate, and there is nothing any ordinary Joe soap could have done about it.

The Lib Dem’s should have had seventeen million votes at last year’s election.

Peregrinus

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The fly in that ointment is that I don't believe for a single second that the EU would desire a rolling never ending "transition" period. It is in the EU's interests that Brexit becomes Brexit and the EU move on with the UK as a third party. The Transition period is just that: a period of time with a defined end.

Yes.

There's a curious irony here. May would like an extended (or, at least, capable-of-extension) transition period. Hard Brexiteers oppose that, for fear that it would turn into an indefinite deferral of True Brexit, and they accuse the EU of attempting to engineer it as a way of frustrating Brexit. But in fact the EU also opposes it, because they doesn't want to be dealing with Brexit and the UK's angst for ever. So May is flanked on on side by hard Brexiters, and on the other side by the EU, both of whom are agreed in opposing her wishes.

The EU accepts that Brexit is going to happen, and doesn't fear any domino effect. They have no desire for Brexit to take any longer to implement than is needed to ensure that it's implemented in the way that is least disruptive and damaging (to the EU) as possible. It was May, remember, who asked for a transition period, and she initially asked for a 2-year period. After some hemming and hawing the EU said, OK, a 20-month period; that lines up neatly with the end of the current budgetary cycle on 31 December 2020. May has since made further noises about two years, or about a transition not for a fixed period but until a free trade deal kicks in, but the EU has not been encouraging.

There are basically two groups of people who want an extended transition period. Once is the bulk of the British government/the Tory party, who are politically committed to Brexit but know that it will be harmful and painful. They are trying to escape from having to bear the consequences of a rash vow. The other is remainers who hope against hope that if only the transition period can be extended long enough the British people will come to their senses, and Brexit will be much more reversible during the transition period than after it.

Contrary to Brexiteer conspiracy theories, the EU has no interest in supporting either of these camps. While there are those in the EU who would like to see the UK change its mind and recommit to Europe, they don't see this as very likely to happen in the short to medium term. And they think it's less likely to happen while the UK is insulated from the reality of Brexit by a transition period. It's obvious at this point that argument, debate, appeals to common sense, etc are not going to change minds on the scale that would be needed to reverse the Brexit decision. The only thing that might do that is actual experience of the reality of a badly-thought-out and badly-executed Brexit. So why would anyone in the EU want to defer that?

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

He or she should vote for the Liberal Democrats, or another party committed to a Remain policy.

You say that "the Labour Party is the only currently viable alternative", but that's only true so long as the average Remain voter keeps voting Labour. The average Remain voter can't make Labour the only viable alternative, and them complain that Labour is the only viable alternative.

This.

Unfortunately, after Clegg the party has opted for weaker leaders like Farron and Cable. It also still has the spectre of tuition fees hanging over it as well.

I suspect strongly that the younger Corbyn supporters are pro-Remain and are in for a nasty shock if they think he has any desire to stay in the EU.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This.

Unfortunately, after Clegg the party has opted for weaker leaders like Farron and Cable. It also still has the spectre of tuition fees hanging over it as well.

Well, be fair. There are only 12 Liberal Democrat MPs, and 4 of those were first elected in 2017, so the pool of potential leadership talent is not large.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I suspect strongly that the younger Corbyn supporters are pro-Remain and are in for a nasty shock if they think he has any desire to stay in the EU.

I don't think they're in for a nasty shock; they'll be perfectly well aware that he's a Brexiter by instinct. I think their support for him is explained by two factors: First, while they are pro-Remain that is not necessarily their governing political passion; they may be prepared to subordinate it to other objectives, especially if there is no pro-Remain party/candidate that they like. Secondly, although Corbyn's a Brexiter, his reasons for being a Brexiter, his objective of a jobs-first Brexit, etc are all consistent with a more Remain-friendly Brexit than the one May is chasing.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, be fair. There are only 12 Liberal Democrat MPs, and 4 of those were first elected in 2017, so the pool of potential leadership talent is not large.

Fair point but it's a vicious circle unless something changes with the big two. Remain voters who still want to remain need to ditch whichever party they're voting for and go with the Lib Dems though that chance has now passed.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think they're in for a nasty shock; they'll be perfectly well aware that he's a Brexiter by instinct. I think their support for him is explained by two factors: First, while they are pro-Remain that is not necessarily their governing political passion; they may be prepared to subordinate it to other objectives, especially if there is no pro-Remain party/candidate that they like. Secondly, although Corbyn's a Brexiter, his reasons for being a Brexiter, his objective of a jobs-first Brexit, etc are all consistent with a more Remain-friendly Brexit than the one May is chasing.

Good point but a more Remain-friendly Brexit is basically something like EEA membership which I can't see Labour strongholds in the North being keen on. At the moment, Corbyn is able to play the constructive ambiguity card while blaming the Tories for everything.

Should he get the keys to No. 10, however then he's the one everyone will blame and rightly so. How is he going to reconcile the pro-EU feelings of his cosmopolitan, highly educated base with his anti-globalisation supporters up north? If he can't answer that now, he's looking at sitting at most a single term as PM.

ArthurDayne

Leroy42 wrote: »

The EU need to learn the lesson then. Why are the voters so disengaged from EU elections? WHy do they feel that it should be a protest vote? Clearly the EU is suffering from a communication deficit, not just in the UK but across nearly all the countries.

Many people simply do not know, or care, what the EU does. They see Brussels as this meeting place where PM's go off to shake hands etc.

A large part of that falls down to how national politicians have treated the EU. Everything bad is the fault of the EU. Take the turf cutters. Why are the TD's not standing up and stating that they agree with this, and that whilst the EU are pressing for it, even if the EU doesn't it will be brought in anyway.

Until you change that narrative, the EU will always be viewed as nothing more than a club for the elite

In a way though, the general lack of public interest in the European Parliament is indicative of the flaw in the Brexiteer arguments on 'sovereignty' and 'taking back control'. Why are people not that interested in the EP? Though there are several potential reasons, it is undeniable that the European elections do not have the usual end result of a new government -- i.e. that a national government will be formed which will have the say over crucial areas which remain the sole competence of the individual member states, and which will also have a veto to prevent the EU laying down rules on areas which require unanimity, like VAT.

Nonetheless, there has been quite significant progress over the years in reforming the powers of the EP which, again, defy the other Brexiteer argument that the EU is incapable of reform. Where once the EP had very little power, the effect of a number of reforming measures (most particularly the Ordinary Legislative Procedure) has greatly enhanced its role -- and this enhancement leaves hope for potential further reform in future. Nonetheless, there is undoubtedly a problem when, at the university level, a Law student may well expect to be asked the almost ludicrously simplistic question of 'What are the Institutions of the EU and what are their powers?'. While this remains the case, whereby the Institutions are such a mystery that a simple description of their powers forms part of an advanced third level Law curriculum, the EP will be weighed down by low voter turnouts adding to the problem of the democratic deficit.

The danger to this of course is where a group of extremist parties, most likely the current vogue 'alt-rightism', identify the low turnouts as an opportunity to whip up support among their fervent support and get them voting in order to stack the EP with right wing delegates.

Professor Moriarty

ArthurDayne wrote: »

In a way though, the general lack of public interest in the European Parliament is indicative of the flaw in the Brexiteer arguments on 'sovereignty' and 'taking back control'. Why are people not that interested in the EP? Though there are several potential reasons, it is undeniable that the European elections do not have the usual end result of a new government -- i.e. that a national government will be formed which will have the say over crucial areas which remain the sole competence of the individual member states, and which will also have a veto to prevent the EU laying down rules on areas which require unanimity, like VAT.

Nonetheless, there has been quite significant progress over the years in reforming the powers of the EP which, again, defy the other Brexiteer argument that the EU is incapable of reform. Where once the EP had very little power, the effect of a number of reforming measures (most particularly the Ordinary Legislative Procedure) has greatly enhanced its role -- and this enhancement leaves hope for potential further reform in future. Nonetheless, there is undoubtedly a problem when, at the university level, a Law student may well expect to be asked the almost ludicrously simplistic question of 'What are the Institutions of the EU and what are their powers?'. While this remains the case, whereby the Institutions are such a mystery that a simple description of their powers forms part of an advanced third level Law curriculum, the EP will be weighed down by low voter turnouts adding to the problem of the democratic deficit.

The danger to this of course is where a group of extremist parties, most likely the current vogue 'alt-rightism', identify the low turnouts as an opportunity to whip up support among their fervent support and get them voting in order to stack the EP with right wing delegates.

Already happened in the UK thanks to a Eurosceptic press and a turnout of 36%. Currently, UKIP is the largest British party in the European Parliament.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

The only thing that might do that is actual experience of the reality of a badly-thought-out and badly-executed Brexit. So why would anyone in the EU want to defer that?

Cash money.

The badly-thought-out-and-badly-executed Brexit needed to teach the UK a lesson will cost the EU a lot of money. An endless transition period will spread the cost over time and allow EU business to rob custom from the UK (uncertainty! don't invest there! move your supply chain here!) without actually breaking existing supply chains and causing untold disruption.

Another issue is that the badly-thought-out-and-badly-executed Brexit will not teach the UK anything at all - on the contrary, it will harden the image of the EU as an Evil Empire in UK minds.

Finally, there is the long-term European project. The EU want the UK inside, not out, even if it means kicking a few cans down the road. They have been kicking Sweden's "Join the Euro" can for decades, I would not be surprised if brexit goes the same way.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Finally, there is the long-term European project. The EU want the UK inside, not out, even if it means kicking a few cans down the road. They have been kicking Sweden's "Join the Euro" can for decades, I would not be surprised if brexit goes the same way.

There's a difference, the UK are leaving and were a trouble maker looking for concessions all the time. I think the EU at this point would prefer them out. So a short transition will limit the damage to the EU and maybe near 2020 it may be in the EUs best interest to extend for another yr or 2. But anything more brings the possibility of greater damage to the EU. It's looking like the EU is driving and won't conceded requests from the UK for any prolonged transition.
Am I right to think that brexit is March next yr and transition is post brexit. I could wrong on that. But if so from next March, depending on the transition deal the UK will most likely be in the CU, CM, may follow ECJ, contribute to EU but not sit at any decision making table.

Zubeneschamali

Gerry T wrote: »

So a short transition will limit the damage to the EU and maybe near 2020 it may be in the EUs best interest to extend for another yr or 2. But anything more brings the possibility of greater damage to the EU.

I disagree. The nearer the end-state of Brexit is to EU membership, the less damage to the EU (and the UK, but that is their worry now, not ours).

So if the "transition period" is membership stripped of influence, agencies and representation but with budget contributions, regulations, EU courts and free movement, where is the damage to the EU?

And if this goes on forever, it will slowly bleed the UK of business which will move for "certainty", but I don't see the damage to the EU.

Politically, this would be very hard for the folks at Westminster, but better for everyone else, so I would be all for it.

flatty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, be fair. There are only 12 Liberal Democrat MPs, and 4 of those were first elected in 2017, so the pool of potential leadership talent is not large.

Fair point but it's a vicious circle unless something changes with the big two. Remain voters who still want to remain need to ditch whichever party they're voting for and go with the Lib Dems though that chance has now passed.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think they're in for a nasty shock; they'll be perfectly well aware that he's a Brexiter by instinct. I think their support for him is explained by two factors: First, while they are pro-Remain that is not necessarily their governing political passion; they may be prepared to subordinate it to other objectives, especially if there is no pro-Remain party/candidate that they like. Secondly, although Corbyn's a Brexiter, his reasons for being a Brexiter, his objective of a jobs-first Brexit, etc are all consistent with a more Remain-friendly Brexit than the one May is chasing.

Good point but a more Remain-friendly Brexit is basically something like EEA membership which I can't see Labour strongholds in the North being keen on. At the moment, Corbyn is able to play the constructive ambiguity card while blaming the Tories for everything.

Should he get the keys to No. 10, however then he's the one everyone will blame and rightly so. How is he going to reconcile the pro-EU feelings of his cosmopolitan, highly educated base with his anti-globalisation supporters up north? If he can't answer that now, he's looking at sitting at most a single term as PM.

It's all he's looking at anyway of labour get in.
It'll coincide with a downturn, likely sharp on the economy. He will offset this with more borrowing, which will widen a trade gap which is already a chasm. Sterling will fall, the markets will get spooked, interest rates will go up. Mortgage rates will go up. There will be an awful lot of people swimming with no togs as the tide goes out. House prices will finally fall (a good side effect), but middle England will scream blue murder as the tory hard right sit back and enjoy corby and Labour taking the rap for a brexit induced depression shaped entirely by themselves.
Corbyn thinks he is being clever. He is being short term cunning but mid term idiotic.
None of them give a sh1t about the population in general.
The rich will snap up the deflated property that the squeezed middle can no longer afford.

ancapailldorcha

flatty wrote: »

It's all he's looking at anyway of labour get in.
It'll coincide with a downturn, likely sharp on the economy. He will offset this with more borrowing, which will widen a trade gap which is already a chasm. Sterling will fall, the markets will get spooked, interest rates will go up. Mortgage rates will go up. There will be an awful lot of people swimming with no togs as the tide goes out. House prices will finally fall (a good side effect), but middle England will scream blue murder as the tory hard right sit back and enjoy corby and Labour taking the rap for a brexit induced depression shaped entirely by themselves.
Corbyn thinks he is being clever. He is being short term cunning but mid term idiotic.
None of them give a sh1t about the population in general.
The rich will snap up the deflated property that the squeezed middle can no longer afford.

Right but this short termist thinking will only serve to confine Labour to the history books for at least a decade and we'll have another set of election campaigns going on and on ad nauseam about Labour borrowing too much while an ever increasingly toxic Conservative party grows ever more willing to indulge in fringe elements while the centrists have nowhere to go.

J Mysterio

Make no mistake, this shower in government currently will go down in history as the worst gaggle of cretins to ever hold power.

Corbyn has already blown his opportunity to stick it to them. Poor politician really. He'd be more at home in the Village Green Preservation Society or something of that ilk.

Any middling Labour leader should have opposed this government in their plans but, like the great majority, it seems he's afraid to say what he really thinks.

joeysoap

He’s much more anti EU than May is. He’d much rather be in the position where May was trying not to implement the referendum result and he was trying to implement it. But in that scenario he wouldn’t have the number of seats he has now, as May would have picked up more remainers in the election.

EdgeCase

Brexit isn't really about party politics, as this is proving. There's a sizable group of pro European Tories and Labour MPs none of whom seem to have much influence.

There's effectively no organised opposition. You can have right wing Brexit or left wing Brexit.

Also you've an electorate who aren't really understanding the risks and have adopted a "oh get on with it" kind of attitude.

I know from Irish business community discussions, we are now starting to really plan for a hard Brexit and I doubt the Irish business community is unique in that. There's only so much messing around you can do before you start to have to make decisions.

I'd say the attitude I'm encountering in Ireland in recent weeks is : hope for the best, plan for the worst.