Brexit discussion thread IV

Sand

CrabRevolution wrote: »

b) Effectively an attitude of "well, if you can't beat em, suck up to them". This means the UK realises there are no aspects where they are are equal to the USA, so instead they revel in being teachers pet and telling everyone the USA is their best friend.

The kindest way to view it is that the British believe they are the wise Greeks to the bumptious Romans. They may believe they have real influence or sway on US leadership. In reality, its likely the Americans who are exploiting the British arrogance. They pretend to indulge them whilst making all the decisions content that the British will follow. And seeing the ritualistic humiliation of abject, craven, prostrate British by the visiting US president in the last two days, they're correct to believe so.

The more cynical way to view things is that the British 'ruling' class accept they are vassals, exchanging servitude to US interests in exchange for lucrative positions in US corporations, speaking tours, and so on.

Sand

Nody wrote: »

And being an Italian government they are likely to not be in the government in under 12 months...

The government may fall, but the parties within it and the people they represent are going to be a fixture of Italian governments for some time to come. People may as well get to accept that the future is not a continuation of the neoliberalism which has brought about Trump, Brexit, and so on. This is not a blip.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

The more cynical way to view things is that the British 'ruling' class accept they are vassals, exchanging servitude to US interests in exchange for lucrative positions in US corporations, speaking tours, and so on.

I'm convinced that this is the case for the pro-Brexit right. The pro-Brexit left chief among them the current Labour leader dream of turning Britain into a high-tax, high-spending socialist/communist (delete as appropriate) utopia.

In 2010, the US passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The UK was the first to sign this intergovernmental agreement whereby non-US banks must report details of bank accounts of US persons (not citizens which would be a more precise definition) via HMRC for taxation purposes to the US Department of the Treasury. Non-compliant financial institutions can face a 30% on payments to foreign payees.

I think people would agree that in a country with an economy so centered on financial services like the UK, this is a serious issue and yet there wasn't a peep from the Tory right or UKIP. I don't think it ever made the news though I spent much less time observing politics then.

It could be argued that so-called third way types like Blair, Clegg and Cameron were little better with the Iraq war being the nadir of the "special relationship". The Economist recently examined this in a recent Bagehot column.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have a list of the EU's most favored nations? That link says "Exceptions allow for preferential treatment of developing countries, regional free trade areas and customs unions." I can't find more details.

I'm almost certain that if Canada and the EU have a deal, then the EU can give a better one to the UK since they aren't using WTO rules. Even if the EU and Canada are on WTO, then it still works like that?

Remember this diagaram ?

Other countries get reduced access because they had red lines too.
Giving in to the UK means giving in to them too.


Most countries use WTO rules, they are the backstop.
Including the rule about Most Favoured Nation.

Nody

Sand wrote: »

The government may fall, but the parties within it and the people they represent are going to be a fixture of Italian governments for some time to come. People may as well get to accept that the future is not a continuation of the neoliberalism which has brought about Trump, Brexit, and so on. This is not a blip.

And yet the elections after Brexit and all the other XXexists never happened yet were predicted by the same people as being months away; the Austrian refused to have a Trump as president; the message to leave EU etc. dropped in Italy and so on. Hence sorry Brexit and Trump are the extreme of what will come and not the norm.

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm convinced that this is the case for the pro-Brexit right. The pro-Brexit left chief among them the current Labour leader dream of turning Britain into a high-tax, high-spending socialist/communist (delete as appropriate) utopia.

In 2010, the US passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). The UK was the first to sign this intergovernmental agreement whereby non-US banks must report details of bank accounts of US persons (not citizens which would be a more precise definition) via HMRC for taxation purposes to the US Department of the Treasury. Non-compliant financial institutions can face a 30% on payments to foreign payees.

I think people would agree that in a country with an economy so centered on financial services like the UK, this is a serious issue and yet there wasn't a peep from the Tory right or UKIP. I don't think it ever made the news though I spent much less time observing politics then.

It could be argued that so-called third way types like Blair, Clegg and Cameron were little better with the Iraq war being the nadir of the "special relationship". The Economist recently examined this in a recent Bagehot column.

Yes, I'd agree. It's very telling that the red line for Davis, Johnson and JRM is that the most recent UK white paper threatens a US-UK trade deal. They could almost taste that position on a US corporate board. It is very much personal interests driving their thinking, not the good of the nation. But it has been such for decades.

The UK didnt just embrace FATCA, they actually aped it with their own UK CDOT regime. In fairness though, no-one rebelled against FATCA. The US is that powerful financially. For all the talk of London being a financial capital, the power is in the US. London is just a colony.

Sand

Nody wrote: »

And yet the elections after Brexit and all the other XXexists never happened yet were predicted by the same people as being months away; the Austrian refused to have a Trump as president; the message to leave EU etc. dropped in Italy and so on. Hence sorry Brexit and Trump are the extreme of what will come and not the norm.

What I mean is that Salvini is Italy's most popular politician. He is populist in the sense that he pursues policies which are popular. So, this current government may fall. But the ideology which underpins it will continue in the next government and the government after that.

briany

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Remember this diagaram ?

Other countries get reduced access because they had red lines too.
Giving in to the UK means giving in to them too.


Most countries use WTO rules, they are the backstop.
Including the rule about Most Favoured Nation.

One of the UK's red lines is no hard border in Ireland, or at least it's one of their oft-stated promises, so how is even a Canada-style arrangement open to the UK if they intend to deliver on that promise? May had suggested some months back that a Canada-US border would work for Ireland, but Varadkar completely refuted this notion.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

Yes, I'd agree. It's very telling that the red line for Davis, Johnson and JRM is that the most recent UK white paper threatens a US-UK trade deal. They could almost taste that position on a US corporate board. It is very much personal interests driving their thinking, not the good of the nation. But it has been such for decades.

The UK didnt just embrace FATCA, they actually aped it with their own UK CDOT regime. In fairness though, no-one rebelled against FATCA. The US is that powerful financially. For all the talk of London being a financial capital, the power is in the US. London is just a colony.

It's harrowing and it's never mentioned in the media in any significant sense. Maybe outlets like the Guardian fear reprisal. It's a shame that they didn't try to make TTIP more amenable to Europeans but then had they actually tried to adopt a leading role in Brussels to begin with we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Jim2007

Sand wrote: »

In fairness though, no-one rebelled against FATCA. The US is that powerful financially. For all the talk of London being a financial capital, the power is in the US. London is just a colony.

Well most of the banks in Switzerland have. They no longer accept US citizens or green cardholders. The few that do charge crazy fees to cover the costs of FATCA. It is very difficult even for US citizens with permanent residence status, as their banking options are very limited, usually just checking account and debit cards.

Of course high wealth clients are always welcome, since the fees will easily cover the costs of FATCA compliance. High wealth clients usually require $3.5m - $7m on deposit with the bank, depending on which bank you go to.

Zubeneschamali

Sand wrote: »

What I mean is that Salvini is Italy's most popular politician. He is populist in the sense that he pursues policies which are popular. So, this current government may fall. But the ideology which underpins it will continue in the next government and the government after that.

No, that is not how populism usually goes.


The populist gets in on the basis of promising things which are popular as election promises. These are usually not practical, so the populist either waters them down (and loses votes) or does the impractical thing with bad consequences.


Either way, next election there will be people saying "Vote for us and not the lying impractical populist!" and they win.

McGiver

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sand wrote: »

What I mean is that Salvini is Italy's most popular politician. He is populist in the sense that he pursues policies which are popular. So, this current government may fall. But the ideology which underpins it will continue in the next government and the government after that.

No, that is not how populism usually goes.


The populist gets in on the basis of promising things which are popular as election promises. These are usually not practical, so the populist either waters them down (and loses votes) or does the impractical thing with bad consequences.


Either way, next election there will be people saying "Vote for us and not the lying impractical populist!" and they win.

Yes, but then even bigger lunatics may get into power and potentially try something even more more disastrous. The populist trap is a vicious circle which leads to an erosion of political culture and in worst case things may descend into end of democracy.

McGiver

CrabRevolution wrote: »

The UK will go nowhere until they give up on the idea that in future they'll be treated as an equal to the entire EU.

The idea of a new court/arbitration procedure/commission that will be a superior authority over the EU/ECJ is untenable. If this new authority's decisions are binding over the EU, it would give the UK a huge say in EU law.

Not only that but the idea this new court would be split 50/50 between the UK and EU is astonishing. It'd be like the UK leaving the EU but being given a perpetual presidency of the EU.

Yet, we've got more of the good old Davis' fudge from the new DExEU boss Raab on this.

When it was put to him that the common rulebook would be set by the EU, and that the UK would not be involved, Raab replied:
That’s true. But in terms of as those rules are formulated, or any changes to those rules - we’ve signed up to them so far through the normal democratic process - we’ll have deep and enhanced dialogue and consultation, so we’ll have a chance to influence it. And ultimately parliament has that lock. So it’s not right to say we’ll be a rule-taker in the sense that that’s normally used.

He must know the UK won't influence much as a non-member. He also must know that there won't be any effective 'parliamentary lock' either.

It's this simple - if you are not a member of a golf club, you can get access to the course if you pay, but a) you must follow the rules of the club and b) of course forget about creating new rules or voting on them as the members do.

Just to give an example of a nonexistent 'lock' - for example Norway as part of the EEA agreement as of 2013 objected to 0.3% of the legislation.

Of the more than 6 000 new EU legislative acts that have been incorporated into the EEA Agreement, the use of our right to enter a reservation has only been proposed in connection with 17, and so far we have not
entered a reservation in practice, although the first case may be on the horizon.

And that is an EEA level of integration & relationship, the kind of integration UK insist on is much lower, so it is obvious that the UK's leverage would be even smaller in such case i.e. approaching zero.

An Ciarraioch

One of the few UK articles I've seen that realises the transition period is dependent on a Border agreement:

http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86931#disqus_thread

Enzokk

Just an aside to the conversations we have had about Jeremy Corbyn and how Labour is not leading in the polls right now, have a look at this tweet and it makes it a little clearer why. If there is a election then the BBC has clear impartiality guidelines and stories from their journalists are under even more scrutiny. They are then only reporting the policies of the candidates and not the candidates themselves. This acts as a counter balance to the newspapers. Unlike now where there is a clear bias towards Brexit from the BBC in an effort it seems to not upset the paymasters, or potential paymasters. There is also documented bias against Corbyn from their political editor so the fact they are level is actually the story, not that they aren't ahead. Once a new election is called and Labour policies will be front and center for people to see instead of "Red Jeremy Corbyn" then I suspect the same will happen as the last election. They were polling at 25% when the last election was called and got 40% of the vote. What would a 5% swing mean this time?

https://twitter.com/rachshabi/status/1017889318134800384

The tweet is about the headline used and nothing about the tweeter, its the one of many tweets that feature the picture of the newspaper headline.

Zubeneschamali

McGiver wrote: »

Yes, but then even bigger lunatics may get into power and potentially try something even more more disastrous. The populist trap is a vicious circle which leads to an erosion of political culture and in worst case things may descend into end of democracy.

Examples?


For a counter example, look at FF here. Right through the boom they were doing mad stuff, increasing spending by 20% a year, shovelling money to their friends in the Building trade, increasing everyones pay without restraint...


This was all very popular. But impractical, and when we hit the buffers, they got the blame.



10 years later, they are still a dirty word to many of their former voters.

An Ciarraioch

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1018115817265881088

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1018116173144174592

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1018116469274669056

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1018117173787725825

Silent Running

They know well that a border in the Irish sea is the only option with even a remote chance of working. It's easy to see that they want a crash out Brexit.

LuckyLloyd

Enzokk wrote: »

Just an aside to the conversations we have had about Jeremy Corbyn and how Labour is not leading in the polls right now, have a look at this tweet and it makes it a little clearer why. If there is a election then the BBC has clear impartiality guidelines and stories from their journalists are under even more scrutiny. They are then only reporting the policies of the candidates and not the candidates themselves. This acts as a counter balance to the newspapers. Unlike now where there is a clear bias towards Brexit from the BBC in an effort it seems to not upset the paymasters, or potential paymasters. There is also documented bias against Corbyn from their political editor so the fact they are level is actually the story, not that they aren't ahead. Once a new election is called and Labour policies will be front and center for people to see instead of "Red Jeremy Corbyn" then I suspect the same will happen as the last election. They were polling at 25% when the last election was called and got 40% of the vote. What would a 5% swing mean this time?

https://twitter.com/rachshabi/status/1017889318134800384

The tweet is about the headline used and nothing about the tweeter, its the one of many tweets that feature the picture of the newspaper headline.

Last year's election was instructive in that regard. Corbyn had been savagely attacked for coming on two year's up to May calling the election and was miles behind in the polls. Once he was allowed to go front and centre infront of the public the tide turned significantly. What the papers hate and fear most about him - that he's held the same socialist politics for forty years - is his great strength should an election be called. He rings very true and clear on the campaign trail as he truly believes in his message and in the current era of media spin it is very powerful indeed. Particularly when the constant media denigration creates very low expectations before he speaks.

Imreoir2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1018115817265881088

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1018116173144174592

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1018116469274669056

https://twitter.com/Steven_Swinford/status/1018117173787725825

Am I wrong, or would that amendment guarentee that no-deal is the only possible outcome?

An Ciarraioch

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Am I wrong, or would that amendment guarentee that no-deal is the only possible outcome?

Either that, or Norway plus.

Enzokk

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Last year's election was instructive in that regard. Corbyn had been savagely attacked for coming on two year's up to May calling the election and was miles behind in the polls. Once he was allowed to go front and centre infront of the public the tide turned significantly. What the papers hate and fear most about him - that he's held the same socialist politics for forty years - is his great strength should an election be called. He rings very true and clear on the campaign trail as he truly believes in his message and in the current era of media spin it is very powerful indeed. Particularly when the constant media denigration creates very low expectations before he speaks.

His view on Brexit is still as delusional as the best out there though.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Am I wrong, or would that amendment guarentee that no-deal is the only possible outcome?

That would be their preferred option so you would assume that would be the end game for them.

Imreoir2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Either that, or Norway plus.

They still need to agree a backstop for Norway+

An Ciarraioch

Clear trend now of Tory voters defecting to UKIP:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1018193452801101824

Lib Dems also 8% (+1).

An Ciarraioch

And the Electoral Calculus prediction:

Lab 300 (+38)
Con 267 (-51)
SNP 42 (+7)
Lib Dem 19 (+7)
Plaid Cymru 3 (-1)
Green 1
NI 18

So, Labour would require SNP support, whether for a minority government or a coalition with the Lib Dems.

Tropheus

I can see UKIP getting some gains as the no deal Brexit nutters desert the Conservatives as they feel a soft Brexit is winning. However, I don't think there are enough of them to give UKIP significant gains.

That's all leaving aside that UKIP is a basket case anyway.

Strazdas

Tropheus wrote: »

I can see UKIP getting some gains as the no deal Brexit nutters desert the Conservatives as they feel a soft Brexit is winning. However, I don't think there are enough of them to give UKIP significant gains.

That's all leaving aside that UKIP is a basket case anyway.

I wouldn't read too much into this at all. There are probably 10% of the population floating around between the former BNP, UKIP and the Tories. They don't seem to have an allegiance to any particular party.

Dyr

Silent Running wrote: »

There are a lot of UK ex-pats non EU immygants commuting to Gib from as far away as Estepona, San Pedro and even further. I know there is huge concern among this group over what might happen with Gib.

Fast forward to next year

Dyr

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

And the Electoral Calculus prediction:

Lab 300 (+38)
Con 267 (-51)
SNP 42 (+7)
Lib Dem 19 (+7)
Plaid Cymru 3 (-1)
Green 1
NI 18

So, Labour would require SNP support, whether for a minority government or a coalition with the Lib Dems.

This NI party sound interesting.

sdanseo

Bambi wrote: »

This NI party sound interesting.

The way things are going, give it a decade or two and it might well be SNP - 0, rest of Scotland - 0 and NI - 0

McGiver

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

Yes, but then even bigger lunatics may get into power and potentially try something even more more disastrous. The populist trap is a vicious circle which leads to an erosion of political culture and in worst case things may descend into end of democracy.

Examples?

For a counter example, look at FF here. Right through the boom they were doing mad stuff, increasing spending by 20% a year, shovelling money to their friends in the Building trade, increasing everyones pay without restraint...

This was all very popular. But impractical, and when we hit the buffers, they got the blame.

10 years later, they are still a dirty word to many of their former voters.

You are talking about soft populists. I meant more extreme right wing or left wing populists. Especially the ones that use fear or manipulate emotions. Example - 1920s and 1930s practically all over Europe.

devnull

May has now suggested that if they do not back her there will not be a Brexit in a Mail on Sunday interview for tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1018238184482799618

Seems that she's playing toughball with them over this, although there is also speculation going around that she is at her lowest ebb in terms of public support at the moment.

An Ciarraioch

devnull wrote: »

May has now suggested that if they do not back her there will not be a Brexit in a Mail on Sunday interview for tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1018238184482799618

Seems that she's playing toughball with them over this, although there is also speculation going around that she is at her lowest ebb in terms of public support at the moment.

Pressure from both ends of the Tories, as well as the previously mentioned ERG amendments, the Soubry CU proposal is still due to be voted upon.

Enzokk

devnull wrote: »

May has now suggested that if they do not back her there will not be a Brexit in a Mail on Sunday interview for tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1018238184482799618

Seems that she's playing toughball with them over this, although there is also speculation going around that she is at her lowest ebb in terms of public support at the moment.

Talk is cheap, her actions are more important. She is promising them things she cannot deliver on right now.

Nody

devnull wrote: »

May has now suggested that if they do not back her there will not be a Brexit in a Mail on Sunday interview for tomorrow.

https://twitter.com/BBCHelenaLee/status/1018238184482799618

Seems that she's playing toughball with them over this, although there is also speculation going around that she is at her lowest ebb in terms of public support at the moment.

So on the one hand she threatens to back out of brexit; while on the other promising she'll get a deal EU already told her is dead on arrival... Sounds like setting up a claim to back out of Brexit possibly by saying EU refused her deal (ergo she had to cancel Brexit) even though that logic makes no sense outside of UK.

Capt'n Midnight

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They still need to agree a backstop for Norway+

Norway means free movement of goods (excluding food and beverage), capital, services and people.
Norway like the other EFTA countries is in Schengen.

Norway pays the EU near enough the same per capita as the UK does now.
And doesn't get full access to financials or services.


And besides Norway+ means the UK needs to give more to the EU or Norway & Co. get bumped up to the same deal.

Imreoir2

Nody wrote: »

So on the one hand she threatens to back out of brexit; while on the other promising she'll get a deal EU already told her is dead on arrival... Sounds like setting up a claim to back out of Brexit possibly by saying EU refused her deal (ergo she had to cancel Brexit) even though that logic makes no sense outside of UK.

That is a very provocative statement for the eurosceptic wing of the Tories. Possibly she is trying to force the rebels out into the open, push them into a heave she thinks they will lose and hopefully neuter them for the end game with the EU when she will have to make real compromises?

Water John

Is she suggesting she'll withdraw Art 50 as opposed to a crash out Brexit, if that's the choice Brexiteers try to force her into?

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

Is she suggesting she'll withdraw Art 50 as opposed to a crash out Brexit, if that's the choice Brexiteers try to force her into?

Easy to do because the referendum was advisory.

The House of Commons is sovereign , so the monarchy, the constitution , the public, and the House of Lords are all merely advisory.


It would be a sane choice, especially if there's a scapegoat.

Maybe payback for the DUP ?





But how would she that square with her history with the ECJ and ECHR ?

Water John

Well it's the only card she can play with them. Since she signed Art 50 and handed them the default position of, crashing out Brexit to JRM et al.

Infini

Water John wrote: »

Is she suggesting she'll withdraw Art 50 as opposed to a crash out Brexit, if that's the choice Brexiteers try to force her into?

It's the one out she has against this disaster of a situation, it's also the nuclear option of crippling the brexitards if it comes to it as she can simply turn around and say she wished to deliver on her promise but could not do so as the European Troll Group essentially wanted to wreck the economy and ruin everything with their refusal to agree to anything and allow her to negotiate seriously.

As for the whole UKIP thing, the problem with the conservative's is that they should have not pandered to winning their votes by allowing this referendum to begin with, if anything they should have let them take their mouthy MPs off their hands. UKIP are a mess but by trying to win their votes they allowed a 5th column of subversive idiots into their own ranks that will probably damage them for a long time after this.

Rjd2

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Clear trend now of Tory voters defecting to UKIP:

https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1018193452801101824

Lib Dems also 8% (+1).

To be expected when you have members of the party talking hyperbolic drivel about "betrayal" etc. I think an issue with May is she hasn't tried to sell that version of Brexit whatsoever. She should have been all over the place last week or so, but as she is awful at that sort of thing she has hidden away thus the likes of Mogg etc have been able to dictate the narrative.

Cookie_Monster

Water John wrote: »

Is she suggesting she'll withdraw Art 50 as opposed to a crash out Brexit, if that's the choice Brexiteers try to force her into?

surely no European government will accept that though. Going back to the situation before it was triggered with the UK having all its special opt outs etc won't sit well with any other member, no?

mickoneill31

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

surely no European government will accept that though. Going back to the situation before it was triggered with the UK having all its special opt outs etc won't sit well with any other member, no?

I agree. The UK are toxic for the EU. If they don't get Brexit do we want them as part of the EU blaming us for everything wrong with the UK?
Of course I'd be good for our economies and trade but in the longer term they'll be undermining from within.

Bigus

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

surely no European government will accept that though. Going back to the situation before it was triggered with the UK having all its special opt outs etc won't sit well with any other member, no?

Many governments have said collectively and individually that they wish Britain wasn't leaving the EU, so I don't see any issues accepting them back with humility.

May having a terrible time on Marr this morning.

Seth Brundle

Bigus wrote: »

Many governments have said collectively and individually that they wish Britain wasn't leaving the EU, so I don't see any issues accepting them back with humility.

Britain definitley wont do this.
"Show humility to some Frenchies and the Hun? Never, by Jove!"

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

May having a terrible time on Marr this morning.

Sets out that there are non-negotiable red lines on FOM and ECJ oversight ending.

That means a hard border. She continues to pretend otherwise.

May mentions that Trump suggested to her that she sue the EU.

:sigh:

Alan_P

Does the UK realise it's in a deep constitutional and democratic crisis ? It's whole political polity is focused around something undeliverable. The UK cannot leave the EU without catastrophic consequences.

It's electorate don't seem to have realised that, and will likely elect a similar parliament. What do they do ?