Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

PeadarCo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The only way Johnson escapes the bind he's in is by facing down the ERG.

This has been the entire story of Brexit, successive Tory leaders failing and most not even attempting to deal with the ERG in its various forms. The referendum itself was a failed attempt by Cameron.

listermint

PeadarCo wrote: »

This has been the entire story of Brexit, successive Tory leaders failing and most not even attempting to deal with the ERG in its various forms. The referendum itself was a failed attempt by Cameron.

Simple round them all up and try them for Treason.

trellheim

Interesting La Repubblica interview (in English) with the EU Ambassador to the UK - highlights that due to ratification, Halloween would be the absolute deadline for a deal to be completed, and interestingly, has been in discussions with the Scottish and Welsh governments, as well as Westminster.

The implications of this are tunnel entry in next 10 days, or we sound the klaxons.

However, with the second wave of COVID hitting hard, if both sides mutually requested a pause and reset, and delay transition for a quarter, what laws would be broken ?

The Raging Bile Duct

trellheim wrote: »

The implications of this are tunnel entry in next 10 days, or we sound the klaxons.

However, with the second wave of COVID hitting hard, if both sides mutually requested a pause and reset, and delay transition for a quarter, what laws would be broken ?

What benefit is it to Europe to prolong the clowning around from Downing Street?

Sam Russell

trellheim wrote: »

The implications of this are tunnel entry in next 10 days, or we sound the klaxons.

However, with the second wave of COVID hitting hard, if both sides mutually requested a pause and reset, and delay transition for a quarter, what laws would be broken ?

I would think the EU would not go for a 3 month delay. They have had enough - Brexit only gets mentioned at Council meetings at the end of the agenda when most have already left for their flights home.

It would take a big offer from the UK side to make such an offer acceptable, and fishing for examples would be unfruitful.

trellheim

it is usually better to keep talking as status quo ante normally is not the worst option.

Leroy42

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

What benefit is it to Europe to prolong the clowning around from Downing Street?

Surely the same advantages that were the core of the transition. It postpones the change.

There is no cost to the Eu in doing that, everything stays the same. There may be a cost to UK, or more accurately Johnson, but I reckon he could weather that particular storm

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely the same advantages that were the core of the transition. It postpones the change

As against that, it postpones the day when the UK has to face reality, dragging these phony negotiations and the associated uncertainty on forever.

The EU has better things to think about.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Surely the same advantages that were the core of the transition. It postpones the change.

There is no cost to the Eu in doing that, everything stays the same. There may be a cost to UK, or more accurately Johnson, but I reckon he could weather that particular storm

Are you sure?

I mean, I don't want to see anyone lose their business, their livelihood, their savings, etc but at some point this needs to be resolved. There was an old joke or a meme about a British emissary arriving in Brussels in the distant future for an ancient annual ritual where an extension is requested by the UK and is granted by the EU.

In 2019, the public elected a man who has sired an unkown number of children, stolen a reporter's phone when questioned about a dead child in a Leeds hospital and hid in a refrigerator to avoid an interview on the back of "Get Brexit done".

At some point this needs to be resolved and that means the rug being pulled from under people's feet. I want to stay and for this to be cancelled but I've made my peace with the cost to my savings and future prospects living here. Resolution and evolution can only come from moving to the next chapter which is being prevented by the fact that Brexit has yet to occur properly as the UK remains in the transition period.

I see why you're saying that extending the transition period has no cost for the EU but it does to the UK. Uncertainty deters investment. I could live with a 100-year extension. No problem but that's not going to happen. In addition, they spaffed the chance to get an extension hassle-free earlier this year.

Get Brexit done.

serfboard

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

it postpones the day when the UK has to face reality, dragging these phony negotiations and the associated uncertainty on forever.

While that's true, with every passing day, polling is indicating that more and more Brits are coming to the realisation that Brexit was a bad idea.

This may indeed result in:

Leroy42 wrote: »

a cost to ... Johnson

When even Brexiteers (like Michael Howard) think that your IMB was a stupid stunt, then you're not winning hearts and minds.

Zubeneschamali

serfboard wrote: »

While that's true, with every passing day, polling is indicating that more and more Brits are coming to the realisation that Brexit was a bad idea

The best lesson will be No Deal on Jan 1st.

View

trellheim wrote: »

The implications of this are tunnel entry in next 10 days, or we sound the klaxons.

However, with the second wave of COVID hitting hard, if both sides mutually requested a pause and reset, and delay transition for a quarter, what laws would be broken ?

The current legal situation is:
1) The U.K. left the EU at the end of last January,
2) There is now a transition period until the end of the year to allow for negotiations on a post-exit trade agreement,
3) During that period, the U.K. had the right to request an extension to that transition period. That had to be done by the end of June or July.
4) The U.K. not only did not do so, it made it illegal for its government to do so and explicitly rejected the idea of doing so when communicating with the EU,
5) There therefore is no longer any possible legal basis for any form of delay to the transition period.

Brexit Britain is a “third country”, much like Brazil or Benin are, in so far as EU (and international) law are concerned. It has no more right or entitlement to any form of such a favour from the EU.

Brexit means Brexit and the U.K. gets to live with all the supposed “benefits” of Brexit in full as and from January 1st next year.

That’s not our problem or concern. Ours has to be with defending our position in the EU and anything that might adversely impact that (eg the open border with NI leading to mass smuggling) has to be something we are prepared - should it be necessary - to deal with promptly and ruthlessly. Anyone relying on vague promises from Brexiters about what they will or won’t do in the case of NI is almost certainly going to be severely disappointed when they fail to deliver.

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The best lesson will be No Deal on Jan 1st.

Indeed. In such a scenario, there can be no claims from Brexiters that Brexit would have delivered the “promised land” of Brexit utopia had the U.K. government only held on and acted tougher, rather than “backsliding” into an “unfavourable” deal with the EU.

ancapailldorcha

View wrote: »

Indeed. In such a scenario, there can be no claims from Brexiters that Brexit would have delivered the “promised land” of Brexit utopia had the U.K. government only held on and acted tougher, rather than “backsliding” into an “unfavourable” deal with the EU.

Of course there can. Ideologically, Brexit is based on extremely flimsy pretences. Even the absurd fish debate ignores the fact that well over half of British fish get exported to the EU.

The thing is that once people's incomes and jobs have been hit by the recession, a lot of people aren't going to have the luxury of wailing at Brussels anymore. There simply aren't that many people devoted to the cult of Brexit so that leaves the government who are now in a precarious position. Of course, it'll be too late but it's what they voted for.

Leroy42

View wrote: »

The current legal situation is:
1) The U.K. left the EU at the end of last January,
2) There is now a transition period until the end of the year to allow for negotiations on a post-exit trade agreement,
3) During that period, the U.K. had the right to request an extension to that transition period. That had to be done by the end of June or July.
4) The U.K. not only did not do so, it made it illegal for its government to do so and explicitly rejected the idea of doing so when communicating with the EU,
5) There therefore is no longer any possible legal basis for any form of delay to the transition period.

Brexit Britain is a “third country”, much like Brazil or Benin are, in so far as EU (and international) law are concerned. It has no more right or entitlement to any form of such a favour from the EU.

Brexit means Brexit and the U.K. gets to live with all the supposed “benefits” of Brexit in full as and from January 1st next year.

That’s not our problem or concern. Ours has to be with defending our position in the EU and anything that might adversely impact that (eg the open border with NI leading to mass smuggling) has to be something we are prepared - should it be necessary - to deal with promptly and ruthlessly. Anyone relying on vague promises from Brexiters about what they will or won’t do in the case of NI is almost certainly going to be severely disappointed when they fail to deliver.

Everything can be changed when there is the will. If the UK really look for an extension, (or whatever they call it) and t suits the EU (which I believe it would) then something can be worked out.

Whatever needs to be done would be far easier than what is required under a No Deal. Just thinking or Ireland, having continued free transport access through the landbridge would be worth it. French fisherman continue with access to UK waters.

Sure it kicks the can down the road, but so what. The UK would be in the best position possible for the EU. Fully integrated but having no say whatsoever. They would have bitten your hand off at the start of Brexit for that outcome.

Teaching the UK a lesson, even if one believes they are capable of learning which I am not sure they are at least in the short term, sounds great but comes at a significant costs in terms of business and hassle to the EU.

trellheim

The thing is that once people's incomes and jobs have been hit by the recession, a lot of people aren't going to have the luxury of wailing at Brussels anymore. There simply aren't that many people devoted to the cult of Brexit so that leaves the government who are now in a precarious position. Of course, it'll be too late but it's what they voted for.

Hence my point being COVID being enough of a figleaf to request extension if they thought they needed one. But with IMB and on rails for no-deal where's the off switch ?

Jizique

trellheim wrote: »

Hence my point being COVID being enough of a figleaf to request extension if they thought they needed one. But with IMB and on rails for no-deal where's the off switch ?

the brexit brigade including the PM have adopted the hardest possible language, so having walked all the hard lads up the hill and convincing them that they hold all the cards and that they are well-ready for WTO, and indeed that they benefit from Most Favoured Nation (sounds really positive!) terms under WTO, it is really really hard to march them all back down again, tails between legs

View

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course there can. Ideologically, Brexit is based on extremely flimsy pretences. Even the absurd fish debate ignores the fact that well over half of British fish get exported to the EU.

The thing is that once people's incomes and jobs have been hit by the recession, a lot of people aren't going to have the luxury of wailing at Brussels anymore. There simply aren't that many people devoted to the cult of Brexit so that leaves the government who are now in a precarious position. Of course, it'll be too late but it's what they voted for.

If the Brexiters get their way and the U.K. opts for “no deal”, the most extreme version of Brexit possible, they can’t turn around and claim that it was a deal with the EU that prevented them reaching their Brexit promised land. It’ll be purely down to the fact that their ideas were nonsense.

And, don’t underestimate the strength of the cult of Brexit. Right now, the two major parties are pro-Brexit and even the more pro-EU membership voices, such as the Lib Dem’s have gone all “Sir Humphrey Appleby” one the issue of rejoining.

Professor Moriarty

View wrote: »

If the Brexiters get their way and the U.K. opts for “no deal”, the most extreme version of Brexit possible, they can’t turn around and claim that it was a deal with the EU that prevented them reaching their Brexit promised land. It’ll be purely down to the fact that their ideas were nonsense.

And, don’t underestimate the strength of the cult of Brexit. Right now, the two major parties are pro-Brexit and even the more pro-EU membership voices, such as the Lib Dem’s have gone all “Sir Humphrey Appleby” one the issue of rejoining.

In what way is Labour pro-Brexit?

View

Leroy42 wrote: »

Everything can be changed when there is the will. If the UK really look for an extension, (or whatever they call it) and t suits the EU (which I believe it would) then something can be worked out.

Whatever needs to be done would be far easier than what is required under a No Deal. Just thinking or Ireland, having continued free transport access through the landbridge would be worth it. French fisherman continue with access to UK waters.

Sure it kicks the can down the road, but so what. The UK would be in the best position possible for the EU. Fully integrated but having no say whatsoever. They would have bitten your hand off at the start of Brexit for that outcome.

Teaching the UK a lesson, even if one believes they are capable of learning which I am not sure they are at least in the short term, sounds great but comes at a significant costs in terms of business and hassle to the EU.

As I pointed out there is currently no legal basis for any extension to the transition period. That issue can’t be just “wished away”.

It would probably require a brand new international treaty which would have to be ratified by circa forty parliaments and regional assemblies to create a new transition period.

And there is no obvious reason why those parliaments and regional assemblies should agree to one given that most of the last four years has been characterised by time wasting and showmanship from the U.K. side. That can has been kicked down the road long enough. One way or another, It is time for the EU to move on.

View

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

In what way is Labour pro-Brexit?

They have consistently supported pro-Brexit positions over the last four years. Voting to trigger art 50 is a bit of a giveaway as is campaigning on “Labour’s plan FOR Brexit”. And, if you note, they are NOT advocating re-join (or remain prior to jan 31) even though they could reasonably have done so on the grounds that the Brexit being delivered bears no relationship to any version of Brexit promised in the referendum.

Professor Moriarty

View wrote: »

They have consistently supported pro-Brexit positions over the last four years. Voting to trigger art 50 is a bit of a giveaway as is campaigning on “Labour’s plan for Brexit”. And, if you note, they are NOT advocating re-join (or remain prior to jan 31) even though they could reasonably have done so on the grounds that the Brexit being delivered bears no relationship to any version of Brexit promised in the referendum.

The vast majority of Labour members are pro-EU. As is Starmer. In their GE manifesto last year, they promised to negotiate an FTA that would keep Britain tightly bound to the EU and then hold a referendum with that FTA and Remain as the two options. How is that pro-Brexit?

johnnyskeleton

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The vast majority of Labour members are pro-EU. As is Starmer. In their GE manifesto last year, they promised to negotiate an FTA that would keep Britain tightly bound to the EU and then hold a referendum with that FTA and Remain as the two options. How is that pro-Brexit?

I suppose it would be fairer to say that they were neutral on Brexit at best, and ambivalent at worst.

Their former leader and many significant and influential momentum MPs were pro-Breixt (the "Lexiteers"). Those who were pro-EU, including Kier Starmer, were luke warm on the 2016 referendum campaign trail. As View says, they voted in 2017 to trigger Article 50 which, however one spins it, is a vote for Breixt, albeit they voted for it to "honour" the referendum result.

Moreover, Starmer's stance on Brexit is not really pro-EU. He discussed the issue of a FTA alternative to the single market, which isn't pro-EU and sounds a lot like the Brexiteers "have your cake and eat it too" fantasy. Here is an article from 2017 about it:

In the most comprehensive explanation of his position on Brexit to date, Starmer told POLITICO that Britain's membership of the single market will have to "lapse," that Labour will push for "the fullest possible” tariff-free access to European markets, and that any new deal with Brussels will require Westminster to have some control over who comes to work in the U.K.

Setting a course at odds with his leader, Starmer argued that immigration has been too high and said Labour must support “some change to the way freedom of movement rules operate” as part of the Brexit negotiations.

Starmer is also open to the U.K. leaving the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice — the prime minister’s core demand — as long as another body is established to settle disputes between Britain and the EU.

https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-britains-last-remaining-hope/

In those halcyon days, that might have seemed like reasoned and nuanced positions on Brexit. Now, they sound like they're out of the Tory playbook - leave the single market but retain tarriff free access, restrict freedom of movement and no ECJ jurisdiction, requiring an entirely new body to be established to settle disputes.

The reality is that there are no votes in being pro-EU in the UK, but there are votes in supporting Brexit. So even if most Labour party MPs are personally in favour of the EU, they will happily support Brexit to get into office.

In the 2019 election they behaved utterly cynically and I'm sure in a different world Corbyn's pledge to renegotiate a new Red Brexit deal and then allow free campaigning on that vs remaining would sound like a distinct vision for a reasonable and nuanced approach to Brexit. However, in this world, it was a real milk toast plan to try to appease everyone and ended up displeasing a large portion of their core base.

Since 2019, their strategy has been to simply ignore Brexit and not to oppose it. If its a disaster then they will try to make the Tories own it. However, I'm not sure that they can legitimately do that if they were never really opposed to it in the first place.

Overall, from 2016 to date, are Labour pro-Brexit? On balance, no, they have been more remain than leave. But I don't think you could say that they are pro-EU either.

My best analogy for the Labour party is that they thought they could be like the way tofu is described - it can absorb all flavours so can potentially taste like anything you want it to taste like - and ended up the way tofu actually is - a long ignored gloopy mess at the bottom of the fridge.

Professor Moriarty

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I suppose it would be fairer to say that they were neutral on Brexit at best, and ambivalent at worst.

Their former leader and many significant and influential momentum MPs were pro-Breixt (the "Lexiteers"). Those who were pro-EU, including Kier Starmer, were luke warm on the 2016 referendum campaign trail. As View says, they voted in 2017 to trigger Article 50 which, however one spins it, is a vote for Breixt, albeit they voted for it to "honour" the referendum result.

Moreover, Starmer's stance on Brexit is not really pro-EU. He discussed the issue of a FTA alternative to the single market, which isn't pro-EU and sounds a lot like the Brexiteers "have your cake and eat it too" fantasy. Here is an article from 2017 about it:



https://www.politico.eu/article/keir-starmer-britains-last-remaining-hope/

In those halcyon days, that might have seemed like reasoned and nuanced positions on Brexit. Now, they sound like they're out of the Tory playbook - leave the single market but retain tarriff free access, restrict freedom of movement and no ECJ jurisdiction, requiring an entirely new body to be established to settle disputes.

The reality is that there are no votes in being pro-EU in the UK, but there are votes in supporting Brexit. So even if most Labour party MPs are personally in favour of the EU, they will happily support Brexit to get into office.

In the 2019 election they behaved utterly cynically and I'm sure in a different world Corbyn's pledge to renegotiate a new Red Brexit deal and then allow free campaigning on that vs remaining would sound like a distinct vision for a reasonable and nuanced approach to Brexit. However, in this world, it was a real milk toast plan to try to appease everyone and ended up displeasing a large portion of their core base.

Since 2019, their strategy has been to simply ignore Brexit and not to oppose it. If its a disaster then they will try to make the Tories own it. However, I'm not sure that they can legitimately do that if they were never really opposed to it in the first place.

Overall, from 2016 to date, are Labour pro-Brexit? On balance, no, they have been more remain than leave. But I don't think you could say that they are pro-EU either.

My best analogy for the Labour party is that they thought they could be like the way tofu is described - it can absorb all flavours so can potentially taste like anything you want it to taste like - and ended up the way tofu actually is - a long ignored gloopy mess at the bottom of the fridge.

Corbyn was a useless gobsh1te. He and the northern Labour MPs who were pro-Brexit aside, Labour MPs and the membership were and are pro-EU. That's just a fact. The large majority of Labour MPs and the membership were pro-EU and are pro-EU. Anyway, you didn't address my point. How could Labour's manifesto pledge on a second referendum, with a soft Brexit and Remain as the only two options, be described as pro-Brexit?

reslfj

View wrote: »

It would probably require a brand new international treaty which would have to be ratified by circa forty parliaments and regional assemblies to create a new transition period.

I don't believe an extension of the transition period will require more than unanimity in the EU Council and a simple majority in the EP.
Ratification in national parliaments should not be needed.

Especially an extension within the original 2022 limit should have legal problems.

But neither unanimity in the Council nor majority in the EP may be easy to obtain without some major up front concessions from the UK.

Lars

View

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The vast majority of Labour members are pro-EU. As is Starmer. In their GE manifesto last year, they promised to negotiate an FTA that would keep Britain tightly bound to the EU and then hold a referendum with that FTA and Remain as the two options. How is that pro-Brexit?

The position of the vast majority of supporters is irrelevant, it’s the position tha the party adopts that is relevant as it is the party that gets to implement policy of elected to office.What part of voting to trigger art 50 is “pro-EU”?

The Labour party described their policy as “Labour’s plan FOR Brexit” - not on Brexit, FOR Brexit.
Thad’s their own description of their policy, so you are being rather arrogant in trying to override their own opinion of their policy.

Negotiations on the FTA they were promising could have only happened AFTER the U.K. had left the EU, just as has happened with the Conservatives. Promising to hold a referendum where you are presenting the electorate with a post-exit FTA is just offering them a fait accompli to be rubber stamped. (And lest you have forgotten Labour promised a referendum on PR back in the 97 landslide but failed to deliver on that promise in thirteen years of uninterrupted power, so their promises of a Brexit referendum have to be taken with a large pinch of salt).

Lastly, your supposedly “pro-EU” party and Starmer are not advocating either rejoining the EU, or even a close FTA, even though they could easily do so, now that Brexit has already happened and the reality bears no relationship to what was promised.

View

reslfj wrote: »

I don't believe an extension of the transition period will require more than unanimity in the EU Council and a simple majority in the EP.
Ratification in national parliaments should not be needed.

Especially an extension within the original 2022 limit should have legal problems.

But neither unanimity in the Council nor majority in the EP may be easy to obtain without some major up front concessions from the UK.

Lars

The U.K. has already left the EU and there is therefore no longer any legal basis for an extension to be granted. As such it would require a new agreement for one and there is no political reason for one (since the time needed to create and ratify a new agreement could just as easily be spent finalising and ratifying a post-exit trade deal). And, irrespective of the merits of such an extension agreement, the political reality is that Brexiters are not going to ask for one.

Peregrinus

I agree with View. The EU can only make treaties on behalf of its member states on the topics, and to the extent, that the member states have agreed in the EU's own founding/governing treaties. While the UK was still a member state, the EU could make a Withdrawal Agreement with the UK which would bind the member states, because Art 50 provides for this. But the UK is no longer a member state and there is no power in the EU Treaties for the EU to make an agreement with the UK, a third country, to treat it as a member state. Any arrangement of this kind would have to be by treaty between the UK and the EU-27. It ain't gonna happen.

What could happen, if the stars align, is an FTA between the UK and the EU with a phase-in period of (say) 12 months under which the UK gradually shifts from being treated as a member state (as it will be on 31.12.20) to being dealt with under the terms of the FTA. But since the UK isn't currently looking for such a term in its FTA, and the EU isnt' currently suggesting one, that possiblity seems more theoretical than realistic.

fash

View wrote: »

If the Brexiters get their way and the U.K. opts for “no deal”, the most extreme version of Brexit possible, they can’t turn around and claim that it was a deal with the EU that prevented them reaching their Brexit promised land. It’ll be purely down to the fact that their ideas were nonsense.
.

Well no - they'll stick with the "it was the bullying EU's fault. Who could have known they would be so mean. See this proves we were right to leave etc." line. And a big chunk of delusional brexiters have so much emotionally invested in brexit that they will be happy with that

Zubeneschamali

fash wrote: »

Well no - they'll stick with the "it was the bullying EU's fault. Who could have known they would be so mean. See this proves we were right to leave etc." line. And a big chunk of delusional brexiters have so much emotionally invested in brexit that they will be happy with that

That works now, but we are in the transition, phony Brexit.

When factories shut, shelves empty and prices soar, people will blame the Government. If it is No Deal, the chaos will take Johnson down, maybe Gove after him, and whoever is next in #10 will lose to Starmer.

Then maybe we can talk about a deal with some sensible people.