Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

There will be battles with the EU across all segments of the deal next year.

The Brexiters might like to portray it like that, but there'll be no more battling with the EU. Assuming the European Parliament ratifies the deal, Brexit is done and dusted, and the "rules of engagement" set out in black-on-white. The ERG might rant and rave from their benches in Westminster, but none of that will translate into action on the ground because if the UK does anything that contravenes the agreement that Johnson gave a thumbs-up to yesterday, the EU's retaliation will be swift and severe. See how they've dealt with Switzerland ... oh, you didn't see that? Well, there you have it - no drama, no battle, just a precise surgical amputation, and the EU moves on to other business (oh, and the Swiss decide that maybe their hissy fit wasn't worth the hiss, and opts to re-align themselves with their biggest trading partner).

CelticRambler

AutoTuning wrote: »

Blair was going absolutely fine until they got into bed with George Bush Jr and managed to go way off the rails and alienate most of their own electorate and half the party.

Domestically they had done extremely well in terms of social and economic policies. The country was booming, vibrant and forward looking. Northern Ireland was solved, with Mo Mowlam having played an absolutely brilliant part in that. Scottish and Welsh devolution happened. The U.K. Supreme Court was created. Loads of modernising occurred. Rule Britannia had been replaced by Cool Britannia and it was really a very vibrant place with a lot going for it. London and other cities had become real hubs of creativity and places people wanted to be.

The U.K. basically runs best on a balanced and centrist agenda. Their Achilles’ Heel is and always was a rump of hard core English nationalists / British nationalists who can be triggered by jingoism in politics and the press. Once you moved on to the current era of politics, it quickly emerged that you could push those buttons repeatedly and tip progressive England into being something very different and that’s basically why we are where we are.

I was living and working in England at that time (voted for Labour/Blair too in that election, although my vote was wasted in a Tory safe seat :rolleyes: ) and agree that it was probably the high point in Britain's post-war history. Even then, though, I was puzzled and concerned by an apparent reluctance on the part of "Middle England" to fully embrace their English heritage and culture - not their castles and WW1/2 memorials, but all the quirky stuff like Morris Dancing and cheese rolling and the Green Man and Last Night of the Proms. I suppose, coming from Ireland, where Bord Fáilte could turn any old Oirish nonsense into mega-money-spinning events and national promotion, it was particularly obvious; but I felt then - and feel vindicated now - that that allowed the football hooligans and later the Brexiters (especially their MEPs) to define the English Nationalism brand on the European stage.

By the beginning of the 2000s, I'd felt a change in the wind and started planning to get out while the going was good. Best Major Life Decision I ever made.

peter kern

tubercolossus wrote: »

Yes, I fully expect Bozo and his clowns to act in extreme bad faith from the get-go, egged on from the sidelines by honking buffoons such as Francois.

Did anyone read today that Stanley Johnson - father of the PM - has applied for French citizenship? You couldn't, as a well-known Brit rightwing mouthpiece who also lives abroad likes to say, make it up.

what does it have to do with brexit if a remainer applies for a french passport regardless of who he is.

the ****b.gs are those that voted brexit and then left.

timetogo1

Brexiters found a new bit of the deal to complain about. I'm sure there will be headlines like this for months as they figure out new issues.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1377057/brexit-news-deal-eu-european-court-of-justice-ecj-laws-uk-boris-johnson-horizon-spt
Here's the headline to save you having to go to that site "Brexit deal bombshell as small print shows EU judges' orders WILL be enforceable in UK"

"Small print" is code for print that they didn't read / understand I think. It's unlikely it was printed in a small font.

tubercolossus

CelticRambler wrote: »

The Brexiters might like to portray it like that, but there'll be no more battling with the EU. Assuming the European Parliament ratifies the deal, Brexit is done and dusted, and the "rules of engagement" set out in black-on-white. The ERG might rant and rave from their benches in Westminster, but none of that will translate into action on the ground because if the UK does anything that contravenes the agreement that Johnson gave a thumbs-up to yesterday, the EU's retaliation will be swift and severe. See how they've dealt with Switzerland ... oh, you didn't see that? Well, there you have it - no drama, no battle, just a precise surgical amputation, and the EU moves on to other business (oh, and the Swiss decide that maybe their hissy fit wasn't worth the hiss, and opts to re-align themselves with their biggest trading partner).

And I read somewhere that Switzerland is in more or less constant negotiation with the EU on various issues as they crop up. This is the UK's future, baby. Endless negotiation with a larger and more powerful neighbour, and they are very, very good at it.

Strazdas

tubercolossus wrote: »

If David Cameron hadn't promised a bloody referendum that no-one particularly wanted, then none, NONE of this would have happened. There's a saying in the legal profession, when a witness is on the stand: Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

Also, he could have framed the referendum question any way he wanted or made it clear that that one of the four home nations could veto the result.

Instead, the idiot announced it was a 'once in a lifetime' referendum and the result could never be stopped or reversed, not even by Parliament itself. The likes of UKIP didn't even want a referendum on EU membership.

Akrasia

timetogo1 wrote: »

Brexiters found a new bit of the deal to complain about. I'm sure there will be headlines like this for months as they figure out new issues.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1377057/brexit-news-deal-eu-european-court-of-justice-ecj-laws-uk-boris-johnson-horizon-spt
Here's the headline to save you having to go to that site "Brexit deal bombshell as small print shows EU judges' orders WILL be enforceable in UK"

"Small print" is code for print that they didn't read / understand I think. It's unlikely it was printed in a small font.

I for one, think it is absolutely shocking that a trade deal finalized at the last minute and rammed through parliament with zero scrutiny would have some nasty surprises in it

Who could have possibly predicted that?

schmoo2k

timetogo1 wrote: »

Brexiters found a new bit of the deal to complain about. I'm sure there will be headlines like this for months as they figure out new issues.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1377057/brexit-news-deal-eu-european-court-of-justice-ecj-laws-uk-boris-johnson-horizon-spt
Here's the headline to save you having to go to that site "Brexit deal bombshell as small print shows EU judges' orders WILL be enforceable in UK"

"Small print" is code for print that they didn't read / understand I think. It's unlikely it was printed in a small font.

Meh - "EU judges' orders will still be enforceable in the UK, in relation to the bloc's programmes, such as Horizon.", so an EU programme that the UK is still part of will be ultimately governed by the EU - shocker.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

The Brexiters might like to portray it like that, but there'll be no more battling with the EU. Assuming the European Parliament ratifies the deal, Brexit is done and dusted, and the "rules of engagement" set out in black-on-white. The ERG might rant and rave from their benches in Westminster, but none of that will translate into action on the ground because if the UK does anything that contravenes the agreement that Johnson gave a thumbs-up to yesterday, the EU's retaliation will be swift and severe. See how they've dealt with Switzerland ... oh, you didn't see that? Well, there you have it - no drama, no battle, just a precise surgical amputation, and the EU moves on to other business (oh, and the Swiss decide that maybe their hissy fit wasn't worth the hiss, and opts to re-align themselves with their biggest trading partner).

Not sure why you're making that comment. Anyway, as I said, Ireland will used as pawn. In terms of its border with NI and its exports (of food in particular). If this deal shatters, there will be no surgical amputation of Britain. It is too big a player and its society, culture and political system are light years away from Switzerland's. It will be a bloodbath where we will be collateral damage.

Tell me how

schmoo2k wrote: »

Meh - "EU judges' orders will still be enforceable in the UK, in relation to the bloc's programmes, such as Horizon.", so an EU programme that the UK is still part of will be ultimately governed by the EU - shocker.

Doesn't quite fit in with the taking back control narrative though, does it.

Captain Lugger

O'Neill wrote: »

Not a hope in hell. From scandal to another whether it's the bigotry, or the RHI, Ian Paisley Jr expenses, their brazeness ect....on a whole, their electorate will never learn.

The other problem is the binary nature of their electoral system. Once a cadre of extremists takes over one or both main parties pragmatism goes out the window, and misplaced loyalty to either parties ensures the bulk of the electorate plays along. No wonder there was such an entrenched opposition to even the mildest reform to FPTP when the AV vote was rejected.

Tell me how

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not sure why you're making that comment. Anyway, as I said, Ireland will used as pawn. In terms of its border with NI and its exports (of food in particular). If this deal shatters, there will be no surgical amputation of Britain. It is too big a player and its society, culture and political system are light years away from Switzerland's. It will be a bloodbath where we will be collateral damage.

We were told that would happen throughout the WA and final deal being negotiated but thankfully it didn't happen.
The EU, I think will enter a frame if mind of 'dont give the UK any opportunities to encourage other countries to leave and Ireland being destroyed in a bloodbath would definitely be something that would fall in to that category.

The UK is gone, at least for a generation, but the EU showed already what they think if the narrative about it being too big a player.

Capt'n Midnight

tubercolossus wrote: »

If David Cameron hadn't promised a bloody referendum that no-one particularly wanted, then none, NONE of this would have happened. There's a saying in the legal profession, when a witness is on the stand: Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

Strazdas wrote: »

Also, he could have framed the referendum question any way he wanted or made it clear that that one of the four home nations could veto the result.

Instead, the idiot announced it was a 'once in a lifetime' referendum and the result could never be stopped or reversed, not even by Parliament itself. The likes of UKIP didn't even want a referendum on EU membership.

Oh yeah Cameron owns Brexit
- allowing Leave to change the answer from Yes/No
- not making it binding beforehand meant Leave could get away with stuff that would be illegal in a binding referendum
- making it anything other than 50% + 1. That will likely cost them in Indyref2 or a Reunification vote.

and the big one
- not asking the country what SORT of Brexit they wanted after the result was in.

the result could never be stopped or reversed, not even by Parliament itself
But Parliament is Sovereign innit ?


So a gambler who walked away when his lucky streak ended.
Or was he trying to get it over the line ? Or just incompetent ?

Professor Moriarty

Tell me how wrote: »

We were told that would happen throughout the WA and final deal being negotiated but thankfully it didn't happen.
The EU, I think will enter a frame if mind of 'dont give the UK any opportunities to encourage other countries to leave and Ireland being destroyed in a bloodbath would definitely be something that would fall in to that category.

The UK is gone, at least for a generation, but the EU showed already what they think if the narrative about it being too big a player.

Yeah but the reality is that much of our economy is dependent on exports to the UK. Never mind the land-bridge. And it wouldn't cost this English Tory party a moment's thought to stir up trouble in NI to twist arms. Remember, while they were negotiating with their "friends and partners" in the EU this year, they introduced the Internal Market Bill. This was a direct slap in the face for Ireland and the EU, threatened peace on this island and broke international law. Something very similar could happen again. Or worse.

These populist nationalists are capable of anything. They don't play by the rules when it suits. Watch what happens when the EU plays hardball on financial services - which it most certainly will. Or when car manufacturers leave for other countries. Or when the EU challenges their attempts to dump workers' rights. The Tories won't blame themselves.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Not sure why you're making that comment.

Only to make that point that the vast majority of people (not having a particular interest in EU-non-EU relations) wouldn't have any idea of what sanctions have been applied to Switzerland over the last few years.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If this deal shatters, there will be no surgical amputation of Britain. It is too big a player and its society, culture and political system are light years away from Switzerland's. It will be a bloodbath where we will be collateral damage.

That's why it won't happen: the empty vessels making most noise won't be in charge of the implementation of any of their fantasies, so the worst that'll happen will be a re-make of the IMB posturing: lots and lots and lots of poncing around in front of the media in GB, while the civil servants get on with the business of doing what needs to be done so that, when the inevitable climbdown happens, things continue as has been agreed.

The ERG can tilt at any amount of windmills from now on, and the EU can safely ignore them knowing that they have the legal means to kill the UK's continental trade overnight if they need to. See Week 52, French-UK border closures.

fash

Strazdas wrote: »

Also, he could have framed the referendum question any way he wanted or made it clear that that one of the four home nations could veto the result.

Instead, the idiot announced it was a 'once in a lifetime' referendum and the result could never be stopped or reversed, not even by Parliament itself. The likes of UKIP didn't even want a referendum on EU membership.

That is an important point. It would have been very easy to hamstring brexiters prior to the referendum by saying "of course all 4 nations need to separately vote for it - otherwise we'd be in danger of breaking up the union - you are in favour of the UK aren't you?" And/or "absolutely let's have a referendum. First however, what sort of Brexit do we want? Oh you say it's complicated - let's have this parliamentary committee draft a report on that" Etc.

mrunsure

Akrasia wrote: »

“I am French”

I hope they refuse his application


*edit- I didn’t know he voted and campaigned to remain. Therefore I retract my earlier statement

The Brexit divide in the family has made the news. If I recall, most if not all of the family are Remainers. That may even include Boris. Even in the run up to the referendum it was made very public that he couldn't decide which side to take. So it was quite bizarre how he went so firmly down on one side of the argument if his views were so much more nuanced. His only concern was to choose the side of the argument that would best improve his chance of becoming prime minster.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

Only to make that point that the vast majority of people (not having a particular interest in EU-non-EU relations) wouldn't have any idea of what sanctions have been applied to Switzerland over the last few years.


That's why it won't happen: the empty vessels making most noise won't be in charge of the implementation of any of their fantasies, so the worst that'll happen will be a re-make of the IMB posturing: lots and lots and lots of poncing around in front of the media in GB, while the civil servants get on with the business of doing what needs to be done so that, when the inevitable climbdown happens, things continue as has been agreed.

The ERG can tilt at any amount of windmills from now on, and the EU can safely ignore them knowing that they have the legal means to kill the UK's continental trade overnight if they need to. See Week 52, French-UK border closures.

I take your point and you may well be right. I see it differently. The Tories are to blame for a shambolic Covid-19 response and a Brexit that is infinitely harder than was promised. So they now need to be seen to be winning. This isn't a normal Tory party. This Tory party is infinitely more right-wing than previous Tory parties including Thatcher's. They have seen off the challenge of UKIP and the Brexit party by donning their clothes. So they've crossed the Rubicon and are now the party of Brexit. Any backtracking on a hard Brexit or any sliver of a sign that Britain continues to be ruled by the EU will split the party. Johnson won't have that. So he will continue to embed his populist nationalism in the Tory party and in its voters. He would rather see Britain burn to the ground and rule the ashes than cede power.

Tell me how

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Oh yeah Cameron owns Brexit
- allowing Leave to change the answer from Yes/No
- not making it binding beforehand meant Leave could get away with stuff that would be illegal in a binding referendum
- making it anything other than 50% + 1. That will likely cost them in Indyref2 or a Reunification vote.

and the big one
- not asking the country what SORT of Brexit they wanted after the result was in.

the result could never be stopped or reversed, not even by Parliament itself
But Parliament is Sovereign innit ?


So a gambler who walked away when his lucky streak ended.
Or was he trying to get it over the line ? Or just incompetent ?

Incompetent, he set up the referendum to assuage a guy who had failed to be elected to parliament 7 times and as you said, the parameters around the referendum were way too favourable to Leave.

In addition to the other points you mentioned above, his campaigning message and allowing many in his own party to have free reign to very actively campaign to Leave were also signs of incompetence.

mrunsure

It was plain to see that Johnson didn't want to win the referendum. That was not part of the plan. On 24 June 2016 you could see the reaction in his face.

RobMc59

According to sky the UK has reached an agreement with the EU for a treaty regarding Gibraltar.
My guess is an EU statement giving the UK financial services access to the EU market will happen soon.

Nate--IRL--

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to sky the UK has reached an agreement with the EU for a treaty regarding Gibraltar.
My guess is an EU statement giving the UK financial services access to the EU market will happen soon.

I'm sure that was was always on the cards no? Something like a 30 day rolling equivalence for financial services wasn't it?

Nate

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to sky the UK has reached an agreement with the EU for a treaty regarding Gibraltar.
My guess is an EU statement giving the UK financial services access to the EU market will happen soon.

I wouldn't bet on that. Any access will have a plethora of terms and conditions. EU states want some of that action and the EU wants to bring its trading home.

tubercolossus

Tell me how wrote: »

Incompetent, he set up the referendum to assuage a guy who had failed to be elected to parliament 7 times and as you said, the parameters around the referendum were way too favourable to Leave.

In addition to the other points you mentioned above, his campaigning message and allowing many in his own party to have free reign to very actively campaign to Leave were also signs of incompetence.

Britain has little experience of referendums. If only there had been a neighbour English-speaking country with lots and lots of experience of holding, wording and running referendums to which they could have turned for advice. If only.

Tell me how

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to sky the UK has reached an agreement with the EU for a treaty regarding Gibraltar.
My guess is an EU statement giving the UK financial services access to the EU market will happen soon.

Wouldn't be so sure.

If financial services weren't on the cards in the main deal, think it is a sign as to how the EU feel about them and I suspect granting such access would come a t the end of yet another protracted negotiation process.

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I wouldn't bet on that. Any access will have a plethora of terms and conditions. EU states want some of that action and the EU wants to bring its trading home.

Time will tell but give and take seems to be the order of the day rather than the 'over a barrel route' imo.

Strazdas

fash wrote: »

That is an important point. It would have been very easy to hamstring brexiters prior to the referendum by saying "of course all 4 nations need to separately vote for it - otherwise we'd be in danger of breaking up the union - you are in favour of the UK aren't you?" And/or "absolutely let's have a referendum. First however, what sort of Brexit do we want? Oh you say it's complicated - let's have this parliamentary committee draft a report on that" Etc.

Ruling out another referendum was calamitous as well. It would have been obvious to virtually anyone that a very close result would probably necessitate another referendum on the subject. I would say he was a mixture of arrogant, a gambler and a poor politician.

ancapailldorcha

mrunsure wrote: »

It was plain to see that Johnson didn't want to win the referendum. That was not part of the plan. On 24 June 2016 you could see the reaction in his face.

I think if Johnson hadn't shown himself to be so self-serving and ruthless he could have done incredibly well out of the whole Brexit thing. Before the referendum he was on course to succeed Kenneth Clarke as the one Tory it was ok to like for non-conservatives. Nobody was too bothered about his racism, his lack of any sort of work ethic or his record as Mayor of London. He had basically turned himself into a walking meme and making it work until he did his part to swing the referendum because as far as anyone can make out, he just wanted to be PM. If he'd backed remain and won, he'd be next in line for the office IMO. If he'd backed it and lost, he'd occupy a position of insurgency among his party.

Instead, he backed leave and won and now he gets to oversee the colossal disappointment that Brexit will be.

RobMc59 wrote: »

According to sky the UK has reached an agreement with the EU for a treaty regarding Gibraltar.
My guess is an EU statement giving the UK financial services access to the EU market will happen soon.

Link here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55497084

Gibraltar is to join Schengen. They voted to remain by over 99% so I'm glad a solution has emerged.

No idea where this idea of letting British banks continue to access the single market is coming from. Sure, they'll have an 18-month transition period to prevent cataclysm but the only way I can see the status quo of London being the EU's financial hub continuing is with a pretty strict level playing field arrangement and that'll take time to agree.

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

Time will tell but give and take seems to be the order of the day rather than the 'over a barrel route' imo.

It is areas such as this that are minefields. I think the fact that a deal on financial services wasn't agreed speaks volumes.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

they now need to be seen to be winning. This isn't a normal Tory party. This Tory party is infinitely more right-wing than previous Tory parties including Thatcher's. They have seen off the challenge of UKIP and the Brexit party by donning their clothes. So they've crossed the Rubicon and are now the party of Brexit. Any backtracking on a hard Brexit or any sliver of a sign that Britain continues to be ruled by the EU will split the party.

But the hardness of Brexit is now baked into the agreement that they signed yesterday. Johnson even said on camera that, yes, he'd read it. So that's that: there are no surprises, or at least there must be nothing in there that Johnson is unhappy with, and (by extension) nothing that the ERG could have had any problem with, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for it.

This is why I say that the worst it can be will be a re-make of the IMB pantomime. A Withdrawal Agreement passed with minimal scrutiny, much whinging, some utterly stupid threats to tear it up, and - exactly as predicted - a total climbdown by Johnson & Co. at the end without the EU moving one iota from its original position.

From this point forwards, the EU has the new Trade Agreement as its reference document and dispute resolution built-in. If the UK wants to revise the T&Cs of any paragraph, they will be invited to present their concerns and/or proposals to the relevant joint commission and allow the process to unfold over the course of time (with no deadline for agreement). This neutralises any opportunity for the ERG to turn any particular issue into a battle, because they will always have a deadline hanging over them: the date of their next general election.