Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

LuckyLloyd

When tackling this question about the negotiations in terms of responsibility and motivation it is important to remember that the UK is responsible for creating some of their biggest difficulties at this point.

- The EU did not force Theresa May to give the Lancaster House speech and hamstring herself in negotiations with unrealistic red lines;
- The EU did not force Theresa May and her government to have done no preparation on the Northern Irish border issue before triggering Article 50;
- The EU did not force Theresa May to trigger Article 50 when she did;
- The EU did not force Theresa May to call a snap election;
- The EU did not force Theresa May to be completely uninspiring during said election campaign;
- The EU did not force Theresa May to make an arrangement with the DUP of all people to stay in power;
- The EU did not force Theresa May to lose goodwill by being late with critical submissions lacking in ultimate substance;
- The EU did not force Theresa May to lose goodwill by trying to go over Barnier's head during the summer;
- The EU did not force Theresa May and her government to make no headway on No Deal preparations;

It is never going to be the responsibility of the EU to anticipate and alleviate these problems for her or the UK government. At all times the EU has been the antithesis to HMG during the process. The EU has been consistently prepared; clear about its objectives; and united on its strategy.

If we get the crash out No Deal option, I don't doubt the EU will extend emergency arrangements as required to keep the lights on in the UK. But that is truly the extent of its responsibility. Brexit is a British problem that requires a British solution.

Zubeneschamali

As counter-examples to the idea that the EU wants brexit to fail, Norway and Switzerland both stalled the process of joining. Sweden stalled the adoption of the Euro. In each case, the stall was for the kind of political reason the Brexiteers cite for brexiting: control, sovereignty, independence.

Has the EU waged a spiteful campaign of vengeance on these countries for their uppitiness? No - decades later, everyone has just written the rules and gotten on with it.

The EU has issues with these countries - they have said they won't do a Brexit deal like the Swiss one because it is a giant pain in the derriere - but they have not tired to humiliate Switzerland as a result.

They have also not given up on the idea that these countries might one day change their minds and join more fully. It will be the same with Brexit, or with Scotland if they jump ship from the UK - the EU will look very favourably at these former members re-applying, but they may not want to get into the same special terms deals next time.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As counter-examples to the idea that the EU wants brexit to fail, Norway and Switzerland both stalled the process of joining. Sweden stalled the adoption of the Euro. In each case, the stall was for the kind of political reason the Brexiteers cite for brexiting: control, sovereignty, independence.

Has the EU waged a spiteful campaign of vengeance on these countries for their uppitiness? No - decades later, everyone has just written the rules and gotten on with it.

The EU has issues with these countries - they have said they won't do a Brexit deal like the Swiss one because is is a giant pain in the derriere - but they have not tired to humiliate Switzerland as a result.

They have also not given up on the idea that these countries might one day change their minds and join more fully. It will be the same with Brexit, or with Scotland if they jump ship from the UK - the EU will look very favourably at these former members re-applying, but they may not want to get into the same special terms deals next time.

Your point is very valid except that Scotland wouldn't be re-applying. They would be a brand new member of the EU. Of course, many of the existing EU rules and regulations are in place but much work would need to be done to integrate this brand new sovereign country at a political level. Also, countries like Spain and Italy would be keeping a very close eye on how the EU dealt with Scotland's application.

Professor Moriarty

This from Raab in the Commons this morning:

"There is a risk of no deal, especially if the EU engage in a deliberately intransigent approach."

Of course.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Scotland wouldn't be re-applying.

Virtually every Scottish citizen will be a former EU citizen, dragged out of the EU by the English against their democratically expressed will. I think they can expect very favourable treatment indeed.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Virtually every Scottish citizen will be a former EU citizen. I think they can expect very favourable treatment indeed.

At a Commission and Parliament level, yes. However, despite any amount of goodwill, the country itself will have to be set up as an independent sovereign state which can then apply for membership which in turn will have to be ratified by other countries. This is before the EU and Scotland begin to integrate across many areas. Also, whatever about macro EU goodwill, Italy and Spain in particular would have good reason to raise serious questions about the whole idea given the regional tensions within their countries.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Also, whatever about macro EU goodwill, Italy and Spain in particular would have good reason to raise serious questions about the whole idea given the regional tensions within their countries.

France are also tense about regions leaving France and trying to stay in the EU.

But screw those guys - Germany, and all the small nations (with Ireland at the front) would be on Scotlands side.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

France are also tense about regions leaving France and trying to stay in the EU.

But screw those guys - Germany, and all the small nations (with Ireland at the front) would be on Scotlands side.

You can't screw anybody on this - Scottish accession would require unanimous agreement by each member state, in accordance with their own constitutional requirements.

Still, I think the whole Spain/Catalonia angle to this is a bit overblown. As long as Scotland is still a part of the UK, Spain has an interest in talking down the prospects of an independent Scotland gliding smoothly into EU membership, since that might give the Catalans similar notions. But once an independent Scotland is a present reality, it becomes very difficult for Spain to object to membership. Should an actual, independent, sovereign republic be discriminated against in order to send a message to a province of Spain? And, remember, many EU member states (including ourselves) are breakaways from larger neighbours; they would be appalled at the suggestion that, once independent, they should be treated as second-class states because of their origins.

So, really, I don't think Spain could press this very far. They'd have the theoretical right to veto Scottish accession, but the political and diplomatic price they would pay for doing so would be out of all proportion to the domestic political benefits.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

France are also tense about regions leaving France and trying to stay in the EU.

But screw those guys - Germany, and all the small nations (with Ireland at the front) would be on Scotlands side.

I agree with your sentiment, but you can't ignore the valid concerns of heavyweight countries like Italy, Spain and to a lesser extent, France.

Realistically, for all of this to happen, the UK must leave without a deal or with a deal that Scots find utterly unacceptable. Then Scotland would have another bitterly fought referendum and there is no guarantee that they will vote to leave. Then they would begin the work of becoming a separate sovereign state - setting up treaties, ministries, currency etc.

Then they would apply for EU membership. Then their application must be ratified unanimously by all other countries. Then they would begin the political and legal process of integration. So the idea of Scotland joining the EU is very welcome but it would be a long and tortuous journey.

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree with your sentiment, but you can't ignore the valid concerns of heavyweight countries like Italy, Spain and to a lesser extent, France.

Realistically, for all of this to happen, the UK must leave without a deal or with a deal that Scots find utterly unacceptable. Then Scotland would have another bitterly fought referendum and there is no guarantee that they will vote to leave. Then they would begin the work of becoming a separate sovereign state - setting up treaties, ministries, currency etc.

Then they would apply for EU membership. Then their application must be ratified unanimously by all other countries. Then they would begin the political and legal process of integration. So the idea of Scotland joining the EU is very welcome but it would be a long and tortuous journey.

If Scotland was allowed a second Referendum, would it not be a key point that they would join or rejoin the EU, and how would the EU respond to such a plank in the SNP proposition.

If the EU expresses a preference, then would that become a major issue in the referendum?

I think if Scotland were to vote independence, I think that the EU would be very quick to let them join, and accelerate the succession.

First Up

Sam Russell wrote:

I think if Scotland were to vote independence, I think that the EU would be very quick to let them join, and accelerate the succession.

But there would be the same logistical challenge of the border as we have here.

10000maniacs

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

This from Raab in the Commons this morning:

"There is a risk of no deal, especially if the EU engage in a deliberately intransigent approach."

Of course.

I don't think the UK have thought this through. :rolleyes:
It was always obvious that existing members of the WTO (especially Russia) would not give the UK access that are on the same terms as the EU have with the WTO. Why would they?
So the UK will enter the WTO on third country terms until trade deals are negotiated and finalized.
Going forward they will have to be able to quantify and control everything coming into and going out of the UK so that the other 164 members of the WTO can apply their own tariffs and the UK applies their tariffs too. The UK can't control the amount of exports they can export to WTO countries as each member has a quota system based on protecting their own products in each country.
So without an EU deal on the March 31st, the UK will start negotiating trade deals with 165 countries/trading blocks and each of those trading blocks has their own interests, prices and quotas at heart. Every product leaving the UK will have a different tariff depending on the country it is being exported to.
It will be a minefield of negotiation, a virtually impossible task to get anything equivalent to what they had within the EU.
The UK's answer is to set the import tariffs on goods coming into the UK at zero. Hmmmm. That would be disastrous for UK manufacturers.
When WTO countries flood the UK with cheap tat, UK local industry will not be able to compete and will have to stop manufacturing their equivalent produce and close down. Then the WTO sharks will up their prices to the UK.
Not to mention the checks and balances that will have to be carried out on all products entering and leaving the UK. Every item in every lorry going in and out will have to be bean-counted.
Bring out the popcorn.
What a cluster.

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As counter-examples to the idea that the EU wants brexit to fail, Norway and Switzerland both stalled the process of joining. Sweden stalled the adoption of the Euro. In each case, the stall was for the kind of political reason the Brexiteers cite for brexiting: control, sovereignty, independence.

Has the EU waged a spiteful campaign of vengeance on these countries for their uppitiness? No - decades later, everyone has just written the rules and gotten on with it.

The EU has issues with these countries - they have said they won't do a Brexit deal like the Swiss one because is is a giant pain in the derriere - but they have not tired to humiliate Switzerland as a result.

They have also not given up on the idea that these countries might one day change their minds and join more fully. It will be the same with Brexit, or with Scotland if they jump ship from the UK - the EU will look very favourably at these former members re-applying, but they may not want to get into the same special terms deals next time.

Your point is very valid except that Scotland wouldn't be re-applying. They would be a brand new member of the EU. Of course, many of the existing EU rules and regulations are in place but much work would need to be done to integrate this brand new sovereign country at a political level. Also, countries like Spain and Italy would be keeping a very close eye on how the EU dealt with Scotland's application.

Scotland had a referendum to remain part of the UK which as we are constantly being reminded on this forum regarding brexit is a democratic vote which MUST be respected.

kuro68k

lawred2 wrote: »

Do they?

Indeed.

https://youtu.be/0xGt3QmRSZY

Farage was on Question Time in 2016 talking about how great Norway was and how the UK should be like that country, out of the EU but in the EEA. That was hit pitch to the electorate and he was enthusiastic about it.

Presumably he was arguing in good faith and didn't change his mind the nanosecond the result came in, although I must admit I haven't asked him lately.

joeysoap

RobMc59 wrote: »

Scotland had a referendum to remain part of the UK which as we are constantly being reminded on this forum regarding brexit is a democratic vote which MUST be respected.

If I remember correctly Scotland was told that the only way to remain in the EU was vote to stay in the UK?

ancapailldorcha

joeysoap wrote: »

If I remember correctly Scotland was told that the only way to remain in the EU was vote to stay in the UK?

Indeed. This was a big part of the campaign which was largely fear based.

breatheme

If Scotland had taken the plunge and voted to leave... they might be in the middle of a transition period and applying for EU membership.

That's a wild guess, but plausible.

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

joeysoap wrote: »

If I remember correctly Scotland was told that the only way to remain in the EU was vote to stay in the UK?

Indeed. This was a big part of the campaign which was largely fear based.

Which begs the question-if the conditions you voted on have changed or you were misled,is`nt it reasonable to  think a second vote whether Scotland(remain in the UK) or Britain(remain in the EU) is a sensible option?

Enzokk

And for some fun we have the following observation from The Telegraph.

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1055052055247695872

Just in case we forget this is the newspaper that employed Boris Johnson where he wrote lies about the EU to the UK readers about bendy bananas.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

But there would be the same logistical challenge of the border as we have here.

Not really. The English/Scottish border is long established and not contentious like ours.

Professor Moriarty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Not really. The English/Scottish border is long established and not contentious like ours.

But a border would still have to be set up. If it were a no deal exit, it would a border similar to that at, say, Poland and Belarus.

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But a border would still have to be set up. If it were a no deal, it would a border similar to that at, say, Poland and Belarus.

So?

Professor Moriarty

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So?

So the same logistical challenge would remain as if there had to be a border in Ireland.

postsnthing

Professor Moriarty wrote:

So the same logistical challenge would remain as if there had to be a border in Ireland.

They have no joint international agreement (GFA) to not have a border, so not the same.

LeinsterDub

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So the same logistical challenge would remain as if there had to be a border in Ireland.

The logistical challenges would much less. It's a more natural border with less crossing . It's far shorter and "straighter" and most importantly no one would be threatening to blow it up.

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So the same logistical challenge would remain as if there had to be a border in Ireland.

They're not in anyway the same logistical challenges.

You forget why there would be "no hard border" in Ireland.

A hard border between England and Scotland is a different kettle of fish altogether.

LuckyLloyd

RobMc59 wrote: »

Scotland had a referendum to remain part of the UK which as we are constantly being reminded on this forum regarding brexit is a democratic vote which MUST be respected.

Not on this forum, bar the odd 'why are the EU being such difficult bullies' poster.

RobMc59 wrote: »

Which begs the question-if the conditions you voted on have changed or you were misled,is`nt it reasonable to  think a second vote whether Scotland(remain in the UK) or Britain(remain in the EU) is a sensible option?

A referendum based on facts or lies that have changed / been exposed should not be held up as something sacred and immovable. The people should absolutely be offered a second referendum.

Kermit.de.frog

Enzokk wrote: »

And for some fun we have the following observation from The Telegraph.

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1055052055247695872

Just in case we forget this is the newspaper that employed Boris Johnson where he wrote lies about the EU to the UK readers about bendy bananas.

Let's keep it real and be more accurate here.

The UK population has been fed a diet of lies, ignorance and exceptionalist little Islander nonsense for 40 years by an 80% right wing bottom of the barrel tabloid press.

That's the real reason. All they think they know about the EU is built on ignorance and a ridiculously pompous and pumped sense of superiority.

The way they go on they seem to think the EU should be grateful just to have them as a member.

Sam Russell

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's keep it real and be more accurate here.

The UK population has been fed a diet of lies, ignorance and exceptionalist little Islander nonsense for 40 years by an 80% right wing bottom of the barrel tabloid press.

That's the real reason. All they think they know about the EU is built on ignorance and a ridiculously pompous and pumped sense of superiority.

The way they go on they seem to think the EU should be grateful just to have them as a member.

I think it is more a fundamental attitude thing.

For us, free movement means we are free to go the other EU countries and seek work, get education, wallow in the different culture, etc.

For the UK, freedom of movement means they (the foreigners) are free to come over here and take our jobs, or go on 'benefits', use our NHS, fill our schools, speak foreign languages, and bring in those foreign customs - that is what is so bad about freedom of movement.

I think exceptionalism, isolationism, xenophobia, and maybe racism all come from this.

As Oscar Wilde had it in Reading Gaol- some look at the bars, while some look through at the stars.

Strazdas

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Let's keep it real and be more accurate here.

The UK population has been fed a diet of lies, ignorance and exceptionalist little Islander nonsense for 40 years by an 80% right wing bottom of the barrel tabloid press.

That's the real reason. All they think they know about the EU is built on ignorance and a ridiculously pompous and pumped sense of superiority.

The way they go on they seem to think the EU should be grateful just to have them as a member.

Very much so. They voted to leave a mythological EU that they invented themselves - a corrupt bureaucratic dictatorship, 'the EUSSR' etc.

The 40 years of lies are about to catch up with them though. It's going to be a hellish experience having to acknowledge the lies when the edifice begins to collapse around them.