Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

Russman wrote: »

I think they're really struggling to come to terms with the fact that the Brexit they want or the Brexit they voted for (at least in their own heads) - essentially all of the benefits of membership and none of the costs/drawbacks, is simply not something they can have. Even if 100% of them voted for it, they still can't have that.

In shorthand, it's caused by the breakdown in the fantasy/reality interface.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

In shorthand, it's caused by the breakdown in the fantasy/reality interface.

You can fix that if you have sonic screwdriver, I believe.

BonnieSituation

Peregrinus wrote: »

You can fix that if you have sonic screwdriver, I believe.

As we all know, sonic screwdriver won't work with a flux capacitor. Sheesh.

MrFresh

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. This is a projection of how MPs will vote in the indicative votes which will, or may, be held in the Commons this week. MPs can vote to hold a second referendum but of course if they make that choice they can't then say what the outcome of that second referendum would be - that will be up to the citizens.

But the EU have already said there will be no renegotiation. So why is customs union and free trade area still there? Those are no longer options.

54and56

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

By the way, were I the EU I’d say WA or no deal.

That’s generally how negotiatons work.

The WA isn’t just May’s deal it’s actually the EU’s deal. That should be it.

I disagree. Stated ultimatums can be very counterproductive.

The EU doesn't need to say "WA or no deal" because short of an exceptional event (UK requests long extension or it revokes A50) WA or no deal are the only options.

If the EU came out with a stated ultimatum it would give oxygen to the hard Brexiteers and might even result in some wavering moderates to support no deal in protest at perceived EU bullying.

Zubeneschamali

The fact that the British public has not turned on the Brexiteers, and that No Deal is now more popular with the public than ever, suggests to me that wreckers like Boris and Rees-Mogg are going to be in or near government in the UK for a while yet.



So I think the best deal for the UK would be a Norway one, precisely because these eejits would have no input into EU rules, and what's good for the EU is good for its future trading partner, the UK.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

I disagree. Stated ultimatums can be very counterproductive.

The EU doesn't need to say "WA or no deal" because short of an exceptional event (UK requests long extension or it revokes A50) WA or no deal are the only options.

If the EU came out with a stated ultimatum it would give oxygen to the hard Brexiteers and might even result in some wavering moderates to support no deal in protest at perceived EU bullying.

However people are talking about the parliament voting for a customs union or a single market that is not now offered by the EU, on the assumption that if the U.K. vote for either a teary eyed EU would immediately clasp the U.K. to its bosom. That’s not how negotiations normally work.

Peregrinus

MrFresh wrote: »

But the EU have already said there will be no renegotiation. So why is customs union and free trade area still there? Those are no longer options.

I think they are. It's the Withdrawal Agreement that can't be renegotiated. But the Customs Union/FTA options don't require renegotiation of the WA - they can be addressed in the Future Relationship Agreement, which hasn't yhet been drafted. And if the UK intended to negotiate an FRA with options like this, the way to signal that would be to amend the Political Declaration, which isn't set in stone the way the WA is, and which in any case is a political rather than legal document.

Remember, what the EU has said is that, if the WA isn't approved by Friday, then the UK has another two weeks to come up with a plan for progress. I wouldn't entirely rule out the possiblity that it's a plan which might involve changes to the WA (and an extension of the Art 50 period to allow those changes to be made. The EU would not bee keen on making changes, as you point out, but they have always said that the WA has the form it does because it is constructed around the UK's red lines, and if the UK were to relax or abandon some of its red lines then all kinds of good things might be possible.

So if the UK were to commit to a permanent customs union, and/or participation in the Single Market, and wanted the WA amended to reflect that commitment and to make changes resulting from it, I think the EU would find it hard to resist. I think the EU would still say that there should only be minimal changes to the WA, and most of the rest of the UK's pivot should be reflected in the yet-to-be-negotiated Future Relationship Agreement, but the EU would also see merit in stating at least the bones of the UK's new-found commitment to the CU or the SM into the legally binding Withdrawal Agreement.

Water John

Anything the Parliament wants that's softer then the WA is acceptable to the EU.
They even said last week, tell us what you want.

LuckyLloyd

Headshot wrote: »

Or ERG want total control over the second phase of negotiations

Those guy's should be thrown out of the Tories but unfortunately they won't be

It won’t matter who takes control of the second phase in the context of the WA. The EU has all the leverage on services and with the Irish insurance policy the UK has nothing substantive to counter that with. They’ll end up slowly making concessions on fisheries, agriculture, data, equivalency so as to maintain access where they absolutely need it: services.

If the ERG went for this - May out in exchange for WA + hard Brexit PM - then they aren’t the great adversaries we thought they were. I suspect JRM is smart enough to see that.

briany

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So I think the best deal for the UK would be a Norway one, precisely because these eejits would have no input into EU rules, and what's good for the EU is good for its future trading partner, the UK.

As has been stated many times, Brexiteers seem to regard a Norway deal as worse than being in the EU precisely because they're taking rules without having any input on their creation.

The implication of this line seems to be that Norway are a bunch of dummies for having the deal they do.

Peregrinus

Water John wrote: »

Anything the Parliament wants that's softer then the WA is acceptable to the EU.
They even said last week, tell us what you want.

That's not "Tell us what you want, and you can have it!"

It's more "For the love of God, just work out what you want and tell us! We're done with trying to guess."

briany

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's not "Tell us what you want, and you can have it!"

It's more "For the love of God, just work out what you want and tell us! We're done with trying to guess."

It's not "Tell us what you want", it's "Tell us what you want that's mutually agreeable".

When entering into negotiations, it's like the UK never stopped to think that the EU might have red lines of its own. That was some prime, juicy, succulent British arrogance.

LuckyLloyd

May interpreted Leave as a vote based primarily on immigration over all else. Her deal achieves an end to free movement. Now Leavers are trying to say that interpretation is completely incorrect and insulting - that ‘it’s the view a remainer like May would have had of leave voters’.

The thing about it is that I don’t think May is wrong. The issue of immigration was key to Leave getting over the line. The problem is obviously that in the reality of negotiating with the EU you can only ‘take back control’ one or two things in mutual exclusion of other things.

My guess is that had she prioritised some other form of control in her deal, like standards, it would have come at the expense of free movement: and then immigration would have been the current rallying cry. In the final analysis the deal is bad because she locked her government into a position of negotiating weakness after setting completely unrealistic expectations in the jingoistic period before triggering A50, i.e. any deal they get will be bad when compared to the present situation.

The conversion around ‘what people really voted for’ relative to the WA is therefore a doomed exercise.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

Brexiteers seem to regard a Norway deal as worse than being in the EU precisely because they're taking rules without having any input on their creation.

They say that now, but that is not what they said to the public before the referendum, when Farage often pointed out that Norway and Switzerland do well outside the EU, and Hannan is on video saying "Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market."

No-one voted for a No Deal brexit, because the Leave campaign guaranteed there would be a most excellent deal: "The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and can choose the path we want" - that was Michael Gove, who, let's remember, is still being talked about as a future Prime Minister.

From voteleave's flyers:

We love Europe – the problem is the EU
• There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it
• We don’t need to accept the control of the EU Court to trade with Europe
• Countries around the world trade with the EU without accepting the ultimate control of the EU court
• Taking back control is a careful change, not a sudden stop - we will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave

This lurch towards no deal is because their planned Cake deal was never happening, and they would rather double down on disaster than admit that they were lying.

LeinsterDub

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's very difficult to insist truthfully that you voted for a hard brexit when no campaign group was offering that as a choice. In fact they were insisting that any suggestion of such an outcome was scaremongering and 'project fear'. But there's been a consistent moving of goalposts as time went on and you even get statements like this one (although not often as easily proven a lie):

It turns out she changed her mind before the vote.
https://twitter.com/mrjamesob/status/1110107439746174976

AbusesToilets

Can someone clarify for me, is May obligated to refer a revocation of A50 to a vote, or is that a unilateral decision she can make?

kalych

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can someone clarify for me, is May obligated to refer a revocation of A50 to a vote, or is that a unilateral decision she can make?

There isn't a direction from the EU, it's a UK internal question. Current consensus seems to be that she needs a parliament agreement, but obviously with no written constitution only the UK courts can make this call.

prawnsambo

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Can someone clarify for me, is May obligated to refer a revocation of A50 to a vote, or is that a unilateral decision she can make?

It has to go to a vote. The same as invoking A50 did.

Water John

Liam Fox still in La La Land.
'Liam Fox has indicated the government could ignore MPs’ views from indicative Brexit votes this week if parliament’s stated choice goes against the Conservative manifesto, insisting the real choice is still between Theresa May’s deal and no deal.' Guardian

The Conservative election manifesto trumps the opinion of Parliament.

ArmaniJeanss

First (extremely minor) government Minister to come out and suggest that Revoking of A50 might not be such a terrible idea after all.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/102764/minister-says-he-would-be-happy-revoke-article-50-stop
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/revoke-article-50-mark-field-14182017

This is the Petition Effect in action I'd say.

Shelga

Does the WA make specific reference to ending freedom of movement? Is this on the assumption that the UK comes out of the single market and customs union?

But doesn’t that depend on the stuff that happens after the transition period, which is all that the withdrawal agreement covers?

If Brexit happens, we are just going to be hearing about it forever and ever and ever, aren’t we

josip

Water John wrote: »

Liam Fox still in La La Land.
'Liam Fox has indicated the government could ignore MPs’ views from indicative Brexit votes this week if parliament’s stated choice goes against the Conservative manifesto, insisting the real choice is still between Theresa May’s deal and no deal.' Guardian

The Conservative election manifesto trumps the opinion of Parliament.

But is he?

Both May and the Tories have constantly ignored what doesn't suit their personal/party objectives.
To the point where parliament was found in contempt.
The only thing they haven't ignored has been the non binding referendum result.

Leroy42

Water John wrote: »

Liam Fox still in La La Land.
'Liam Fox has indicated the government could ignore MPs’ views from indicative Brexit votes this week if parliament’s stated choice goes against the Conservative manifesto, insisting the real choice is still between Theresa May’s deal and no deal.' Guardian

The Conservative election manifesto trumps the opinion of Parliament.

Well, he has a point. The manifesto (which seems nowadays to be the same as a contract which it seemingly was just an aspiration before) was voted on in the last GE. Whilst the Tories didn't win a majority, it is perfectly reasonable for them to get a coalition and try to implement their manifesto as much as possible.

As with any parliament, the majority will always win out, so if another course of action is desired it is up to the others top come up with a plan that will garner the majority of the house.

Zubeneschamali

Shelga wrote: »

If Brexit happens, we are just going to be hearing about it forever and ever and ever, aren’t we

It's worse than that - whether it happens or not we are going to be hearing about it forever.

Joe_ Public

Water John wrote: »

Liam Fox still in La La Land.
'Liam Fox has indicated the government could ignore MPs’ views from indicative Brexit votes this week if parliament’s stated choice goes against the Conservative manifesto, insisting the real choice is still between Theresa May’s deal and no deal.' Guardian

The Conservative election manifesto trumps the opinion of Parliament.

On Andrew Marr show yesterday Stephen Barclay pointedly refused to rule out the same thing. Would you put it beyond the pm at this stage? Her obvious hope is indicative votes throw up nothing certain, just ignore if they must (they’ll find a way one way or the other), and she gets to bring mv back as some binary option that favours her deal.

Don’t know how that works for her but think it would more or less frame her last ditch plan right now.

Water John

The last two options standing from the indicative votes will be interesting. TMs Deal will be one, the other will either be a soft Brexit or 2nd Ref. No Deal will have been long lost at that point.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1109843870165155842

Ciarraioch Post 3101

Laois_Man

Things coming from Brussels "officials" seem to me to be designed to fucus British minds

European Union officials in Brussels have said a no deal Brexit is "becoming increasingly likely".

They said they will "intensify their discussions" with the Irish Government over the coming days about a no deal Brexit outcome.

EU officials said those talks will try to ensure any customs controls are "away from border, if at all possible".

It's still a worry nonetheless.

ShooterSF

On the inidictave votes I thought the UK favoured first past the post voting rather than preferential? Would it definitely be ran that way?

Inquitus

Water John wrote: »

The last two options standing from the indicative votes will be interesting. TMs Deal will be one, the other will either be a soft Brexit or 2nd Ref. No Deal will have been long lost at that point.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1109843870165155842

Ciarraioch Post 3101

If that's correct then May will refuse to implement it and call a GE.