Brexit discussion thread III

ancapailldorcha

Water John wrote: »

Well there is a drive, within the the European system to drive towards ever increasing integration. That, it would go backwards, otherwise, is one view. Yet, only 16% of the pop support such a stance. The majority in Ireland, would be opposed to it but feel that view can be made to prevail, internally.

Another idea that seems to be gaining traction is the concept of a multi-speed Europe. The central premise is that member states who do not desire further integration can opt out while those who wish to pursue this course can do so unimpeded.

Leroy42

Was listening to some LBC radio podcasts yesterday and James O'Brien was talking about the passport news (returning to blue colour).

One thing he mentioned, which I thought was very good, was that the new passport, due to Brexit, was now less useful that the one he currently had. In that, at the moment he gets free entry across the entire EU, and come 29/3/19 he will have to apply for visas etc. (now of course brexiteers will say that visa won't be required because of something something, but can't actually tell you how it will continue).

Why would people opt to give up so much so so little in return? And not only that, but nobody seemed to have a plan as what was going to happen on 29/3/19. Will the current EU style passport now be invalid? Will he (with his current EU passport) still be able to avail of the EU line at passport control or will he have to join the non-EU immigration line. Who is going to have to pay for the re-issue of all the old passports?

IMO, it really summed up what the whole thing is about. People seem to want something, not sure what it is, but they are seemingly prepared to pay any price to get whatever it is they want.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

Will the current EU style passport now be invalid?

Still valid as UK passports with all the freedoms and limitations that come with that.

Will he (with his current EU passport) still be able to avail of the EU line at passport control or will he have to join the non-EU immigration line.

Join the non-EU immigration line.

Who is going to have to pay for the re-issue of all the old passports?

Will be renewed out at the normal pace as they expire and paid by the people renewing them though based on the number of people applying for Irish, German etc. citizenship I'd guess fewer passports will be renewed than usual in this cycle.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

Was listening to some LBC radio podcasts yesterday and James O'Brien was talking about the passport news (returning to blue colour).

One thing he mentioned, which I thought was very good, was that the new passport, due to Brexit, was now less useful that the one he currently had. In that, at the moment he gets free entry across the entire EU, and come 29/3/19 he will have to apply for visas etc. (now of course brexiteers will say that visa won't be required because of something something, but can't actually tell you how it will continue).

Why would people opt to give up so much so so little in return? And not only that, but nobody seemed to have a plan as what was going to happen on 29/3/19. Will the current EU style passport now be invalid? Will he (with his current EU passport) still be able to avail of the EU line at passport control or will he have to join the non-EU immigration line. Who is going to have to pay for the re-issue of all the old passports?

IMO, it really summed up what the whole thing is about. People seem to want something, not sure what it is, but they are seemingly prepared to pay any price to get whatever it is they want.

Depends what you mean by visas. Its highly unlikely (to the point of non-existent) that UK passport holders will need visas to enter EU countries. However residency and work rights are another matter.

He doesn't have an "EU passport". He has a UK passport that currently provides certain entitlements as an EU citizen. Some of those entitlements will cease upon Brexit but his passport is still his passport.

Leroy42

But surely it cannot continue to say European Union on it. They are no longer (at that point) members of the EU and as such the passport is incorrect.

Now a passport is a legal document, so surely it has to be correct. What seems to be being suggested it that it will simply be allowed.

And on the visas. I agree that there will probably not be a need for visa's, but again that is not agreed upon. And what will the option be in the UK? WIll they continue to let people simply enter the country without any checks, and if so why would they expect any thing different from other countries?

The point being, that whatever legal loophole is arrived at (and I think it will) there is no doubt that the UK passport will be less useful come 29/3/19 then it is on 28/3/19. Is the colour more important that what it can actually do?

First Up

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely it cannot continue to say European Union on it. They are no longer (at that point) members of the EU and as such the passport is incorrect.

Now a passport is a legal document, so surely it has to be correct. What seems to be being suggested it that it will simply be allowed.

And on the visas. I agree that there will probably not be a need for visa's, but again that is not agreed upon. And what will the option be in the UK? WIll they continue to let people simply enter the country without any checks, and if so why would they expect any thing different from other countries?

The point being, that whatever legal loophole is arrived at (and I think it will) there is no doubt that the UK passport will be less useful come 29/3/19 then it is on 28/3/19. Is the colour more important that what it can actually do?

Maybe the UK will decide to re-issue current passports under pressure from Brexiteers but I doubt the EU gives a toss one way or the other. Everybody who matters will know they are gone on 29/3/19.

Nobody enters the UK without checks now. They are not in Schengen so they already have to queue at passport control when they are going into anywhere and vice versa. It will just be a different queue.

I'd expect the entry visa thing to be the least of their problems. I saw that some Brexity nutter in parliament suggest the UK charge £10 for entry visas but I doubt even the Tories are that stupid.

Sam Russell

First Up wrote: »

I'd expect the entry visa thing to be the least of their problems. I saw that some Brexity nutter in parliament suggest the UK charge £10 for entry visas but I doubt even the Tories are that stupid.

The USA used to employ the rule that they charged for visas into the USA the same level of charge as that charged for USA citizens to get a visa by the country of the applicant.

This is no longer the case, and even making telephone enquiries to the USA Embassy appears to be on a premium rate phone line.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely it cannot continue to say European Union on it. They are no longer (at that point) members of the EU and as such the passport is incorrect.

But it was correct at the time it was issued; it would be the same for a country changing name (Soviet to Russia for example) and hence would be valid until expiration date. The only thing is they can't have it going forward on the passports and as the data inside the passport is all UK it's still valid.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I'd expect the entry visa thing to be the least of their problems. I saw that some Brexity nutter in parliament suggest the UK charge £10 for entry visas but I doubt even the Tories are that stupid.

The USA used to employ the rule that they charged for visas into the USA the same level of charge as that charged for USA citizens to get a visa by the country of the applicant.

This is no longer the case, and even making telephone enquiries to the USA Embassy appears to be on a premium rate phone line.

At least the US always had visas. If the UK applies a charge it will be reciprocated by everyone else. To go from unrestricted travel to a visa regime would really be a step backwards.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely it cannot continue to say European Union on it. They are no longer (at that point) members of the EU and as such the passport is incorrect.

Now a passport is a legal document, so surely it has to be correct. What seems to be being suggested it that it will simply be allowed.

And on the visas. I agree that there will probably not be a need for visa's, but again that is not agreed upon. And what will the option be in the UK? WIll they continue to let people simply enter the country without any checks, and if so why would they expect any thing different from other countries?

The point being, that whatever legal loophole is arrived at (and I think it will) there is no doubt that the UK passport will be less useful come 29/3/19 then it is on 28/3/19. Is the colour more important that what it can actually do?

It only says European Union on the cover. The important bit, the actual identification page, makes no mention of the EU. The same with an Irish passport.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

It only says European Union on the cover. The important bit, the actual identification page, makes no mention of the EU. The same with an Irish passport.

But how can the Brexit side accept that? You can't claim it only words on a cover, whilst at the same time claiming that getting rid of them is taking back control.

That is why I am asking the question. I understand that there is no 'need' for things to change, but as part of Brexit surely it is important, as a symbol, to reissue all passport back to the UK only.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote:

But how can the Brexit side accept that? You can't claim it only words on a cover, whilst at the same time claiming that getting rid of them is taking back control.

They're clutching at straws to claim anything as a win.

It really is a measure of the message they are in.

breatheme

First Up wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I'd expect the entry visa thing to be the least of their problems.  I saw that some Brexity nutter in parliament suggest the UK charge £10 for entry visas but I doubt even the Tories are that stupid.

The USA used to employ the rule that they charged for visas into the USA the same level of charge as that charged for USA citizens to get a visa by the country of the applicant.

This is no longer the case, and even making telephone enquiries to the USA Embassy appears to be on a premium rate phone line.

At least the US always had visas. If the UK applies a charge it will be reciprocated by everyone else. To go from unrestricted travel to a visa regime would really be a step backwards.

If the UK issues a charge, then how will they enforce that for people coming to NI from Ireland? What if said people go from Ireland to NI to the UK?
Though, to be fair, doing all that in order to avoid what would probably be a charge of 10-15 pounds might be ridiculous.

Christy42

breatheme wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

I'd expect the entry visa thing to be the least of their problems.  I saw that some Brexity nutter in parliament suggest the UK charge £10 for entry visas but I doubt even the Tories are that stupid.

The USA used to employ the rule that they charged for visas into the USA the same level of charge as that charged for USA citizens to get a visa by the country of the applicant.

This is no longer the case, and even making telephone enquiries to the USA Embassy appears to be on a premium rate phone line.

At least the US always had visas. If the UK applies a charge it will be reciprocated by everyone else. To go from unrestricted travel to a visa regime would really be a step backwards.

If the UK issues a charge, then how will they enforce that for people coming to NI from Ireland? What if said people go from Ireland to NI to the UK?
Though, to be fair, doing all that in order to avoid what would probably be a charge of 10-15 pounds might be ridiculous.

I know it won't happen but it would be an insane boost to Ireland if people started coming to Ireland to start their holiday in England.

As I said for 15 quid it won't happen but it is an amusing thought.

Capt'n Midnight

Tell me how wrote: »

They're clutching at straws to claim anything as a win.

Good news everybody ..

The UK is making noises about joining TTP http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42549541

Canada, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei, Singapore, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru and Vietnam have had 8 years of negotiations and it's still not ratified and the UK's relationship with the EU isn't clear yet. So I can't see the UK waltzing in and getting a good quick deal. They'll need to please all those countries.

Let's not forget that Japan has done a deal with the EU and hasn't agreed to allowing the UK to keep the deal it had while in the EU.


In the grand scheme of things 8% of the UK's exports go to the TPP countries. Germany gets 11%.

Lemming

Leroy42 wrote: »

But surely it cannot continue to say European Union on it. They are no longer (at that point) members of the EU and as such the passport is incorrect.

Now a passport is a legal document, so surely it has to be correct. What seems to be being suggested it that it will simply be allowed.

I think pragmatism, along with prior precedents such as the collapse of the USSR, will see most other countries (not just EU nations) continue to accept the current, EU-badged, UK passport provided that the passport in particular has not expired and belongs to the person presenting it. Easier to just roll with it knowing that the pool of such passports is only going to dwindle over the course of a decade, than to kick up all manner of diplomatic and economic retaliatory posturing.

Short of the most acrimonious of Brexit scenarios coming to pass, I can think of only a handful of countries that might want to stick it to the UK by refusing to accept the currently issued passport, featuring such stalwarts as Russia, Argentina, and North Korea.

Capt'n Midnight

Speaks for itself really.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-42546795

"Ryanair today (2 January) confirmed that a subsidiary company Ryanair UK filed an application on 21 December last for an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) with the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK.

Charles Babbage

Isle of Man passports say European Union, but does not allow an automatic right to work in the EU.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

I think pragmatism, along with prior precedents such as the collapse of the USSR, will see most other countries (not just EU nations) continue to accept the current, EU-badged, UK passport provided that the passport in particular has not expired and belongs to the person presenting it. Easier to just roll with it knowing that the pool of such passports is only going to dwindle over the course of a decade, than to kick up all manner of diplomatic and economic retaliatory posturing.

Short of the most acrimonious of Brexit scenarios coming to pass, I can think of only a handful of countries that might want to stick it to the UK by refusing to accept the currently issued passport, featuring such stalwarts as Russia, Argentina, and North Korea.

The words “European Union” on the passport (not badged, that is a daft thing to call it) is largely irrelevant outside of the eu. When you enter a country outside of the eu, you do so as an Irish citizen. The fact Ireland is in the eu matters not one jot in Thailand, Russia or Brazil.

The chances are an immigration officer would never see anything other than the ID page and maybe one of the pages to stamp, so would most likely never see that on the front cover, amongst all the other writing, it also says European Union.

Sam Russell

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Isle of Man passports say European Union, but does not allow an automatic right to work in the EU.

But the Isle of Mann is not in the EU.

Capt'n Midnight

Labour not trusting the Tories on human rights.
Labour to force vote on keeping EU Charter on human rights after departure

Labour wants the provisions of the Charter to be guaranteed in full in legislation. The document is currently one of the few parts of EU law that will not be transferred into UK law when Britain leaves the EU in March 2019.

At this stage you'd think May would realise that the EU has some red lines.
In theory the UK contributes 8Bn a year to the EU and they think that's a great bargaining chip, but a recent opinion poll suggests that it would be politically acceptable down here to pay that sort of money to build up NI to our level if there was re-unification.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-03/u-k-said-to-think-barnier-bluffing-on-no-brexit-deal-for-banks

Prime Minister Theresa May believes Michel Barnier is bluffing when he says there will be no special deal for financial services, officials said, as the U.K. prepares to negotiate its post-Brexit ties with the European Union.
...
Yet Barnier insists the U.K. will not be offered anything more than a Canada-style deal, which keeps tariffs to a minimum on goods but does not include trade in services. He says this is a result of May’s red lines, including her decision to leave the single market in order to regain control over immigration from the EU

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

But the Isle of Mann is not in the EU.

It's not.

But there is no separate Manx citizenship; Manxmen are British Citizens and therefore (for the time being) also Citizens of the Union, and their passports identify them as such. Hence the Manx passport includes a reference to the EU.

(Despite being EU citizens, Manxmen don't enjoy free movement within the EU. This is provided for in the UK's Treaty of Accession. It's anomalous, but it was included at the request of the Manx government.)

Peregrinus

Lemming wrote: »

I think pragmatism, along with prior precedents such as the collapse of the USSR, will see most other countries (not just EU nations) continue to accept the current, EU-badged, UK passport provided that the passport in particular has not expired and belongs to the person presenting it. Easier to just roll with it knowing that the pool of such passports is only going to dwindle over the course of a decade, than to kick up all manner of diplomatic and economic retaliatory posturing.

Short of the most acrimonious of Brexit scenarios coming to pass, I can think of only a handful of countries that might want to stick it to the UK by refusing to accept the currently issued passport, featuring such stalwarts as Russia, Argentina, and North Korea.

UK passports issued up to Brexit day will include the words "European Union". Those issued for some time after that day will omit those words, but will still be burgundy-coloured, and in all other respects identical to the current passport. Some months later the new blue design will be rolled out. For nearly ten years, therefore, there will be three designs of UK passport which are still current - burgundy with "EU", burgundy without "EU" and blue.

Despite the fact that existing UK passports will have "European Union" on the cover, after Brexit day possession of such a passport will not in fact identify someone as a citizen of the Union, but the passport will still be a valid UK passport and accepted as such by all. Holders of all three designs of passport will receive the same treatment, join the same queues, etc. It remains to be seen what treatment that is, and what queues they will join.

Despite this, I predict:

- There'll be a bit of a rush of early passport renewals before Brexit day by remainers who want to have a passport with "EU" on it that will be current for as long as possible.

- There'll be a bit of a rush of early passport renewals just after the blue passport is rolled out by leavers who want to stop using a passport of EU standard design, even though it's still valid.

- There'll be some confusion from British people who think that because they have a current passport with "EU" on it they are, somehow, still EU citizens, and therefore join the wrong queue.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Good news everybody ..

The UK is making noises about joining TTP . . .

At this point, the UK is just musing aloud. They haven't, SFAIK, applied to join the multilateral negotiations which are under way to adjust the terms of the TPP to address the withdrawal of the US, and in any event it's most unlikely that the other TPP nations would be willing even to open formal talks with the UK until they know the terms of the UK's Brexit deal and its ongoing trade relationship with the EU.

What this may signal is that the UK is reconsidering its proposed strategy of seeking to negotiate bilateral trade deals. There has been talk of deals with Japan and Australia, for example. Joining the TPP would be an alternative to bilateral deals with individual TPP member states, and it's possible that the UK interest in the TPP reflects the fact that preliminary contacts with Japan, Australia, etc are not pointing to particularly promising prospects for bilateral deals.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how can the Brexit side accept that? You can't claim it only words on a cover, whilst at the same time claiming that getting rid of them is taking back control.

That is why I am asking the question. I understand that there is no 'need' for things to change, but as part of Brexit surely it is important, as a symbol, to reissue all passport back to the UK only.

You can't force citizens to hand in their existing passports.

And simply cancelling current passports before the scheduled expiry date would really piss off other countries. In general a country, having issued a passport, is expected to stand over it and other countries, when presented with a passport issued by the UK whose expiry date has not yet come, will want to be able to treat it as a current passport.

It's accepted that passports won't always reflect recent political developments. For example, in the 1920s and 30s there were many UK passports in circulation which said "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" even after the name of the country had changed to "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (which didn't officially happen until 1927). What's not accepted is that you cancel passports because they don't reflect recent political developments. That would really piss the international community off.

6541

I am Irish born and bred, my dad is English, I just applied and got a British passport encase they impose any restrictions on Irish folk.

Un1corn

6541 wrote: »

I am Irish born and bred, my dad is English, I just applied and got a British passport encase they impose any restrictions on Irish folk.

Wise move.

I see that Tony Blair is pushing for a U-turn on Brexit. I can't believe I am saying this but compared to the current lot Tony Blair really is a heavyweight and just oozes charisma. He was a strong leader with a strong personality. His government had some credibility compared to this lot. I know he got lots of skeletons in the closet but can anyone remember when Bush and Blair were the bad guys? Look at the state of the UK and USA today.

I am not sure if Blair is the right person to push for the U-turn. He is a deeply divisive figure in Britain and certain Remainers would probably vote Brexit just because Tony is calling for it.

Larbre34

No need for a U-turn, it hasn't reached fruition yet, I was convinced on Ref day +1 that it would never happen and I'm more convinced of it every day.

It will get close, but a tough EU stance and a deal which ties Britain to compliance to the rules in exchange for access, the only difference being no say for them in those rules, will bring about a realisation and a realism, a turbulent period, a change of Govt or two, a constitutional crisis or four and eventually a second referendum which will go something like 56/44 and that will be the end of it.

Tony Blair is just one voice in a growing clamour across all parties, including many Tories. The next PM may be Jeremy Corbyn, but the following one will be supported in the Commons by some sort of cross party Govt of national unity to recover the UK from the Brexit debacle.

Tell me how

Larbre34 wrote: »

No need for a U-turn, it hasn't reached fruition yet, I was convinced on Ref day +1 that it would never happen and I'm more convinced of it every day.

But how to get out of it?

If they say, "Nah, that's a bad deal" There would be uproar, possibly even an uprising. Does that sound too dramatic?

Is it a possibility they'd go out but then try to come back in again.

Sam Russell

Tell me how wrote: »

But how to get out of it?

If they say, "Nah, that's a bad deal" There would be uproar, possibly even an uprising. Does that sound too dramatic?

Is it a possibility they'd go out but then try to come back in again.

There have been peasant revolts before - eg the Poll tax. I think this is more like the Pole Tax but there you go.

If they leave, they will only get back without there various opt-outs. Euro, no rebate, metrication, Schengen, maroon passports, etc. etc.

Mind you, if they leave it long enough, they will not be a net contributor.

Leroy42

But a bad deal will simply end up as a no deal. I'm afraid that your confidence in the ability of the UK to pull back from this is misplaced.

For a start there is simply not the political will to do it? Whilst many may complain about HOW May is handling it, there are very few MP's that are actually against the idea (at least publicly).

Labour are for it, so even if a new election is called to public don't really have an option to express their desire (if that even exists which the polls don't seem to back up).

I think the UK have reverted to the type that has served them so well in the past. No point looking back, stiff upper lip, gird yourself for hardship and all will be well for queen and country.

There seems to be an acceptance that even if nobody really knows what is going to happen, and there are no indicators that this will be positive, it seems the great British public has decided to run with what they have.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the UK have reverted to the type that has served them so well in the past. No point looking back, stiff upper lip, gird yourself for hardship and all will be well for queen and country.

Looking back is what has them in this mess. "Rule Brittania, Brittania rules the waves..." etc.

Leroy42

I didn't say it was the right thing to do, just what I felt is going on.

Mezcita

Larbre34 wrote: »

No need for a U-turn, it hasn't reached fruition yet, I was convinced on Ref day +1 that it would never happen and I'm more convinced of it every day.

It will get close, but a tough EU stance and a deal which ties Britain to compliance to the rules in exchange for access, the only difference being no say for them in those rules, will bring about a realisation and a realism, a turbulent period, a change of Govt or two, a constitutional crisis or four and eventually a second referendum which will go something like 56/44 and that will be the end of it.

Tony Blair is just one voice in a growing clamour across all parties, including many Tories. The next PM may be Jeremy Corbyn, but the following one will be supported in the Commons by some sort of cross party Govt of national unity to recover the UK from the Brexit debacle.

I'd disagree with this and still think a hard Brexit with no deal is the most likely outcome once the UK (eventually) realises that the EU won't suddenly give them a decent deal.

We've got a perfect storm scenario here where even if Labour got into power tomorrow they are not publicly saying that they would attempt to reverse Brexit.

Blair is way too divisive these days and I think the biggest problem is that there is nobody (from either side) who seem able to mobilise those MPs who are apparently against Brexit.

Basically Brexit needs to happen. After a few years when the UK can no longer blame the EU for their troubles they might eventually rethink things. But any attempt to reverse the decision would be just too perfect for the right wing press in the UK who could spin it as an attack on democracy. A few years of hardship where they can only really blame themselves (rather than the EU) would hopefully lead to a bit more rational thinking.

Igotadose

Mezcita wrote: »

Basically Brexit needs to happen. After a few years when the UK can no longer blame the EU for their troubles they might eventually rethink things. But any attempt to reverse the decision would be just too perfect for the right wing press in the UK who could spin it as an attack on democracy. A few years of hardship where they can only really blame themselves (rather than the EU) would hopefully lead to a bit more rational thinking.

It doesn't *need* to happen. It *will* happen because it's *scheduled to happen*. Right now, as it stands if nothing changes in the next 15 months or so, UK becomes a 3d country per WTO.

That's all that *will* happen. Not everything that happens in the world is good, or necessary.

"Hope is not a strategy."

Mezcita

Igotadose wrote: »

It doesn't *need* to happen. It *will* happen because it's *scheduled to happen*. Right now, as it stands if nothing changes in the next 15 months or so, UK becomes a 3d country per WTO.

That's all that *will* happen. Not everything that happens in the world is good, or necessary.

"Hope is not a strategy."

To me, it *needs* to happen because the rise in right wing anti Johnny foreigner nonsense is the most dangerous thing the UK has faced in decades. Living in London it represents a daily slap in the face to the huge number of non nationals who basically do jobs which the UK can't fill via their own population.

What *will* happen is anyone's guess. But cancelling Brexit plays exactly into the hands of those people who think that the UK is no longer in control of their own destiny. Happy to let them sink or swim on their own to be honest. Not in a Nelson Muntz 'Ha! Ha!' pointing sort of way. More in the sense of letting them fail without having anyone else to blame. Because they have been blaming their own problems on the EU for years.

The sad thing here is that I'd expect the poorest people in the UK to suffer the most as part of Brexit. As well as the very real risk of things kicking off in the north when (my opinion) the border is put up again. But hey ho they get their blue passports back so it's a win win to those who see this as a return to the glorious days of the empire.

Enzokk

The problem I see for both parties is that Brexit is not a one party problem. The people that voted for Brexit comes from both the Conservatives and Labour. Those people that still believe in Brexit is again not just from one of the parties. If one of the main parties would change tack and go for a second referendum on whether to leave the EU and if the vote is to stay they will reverse the decision, those 40% of people that want Brexit whatever the outcome (my guess of staunch Brexit voters) will either vote for the other party or UKIP again who will rise from the ashes (where they would just die if left as they are at the moment).

So unless both main parties agree to end this folly together and both campaign for a new referendum and both take the hit from upset Brexit voters (to UKIP), you will have both parties sticking with the referendum result. What either party can do to reverse Brexit is to make it as soft as possible but still leave. The effect will be felt as anything will be worse than EU membership, and with the local issues taking the attention (NHS, education) Brexit will be a back-burner issue as long as both parties have roughly the same aims. In the next election the economy and NHS will once again be the big talking points. Seeing that the Conservatives thought it a good idea to appoint Toby Young to the board of the Office for Students, the self harm from them will continue and will hand Labour a big majority.

This while Labour won't need to hurt their vote total by campaigning for such a divisive issue such as reversing Brexit. So while some would have hoped that Labour would be more pro-EU, there is zero upside in the polls going for this. This may or may not suit Jeremy Corbyn, but we aren't going to find out either way.

Peregrinus

Labour will win the next election without having to commit to cancelling/reversing Brexit. Therefore, they will not commit to cancelling/reversing. But they will advocate a softer Brexit than the Tories, and a closer long-term relationship with the EU. They will do this because, basically, they're not idiots - it is the UK's interests, and it is politically advantageous. There's no signficant constituency that wants a harder Brexit than the Tories are chasing, but there's a large constituency that wants a softer Brexit; Labour would be insane not to make a pitch for them.

Plus, if the post-Brexit experience really does go pear-shaped and there's a major shift in public sentiment, it will be much easier for Labour than for the Tories to sniff the wind and switch to advocating rejoining the EU. The long-term game will then be to position Brexit as (a) a disastrous aberration, which was (b) the fault of the Tories. This shouldn't be a difficult idea to sell because it will, basically, be quite correct.

It's true that Corbyn is not particularly a fan of the EU, but it's not a central issue for him. His parliamentary party and his party membership are overwhelmingly remainers in sentiment, and if the public opinion shifts I can't see Corbyn holding out against the opportunities and advantages that the situation offers him.

ambro25

Peregrinus wrote: »

Labour will win the next election without having to commit to cancelling/reversing Brexit. Therefore, they will not commit to cancelling/reversing. But they will advocate a softer Brexit than the Tories, and a closer long-term relationship with the EU. They will do this because, basically, they're not idiots - it is the UK's interests, and it is politically advantageous. There's no signficant constituency that wants a harder Brexit than the Tories are chasing, but there's a large constituency that wants a softer Brexit; Labour would be insane not to make a pitch for them.

Plus, if the post-Brexit experience really does go pear-shaped and there's a major shift in public sentiment, it will be much easier for Labour than for the Tories to sniff the wind and switch to advocating rejoining the EU. The long-term game will then be to position Brexit as (a) a disastrous aberration, which was (b) the fault of the Tories. This shouldn't be a difficult idea to sell because it will, basically, be quite correct.

It's true that Corbyn is not particularly a fan of the EU, but it's not a central issue for him. His parliamentary party and his party membership are overwhelmingly remainers in sentiment, and if the public opinion shifts I can't see Corbyn holding out against the opportunities and advantages that the situation offers him.

I'm in agreement with this analysis *but* I do see a big political problem with the bit in bold, considering the baseline European statutory requirements attaching to (re)joining the EU in this day and age: adoption of €, Schengen, no opt-outs <etc.> (all irrespective of the mooted multi-speed EU membership/integration model).

To the extent that such a notion of rejoining would likely prove at least as divisive then, as Brexit has proven over the past couple of years and still.

All crystal ball stuff of course. But at least those membership requirements and attributes are fact, and unlikely to change over time.

Peregrinus

ambro25 wrote: »

I'm in agreement with this analysis *but* I do see a big political problem with the bit in bold, considering the baseline European statutory requirements attaching to (re)joining the EU in this day and age: adoption of €, Schengen, no opt-outs <etc.>

To the extent that such a notion of rejoining would likely prove at least as divisive then, as Brexit has proven over the past couple of years and still.

All crystal ball stuff of course. But at least those membership requirements and attributes are fact.

They are, but they're political facts. And political facts are never immutable.

We're in completely speculative territory here, because of course at the moment there is no big shift in public sentiment in the UK in favour of remain, and we're talking about a shift that hasn't occurred, and imagining how it will play out if it occurs not tomorrow, but in say five or ten years time.

If Brexit goes pear-shaped and the UK is clamouring to be let back in, that could be seen as a huge feather in the cap for the EU. It might be an outcome that they would very, very much like to see unfold, because it would be a concrete demonstration of the benefits that EU membership brings to a member state, and the foolishness of repudiating them. So to enable this to happen, they might be inclined to make some one-off exceptions for the UK, in the unique circumstances of Brexit and re-Brentry, with no implications for the entry conditions for other new members.

I'm not saying this would be a shoe-in. That might not be the EU's attitude in 5 or 10 years at all. On the contrary, they might have grave reservations about re-admitting the UK unless they are satisfied that there has been a profound change of heart ("We're not going to expose ourselves to all that whinging and petulance again"), and they might treat acceptance of the euro, Schengen, etc as an indicator of the necessary change of heart.

So this one could go either way. It would be a political decision as to whether to hold the UK strictly to the entry conditions, and it's a decision that will be made in political conditions that don't yet exist, by politicians who we cannot yet identify. But I don't think we can rule out the possibility that the UK might be allowed to rejoin with at least some of the derogations, exemptions, etc that they had prior to leaving.

Enzokk

ambro25 wrote: »

I'm in agreement with this analysis *but* I do see a big political problem with the bit in bold, considering the baseline European statutory requirements attaching to (re)joining the EU in this day and age: adoption of €, Schengen, no opt-outs <etc.> (all irrespective of the mooted multi-speed EU membership/integration model).

To the extent that such a notion of rejoining would likely prove at least as divisive then, as Brexit has proven over the past couple of years and still.

All crystal ball stuff of course. But at least those membership requirements and attributes are fact, and unlikely to change over time.

I think that if the UK wants to return to the EU they will get some leeway based on their previous membership. It will not be all of it, but I doubt they will be treated as a totally new member.

That said it would depend on how long it takes for them to ask to rejoin. If it is 30 years then it would be the whole hog of new membership they will sign up to. If after 3 years they want to come back I think the EU would be open to the UK keeping the GBP (as an example) as the UK coming back to the EU is better than really rubbing their nose into it. I would think the opt outs and rebates would be gone, but some of their previous benefits could be negotiated. You don't want their to be resentment (causing another Brexit vote in 40 years), but you would need them to be aligned with the EU as well.


Edit: Peregrinus said it much better than I did above, but its the same sentiment.

Leroy42

The UK will not rejoin the EU. The closest that they will get to is Norway type deal.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK will not rejoin the EU. The closest that they will get to is Norway type deal.

There's no way a Norway-type deal will fly here politically. It's EU membership without any say in how it's run.

backspin.

Leroy42 wrote: »

The UK will not rejoin the EU.

The British are a proud people, i really can't see them voting to go back in to the EU any time in the next 30 or 40 years once they leave. It would be too much of a prostration in their minds.

I think they will do quite well outside the EU, it may take a decade or more though.

Peregrinus

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's no way a Norway-type deal will fly here politically. It's EU membership without any say in how it's run.

That's not how they see things in Norway, obviously. They have twice voted in referenda not to join the EU, and yet participation in the EEA enjoys broad support and is seen to offer them many advantages. If British public opinion rejects this on the basis that it amounts to "EU membership" and that it involves "no say in how it is run" they are wrong on both counts, and this is just another example of how poorly-informed the Brexit debate in the UK has been, and continues to be.

EEA membership offers much more flexibility than EU membership - Norway, for example, is not in the Customs Union, and it does not participate in the Common Fisheries Policy - two objectives of the Leaver movement. And of course Norway isn't required to adopt the euro. And, while EEA membership offers less control over EU legislation than EU membership does, it does offer some control; there is a process for involving EEA members in the formation of EU policy and the development of EU legislative proposal.

If the UK wants a close relationship with the EU, including single market participation, but with even more opt-outs and exceptions than it currently has, EEA membership is actually not a bad model from which to start. The reason the UK isn't pursuing it is that they have decided to reject single market participation, but there's obviously huge downsides for the UK to that decision, and it's one of the first things that a UK government not committed to a Mayite vision of Brexit (and not convinced that a Mayite vision commanded popular support) would want to reconsider.

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's not how they see things in Norway, obviously. They have twice voted in referenda not to join the EU, and yet participation in the EEA enjoys broad support and is seen to offer them many advantages. If British public opinion rejects this on the basis that it amounts to "EU membership" and that it involves "no say in how it is run" they are wrong on both counts, and this is just another example of how poorly-informed the Brexit debate in the UK has been, and continues to be.

EEA membership offers much more flexibility than EU membership - Norway, for example, is not in the Customs Union, and it does not participate in the Common Fisheries Policy - two objectives of the Leaver movement. And of course Norway isn't required to adopt the euro. And, while EEA membership offers less control over EU legislation than EU membership does, it does offer some control; there is a process for involving EEA members in the formation of EU policy and the development of EU legislative proposal.

If the UK wants a close relationship with the EU, including single market participation, but with even more opt-outs and exceptions than it currently has, EEA membership is actually not a bad model from which to start. The reason the UK isn't pursuing it is that they have decided to reject single market participation, but there's obviously huge downsides for the UK to that decision, and it's one of the first things that a UK government not committed to a Mayite vision of Brexit (and not convinced that a Mayite vision commanded popular support) would want to reconsider.

Excellent post.

Firstly, the UK electorate has shown itself to be extremely ignorant of how the EU works in my opinion. Pragmatism and details were discarded in favour of quixotic promises of fewer foreigners and nebulous claims about sovereignty. I've cringed more than a few times as I never thought anyone here would be sufficiently ignorant to tout the blue passport as some sort of tangible victory but there you go.

That said, I hadn't appreciated your point about the control offered by the EEA before. Fishing was just a tool to score points in decimated fishing communities to be discarded once they voted the right way.

I think that anything short of full departure regardless of the consequences will be condemned by the red tops and the paleosceptics who have become completely feral over this wield a lot more influence than I would like to admit. Norwegians might be happy with the EEA but that indicates a degree of pragmatism and education on the subject which is missing here.

Creol1

Peregrinus wrote: »

there is a process for involving EEA members in the formation of EU policy and the development of EU legislative proposal.

I wasn't aware of this. Do you have any more details about it, because I'd like to learn more about the process?

ancapailldorcha

Seems like the Labour party is only democratic when the members agree with Jeremy Corbyn:

Politico.eu wrote:

Eight out of 10 Labour members oppose the party leadership’s opposition to a second referendum on an eventual Brexit deal, according to a poll of over 4,000 members of the U.K.’s major political parties.

The survey by the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary University in London, published Thursday, found that 78 percent of the Labour grassroots either agree or strongly agree with having a second vote — something Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has ruled out.

Source.

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

Labour will win the next election without having to commit to cancelling/reversing Brexit. Therefore, they will not commit to cancelling/reversing. But they will advocate a softer Brexit than the Tories, and a closer long-term relationship with the EU. They will do this because, basically, they're not idiots - it is the UK's interests, and it is politically advantageous. There's no signficant constituency that wants a harder Brexit than the Tories are chasing, but there's a large constituency that wants a softer Brexit; Labour would be insane not to make a pitch for them.

Plus, if the post-Brexit experience really does go pear-shaped and there's a major shift in public sentiment, it will be much easier for Labour than for the Tories to sniff the wind and switch to advocating rejoining the EU. The long-term game will then be to position Brexit as (a) a disastrous aberration, which was (b) the fault of the Tories. This shouldn't be a difficult idea to sell because it will, basically, be quite correct.

It's true that Corbyn is not particularly a fan of the EU, but it's not a central issue for him. His parliamentary party and his party membership are overwhelmingly remainers in sentiment, and if the public opinion shifts I can't see Corbyn holding out against the opportunities and advantages that the situation offers him.

If Brexit results in reduced worker rights along with economic depression, that is plenty of cover for a change of heart by Corbyn - the Tory Brexit was a disaster, ours could have worked, but the only option now is to rejoin in some form.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seems like the Labour party is only democratic when the members agree with Jeremy Corbyn:



Source.

According to those poll numbers David Cameron is a terrible gambler as his party members favour leaving the single market by 75%, the customs union by 73% and they want EU nationals to have the same immigration rules as non-EU nationals (agree by 83%). How did he think he would win the referendum?