Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Water John

The only real clue we have from Johnson is his action. That of making Cummings, a true Brexit believer, his right hand man.

briany

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Freedom of movement is one of the core principles of the EU, why would they take issue with Ireland having a FOM agreement with a third country?

I thought that was freedom of movement within the EU. Do any FoM deals exist between 3rd countries and constituent countries on the EU's eastern flank?

Strazdas

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

"Taking control of our borders" referred to the movement of people, not of goods.

For sure, but Vote Leave were thinking in terms of stopping continental Europeans moving to the UK (under EU FoM laws)

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

I thought that was freedom of movement within the EU. Do any FoM deals exist between 3rd countries and constituent countries on the EU's eastern flank?

There are some small scale examples, the Isle of Man and the UK for one. There may be other examples, but I am not aware of any more significant arangements that I could cite.

The point I was making though is that there is no reason to think that the EU would be fundementally in favour of FOM within the EU but for some reason opposed to it between an EU member and a third country, as the poster suggested.

There are no "brownie points" to be scored with the EU by Ireland ending the CTA agreement.

McGiver

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Johnson isn't stupid. He knows that hard Brexit means the end of the UK and the Conservative party. Currently, he's putting on a show for the Brexit faithful in case they waver and defect to the Brexit party. Maintaining the Union is the one thing he has been consistent about caring about, aside from himself of course. To me, it seems as if he's trying to provoke Parliament into overruling him and forcing him to seek an extension. That way he gets to keep playing Prime Minister while somehow playing the outsider despite being from Britain's upper caste. He can continue to playing the staunch Brexiter while he machinates to ditch the DUP via a GE or tries to win some sort of token concessions from Brussels which will fail because it failed for his predecessor, something a historian really should know in my opinion.

What if there Brexit zealots and gutter press turn against him and declare him another heretic Remainer not Brexity enough?

ThePanjandrum

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but Vote Leave were thinking in terms of stopping continental Europeans moving to the UK (under EU FoM laws)

Agreed, except the idea was controlling, not stopping.

briany

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The point I was making though is that there is no reason to think that the EU would be fundementally in favour of FOM within the EU but for some reason opposed to it between an EU member and a third country, as the poster suggested.

If an EU country (especially one in Schengen) had an FoM deal with a 3rd country, it would mean people from that 3rd country could travel to other parts of the EU. It would be illegal, but it would still be a backdoor open for abuse. I don't think the EU is fundamentally in favour of FoM deals between constituent countries and 3rd countries, but the CTA is at least a bit easier to manage because Ireland is not in Schengen, so UK citizens wouldn't be able to move to other parts of the EU so easily.

ancapailldorcha

McGiver wrote: »

What if there Brexit zealots and gutter press turn against him and declare him another heretic Remainer not Brexity enough?

I think this is more likely to be an eventuality rather than a possibility to be honest. The Brexiter press has turned on just about virtually everyone else at this stage.

McGiver

ThePanjandrum wrote:

Agreed, except the idea was controlling, not stopping.

Right, so "taking back Control" they have always had and never lost. Just were not arsed to exercise.

Pull another one.

McGiver

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I think this is more likely to be an eventuality rather than a possibility to be honest. The Brexiter press has turned on just about virtually everyone else at this stage.

Where does this stop then? Marks François for PM?

swampgas

Foghladh wrote: »

Is it possible that you have a little bit of animosity for England and the British Empire outside of what is actually happening?

I didn't mean to give that impression. As it happens I worked for years in England and have a lot of friends there. I was wondering why there seems to be such anger from certain groups though. Farage might be an outlier in many ways but he represents a certain viewpoint. He loathes the existence of the EU. It's not enough to leave it, he wants it destroyed.

Why the rage and the hostility? What threat is the EU to England, except perhaps as a threat to the imagined dominant position of England in Europe? To repeat, this is from a small but influential minority, not from the English in general.

I'm thinking out loud rather than making any strong claims here. One thing that strikes me over and over again is the strength of the emotion that seems to drive many Brexiteers, and it's mostly anger at something - what? - I don't know.

Imreoir2

briany wrote: »

If an EU country (especially one in Schengen) had an FoM deal with a 3rd country, it would mean people from that 3rd country could travel to other parts of the EU. It would be illegal, but it would still be a backdoor open for abuse. I don't think the EU is fundamentally in favour of FoM deals between constituent countries and 3rd countries, but the CTA is at least a bit easier to manage because Ireland is not in Schengen, so UK citizens wouldn't be able to move to other parts of the EU so easily.

Immigration from non-EU countries is a national competence and is not something the EU has a say in. I am not sure how it works in Schengen but I don't think there is anything stopping any member state setting its own immigration policies up to and including full FOM with a third country.

Strazdas

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think this is more likely to be an eventuality rather than a possibility to be honest. The Brexiter press has turned on just about virtually everyone else at this stage.

Yes, they do love the words "traitor" and "betrayal".

Turning on Johnson (or Cummings or Farage) would be no surprise

trellheim

CTA predates EU and so currently post Brexit UK citizens can use FOM in Ireland.

As we are not in Schengen there is no danger to the other EU26 as we have to show passports at the border with the rest of the EU - as is pointed out above.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Just a side point. Language can help frame a debate. I don't like that brexiters are called Brexiteers as it gives the impression they are involved in a noble and good fight. Then the people who want to stay in the EU are called remoaners.

I don't think these labels are a fair representation of both viewpoints.

Brexiters are the ones shouting loudest. That's how they won the referendum.


The whole thing is a shambles. Their economy has shrunk this quarter unfortunately. Ireland will be impacted by it. There's a lot of damage done, but they are hellbent on doing even more.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

The dreaded R word. Recession.

Shrinking UK economy is a Brexit warning.

Peregrinus

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Immigration from non-EU countries is a national competence and is not something the EU has a say in. I am not sure how it works in Schengen but I don't think there is anything stopping any member state setting its own immigration policies up to and including full FOM with a third country.

Schengen countries operate a common visa policy (this being one of the main reason why the UK didn't want to join) so an individual Schengen country couldn't negotiate its own FoM arrangement with a third country.

Peregrinus

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It's very strange when most of these MPs voted to have a no deal Brexit in the first place.

The Commons has never voted to have a no deal Brexit.

No deal is of course a possible outcome of the A50 process, and the Commons did vote to start the process. But revocation is another possible outcome of the A50 process, as is a deal.

So te Commons has voted for no-deal, in the sense that it has also voted for a deal, and voted to revoke. But not in any more meaningful sense.

Mr.Wemmick

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

The dreaded R word. Recession.

Shrinking UK economy is a Brexit warning.

Paywalled. Can't read it.

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Commons has never voted to have a no deal Brexit.

No deal is of course a possible outcome of the A50 process, and the Commons did vote to start the process. But revocation is another possible outcome of the A50 process, as is a deal.

So te Commons has voted for no-deal, in the sense that it has also voted for a deal, and voted to revoke. But not in any more meaningful sense.

They did have the chance to take no deal off the table in the indicative votes??
The EU really have to hold firm on allowing Britain to crash out if they are to have any hope of getting soft Tory/remain MPs to take action. These are the people that have to see that the EU means business. Forget about Johnson and the ERG they are gone beyond any sane reasoning. Even the removal of the backstop is not guaranteed to bring them on board.
If there is any sign of softening from the EU or further unconditional/ conditional extensions these wavering MPs will stay dithering into eternity. They are the ones doing the damage at this stage by doing nothing in my opinion.

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

They did have the chance to take no deal off the table in the indicative votes??

No. None of the indicative votes had any effect at all. They weren't intended to. The point was to gauge levels of support among MPs for various different options. MPs voted against a no-deal Brexit by 400 votes to 160, but that in itself doesn't stop the UK leaving without a deal. For that, MPs would have to affirmatively vote for something - either to approve a deal negotiated with the EU, or to revoke A50 notice and halt the whole Brexit process.

20silkcut wrote: »

The EU really have to hold firm on allowing Britain to crash out if they are to have any hope of getting soft Tory/remain MPs to take action. These are the people that have to see that the EU means business. Forget about Johnson and the ERG they are gone beyond any sane reasoning. Even the removal of the backstop is not guaranteed to bring them on board.
If there is any sign of softening from the EU or further unconditional extensions these wavering MPs will stay dithering into eternity.

They can't stay dithering into eternity. Unless they compel Johnson either to revoke A50 notice, or they compel him to seek a further extension and the EU agrees, or unless Johnson changes his mind and does one or other of those things off his own bat, the UK leaves without a deal on 31 October.

VinLieger

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Agreed, except the idea was controlling, not stopping.

Which they already had the ability to do yet successive governments failed to make proper use of the tools available to them

VinLieger

swampgas wrote: »

I'm thinking out loud rather than making any strong claims here. One thing that strikes me over and over again is the strength of the emotion that seems to drive many Brexiteers, and it's mostly anger at something - what? - I don't know.

Sudden realisation of irrelevance as a singular entity, they are unable to comprehend or accept a united Europe that they are not at the forefront of with everyone following in step behind. They have to be in charge or nobody should be.

storker

swampgas wrote: »

Why the rage and the hostility? What threat is the EU to England, except perhaps as a threat to the imagined dominant position of England in Europe?

I'd say that's part of it at the higher levels at least. The UK is no longer the big swinging member it once was, because the others are becoming ever more closely integrated and becoming more of a bloc and less of a collection that the UK can disrupt by forming alliances and fomenting argument within the organisation. Rather than accept the new reality, where it's harder to get what you want inside, but even harder outside, they've come up with the myth of the post-Brexit sunny uplands. When that turns out to be a mirage it won't really matter, because the political classes won't be hit nearly as hard as the great unwashed.

I'm thinking out loud rather than making any strong claims here. One thing that strikes me over and over again is the strength of the emotion that seems to drive many Brexiteers, and it's mostly anger at something - what? - I don't know.

Anger at their own lives, I think, whether it's unemployment, crime, the health service, infrastructure. work stress, commuting, house prices, and of course, immigration. Most of this is due to Westminster rather than Brussels however, but after a decades-long diet of blatant anti-EU propaganda from most of the press and also from politicians using the EU as a handy scapegoat instead of owning their own policies, it's easy for them to imagine the dastardly EU grinning evilly as it ties the beautiful and innocent UK to the railroad tracks.

The above is just my own thinking out loud too, of course.

beggars_bush

swampgas wrote: »

I'm thinking out loud rather than making any strong claims here. One thing that strikes me over and over again is the strength of the emotion that seems to drive many Brexiteers, and it's mostly anger at something - what? - I don't know.

Insecurity. Huge insecurity.
about their nation's identity, morals, currency, religion, place in the world

54and56

swampgas wrote: »

I'm thinking out loud rather than making any strong claims here. One thing that strikes me over and over again is the strength of the emotion that seems to drive many Brexiteers, and it's mostly anger at something - what? - I don't know.

IMHO it's two things:-

1. The Brexit leaders (Farage, JRM, ERG etc) are angry at the loss of their influence on the global stage and most frustratingly off all within the EU where they are in a club of equals. We all know the political reality is that the big guns in the EU (Germany, France, UK and Italy) carry more weight and influence than the small countries but having to submit to collective decision making and treat smaller countries as equals is not something which sits easy with the English led UK.

2. The Brexit followers are angry at having poor living standards, no increases in wages, austerity, poor education, high levels of crime etc etc and are happy to blithely accept it's all the EU/Johnny Foreigners fault rather than examine the true underlying causes.

Angry (mostly wealthy) leaders frustrated they no longer have the sort of influence they had back in the good old empire days followed by angry supporters who are happy to blame an easy but incorrect target.

Align the above with an unwritten constitution and a not fit for purpose electoral system and you have the perfect conditions for an entire nation to sleepwalk into the greatest self inflicted folly in the history of mankind.

ancapailldorcha

McGiver wrote: »

Where does this stop then? Marks François for PM?

Being serious, I don't think that this will ever stop. Brexit is by its very nature and extremist movement. Such movements require an inexhaustible supply of targets to maintain unity or else they become riven with factionalism.

Seth Brundle

Well this is a strange direction for him to take...

Nigel Farage, the leader of Britain’s Brexit Party, has lambasted Prince Harry and his American wife Meghan along with other members of the royal family in a speech in Australia, it emerged on Monday.

According to the Guardian, Mr Farage ridiculed the prince’s remarks last month that the couple only wanted two children because of the environmental impact, while he also described the Queen Mother, who died in 2002, as an “slightly overweight, chain-smoking gin drinker”.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/nigel-farage-ridicules-british-royal-family-in-australian-speech-1.3983728

VinLieger

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Well this is a strange direction for him to take...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/nigel-farage-ridicules-british-royal-family-in-australian-speech-1.3983728

Yeah when the queen is being pushed to step in to take control of a potential constitutional crisis its definitely a good call to insult her dead mother.


Possibly just laying the ground work for an anti royal movement within the brexiteers if she does side against the tories in the case of a crisis.

Sam Russell

I think the problem with controlling immigration comes back to the hatred English people have for ID cards.

The only way to control immigration successfully is by the issuing of mandatory National ID cards which must be produced under specific circumstances. This requires the Gov have a full database of all nationals, and those with residency rights. All others must have their own nations ID card or passport with appropriate visa.

Now, the English have a vision of jackbooted officialdom with hand outstretched - 'Papers, bitte!'. Or in the words of JRM - 'An Englishman should never have to explain what an English man does when an Englishman does what an Englishman does'. Or in more basic language of the common Englishman - 'It's a free country - innit?'

That I think explains much of the reluctance and the ability to control immigration from anywhere (particularly from former colonies). There have been successive changes to the rights to British Nationality over the years that have become more restrictive with each iteration.