Brexit discussion thread IV

Zubeneschamali

judeboy101 wrote: »

"goods and customs" but not services?

May has already admitted that services are out in the White Paper. After saying about goods: The UK and the EU would maintain a common rulebook for all goods including agri-­‐food, with the UK making an upfront choice to commit by treaty to ongoing harmonisation with EU rules on goods, covering only those necessary to provide for frictionless trade at the border.

meaning fudge the rules to get access to the Single Market for goods, she says:

We would strike different arrangements for services, where it is in our interests to have regulatory flexibility, recognising the UK and the EU will not have current levels of access to each other’s

So the UK are not even asking for a Single Market for services, no surprise that Barnier isn't giving it away without being asked.

Barnier seems to be suggesting a Canada style FTA here - again, something which has been on offer since Day 1.

kowtow

robinph wrote: »

The people who would be complaining about democracy obviously have no idea what democracy means. A democracy gets to change it's mind if they think the people governing them are doing a useless job and want thing doing differently.

And they are free to do so. Let them vote in a party which would hold another referendum and/or attempt to cancel Article 50.

The reality is that no such party exists. Oddly enough, IMO, as uncomfortable as it is the House of Commons at present does seem to reflect the will of the nation - which is a sort of confused paralysis.

The situation will resolve itself in due course, tragically not without us feeling the effects over here.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

And they are free to do so. Let them vote in a party which would hold another referendum and/or attempt to cancel Article 50.

The reality is that no such party exists. Oddly enough, IMO, as uncomfortable as it is the House of Commons at present does seem to reflect the will of the nation - which is a sort of confused paralysis.

The situation will resolve itself in due course, tragically not without us feeling the effects over here.

Which party represent the option for Hard Brexit?

This is the argument always used against any further votes, that the people have spoken and they must be heard. Followed up with 84% of voters voted for parties agreeing with Brexit.

Both are simplistic and disingenuous. There was no deal or overall view of what Brexit actually meant. Leaving the SM was never on the agenda, £39bn payment wasn't either, if you argue against one then it stands that you don't agree with the other either.

I also disagree about your statement about parliament not representing the will of the nation. The parliament is horrible stuck and unsure as to what it wants, where it is going. This seems to perfectly align with the wider public.

The people also never voted to make any future ref illegal. The real solution is that the current party system needs to be suspended and each MP should seek re-election based on their Brexit stance. Each one could run on Hard or soft or remain. They the parliament will have the exact will of the people, voted on based on the actual eividence (the proposed deal etc).

I think running a Ref2 is much easier.

Water John

Well Leroy, that option for MPs could be achieved by simply not whipping them. Let each vote according as to their will, in the best interests of the country. No need for an election.
That would more than likely result in a soft Brexit. I can live with that. UK has always been semidetached from the EU anyway. A soft Brexit would hopefully incorporate the EU proposal for NI.

seamus

I do see a point in not running a second Remain/Leave referendum. In the likely event that Remain wins, you end up with this simmering undercurrent about democracy undermined and conspiracy theories about German interference and threats. The hard-right euroskeptics will get a proper permanent seat at the table in the UK and their poison will spread beyond its borders. The UK will then crash out of the EU in an even more spectacular fashion ten years down the line, potentially taking some other countries with it.

Push on with Brexit and the worst case scenario is that ten years down the line the UK comes back with its tail between its legs asking to rejoin a more stable and progressive union, having shed the UK's bureaucratic shackles.

Objectively I think the ideal solution would be a multi-choice plebiscite using PR, e.g. Remain, Deal A, Deal B, No Deal, which would build a much fairer profile of the country's wishes.

But such a thing could be easily spun as an exercise in confusion. PR is misunderstood and confusing in the UK, all the JRMs of this world would have to do is say that it's undemocratic and many would believe him.

breatheme

seamus wrote: »

I do see a point in not running a second Remain/Leave referendum. In the likely event that Remain wins, you end up with this simmering undercurrent about democracy undermined and conspiracy theories about German interference and threats. The hard-right euroskeptics will get a proper permanent seat at the table in the UK and their poison will spread beyond its borders. The UK will then crash out of the EU in an even more spectacular fashion ten years down the line, potentially taking some other countries with it.

Push on with Brexit and the worst case scenario is that ten years down the line the UK comes back with its tail between its legs asking to rejoin a more stable and progressive union, having shed the UK's bureaucratic shackles.

Objectively I think the ideal solution would be a multi-choice plebiscite using PR, e.g. Remain, Deal A, Deal B, No Deal, which would build a much fairer profile of the country's wishes.

But such a thing could be easily spun as an exercise in confusion. PR is misunderstood and confusing in the UK, all the JRMs of this world would have to do is say that it's undemocratic and many would believe him.

If the UK came back they'd probably not get their opt-outs... which might even be good for the EU in the (very) long run.

kowtow

Leroy42 wrote: »

Which party represent the option for Hard Brexit?

This is the argument always used against any further votes, that the people have spoken and they must be heard. Followed up with 84% of voters voted for parties agreeing with Brexit.

Both are simplistic and disingenuous. There was no deal or overall view of what Brexit actually meant. Leaving the SM was never on the agenda, £39bn payment wasn't either, if you argue against one then it stands that you don't agree with the other either.

I also disagree about your statement about parliament not representing the will of the nation. The parliament is horrible stuck and unsure as to what it wants, where it is going. This seems to perfectly align with the wider public.

The people also never voted to make any future ref illegal. The real solution is that the current party system needs to be suspended and each MP should seek re-election based on their Brexit stance. Each one could run on Hard or soft or remain. They the parliament will have the exact will of the people, voted on based on the actual eividence (the proposed deal etc).

I think running a Ref2 is much easier.

If you read my post more carefully I think you will find that you are agreeing with me.

But the fact that a future referendum is not actually illegal is hardly sufficient justification for holding one. It is within the power of the UK and it's parliament to organise itself in such a way as to allow the people to vote for just that - all it would take is a party prepared to stand for it. For whatever reason, neither Labour nor Conservative politicians have decided to make that happen.

ArthurDayne

Rhineshark wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

There really is little point arguing of the validity or legal standing of the ref poll, it is what it is and nobody is listening anyway.  If the illegal acts of the leave campaign, the Russian money etc haven't caused a rethink that nothing will.

The only possible solution is that the UK are given another vote on what Brexit actually means, ie the deal that TM actually achieves.  I fail to see how that is undemocratic.

I don't think Remain should be an option, that was already decided upon.  They should be given the details of the deal and asked to vote on it or reject it.  Rejection is obviously a no deal.

There is some point to it though. Admittedly not so much in Ireland, we just have to deal with the consequences.

But this question is continuing with all sorts of misinformation being pushed by, frankly, used-donkey salesmen. That another referendum would be undemocratic. That their referendum was totes how it done and the stupid Irish (who only, y'know, actually use these things regularly and understand them) are both wrong and stupud - with the express purpose of ending democratic decision making as soon as there's real information to work from.

This must not be allowed to be accepted as remotely the way it works or should work because it is an undemocratic scam for power-grabbing. Referenda are useful but dangerous when misused and as a country that does use them, we should be very cautious about accepting in any way (or not challenging) this dangerous attempt to reshape how they work.

Other than that, I agree that religitating it has limited use. But it should be reminded every so often of just how badly done and devious it was - and how undemocratic. As a small English speaking country, we're linguistically dominated by UK and US opinion. This dangerous opinion s one I don't want to see gaining any more traction through British repetition.

I don't want any of our governments ever getting notions about copying that sort of shenangigan either!

This is well expressed, and I agree -- referendums are not enshrined in some infallible divine legal doctrine from on high; like democracy, their function only works properly when the drivers informing public opinion are at the very least acting in good faith and using information which is verifiable. On referendums specifically, they only work well when people know the binary outcomes -- i.e. what happens if X passes, and what happens if Y passes.  The relevant authorities should then be holding both sides to account in being thorough and clear with the electorate as regards what their vote means in practice.
But even as it stands, the outcome of the referendum was simply that the UK would leave the European Union.  So even if one argues that the referendum gives an unrebuttable mandate to the government to leave the EU (which it does not, but I can certainly see the potential difficulties with defying it all the same), the referendum did not give the Tories a mandate to reject on an almost wholesale basis all other arrangements which are not dependent on membership -- i.e. redlines on the customs union, EEA, single market etc.
The Brexiteers are therefore overstepping the mandate which the referendum purportedly provides -- they are using "the will of the people" on a vote leave the EU as an incendiary device to burn away other arrangements which are hugely significant to the UK economy, constitution, and its very own territorial integrity.  I am coming round to believing that a second referendum on a final deal would be an exercise of democracy, rather than a defiance.  Obviously however, the price to pay would be that the Farages, Goves and Daily Expresses of this world would use it as a platform to continue poisoning British political discourse for many more years to come.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

This is a key line in the text



This is in relation to the NI border issue.

Wonder what that entails? Accepting the time limit?

I dont think it entails anything in particular, other than the EU not insisting that their initial wording is not the only form of words that will be acceptable. It leaves the door open to some change, though I doubt it leaves the door open to change that has already been specifically ruled out.

Water John

It is up to Parliament to face down the extreme nonsense. It is the classic tail wagging the dog.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

I understand, and agree, with all the points about it being a disaster, but there is no way that a remain vote can be put to the people without massive implications to the view of democracy in the UK.

They had a vote, which whilst legally only advisory, the PM stated that whatever the outcome was it would be respected. So, Leave won and thus should be delivered.

So the vote should now be on what leave actually means. Of course grand promises were made in the campaign, but TM has now (or will at the time of any hypothetical ref) have arrived at a deal with the EU. One must assume, since she is PM, that this is the best deal that can be secured.

Hence the UK voters now can choose which style of leave they want. Of course to leave with no deal is madness, but that is up to them.

One needs to be very careful about including Remain in any ref2, as it will be seen by many as a kick to the teeth of their earlier vote.

I don't see how there are any implications to democracy in the UK to give people the option to change their minds.

It would be a rather strange line of thought indeed to suggest that because FF lost the last election, that it would therefore be undemocratic to allow them to stand in the next election. I don't see that the principle of allowing people to change their minds should be different when it comes to a referendum.

Water John

The key point is that it would not be rerunning the same Ref as now it would be clarified what deal was on offer.

First Up

Water John wrote: »

The key point is that it would not be rerunning the same Ref as now it would be clarified what deal was on offer.

So what happens if the "deal on offer" is rejected?

Water John

It depends on how the Ref is run. Is it 3 options with a run off if none reach 50%,
Remain, Deal, Crash out? The idea of running two Refs maybe two weeks apart, I don't see a problem with it as one is deciding for at least a generation. Let it convulse the nation, until it decides the outcome.

First Up

Water John wrote: »

It depends on how the Ref is run. Is it 3 options with a run off if none reach 50%,
Remain, Deal, Crash out? The idea of running two Refs maybe two weeks apart, I don't see a problem with it as one is deciding for at least a generation. Let it convulse the nation, until it decides the outcome.

They don't have the option to Remain. They leave next April. Sure, they could beg to be allowed withdraw A50 but that would have to be ratified by all 27 and could raise various legal challenges that could take years.

Getting UK politics the point of another referendum is a big enough stretch and even if Remain was the outcome there isn't remotely enough time to complete the process by next April.

It isn't going to happen and I wish people would put their energy into the EU instead of worrying about the UK's self-inflicted problems.

Water John

This piece in the FT may give a good indication where things are really at;

'At a recent dinner, Mr Gove talked with moderate Conservative MPs and peers about a scenario in which the UK would remain “parked” in the European Economic Area, like Norway, to avoid the chaos of a disorderly “no deal” exit.' FT

So even Gove is moving away from JRM and knows the chaos of a crash out. This is the likely scenario. A Norway type deal, forecasted by Chris Patton months ago.

Imreoir2

First Up wrote: »

They don't have the option to Remain. They leave next April. Sure, they could beg to be allowed withdraw A50 but that would have to be ratified by all 27 and could raise various legal challenges that could take years.

Getting UK politics the point of another referendum is a big enough stretch and even if Remain was the outcome there isn't remotely enough time to complete the process by next April.

It isn't going to happen and I wish people would put their energy into the EU instead of worrying about the UK's self-inflicted problems.

I'm inclined to agree, the UK left the EU when it triggered article 50. We need to focus on getting the best deal for us, not on trying to encourage the UK to change their minds.

Water John

As long as they don't do us much damage, let them off, I agree.

ancapailldorcha

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree, the UK left the EU when it triggered article 50. We need to focus on getting the best deal for us, not on trying to encourage the UK to change their minds.

The UK, when it can be bothered has done a huge amount of good in Europe. The single market is perhaps the best example of this. Germany doesn't want to lead Europe. The UK provided a good check on Franco-German ambitions and reassured the Eastern states on that front. Too much power in one place is never a good thing. The UK has also reigned in the EU on its protectionist tendencies.

The UK leaving is definitely worse for it than the EU but it's good for neither. There are very good reasons why senior EU officials have said time and time again that Brexit is reversible.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree, the UK left the EU when it triggered article 50. We need to focus on getting the best deal for us, not on trying to encourage the UK to change their minds.

There are very good reasons why senior EU officials have said time and time again that Brexit is reversible.

But it won't be EU officials who decide. Even if the UK came to its senses and asked it to be reversed, it would need 27 governments to agree and there is literally no knowing what conditions they - or the Commission and Parliament - would impose.

A50 set a procedure in motion. It also triggered a chain reaction as governments, agencies, banks, businesses and logistics companies looked to build the post- Brexit EU. That work is well advanced and nobody I talk to across Europe is giving a second thought to the UK's situation or inconveniencing themselves in the slightest over them.

The genie isn't just out of the bottle; he is building a nice new house for himself and he ain't getting back in.

robinph

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree, the UK left the EU when it triggered article 50. We need to focus on getting the best deal for us, not on trying to encourage the UK to change their minds.

Triggering article 50 was just notification of the intention to leave in two years, I don't think article 50 says anything about it not being able to be stopped after being invoked.

First Up

robinph wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree, the UK left the EU when it triggered article 50. We need to focus on getting the best deal for us, not on trying to encourage the UK to change their minds.

Triggering article 50 was just notification of the intention to leave in two years, I don't think article 50 says anything about it not being able to be stopped after being invoked.

More to the point, it says absolutely nothing about how it could be stopped or revoked.

demfad

robinph wrote: »

Triggering article 50 was just notification of the intention to leave in two years, I don't think article 50 says anything about it not being able to be stopped after being invoked.

Macron and others have stated that A50 could be revoked (allowing UK the exact same conditions in EU membership as now.)

The UK itself can extend A50 'with honorable intentions' apparently. This means not as a negotiating tactic (where extending A50 indefinitely or repeatedly would give UK a negotiating advantage).

I couldn't see the EU challenging the UKs extending A50 in the ECJ, but a show of honourable intent might be an extension for the purpose of a second referendum.

listermint

There is no function stopping the UK from stepping back from the cliff edge


Nothing.


It would be welcomed

kowtow

Purely in terms of a second referendum, if there ever was to be one, and it was to include a "remain" option...

That option would have to be nailed down in advance, it would have to be clear that A50 could be absolutely revoked and remain on today's terms... and it's not at all clear how that might be negotiated prior to any referendum even if there was goodwill. Such a negotation might be seen in a negative light within the UK even if it could take place.

But a ballot paper which included "do the best we can to stay in the EU" would be no better in a sense than the 2016 in or out question. It would be, to use today's phrase, a "blind remain".

Imreoir2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The UK, when it can be bothered has done a huge amount of good in Europe. The single market is perhaps the best example of this. Germany doesn't want to lead Europe. The UK provided a good check on Franco-German ambitions and reassured the Eastern states on that front. Too much power in one place is never a good thing. The UK has also reigned in the EU on its protectionist tendencies.

The UK leaving is definitely worse for it than the EU but it's good for neither. There are very good reasons why senior EU officials have said time and time again that Brexit is reversible.

It would be better if Brexit never happened, but it has happened. The "when it can be bothered" part of your comment is the important bit to me, the UK hasen't been bothered in over a decade, and there is little hope that it would once again become a productive member if Brexit were somehow averted at the eleventh hour. The fact of having averted brexit at the last minute in itself would militate against the UK re-becoming a productive member of the union.

If the UK were to ask to stay, then I don't think the best move would be to force them out anyway. However, I don't think they will ask to stay and it think trying to convince them to stay, or worse, trying to change the EU to entice them to stay, would be a waste of time and energy.

The remain camp in the UK are trying to engineer the cancellation of Brexit if at all possible. While I have sympathy with their case, I don't think it should be a priority for the EU at this point.

First Up

demfad wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

Triggering article 50 was just notification of the intention to leave in two years, I don't think article 50 says anything about it not being able to be stopped after being invoked.

Macron and others have stated that A50 could be revoked (allowing UK the exact same conditions in EU membership as now.)

It isn't in Macron's giving and in any case he stated nothing of the sort. He said a UK request would be looked upon "with kindness" and "the door is open" to them. (Sick rabbits are put down "with kindness").

While uttering such platitudes he is also leading France's highly aggresive efforts to grab as much of the UK's business in the EU as possible.

Imreoir2

robinph wrote: »

Triggering article 50 was just notification of the intention to leave in two years, I don't think article 50 says anything about it not being able to be stopped after being invoked.

In a legal sense, of course the UK will only leave the EU next March. But in my opinion, triggering article 50 was crossing the rubicon on EU membership. The die is cast, so to speak.

The EU position is clear:

It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification.

Article 50 could be withdrawn, if the UK applied to withdraw it, with the agreement of all 27 members of the EU. I don't think the UK will apply to withdraw notification, however.

ancapailldorcha

First Up wrote: »

But it won't be EU officials who decide. Even if the UK came to its senses and asked it to be reversed, it would need 27 governments to agree and there is literally no knowing what conditions they - or the Commission and Parliament - would impose.

A50 set a procedure in motion. It also triggered a chain reaction as governments, agencies, banks, businesses and logistics companies looked to build the post- Brexit EU. That work is well advanced and nobody I talk to across Europe is giving a second thought to the UK's situation or inconveniencing themselves in the slightest over them.

The genie isn't just out of the bottle; he is building a nice new house for himself and he ain't getting back in.

I don't think they would impose any to be honest. The UK is one of the EU's wealthiest members, an important destination for Eastern European youngsters, a key component of Europe's defence strategy and a major science, engineering and research hub.

Don't get me wrong, this is all heavily predicated on some sort of Damascene moment occurring to the British establishment and may involve a degree of savvy diplomacy. I think it's possible given that the idea of an informed referendum seems to be gaining traction.

Zubeneschamali

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It would be better if Brexit never happened, but it has happened.

No, it has not happened. The UK is still a full member of the EU.


It will happen next march unless the UK does something about it.


Given the damage Brexit will do in the UK, they certainly should do something to stop it. Given the damage it will do to the EU, they should certainly allow the UK to change their minds.


The fact that a minority of grumpy Little Englanders will be unhappy if it is stopped pales in comparison to the economic and social destruction Brexit will cause. It's not as if any voters are going to be happy with the reality anyhow.