Will Britain ever just piss off and get on with Brexit? -mod warning in OP (21/12)

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's easy to take a small clip out of context. How does your claim of a total collapse of the EU position tally with his insistance, in the same interview that "if the objectives of the backstop, all of them, are met then we don't need the backstop"? In other words he is saying that as long as the backstop is put in place, he does not care if the UK chooses to rename it "alternative arangements". Imagine getting so excited for something that amounts to no more than a name change.

Crypto is doing the now familiar Brexiteer stunt of cherrypicking what he wants to believe and ignoring all else.

Will never learn.

Imreoir2

cryptocurrency wrote: »

Remember what the backstop did. They need to hold it or they bottled it.

I bet it is much much less or a time limit or something. Remember the time limit is not a backstop according to some

The backstop was temporary though not time limited, by their nature, alternative arangement are likely to be permenant. The likely outcome is that the UK will reject the backstop in favour of arangement that have the same effect but are permenent.

davedanon

J Mysterio wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AnbAntje/status/1174647726148968448

You know, that is weird. I just found myself envisaging an Orwellian solution to the whole mess. Britain is forever on the brink of, but never quite, leaving the EU. Serial extensions are requested and granted. Parliament is in a constant state of chaos, with no party able to form any workable majority. Their eternal notions of superiority means they will never countenance any other electoral system than FPTP, so constant flux is guaranteed. The Gammons are constantly awaiting the divine deliverance of Brexit; Remainers a rump too significant too ignore.

Meanwhile, they carry on abiding by EU rules and the rest of us just get on with it. The border stays invisible and we're all tickety-boo.

I really think this has legs.

RobMc59

davedanon wrote: »

J Mysterio wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AnbAntje/status/1174647726148968448

You know, that is weird. I just found myself envisaging an Orwellian solution to the whole mess. Britain is forever on the brink of, but never quite, leaving the EU. Serial extensions are requested and granted. Parliament is in a constant state of chaos, with no party able to form any workable majority. Their eternal notions of superiority means they will never countenance any other electoral system than FPTP, so constant flux is guaranteed. The Gammons are constantly awaiting the divine deliverance of Brexit; Remainers a rump too significant too ignore.

Meanwhile, they carry on abiding by EU rules and the rest of us just get on with it. The border stays invisible and we're all tickety-boo.

I really think this has legs.

I had hoped the UK would be forced to revoke article 50 as the EU were adamant there would be no more negotiations.I'm disappointed the EU now seems to be softening its stance-why I don't know but it does look like they are becoming more anxious as time passes and the UK government genuinely appears willing to go to a no deal scenario if the EU won't budge.
For the record I'm a remainer and am worried the EU will cave in.

Imreoir2

RobMc59 wrote: »

I had hoped the UK would be forced to revoke article 50 as the EU were adamant there would be no more negotiations.I'm disappointed the EU now seems to be softening its stance-why I don't know but it does look like they are becoming more anxious as time passes and the UK government genuinely appears willing to go to a no deal scenario if the EU won't budge.
For the record I'm a remainer and am worried the EU will cave in.

Personally I think that all sides have accepted in private that an extension is inevitable. There will be a general election in the UK during the period of the extension and both parties are just running down the clock and are taking the oppertunity to lay some groundwork for a future deal that seems to be taking the shape of an agreed permenant NI only arangement that fulfills the requirements of the backstop.

On this reading, the DUP have been forced to backpeddle on their red lines on the understanding that the concession won't have to be made until after the Westminster GE.

FrancieBrady

RobMc59 wrote: »

I had hoped the UK would be forced to revoke article 50 as the EU were adamant there would be no more negotiations.I'm disappointed the EU now seems to be softening its stance-why I don't know but it does look like they are becoming more anxious as time passes and the UK government genuinely appears willing to go to a no deal scenario if the EU won't budge.
For the record I'm a remainer and am worried the EU will cave in.

The EU always said that they would discuss new proposals. Some people clearly were not listening and preferred instead to listen to the propaganda that the EU was bullying, dictating etc. The WA agreement is still closed.
The UK have, for some curious reason, put ideas out there in a semi formal way (they are not to be shown to other countries ).

Of course the EU will look at them. By all accounts, though, what they contain is not encouraging.

Peregrinus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I had hoped the UK would be forced to revoke article 50 as the EU were adamant there would be no more negotiations.I'm disappointed the EU now seems to be softening its stance-why I don't know but it does look like they are becoming more anxious as time passes and the UK government genuinely appears willing to go to a no deal scenario if the EU won't budge.
For the record I'm a remainer and am worried the EU will cave in.

I think there's two misconceptions here.

First, that the EU wants the UK to remain, and will strategise to facilitate that outcome. What the EU wants is to minimise harm to the EU, which at one stage might have included at least the hope of getting the UK to remain. But at this stage (1) it's obvious that there is no question of the UK remaining unless there is a second referendum, and there is no signficant political support for a second referendum, so as of now this is a pipe-dream. And (2) the UK remaining in its current condition would not be regarded as a good thing. There's a widely-held view in the EU that the UK is basically a failing state, whose structures and institutions are dysfunctional and so unable to meet the political challenges they face, and this dysfunction is on a scale which impacts signficantly not just on the UK but on the UK's neighbourhood. So the UK opting to Remain, particularly if it did so only because it couldn't get Leaving terms that it liked, would not be regarded as a Good Thing. The UK needs to sort itself out, is the general view, before it is an attractive candidate for membership.

The second misconception is that the EU is softening its stance. It isn't, not in any material way. What's going on here is a repeat performance of what we have seen a dozen times or more over the past couple of years - an EU figure repeats an existing EU position in new or modified or emollient language; Downing St spins that this signals a climbdown; UK media uncritically repeat this spin.

Richard Hillman

The EU Establishment need this to be an absolute disaster for the UK to maintain their control over the European peoples. If the UK leave next month and it isn't a complete and utter disaster, other countries will follow. They will attempt to punish anybody that even thinks about it

FrancieBrady

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The EU Establishment need this to be an absolute disaster for the UK to maintain their control over the European peoples. If the UK leave next month and it isn't a complete and utter disaster, other countries will follow. They will attempt to punish anybody that even thinks about it

I am struggling to see any other country that would choose to go into the political tailspin the UK has gone into in the last 3 years over this.
Win or lose after Brexit - even if they don't brexit at all, there is an awful lot of healing to do.
But as Brexit is a symptom of something else, that they have yet to recognise even, I don't hold out much hope.

Peregrinus

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The EU Establishment need this to be an absolute disaster for the UK to maintain their control over the European peoples. If the UK leave next month and it isn't a complete and utter disaster, other countries will follow. They will attempt to punish anybody that even thinks about it

Welcome, visitor from Planet Brexitmind! Here on Planet Earth, the EU doesn't have "control over the European peoples", as witness the fact that the UK has chosen to leave, has chosen to defer its leaving, and can now choose about whether to leave, or to seek a further deferral. Not much evidence of EU control there.

We are amused by your assertion that "if the UK leaves next month and it isn't a complete and utter disaster, other countries will follow". The UK leaving project has been a complete and utter disaster pretty much from the get-go, a shambolic parade of ineptitude and incompetence, with the result that incipient exit movements in a couple of other member states have died on their arses. This has been acheived through the unaided efforts of Brexiters alone; no "punishment" from the EU was or will be required.

tigger123

Richard Hillman wrote: »

The EU Establishment need this to be an absolute disaster for the UK to maintain their control over the European peoples. If the UK leave next month and it isn't a complete and utter disaster, other countries will follow. They will attempt to punish anybody that even thinks about it

The UK is free to leave on October 31st without a deal and on WTO rules. No one is stopping them.

The EU even negotiated a withdrawal agreement with them which would facilitate ongoing trade between the two entities after they jog on. They're also happy to hear about Boris's alternative arrangements, if they're ever suggested.

But the Tory party is cannibalising itself instead. All this boll*x is internal Tory party in fighting.

FrancieBrady

tigger123 wrote: »

The UK is free to leave on October 31st without a deal and on WTO rules. No one is stopping them.

The EU even negotiated a withdrawal agreement with them which would facilitate ongoing trade between the two entities after they jog on. They're also happy to hear about Boris's alternative arrangements, if they're ever suggested.

But the Tory party is cannibalising itself instead. All this boll*x is internal Tory party in fighting.

Indeed.
What is dictating to the UK is one of it's own 'loyal' political parties. Had they not pulled a strop over an abstract notion, the UK would now be gone.

ohnonotgmail

tigger123 wrote: »

The UK is free to leave on October 31st without a deal and on WTO rules. No one is stopping them.

The EU even negotiated a withdrawal agreement with them which would facilitate ongoing trade between the two entities after they jog on. They're also happy to hear about Boris's alternative arrangements, if they're ever suggested.

But the Tory party is cannibalising itself instead. All this boll*x is internal Tory party in fighting.

that isn't strictly true. the british parliament is stopping them.

B0jangles

I've not been paying close attention to the whole brexit car-crash lately so I'm curious - has anyone managed to produce any kind of list of concrete benefits that Brexit will bring to the UK?

I'm not talking about wooly feel-good 'take back control' type fluff, or how having no major trade agreements means Britain is totally free to make newer, better ones in the same way a person who has just been fired is free to see out new and better opportunities.

I'm talking about actual predictions based on concrete data that show things like 'X industry will grow by Y percent as a result of leaving the EU'

As I say, I haven't been keeping a close eye on it but the sense I'm getting, even from pro-brexit sources is that Brexit is basically like the Blitz - a wonderful opportunity for Britons to show what they are made of in the face of a national calamity.
Which is weird, since it's entirely self-inflicted.

tigger123

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that isn't strictly true. the british parliament is stopping them.

And how is that possible? Because 20 odd Tory rebels voted against the government after the extreme fringe of the party (the ERG) took control of the party from the moderates.

Boris and his crew has splintered his party even more since he took over.

tigger123

B0jangles wrote: »

I've not been paying close attention to the whole brexit car-crash lately so I'm curious - has anyone managed to produce any kind of list of concrete benefits that Brexit will bring to the UK?

I'm not talking about wooly feel-good 'take back control' type fluff, or how having no major trade agreements means Britain is totally free to make newer, better ones in the same way a person who has just been fired is free to see out new and better opportunities.

I'm talking about actual predictions based on concrete data that show things like 'X industry will grow by Y percent as a result of leaving the EU'

As I say, I haven't been keeping a close eye on it but the sense I'm getting, even from pro-brexit sources is that Brexit is basically like the Blitz - a wonderful opportunity for Britons to show what they are made of in the face of a national calamity.
Which is weird, since it's entirely self-inflicted.

Nope. Everyone knows it will have negative effects. Jacob Rees Mogg himself estimates that it will be at least 50 years before Britain feels any benefits.

seamus

B0jangles wrote: »

As I say, I haven't been keeping a close eye on it but the sense I'm getting, even from pro-brexit sources is that Brexit is basically like the Blitz - a wonderful opportunity for Britons to show what they are made of in the face of a national calamity.
Which is weird, since it's entirely self-inflicted.

There's something Python/Fawltyesque about it.

It's like everyone has been saying what a completely cluster**** Brexit is going to be, so the British have decided to push on regardless to make some kind of point to the naysayers about the strength of the British spirit.

"It's just a flesh wound, I'm fine"

Bit cynical

tigger123 wrote: »

The UK is free to leave on October 31st without a deal and on WTO rules. No one is stopping them.

The EU even negotiated a withdrawal agreement with them which would facilitate ongoing trade between the two entities after they jog on. They're also happy to hear about Boris's alternative arrangements, if they're ever suggested.

Only for a limited period of time. They still have to negotiate a trade deal by the end of the period, and with the threat of a cliff edge at the end of it, they will be in a weak negotiating position - a trap for whoever is in the position of PM. The WA is not as attractive as it might seem.

ohnonotgmail

tigger123 wrote: »

And how is that possible? Because 20 odd Tory rebels voted against the government after the extreme fringe of the party (the ERG) took control of the party from the moderates.

Boris and his crew has splintered his party even more since he took over.

Oh indeed, you are entirely correct. I was just clarifying the post i responded to.

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that isn't strictly true. the british parliament is stopping them.

The UK is stopping itself, in other words.

The point is that there's no external constraint preventing the UK from leaving - there wasn't last March, there wasn't last April, there isn't now. The UK has deferred Leaving because it doesn't want to Leave.

tigger123

Bit cynical wrote: »

Only for a limited period of time. They still have to negotiate a trade deal by the end of the period, and with the threat of a cliff edge at the end of it, they will be in a weak negotiating position - a trap for whoever is in the position of PM. The WA is not as attractive as it might seem.

It's still a far better position than leaving with no deal on October 31st. Accept the WA and start negotiating.

And yes, they will have to negotiate a trade deal by the end of it. Because they want to trade with the EU, and the EU wants to trade with them.

The UK should have been having these discussions with themselves 4 years ago. What does it mean if they leave, what do they want, what are the consequences, what are the advantages. But they didn't. They Took Back Contol instead.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK is stopping itself, in other words.

The point is that there's no external constraint preventing the UK from leaving - there wasn't last March, there wasn't last April, there isn't now. The UK has deferred Leaving because it doesn't want to Leave.

well no, the british parliament is stopping the executive. I dont think you can really speak of the UK as homogenous. what do you mean when you say UK? the exexcutive? parliament? The "will of the people"?

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU seeking to trap the UK in the backstop was a Brexiteer lie, not reality.

Except that legal advice from the UK Attorney General suggested that the UK would be trapped if the backstop went into effect. The Tory party tried to suppress this but were forced by parliament to reveal it.

Bit cynical

tigger123 wrote: »

It's still a far better position than leaving with no deal on October 31st. Accept the WA and start negotiating.

And yes, they will have to negotiate a trade deal by the end of it. Because they want to trade with the EU, and the EU wants to trade with them.

The UK should have been having these discussions with themselves 4 years ago. What does it mean if they leave, what do they want, what are the consequences, what are the advantages. But they didn't. They Took Back Contol instead.

I'm not sure about that. There is definitely a cost to leaving on the 31st without a deal. No doubt about that. But an advantage is that having left, there is no longer a deadline in which to conclude negotiations. The worst has already happened as it were.

The problem with the transition period is that pretty much the same internal political problems preventing progress continue. Better in some ways to get the fear of the cliff edge over with now.

tigger123

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure about that. There is definitely a cost to leaving on the 31st without a deal. No doubt about that. But an advantage is that having left, there is no longer a deadline in which to conclude negotiations. The worst has already happened as it were.

The problem with the transition period is that pretty much the same internal political problems preventing progress continue. Better in some ways to get the fear of the cliff edge over with now.

So the advantage of leaving without a deal is that you don't have to negotiate a deal?

Peregrinus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well no, the british parliament is stopping the executive. I dont think you can really speak of the UK as homogenous. what do you mean when you say UK? the exexcutive? parliament? The "will of the people"?

From the perspective of the rest of the world, the UK is represented by its political institutions and the decisions they arrive at. The decisions of the UK are the decisions of the UK; we do not care about the domestic processes by which those decisions are made; they are none of our business. If Parliament succeeds in forcing the executive to seek an extension, we can fairly say "the UK wants an extension". If it does not succeed, and Oct 31 arrives without a deal being agreed, an extension being sought or Article 50 notice being revoked, we can say " the UK has chosen a no-deal Brexit".

In neither case, it is implied that every person in the UK agrees with the decision; just that this is the decision arrived at by the UK as a community, through the legal, political and representative structures which the UK as a community has adopted for itself.

Peregrinus

tigger123 wrote: »

So the advantage of leaving without a deal is that you don't have to negotiate a deal?

More the advantage of jumping off a cliff is that you no longer have to worry about falling off the cliff.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

From the perspective of the rest of the world, the UK is represented by its political institutions and the decisions they arrive at. The decisions of the UK are the decisions of the UK; we do not care about the domestic processes by which those decisions are made; they are none of our business. If Parliament succeeds in forcing the executive to seek an extension, we can fairly say "the UK wants an extension". If it does not succeed, and Oct 31 arrives without a deal being agreed, an extension being sought or Article 50 notice being revoked, we can say " the UK has chosen a no-deal Brexit".

In neither case, it is implied that every person in the UK agrees with the decision; just that this is the decision arrived at by the UK as a community, through the legal, political and representative structures which the UK as a community has adopted for itself.

Correct. Those howling about "superstates" and loss of sovereignty conveniently forget that every EU country is an independent state that decides its own future. All that the EU expects is that they stick to the rules about how they associate with each other.

Bit cynical

tigger123 wrote: »

So the advantage of leaving without a deal is that you don't have to negotiate a deal?

It is still advantageous to negotiate a long term trade deal, but that still has to be done anyway. The problem with WA is that it merely postpones the cliff edge, the fear of which puts the UK in a weak position to negotiate this longer term deal. That is not to say that there is not a significant economic cost to a no deal on the 31st October, but from a purely negotiating point of view there are advantages.

ohnonotgmail

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is still advantageous to negotiate a long term trade deal, but that still has to be done anyway. The problem with WA is that it merely postpones the cliff edge, the fear of which puts the UK in a weak position to negotiate this longer term deal. That is not to say that there is not a significant economic cost to a no deal on the 31st October, but from a purely negotiating point of view there are advantages.

And what are those advantages?