Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

Barnier may well be a better negotiator than Davis, by far, but it's really the fact that the EU had most of the leverage going in. It's hard to really out-negotiate someone if you have less to negotiate with, and it's especially hard when that fact is pretty obvious. That's why the EU was able to set the negotiation timetable, and that's why the UK has asked for not one but two extensions. For all the jowl-wobbling cries of "They need us more than we need them!" coming from the usual suspects in the UK, the opposite has been true to anyone with eyes and ears and even a pretence of impartiality.

I was reading recently that Cameron running away on June 24th (like the coward he was) left the UK at a huge disadvantage in the talks. The EU were able to get to work instantly and start working on a united front and preparing their positions, whilst there was a complete power vacuum in Britain and nothing actually happening.

A Dub in Glasgo

Inquitus wrote: »

Who's standing in your constituency? which parties?

https://stv.tv/news/politics/1437327-here-are-the-scottish-candidates-for-the-european-election/

SNP, Labour, Tory, Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, Change, Brexit & Independents

My vote will be going to the SNP

Spanish Eyes

The amount of taxpayer money being spent on the EP elections in Britain is laughable, given that the EU is apparently anathema to (a small majority) of Britons.

On that note, just wondered if the EU subsidises EP elections, anyone know?

I bet the turnout will be tiny anyway. But we shall see.

Capt'n Midnight

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The amount of taxpayer money being spent on the EP elections in Britain is laughable, given that the EU is apparently anathema to (a small majority) of Britons.

On that note, just wondered if the EU subsidises EP elections, anyone know?

I bet the turnout will be tiny anyway. But we shall see.

£108 million is laughable.

compared to
£350 million a week for the NHS

or £800 million the UK economy has already lost because of Brexit uncertainty.

or the £4 BILLION wasted on Hard Brexit preparations that are unlikely to be needed.

bilston

The Brexit Party are mobilised and getting their message out there. The other parties aren't doing sweet FA. The European Elections are going to be a disaster in the UK. Remainers won't vote in large numbers but Brexiteers will.

A Dub in Glasgo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

The amount of taxpayer money being spent on the EP elections in Britain is laughable, given that the EU is apparently anathema to (a small majority) of Britons.

On that note, just wondered if the EU subsidises EP elections, anyone know?

I bet the turnout will be tiny anyway. But we shall see.

UK decision to participate

Sam Russell

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading recently that Cameron running away on June 24th (like the coward he was) left the UK at a huge disadvantage in the talks. The EU were able to get to work instantly and start working on a united front and preparing their positions, whilst there was a complete power vacuum in Britain and nothing actually happening.

Ireland and the EU started planning in Nov 2015 - before they even voted. The UK started planning - wait, they never started planning - at least hey never had a unified plan.

briany

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading recently that Cameron running away on June 24th (like the coward he was) left the UK at a huge disadvantage in the talks. The EU were able to get to work instantly and start working on a united front and preparing their positions, whilst there was a complete power vacuum in Britain and nothing actually happening.

I don't think Cameron staying on would have made much a difference in the UK's ability to organiser itself. There was always going to be infighting. In any case, the time to organise would have been before the referendum (basic contingency planning).

Nody

briany wrote: »

Barnier may well be a better negotiator than Davis, by far, but it's really the fact that the EU had most of the leverage going in. It's hard to really out-negotiate someone if you have less to negotiate with, and it's especially hard when that fact is pretty obvious. That's why the EU was able to set the negotiation timetable, and that's why the UK has asked for not one but two extensions. For all the jowl-wobbling cries of "They need us more than we need them!" coming from the usual suspects in the UK, the opposite has been true to anyone with eyes and ears and even a pretence of impartiality.

Strazdas wrote: »

I was reading recently that Cameron running away on June 24th (like the coward he was) left the UK at a huge disadvantage in the talks. The EU were able to get to work instantly and start working on a united front and preparing their positions, whilst there was a complete power vacuum in Britain and nothing actually happening.

Sorry but you both miss a fundamental and key issue here which is a clear vision of the desired outcome from the negotiation. Before any negotiation you need to have a set of priorities of what you want to get out of the negotiation and what you're willing to offer to get said outcome and what are the red lines. Based on whom your negotiation with you can then guesstimate roughly where you would end up and draw up the alternative scenarios for review. This in turn needs to be anchored by the negotiator with the decision makers to ensure alignment to avoid that the outcome is not acceptable. EU through Barnier had that alignment on what the various outcomes could be, what the red lines was in each outcome etc. which the countries agreed on. This meant that Barnier was working from a united base and could report progress accordingly against the agreed targets.

Davis and the UK government on the other hand had only a list of red lines (that May made up for her speech), no concessions to offer to get the deal and one desired outcome (all benefits of EU membership and no downsides) which everyone knew was a rainbow colored unicorn. This is where the UK government and Davis failed; they had no alignment beyond one scenario which they should have (but most likely did not) realized was impossible. If nothing else once EU showed them who had the power in the negotiation by setting the agenda (against Davis claims of not agreeing to it up front) they should have re-evaluated their position and alignment as their assumptions turned out to be wrong. However for what ever reason of hubris they thought they could still get what ever they wanted even after EU told them no and showed them the options on the table as already aligned by Barnier and signed off by EU (the oh so nicely outlined power point). This was UK thinking they could appeal to individual ministers to break the unity behind Barnier (and failing badly) and in yet another staggering hubris (or simply stupidity) continued to bang on the same demands when it was shut down. Once it failed (see WA deal) and they brought it back to parliament (where they only had half the parliament aligned on "May's red line with everything we want in EU" deal) they of course said no because the only scenario they agreed to was way off from the presented deal and told May go get us what you promised.

In essence it's not about EU "out negotiating" UK but about aligning your decisions makers on the possible outcomes and what's deemed acceptable compromises. Barnier was very clear with his decision makers and gave them the full set of potential scenarios and outcomes that would bring inc. what compromises would be possible; UK on the other hand promised rivers of milk and honey with unicorns prancing around and when they failed to deliver got shut down by their decision makers. Any half decent project manager would have taken one look at this from a project statement (i.e. timelines, resources, deliverables to be completed by end of the project) point of view and handed it back refusing to even take on the project simply because it was an impossible project to deliver. However since May and her cronies appear to refuse to listen to anyone disagreeing to them it was simply passed around until they found a yes person to tell them it could be done and took that as proof to run with it.

ancapailldorcha

bilston wrote: »

The Brexit Party are mobilised and getting their message out there. The other parties aren't doing sweet FA. The European Elections are going to be a disaster in the UK. Remainers won't vote in large numbers but Brexiteers will.

This is the thing.

For Brexiters, they have two options; Farage's relatively new and squeaky clean for now Brexit party and Gerard Batten's new far right, increasingly racist (amongst other things) UKIP. In 2015, Farage used to rail against the BNP. In 2019, he will use UKIP in the same way. He has styled his party as one committed to upholding the Brexit vote instead of railing against immigrants. Well, limited railing perhaps.

For Remainers such as myself on the other hand, things are more complicated. I have potential Labour and Conservative remain candidates I could vote for. I need to research this a bit further. In addition, there are Change UK, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the Renew party. We know that the d'Hondt system is somewhat proportional but still favours the big parties. Hopefully some bright spark will crunch some numbers so I can find out the best way to vote in my constituency, London. Got my polling card last Tuesday and am all sorted save for making an actual decision.

One of the main gripes for Brexiteers is the fact that "they look our jobs", when will they realise that "they" were invited over and given the jobs (at lower rates and conditions) that would have been taken by the local population.
Globalisation is the real issue here, it has allowed multinationals to choose " á la carte" where to put factories, where to select workers & where to pay taxes.
The problems this causes are amongst others, overvalued property in Dublin, driving down wages in many parts of the UK the importation of cheap labour into the UK, a brain drain and probably depopulation of many Eastern European nations.

Staying in and reforming the EU would be a far better option for the UK.

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

Globalisation is the real issue here, it has allowed multinationals to choose " á la carte" where to put factories, where to select workers & where to pay taxes.

Ireland, though, has historically been an enormous beneficiary of 'globalization.' First off, the biggest export this country has had historically, is people. It has always attempted to have more people than its carrying capacity, and the answer has always been, emigrate. Secondly, Ireland's friendliness to global businesses is well known, friendly tax regime, somewhat lackadaisical regulations enforcement, at least until Ireland became part of the EU.

As you point out, UK business is doing what businesses do, lower costs, and in all businesses the biggest cost is people. If Brexit happened tomorrow, Britain's inflow of workers who will take lower cost jobs won't change. Maybe more from South Asia, maybe not, business has a way of getting what it wants when it comes to manipulating government immigration policy, the US has it in spades. Trump's admin has toughened up the H1B processing rules some but not substantially and I can't find whether those changes are still in effect (supposed to expire in February.) Anyway, that's secondary as we're talking about Brexit here, business will get what it wants.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the main gripes for Brexiteers is the fact that "they look our jobs", when will they realise that "they" were invited over and given the jobs (at lower rates and conditions) that would have been taken by the local population.
Globalisation is the real issue here, it has allowed multinationals to choose " á la carte" where to put factories, where to select workers & where to pay taxes.
The problems this causes are amongst others, overvalued property in Dublin, driving down wages in many parts of the UK the importation of cheap labour into the UK, a brain drain and probably depopulation of many Eastern European nations.

Staying in and reforming the EU would be a far better option for the UK.

May as home secretary is responsible for the UK trying to deport those who cost the state money.

There doesn't seem to be any pressure on those paying tax. And minimal barrier to entry.

OK there's a £20,000 fine for employers who are caught. Gets the govt off the hook for doing anything about the problem. Worst case for a first time offender it's about what you save per year with not having to pay tax and welfare and pension and facilities and the extra hours and work you can pressurise undocumented workers into.


Oddly enough the EU would probably be the best hope against globalisation. Health and safety, data protection and all that mean that big corporations can't offshore work and risk and profit like they could elsewhere. Singapore on Thames doesn't sound like a workers paradise.

S.M.B.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is the thing.

For Brexiters, they have two options; Farage's relatively new and squeaky clean for now Brexit party and Gerard Batten's new far right, increasingly racist (amongst other things) UKIP. In 2015, Farage used to rail against the BNP. In 2019, he will use UKIP in the same way. He has styled his party as one committed to upholding the Brexit vote instead of railing against immigrants. Well, limited railing perhaps.

For Remainers such as myself on the other hand, things are more complicated. I have potential Labour and Conservative remain candidates I could vote for. I need to research this a bit further. In addition, there are Change UK, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the Renew party. We know that the d'Hondt system is somewhat proportional but still favours the big parties. Hopefully some bright spark will crunch some numbers so I can find out the best way to vote in my constituency, London. Got my polling card last Tuesday and am all sorted save for making an actual decision.

I'm in the same boat, waiting to see where is best to place my vote but pretty sure that the Brexit Party's success will be spun to soon be "the will of the people".

johnnyskeleton

The thing that I find most galling about U.K. politics is that they will elect a load of UKIP/Brexit party people to Europe, where it makes no difference but causes disruption to the working of the EU Parliament, but yet would never in a million years vote for them to get into Westminster.

Surely Farage et al should be working to get into Westminster with a view to forming a group with the DUP, ERG, Labour hard brexiters etc and shouldn't be wasting their time on a meaningless EU Parliament election.

I suppose they are possibly trying to suggest that it is a proxy second referendum i.e. if they get 50%+ of the vote for leavers (c. 30% Brexit Party, 5% UKIP and 15% from various others they can claim as leavers) then they can say that they are justified. Yet you won't get anywhere near that amount of people voting for leave candidates to Westminister.

Either they don't understand politics, or UKIP/Brexit party are conning people by wanting to be inside the EU but constantly complaining about it. Or perhaps a bit of both!

An Ciarraioch

S.M.B. wrote: »

I'm in the same boat, waiting to see where is best to place my vote but pretty sure that the Brexit Party's success will be spun to soon be "the will of the people".

If this poll reflects current trends, Greens look the best option:

http://twitter.com/britainelects/status/1122445707921825792

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

I'm in the same boat, waiting to see where is best to place my vote but pretty sure that the Brexit Party's success will be spun to soon be "the will of the people".

Your choices could be made clearer if the Tories do decide not to field candidates.


Then there could be a "remainers" party formed to counterbalance the Brexit party.


Then the EU elections become a referendum part II

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48083407
Brandon Lewis has refused to say when the Tories' European election campaign will launch, saying his priority is not to have to fight them at all.
The UK is due to elect new MEPs on 23 May, after Brexit was delayed amid continuing parliamentary deadlock.
Several parties have launched their campaigns already but Conservative chair Mr Lewis told the BBC his focus was on next week's local elections.
The UK is due to leave the EU on 31 October, or sooner if a deal is agreed.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Then there could be a "remainers" party formed to counterbalance the Brexit party.


Then the EU elections become a referendum part II

That would be great and a very sensible thing for them to do.

However, they can't agree:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-politics-48068148

Given that the EU Parliament has limited powers, and they will at most be sitting there until October and possibly not at all, it makes complete sense for it to be a single issue election - Leave or Remain candidates. But that might mean that people who think they can keep their seats in their own rights might lost out in a larger grouping.

S.M.B.

Yeah, the sensible idea of a "remain" alliance doesn't look like it will happen which makes this election seem somewhat futile when it comes to expressing what the actual "will of the people" is.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the main gripes for Brexiteers is the fact that "they look our jobs", when will they realise that "they" were invited over and given the jobs (at lower rates and conditions) that would have been taken by the local population.
Globalisation is the real issue here, it has allowed multinationals to choose " á la carte" where to put factories, where to select workers & where to pay taxes.
The problems this causes are amongst others, overvalued property in Dublin, driving down wages in many parts of the UK the importation of cheap labour into the UK, a brain drain and probably depopulation of many Eastern European nations.

Staying in and reforming the EU would be a far better option for the UK.

Globalisation was always going to happen though. This is the era of cheap air travel and the Internet, where people (and goods) are more mobile and can move around the planet with ease. The more protectionist way of doing things 50+ years ago was because people were very restricted in what they could do.

charlie14

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is the thing.

For Brexiters, they have two options; Farage's relatively new and squeaky clean for now Brexit party and Gerard Batten's new far right, increasingly racist (amongst other things) UKIP. In 2015, Farage used to rail against the BNP. In 2019, he will use UKIP in the same way. He has styled his party as one committed to upholding the Brexit vote instead of railing against immigrants. Well, limited railing perhaps.

For Remainers such as myself on the other hand, things are more complicated. I have potential Labour and Conservative remain candidates I could vote for. I need to research this a bit further. In addition, there are Change UK, the Lib Dems, the Greens and the Renew party. We know that the d'Hondt system is somewhat proportional but still favours the big parties. Hopefully some bright spark will crunch some numbers so I can find out the best way to vote in my constituency, London. Got my polling card last Tuesday and am all sorted save for making an actual decision.

With this election being fought on basically a leave or remain under the d`Hondt system, would it not have made sense for smaller parties who favour remain such as the Lib Dems, the Greens, and Change UK with 27% in the polls to have come together to contest this election and nullify the advantage d`Hondt gives the larger parties, especially Farage`s ?


Then again, not a lot in British politics makes sense nowadays.

First Up

The MEPs elected in the UK make no difference to Brexit. That's not what the elections are about.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

We know that the d'Hondt system is somewhat proportional but still favours the big parties. Hopefully some bright spark will crunch some numbers so I can find out the best way to vote in my constituency,

Here you go..

https://twitter.com/RogerHelmerMEP/status/1114065133800697857

briany

First Up wrote: »

The MEPs elected in the UK make no difference to Brexit. That's not what the elections are about.

They'll make a difference to Brexit in the sense of Farage trumpeting a Brexit Party / UKIP majority as a clear mandate for a no-deal Brexit. That'll embolden the no-deal contingent to keep heaving toward the cliff edge, where I feel they had been flagging in their resolve as of late. That's what the UK (potentially) gets for holding no other public vote to really gauge the mood of the nation, except for the one that they were legally obliged by the EU to hold.

First Up

briany wrote:

They'll make a difference to Brexit in the sense of Farage trumpeting a Brexit Party / UKIP majority as a clear mandate for a no-deal Brexit. That'll embolden the no-deal contingent to keep heaving toward the cliff edge, where I feel they had been flagging in their resolve as of late. That's what the UK (potentially) gets for holding no other public vote to really gauge the mood of the nation, except for the one that they were legally obliged by the EU to hold.

None of which matters a fig to the EU. Purely part of the internal UK circus. Farage can trumpet whatever he likes.

S.M.B.

First Up wrote: »

None of which matters a fig to the EU. Purely part of the internal UK circus. Farage can trumpet whatever he likes.

It matters in trying to gauge the need for a second referendum or some sort of people's vote.

First Up

S.M.B. wrote:

It matters in trying to gauge the need for a second referendum or some sort of people's vote.

Why?

They are elected to the European Parliament, not the HoC. (And probably with well less than 50% turnout.)

What result or combination of results in the Europeans is going to change anyone's mind in Westminster?

Enzokk

First Up wrote: »

Why?

They are elected to the European Parliament, not the HoC. (And probably with well less than 50% turnout.)

What result or combination of results in the Europeans is going to change anyone's mind in Westminster?

It would be a message if there was a concerted effort by the parties to shape it as a election about leave or remain. Then if the remain parties got 60% of the vote and the majority of MEPs it would be an indication that people are tired of Brexit. But they are so busy fighting themselves that they are allowing Farage and UKIP to go on without any real obstacles to their votes and strengthen the myth that people still want Brexit to happen.

Labour, Libdem and Greens and Change are fighting for the 60-65% of the vote to try and get 25%, and UKIP will sweep up all of the remaining Brexit vote out there, which is about 35%. But they will claim victory as they will get the most votes. Even the people that should save us from Brexit are so shortsighted that they screw it up all the time, every time. If they were Irish politicians we would have had another general election in the same time that FF and FG has kept things relatively stable here, to try and jockey for their own position.

First Up

First Up wrote:

They are elected to the European Parliament, not the HoC. (And probably with well less than 50% turnout.)

Enzokk wrote:

It would be a message if there was a concerted effort by the parties to shape it as a election about leave or remain. Then if the remain parties got 60% of the vote and the majority of MEPs it would be an indication that people are tired of Brexit. But they are so busy fighting themselves that they are allowing Farage and UKIP to go on without any real obstacles to their votes and strengthen the myth that people still want Brexit to happen.

That assumes (a) candidates will run on a leave/stay platform (b) there is a large enough majority - from a large enough turnout - to signify overwhelming public demand to re-visit the decision (c) that the entrenched Brexiteers in government and parliament would give a hoot and (d) that some route could be found through the labyrinth of ideology, opportunism and party politics to generate either cabinet consensus or a majority in the HoC to agree to it.

Good luck with any or all of that.

dublinman1990

I heard on the news a while back that Ann Widdecombe will be a candidate for The Brexit Party. Why is she joining this party instead of remaining on as a conservative? Is she profoundly fed up with parliamentary Brexit vote disaster with the Tories?