Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

Peregrinus

Yes. It does seem a little harsh to blame Remain MPs for not supporting a form of Brexit that many Leave MPs, including the present PM, could not bring themselves to support. And if those who voted against it were "trying to undermine the referendum result" then the present PM, and most of the present cabinet must be included in that criticism.

(Mind you, if they are trying to undermine the referndum result, that would explain why they are making such an unmitigated hames of the Brixt process. Perhaps it's not imcompetence after all, but malice?)

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

Remain MPs like Johnson,JRM, Francois, Davis. Those guys that all voted against the deal negotiated by the PM?

Nobody voted for No Deal. Even the last GE was run on the basis of an oven ready deal.

Nobody was ever asked whether they wanted an extension.

Your thinking seems to be that you are fed up with it so will accept whatever is given to you. That is the blueprint for every trade deal the UK will try to get in future. The other country can either demand a quick resolution on their terms, like Japan, or drag their feet knowing that the UK public will get fed up and accept anything.

It was remain MPs who amended legislation to force Johnson to ask for an extension. So let's cut the nonsense.

The referendum should have been acted upon without hesitation from 2016. The attempts to hold it back were primarily from Remain MPs.

As for the merits of Brexit, my views are clear in other posts for anyone to see. I'm done debating it. What remains to be done is for the UK to exit the transition period and to begin adjusting outside of the EU structures.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

It was remain MPs who amended legislation to force Johnson to ask for an extension. So let's cut the nonsense.

Indeed, let's cut the nonsense. The UK had already asked for two previous extensions at that point, and the only reason Remain MPs were able to get Parliament to force the government to seek a further extension was because Leave MPs were stil unable, more than three years after the referndum, to agree among themselves on what Brexit meant or how it should be implemented. Blaming Remain MPs for this state of affairs is risible.

theological wrote: »

The referendum should have been acted upon without hesitation from 2016. The attempts to hold it back were primarily from Remain MPs.

This is the besetting sin of Brexitry - the assumption that it is the responsiblity of Someone Else to devise, design and deliver the Brexit they want. The people who, above all, should have "acted without hesitation" to deliver Brexit from 2016 were Brexiters. If the supporters of the project could not be arsed to deliver it, they cannot be taken seriously when they complain that others failed to do it for them.

theological wrote: »

As for the merits of Brexit, my views are clear in other posts for anyone to see. I'm done debating it. What remains to be done is for the UK to exit the transition period and to begin adjusting outside of the EU structures.

And, be assured, that will be done. It is inevitable.

What remains to be seen is whether it will be done well or badly. All the indications at this point are that it will be done badly. And we can be certain that Brexiters will, once again, blame others for the fact that is done badly. They have never made the link between regaining control and accepting responsibility.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

Indeed, let's cut the nonsense. The UK had already asked for two previous extensions at that point, and the only reason Remain MPs were able to get Parliament to force the government to seek a further extension was because Leave MPs were stil unable, more than three years after the referndum, to agree among themselves on what Brexit meant or how it should be implemented. Blaming Remain MPs for this state of affairs is risible.

For the deadlock before the election? I certainly blame them. The primary reason I voted Tory when the opposition finally granted the government the right to hold an election was to ensure that the deadlock on decision making would be broken so that this saga can be put to an end.

It is just dishonest to suggest that the remainer MP's simply "wouldn't do it for them". They actively attempted to thwart Brexit being delivered on on numerous occasions. Including the absurd saga of last winter where they were holding the government to ransom under the Fixed Term Parliament Act when they wanted an election.

Leroy42

Saga can be put to an end? I am not sure what you mean. Did the saga not end when the UK left in January. Wasn't that what Brexit called for, to leave the EU membership? Yet it appears that didn't quite go far enough. So now the new end is 1st January 2021.

Except of course it isn't. Because the UK now wants annual negotiations about fishing. And to have a No deal which will need to be upgraded over time.

on 1st January neither the UK or the EU will disappear. Trade will still have to be done. International cooperation will still be required. None of that changes. So, whilst I can appreciate that you are fed up and simply want to move on, staying the in the EU would have actually been the better option is becoming bored with the process was going to be the deciding factor on what you would be willing to accept.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

Saga can be put to an end? I am not sure what you mean. Did the saga not end when the UK left in January. Wasn't that what Brexit called for, to leave the EU membership? Yet it appears that didn't quite go far enough. So now the new end is 1st January 2021.

Except of course it isn't. Because the UK now wants annual negotiations about fishing. And to have a No deal which will need to be upgraded over time.

on 1st January neither the UK or the EU will disappear. Trade will still have to be done. International cooperation will still be required. None of that changes. So, whilst I can appreciate that you are fed up and simply want to move on, staying the in the EU would have actually been the better option is becoming bored with the process was going to be the deciding factor on what you would be willing to accept.

The saga ends when the transition period ends. That is when it is fully completed.

I think it is obvious as to why.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

The saga ends when the transition period ends. That is when it is fully completed.

I think it is obvious as to why.

For you. Why didn't it end when they actually left? Who decided that a transition period could not be counted as having left?

Again, Brexiteers love to place definitives on things when they don't exist. The vote was on whether to leave the EU. That was done last January. Of course there was always going to be a period of transition, it was never going to be A to B at 12 O'Clock.

But is seems your main position is that you are simply fed up with it all, it has dragged on to long for your liking. But even 1st January doesn't end it. It might end it in terms of you actively caring, but the fallout from Brexit will continue for years. This is only the beginning.

And I completely understand. People in the Uk were sold Brexit as simply, easy to do, quick and painless. And it is anything but and people are bored. It is a complex, slow moving, legalistic boring mess. So lets get it done. But of course Johnson said lets get it done in the GE for January. What did that mean.

Surely what he should have said was lets get the next stage done,which will lead to at least 11 months of negotiations which may or may not end up with a new deal but either way we will continue to negotiate on trade for the foreseaave future.

Doesn't have the same ring to it I'll admit.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

Doesn't have the same ring to it I'll admit.

Sound bites are great until they come back and bite you in the ass.

theological

Leroy42 wrote: »

For you. Why didn't it end when they actually left? Who decided that a transition period could not be counted as having left?

You know why. The UK is still subject to EU law until then. It is still subject to freedom of movement. It still has no control over trade policy, it still has no control over agricultural and fishing policy.

So why are you pretending you don't know this?

Guy:Incognito

theological wrote: »

It was remain MPs who amended legislation to force Johnson to ask for an extension. So let's cut the nonsense.

The referendum should have been acted upon without hesitation from 2016. The attempts to hold it back were primarily from Remain MPs.
.

I like how you want to cut the nonsense and then say they should have just acted on the referendum post haste and delivered Brexit.

The referendum was a steaming turd.

Remain or leave, without the nuance of what leave was. Millions of people decided to vote leave without any discussion or joined up thinking about what leave they wanted. How can you just act upon it and leave without any idea of what you or anyone else wants from leaving?
Did everyone vote for no deal? How many actually did?
Did everyone vote for a bit of a deal? How many did ? Etc etc etc.


It's like deciding you want a divorce and when the discussion about the kids, house , possessions etc start afterwards, your only input is repeatedly saying " I want a divorce" .

theological

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I like how you want to cut the nonsense and then say they should have just acted on the referendum post haste and delivered Brexit.

The referendum was a steaming turd.

Remain or leave, without the nuance of what leave was. Millions of people decided to vote leave without any discussion or joined up thinking about what leave they wanted. How can you just act upon it and leave without any idea of what you or anyone else wants from leaving?
Did everyone vote for no deal? How many actually did?
Did everyone vote for a bit of a deal? How many did ? Etc etc etc.


It's like deciding you want a divorce and when the discussion about the kids, house , possessions etc start afterwards, your only input is repeatedly saying " I want a divorce" .

That is your opinion.

The fact is that is how the British people voted and that should have been respected from day 1 by MPs.

Guy:Incognito

theological wrote: »

That is your opinion.

The fact is that is how the British people voted and that should have been respected from day 1 by MPs.

I really have to repeat the post you quoted because you chose to ignore it?

What version of leave did they vote for and what do they want?


Your opinion on this is very black and white considering your signature is full of bible links. Do you take the bible literally , as in every single word, or do you pick and choose and interpret it the way you want?

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

You know why. The UK is still subject to EU law until then. It is still subject to freedom of movement. It still has no control over trade policy, it still has no control over agricultural and fishing policy.

So why are you pretending you don't know this?

Because it suited the UK do that, it was a UK request. It makes sense to transition like that over time.

So on the one hand you want to get back control, but when decision on made on how to use that control you don't like it?

You can put out the usual talking points, but that is all they are. Control over fisheries? The vast majority of the UK never cared. Didn't even know. It is a made up enemy. They couldn't name the laws that they want to change so fisheries become the new scapegoat.

Agriculture. Farmers are calling for the standard currently in place (EU ones) to remain in place. The UK government continue to assert that standards on regulations will, if anything, increase after Brexit.

Padre_Pio

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It's like deciding you want a divorce and when the discussion about the kids, house , possessions etc start afterwards, your only input is repeatedly saying " I want a divorce" .

I heard it described as a vote on whether or not to paint a door blue.

The side who voted not to paint the door blue now have to argue over what colour to paint it, all while the side who voted for blue are trying to get them to choose a different shade of blue :pac::pac:

Leroy42 wrote: »

Agriculture. Farmers are calling for the standard currently in place (EU ones) to remain in place. The UK government continue to assert that standards on regulations will, if anything, increase after Brexit.

Yep, the EU standards are a minimum requirement. The only way British Standards can go is up, because going down closes markets.
All this talk of regaining control of standards is empty rhetoric.

theological

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I really have to repeat the post you quoted because you chose to ignore it?

What version of leave did they vote for and what do they want?

Your opinion on this is very black and white considering your signature is full of bible links. Do you take the bible literally , as in every single word, or do you pick and choose and interpret it the way you want?

The only reason I state that so definitively is because I've debated the finer aspects of Brexit before on this thread and I'm done. They are now utterly irrelevant because the UK is outside of the EU. That conversation is 3 years old.

The question I care about at this stage is about how to get past the transition period and adjusting to life outside the EU.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Because it suited the UK do that, it was a UK request. It makes sense to transition like that over time.

So on the one hand you want to get back control, but when decision on made on how to use that control you don't like it?

I don't get the point of this question.

The government still have to re-gain the control in order to use it. That happens on January 1st. I'm more concerned with the principle that these matters should be decided by Parliament.

As to what exactly gets agreed that is a matter for this parliament and subsequent parliaments and governments as they campaign based on manifestos.

Guy:Incognito

theological wrote: »

The only reason I state that so definitively is because I've debated the finer aspects of Brexit before on this thread and I'm done. They are now utterly irrelevant because the UK is outside of the EU. That conversation is 3 years old.

The question I care about at this stage is about how to get past the transition period and adjusting to life outside the EU.

So what was your conclusion? What brexit did leave voters vote for?

First Up

Guy:Incognito wrote:

So what was your conclusion? What brexit did leave voters vote for?

All of them of course.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

The question I care about at this stage is about how to get past the transition period and adjusting to life outside the EU.

Given the half assed approach that the British government are taking, it is highly likely that Britain will be running on WTO terms come January.
It's amazing how calm UK people are about this.
Also, if the UK wishes to sell into the EU, it's nearest market, then it will without any shadow of a doubt, follow the rules laid out by the EU. There may be a lot of bluster about how they will manage but that's just bluster - will British exports be competitive when you factor in the increased transport costs to their new markets? How many trade deals has Britain succesfully negotiated so far?
This is not being told to the British people who are in for a very nasty surprise after Christmas!

theological wrote: »

The government still have to re-gain the control in order to use it. That happens on January 1st. I'm more concerned with the principle that these matters should be decided by Parliament.

"Re-gain control"? This is populist nonsense.
Regain control of what exactly and how?
In terms of immigration (which much of Brexit was about), the UK did absolutely nothing to use the strong levels of control that it had.
How will this "control" work when doing trade deals with say the EU or USA? Do you seriously think that the UK will have control over the standards that the EU or USA must adopt for them to export to the UK?

theological

Seth Brundle wrote: »

"Re-gain control"? This is populist nonsense.
Regain control of what exactly and how?
In terms of immigration (which much of Brexit was about), the UK did absolutely nothing to use the strong levels of control that it had.
How will this "control" work when doing trade deals with say the EU or USA? Do you seriously think that the UK will have control over the standards that the EU or USA must adopt for them to export to the UK?

There are numerous areas in the EU treaties where it either has exclusive competence over, or shared competence over. Most of them are the ones I've listed.

I don't know why you're claiming this is "populist nonsense" when it is very much reality.

First Up

theological wrote:

I don't know why you're claiming this is "populist nonsense" when it is very much reality.

You have a selective notion of reality.

The UK is unhindered by the EU in arranging its place in the world. The only thing the EU is involved with is the UK's relationship with the EU.

The UK is finding out (belatedly and to its cost) that negotiating anything with the EU is lot tougher from outside than within.

That's the reality. Pretending it should or could be otherwise is the populist nonsense.

swampgas

theological wrote: »

There are numerous areas in the EU treaties where it either has exclusive competence over, or shared competence over. Most of them are the ones I've listed.

Anything that the EU had exclusive compentence over, did not exclude the UK. The UK still had a voice and a say in that competence, because the UK, along with the other 27 countries in the EU had agreed to joint, shared, competence in those areas. That's a nuance that doesn't seem to register with Brexiteers. They just don't understand the concept of a cooperative venture for mutual benefit.

Empire 2.0 might be a fantasy in terms of what will happen to the UK in the future, but as lens to look at the world, and the UK's place in it, a lot of Brexit supporters seem unable to get past Empire 1.0.

theological

swampgas wrote: »

Anything that the EU had exclusive compentence over, did not exclude the UK. The UK still had a voice and a say in that competence, because the UK, along with the other 27 countries in the EU had agreed to joint, shared, competence in those areas. That's a nuance that doesn't seem to register with Brexiteers. They just don't understand the concept of a cooperative venture for mutual benefit.

Empire 2.0 might be a fantasy in terms of what will happen to the UK in the future, but as lens to look at the world, and the UK's place in it, a lot of Brexit supporters seem unable to get past Empire 1.0.

This is a silly remark. Given that I'm Irish I don't have any interest in empires. I just have an interest in regaining more sovereignty in much the same way as other nation states outside of the EU have. The UK is not asking for any more control than Canada or Australia for example. Wanting more control over affairs, and wanting to be an empire are two very different things.

That should indicate to you that I have no strange notions of empire.

swampgas

theological wrote: »

This is a silly remark. Given that I'm Irish I don't have any interest in empires. I just have an interest in regaining more sovereignty in much the same way as other nation states outside of the EU have. The UK is not asking for any more control than Canada or Australia for example. Wanting more control over affairs, and wanting to be an empire are two very different things.

That should indicate to you that I have no strange notions of empire.

The whole concept of national sovereignty (at least the aspects of it defined by Brexiteers) is (IMO) set in the past century. It's all about the nation itself maintaining its own borders, its own rules, its own fisheries, its own industries, all without regard to its neighbours.

The modern world is global in a way that makes such ideas antiquated and unfit for purpose.

A state that voluntarily joins the EU is likely to be using its sovereignty optimally.

A state that rejects the membership of beneficial cooperative groups because they believe membership of such a group excessively dilutes its own sovereignty doesn't really understand what sovereignty means, to be honest.

It's like saying that an individual who voluntarily signs a contract or gets married should not do so because they are losing some level of independence. It one sense they do - but the whole point is that it is worth doing so.

theological

swampgas wrote: »

The whole concept of national sovereignty (at least the aspects of it defined by Brexiteers) is (IMO) set in the past century. It's all about the nation itself maintaining its own borders, its own rules, its own fisheries, its own industries, all without regard to its neighbours.

The modern world is global in a way that makes such ideas antiquated and unfit for purpose.

A state that voluntarily joins the EU is likely to be using its sovereignty optimally.

A state that rejects the membership of beneficial cooperative groups because they believe membership of such a group excessively dilutes its own sovereignty doesn't really understand what sovereignty means, to be honest.

It's like saying that an individual who voluntarily signs a contract or gets married should not do so because they are losing some level of independence. It one sense they do - but the whole point is that it is worth doing so.

The bolded statement is where I would question and have done several times in the past. It is probably the big bit where I disagree with you on.

Many countries get on fine in the world without entering into an arrangement that is as all encompassing in respect to ceding sovereignty as membership of the EU is. It isn't outdated for Canada and Australia for example not to be a member of a similar bloc.

Joining the EU is a legitimate choice. In the case of the UK the people made a decision to come out. Both are respectable choices with pros and cons. I just happen to think there are more cons of EU membership for the UK than pros.

But again, I'm not massively interested in redebating a matter that is effectively settled.

Calhoun

Be interesting to see the EU response to the limit of movement in the UK.

Was hilarious reading a Reddit thread from some expats in France understanding the impact voting for brexit would have on them.

First Up

theological wrote:

But again, I'm not massively interested in redebating a matter that is effectively settled.

Effectively settled? They have made a dogs dinner of the bit they have under their full control - actually leaving.

They have been even worse at replacing their EU membership with anything approaching coherent trade relations with the EU or anywhere else.

We have had close to four years of the most inept political and international economic shambles in modern history, and they don't have a clue what to do next.

I wouldn't dream of redebating it. What will we talk about next?

Itssoeasy

Calhoun wrote: »

Be interesting to see the EU response to the limit of movement in the UK.

Was hilarious reading a Reddit thread from some expats in France understanding the impact voting for brexit would have on them.

Hilarious you say.

Leroy42

theological wrote: »

Joining the EU is a legitimate choice. In the case of the UK the people made a decision to come out. Both are respectable choices with pros and cons. I just happen to think there are more cons of EU membership for the UK than pros.

But again, I'm not massively interested in redebating a matter that is effectively settled.

The main issue is that the pros of leaving have never been explained. The ones that were claimed have all been shown to be false, and apart from nebulous statements of sovereignty and making ours laws, there is little that can be pointed to as to the pros of leaving.

Ending FoM is one of the main ones, but that has been debunked from every angle. Either the UK always had the ability, that immigration actually adds to a country, immigrants from the EU pay more in taxes then they take out, Uk citizens enjoy the benefits of FoM etc etc.

You yourself seem to have a problem with the very sovereignty that you claim you want. You have a number of times blamed remained MPs for holding the process up, yet that is the very point of the system of parliament. That MP's are allowed to vote on what they believe is best for the country, not necessarily what you, or indeed the majority, wants.

But when they exercised that very thing that you want you get annoyed at them.

But this isn't a call for a list of Pro's, it has been asked numerous times and never answered. Where we are now is that the UK is rushing headlong into a No Deal situation.

RobMc59

First Up wrote: »

Effectively settled? They have made a dogs dinner of the bit they have under their full control - actually leaving.

They have been even worse at replacing their EU membership with anything approaching coherent trade relations with the EU or anywhere else.

We have had close to four years of the most inept political and international economic shambles in modern history, and they don't have a clue what to do next.

I wouldn't dream of redebating it. What will we talk about next?

Over the last day there have been multiple posts about the extension deadline day passing and the UK has stuck to it`s guns and not asked for one.
I`m disappointed it`s come to this as I passionately wanted to at least retain a close relationship with the EU but it appears that ship has truly finally sailed.What does confuse me though is the suspicion many posters here seem shell shocked the UK appears to be going ahead with no deal unless the EU is more flexible.I now feel the UK should get on with no deal although do wonder if the EU are leaning towards compromise?

Seth Brundle

RobMc59 wrote: »

Over the last day there have been multiple posts about the extension deadline day passing and the UK has stuck to it`s guns and not asked for one.
I`m disappointed it`s come to this as I passionately wanted to at least retain a close relationship with the EU but it appears that ship has truly finally sailed.What does confuse me though is the suspicion many posters here seem shell shocked the UK appears to be going ahead with no deal unless the EU is more flexible.I now feel the UK should get on with no deal although do wonder if the EU are leaning towards compromise?

Not sure what posters you're referring to as I don't recall any posts which wondered if the EU should be more flexible.
What exactly in your view should the EU compromise towards?