Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Jun 18 21:38:11 2019

Utopia Talk / Politics / Brexit crunch time.
Thu Sep 20 14:09:18
So that went swimmingly.

I'm guessing May's strategy was to slowly boil the ERG frog (mad no deal brexiteers).

That relied on May presenting concessions as tweaks to her "chequers" plan.

Now Tusk has killed it dead, it's difficult to see what May's next move is.

She can either make overt concessions on her strategy (e.g. go Norway) but this would be hugely difficult. It would be seen as a betrayal - even though it isn't - because that's totally contrary to what she's been saying brexit meant and the people voted for. She's denied herself a mandate for that.

So to go down that route would be a personal humiliation but would also destroy her party and have as much wider blowback as a new referendum.

Alternatively she can hunker down and say "I did my best but Europe didn't budge. I've always said no deal is better than a bad deal, and no deal has now been forced upon us".
Parliament will not support this I think. Which most likely means a new referendum as the Tories would never risk a GE over brexit in this circumstance where ukip might split their vote and they have no time to change leader.

May is now personal interest seems to me now to be aligned behind no deal. It's too late to be the champion of soft brexit and I don't believe she can do that now. But she can try to avoid ceding the initiative to parliament, and go no deal. So I think we are at the point of maximum danger.

I don't know if Tusk et al are going all in for a UK remain, or didn't appreciate the need to stage manage this better.

Finally there is the outside possibility that this is stage managed and the EU is about to make a fake concession. But it doesn't feel that way.

Thu Sep 20 14:14:31
Also in fringe possibilities: "I did my best but a bespoke deal is not available. No deal/WTO isn't something I can in good faith commit this country to. We must choose between Norway-for-now or remain, I am calling a new referendum"

I think she's ruled that out too much that her personal credibility would be shot. She'd need to campaign for norway-for-now, and risk a "punish may" vote, so she'd be forced to stand down as leader.

So, my bet is May is about to quietly commit to no deal.
large member
Thu Sep 20 14:20:55

Ah well, it was too good to be true :).
Thu Sep 20 14:30:14
Hmm. That "beets versus gold" question might about to become less theoretical.
Fri Sep 21 12:28:55
Tusk killing the deal out of hand and not providing any alternatives should be a wake up call as to the level of contempt that EU bureaucrats have for the UK. No deal at this point would still be better than having to kowtow to these guys ever again.
large member
Fri Sep 21 12:50:22
The EU has provided alternatives. May is just not listening.

Fact is, leaving the EU is a good idea if the UK believes sovereignity is worth the economic costs (no deal or basic deal)

Or if it believes the symbolism of sovereignity is worth the loss of formal influence (Norwegian solution).

It is otherwise a bad idea that May is trying to turn into a good idea by cherry picking.
Fri Sep 21 14:19:25

He didn't kill it out of hand.

The EU have said from literally the day after the vote they would not countenance splitting the four freedoms of the internal market.

Chequers proposed that we participate in the free market for goods and capital, but not movement and services.

What was surprising was that there was an expectation that they would make more positive noises - because actually the "new relationship" phase doesn't get really stuck into until after Brexit - and allow TM to fudge Chequers into something that could mean, for example, Canada plus or Norway or something TBC after Brexit day.

Then she can get the Exit deal with it's 2 year transition period agreed through Parliament, we leave, and then that's when we get down to getting people to understand that having left, we can be Canada, Norway, or North Korea (I think perhaps the only country without an EU FTA!). People might get upset when they realised cake-and-eat-it was not and never has been on the table, then but it would be too late: we'd have left.

The one area where I think the EU is being insane is the Irish border. I get that they have to support Ireland as a member - but ultimately, as the failure of any deal means a defacto hard border, and that as May literally cannot get a deal through that involves a border between NI and the UK (which in any case would violate the GFG and be more economically disrupting than one between the republic and the north), it seems like the EU is threatening to shoot itself (or rather, Ireland is demanding the EU threaten to shoot itself) in the head over this.

I suppose the assumption is that the UK will be so desperate for a deal it will agree, but I think that misreads the politics.

If this was going to be decided on economics, we wouldn't be here now.
Sam Adams
Fri Sep 21 14:34:24
Lol look at the shitshow the blowback to your extreme leftism has caused.

Still think it was a good idea to prioritize importing criminals over your own people?
Fri Sep 21 20:39:38
More like ignorant old white people believing any lie that meets their prejudices. Old people on the internet is one of the greatest calamities to ever hit humanity.
Fri Sep 21 20:40:28
Which isn't to say there aren't ignorant people on this board (many examples in Sam and the other cuckservatives) but they are a very vocal minority in their age cohort.
large member
Sat Sep 22 05:25:31

I think the unreasonable expectation is that the UK could rationally leave the common market if it left the EU.

The backdrop is simply the price to pay for an extention. If the UK wants more time, then it will need to accept the backdrop.

No deal is not a permanent thing. The UK can easily apply for a Norwegian solution after the next election.

In sum, I think the EU is reading the situation correctly. It simply is not willing to engage in internal conservative party intrigues.

Intrigues that brought you the referendum in the first place.


You really should either do a new referendum (the deal sucks - you sure you want to do that, or should we just stay in the EU?)


The Norwegian solution. Paying with formal influence for a sense of sovereign independence.
Sat Sep 22 05:37:12
I have still not figured out what the Leave voters are proposing that the EU would sign under on. Is the answer, nothing? We have leave supporters on this forums, can anyone tell me what you are proposing that you would be content with and the EU would sign under? Disregarding the fact that non (?) of you leavers on UP live in the UK.
large member
Sat Sep 22 05:46:30

The Chekiers thingy is what the UK currently thinks the EU will sign off on. It is pretty delusional.
large member
Sat Sep 22 05:48:32
large member
Sat Sep 22 05:56:45
I should mention that the UK can under no circumstances get a better deal than the EEC EFTA members have.


Better terms for the UK would trigger EEC EFTA members renegotiation with the EU.
Sat Sep 22 06:03:45
Especially since it has already been rejected.

If anyone is familiar with Thunderf00t, he said this on twitter:

Brexit was like saying ‘I don’t like the color of the paint in the kitchen…. I know a great solution, lets burn the house down, then in a few years we MIGHT be able to rebuild something that looks credibly like a house, but with a green kitchen’
large member
Sat Sep 22 06:32:19
Brexit is just conservative party bs that went out of control.

Cameron wanted to pacify the rabid wing of his party and bring back voters from UKIP. Calling a referendum was the means of doing that.

The actual result was a disaster and May is simply not willing to accept that disasters have costs.
Sat Sep 22 12:59:46

So what I didn't include is why I think it's no deal or new referendum (and I think it'll be the latter).

Also think you are reading chequers wrong - it's intended to be a fudge which will fall apart later, but after we've brexited but before the end of transition. My finger will fall off if I try to do this on a phone so will post later.
Sun Sep 23 18:17:26
So, the way I see it, Chequers was always supposed to be about boiling the ERG (the hardcore brexiteers) like frogs.

As long as we keep fiddling with the details of Chequers, even if it substantially changes, then May can sign the exit agreement, and the disappointing details of the new agreement will happen later. But we will be out, May's mission accomplished.

So right now, I think we are odds on for a new referendum.

May has made no single market an absolute red line. So she can't really pivot to EEA without, in her own words, betraying the voters. There's going to have to be a GE before the end of transition. So the tories would be completely screwed if they did this.

But they can't go Canada either, without a chequers style fudge. The EU has ruled out any deal with a hard border. Vardakar is under pressure and cannot back out of that now. Equally, May couldn't pass a bill that put a hard border in the North Sea. Either of those will break the good friday agreement, and while people seem to forget NI unionists are still the larger fraction, and the bulk of NI trade is with the UK mainland, it would be catastrophic for NI to have a hard border with the UK. May particularly cannot agree it as the DUP absolutely will collapse her government over it.

So, the only option is a fudge, which is what chequers was mostly about. Promising a softer border all around, a "common rule book" as regulatory alignment, and "technology plus trusted trader scheme" on the border.

Now whether you think this is workable or not, remember it only needs everyone pretend to think it is viable as the end state, which doesn't kick in until 2021. In practice we can put in mechanisms that mean that if by the end of transition, it's still not working, then the UK can bounce itself into a position where the DUP get screwed over. But by then, it will be after March 2019, the UK will be out, and we will work from there. A firm backstop agreement isn't compatible with this, because the DUP will see they are being screwed overtly.

However, the EU just killed that approach.

So, with EEA and Canada both off the table, what can May do?

Fuck all. Unless the EU can accept a fudge on the Irish border.

So the result is no deal by default.

Except... Except... the withdrawal act has a clause in it that says that Parliament must have a vote on a deal by the 21st of January, and if not, then one happens automatically.

When the act was passed there was a huge hoo-haa over Whether that bill can be amended, and in the end it was determined is up to the speaker of the house.

If no deal is on the table, it will almost certainly be an amendable bill.

Which means MPs would have to actively vote for "no Deal".

I do not believe MPs will do so. Most of them know by now that no deal is a catastrophe of epic proportions that will see immediate and widespread chaos for which they will be hugely punished.

So, I think they will ask for a50 extension and authorise a new referrendum.

On the other hand, if by some mechanism May can avoid that vote happening, then it will be no deal.

Under those circumstnaces, MP's can blame variously "the Tories", "May", and "The EU" for the chaos. Which I think they will do, as it is more in their interests to do that than have to explain why the overturned the last referendum.

Basically, my "cynical, lazy and cowardly" model says MPs will try and dodge the issue as far as possible, but will, if forced to be the deciders, never vote for "no deal".

So we shall see what happens. Either the EU will row back slightly and play May's game, in which case MPs will get a vote on May's deal, which May will try to present as "May's deal or no deal", Labour will vote against it to try and topple May, and some Conservative remainers will probably vote against it too. Which, if enough to defeat the govt will then likely result in either:
a. A general election (which DUP and Tories will not want at all) or
b. A referendum and a50

I suspect it likely the EU will vote for an a50 extension to allow a referendum to happen. The alternative would be no-deal. But there is an appreciable risk it winds up no-deal.

Sun Sep 23 18:44:24
"new referendum"


Keep trying until you get the results you like
Sun Sep 23 19:44:33
Instead of going through an unnecessary recession and long-term economic decline based on the votes of people who are dead within in 5 to 10 years anyways?

Yeah, it makes sense.
Sun Sep 23 20:23:02
Then just revoke voting rights of those over 60, or scrap democratic referendums altogether, and let bureaucrats make decisions for the peon.
Sun Sep 23 20:27:43
People who receive net government benefits should lose the right to vote.

Does this sound familiar to you Mr. Libertarian?

Despite all the Republican hoopla about how brown people use government to steal; the vast majority of leeches are old white people.
Sun Sep 23 22:05:00
Dukhat doesn't want African Americans to vote at all, cause he thinks all old white people are just as poor as they are... Jesus
Sun Sep 23 22:06:16
He probably doesn't mind incarcerated felons voting though..
large member
Sun Sep 23 23:53:13
No extention without a confirmed backdrop I don't think. And a new referendum would have to have "remain" as an option.

We may think it will muddle through in the end. But again, you lost India in an equally muddled way (Brexit 1 as an Mumbai comedian said).
Sun Sep 23 23:55:24
Pillz is so ignorant he thinks that more black people use social service than whites. What a brain dead incel.
Mon Sep 24 02:23:55

The govts spent 2 years trying to implement the last referendums promises, which were at best misleading at worst lies.

How can it be democratic not to give the people the final say? It's not like we have general elections only once a generation?

If you want a procedural reason, the criminal breaches of election laws by the leave campaign would be sufficient for a re-run of general election votes.
large member
Mon Sep 24 05:31:20


Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

with the responses to the question to be (to be marked with a single (X)):

Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union"


Why is May and other remainers bound by referendum promises made by exiters?

Parliament has been advised by the population. The eligible population wants to leave the EU one way or another.
Mon Sep 24 06:30:25

An agreed backstop would require a deal to have been agreed.

Any ref is either on that deal (so the criteria is met to the EU's satisfaction) vs remain or no deal so the criteria is met by definition.

In the other case, it is a ref being conducted in the absence of any deal. In which case the choices will be "no-deal or remain". In which case there cannot be a backstop agreement. There will be no possibility of securing a backstop agreement as that means agreeing a deal, and this circumstances arises only after we've destruct tested the idea that the UK Parliament can agree anything at all.

The only options on the table for the EU will be to either allow a referendum that may result in a backstop being irrelevant, or will result in no deal. There are no other practical options on the table at that point, and nothing the EU can do to make it so.

I don't think the EU can (how would it in practice do so? Such a demand would be challengable under EU law and most likely would be, delaying the whole thing). More importantly, would want to insist remain be an option. I can't see EU governments agreeing to that level of dictation on others affairs; and it would run the risk of undermining the validity of a remain victory. The last thing the EU would want is the UK to "remain" but still have a simmering "brexit" caucus pedalling the myth that the EU forced us to remain. They want the issue settled.
Mon Sep 24 06:58:59

Right. Except, should any politician or political party wishes to go to the country and get their vote on any other matter and say to the angry mob of people who will be very much worse off under a no-deal circumstance, who will be saying "we were told this would lead to lots more money for the NHS, the same benefits and prosperity" - responding like a malfunctioning robot saying "But that was not what was on the ballot slip, we had to deliver the will of the people", they will be lynched.

Asserting that the vote meant the population would prefer out under any circumstances is the height of legalistic bullshit and the electorate won't have any of that under a no-deal circumstance.

And that won't matter if the person explaining it is Labour, Liberal or Conservative.

A legalism approach is without legs in any case: The referendum itself was advisory, and no Parliament can bind another. This is *all* politics. It is *always* *all* politics. There is no law to hide behind.

Also, it is disastrous politics. How can you say "vote me to be your MP, I will lend you my good judgement and represent and serve your interests", and then immediately say "well, I was too stupid to see that when you voted for leave, you were voting for what people were saying leave would deliver". The implications would be that you would fuck up again and again in similarly misinterpreting the interests of your constituents.

As for May, she's bound herself when she defined Brexit as taking back control of borders, laws and money. She can hardly now turn around and say "Actually, I now think the referendum vote meant we should stay in the EEA and have little control over our money, borders and laws".
Mon Sep 24 06:59:24
^second post was to your comment on the referendum "mandate"
large member
Mon Sep 24 08:03:17
"As for May, she's bound herself when she defined Brexit as taking back control of borders, laws and money."

She defined Brexit as a "no deal" exit.
Mon Sep 24 10:47:58

No, not entirely. She's defined is a Canada scenario.

However, the EU has made that impossible as it insists on no hard border between the north and the south.

The EU's position on this is untenable: a hard border between NI and the UK is economically calamitous for NI, politically impossible (no UK govt would ever impose such a border on NI that the NI didn't vote for) - and every bit as much a violation of the good Friday agreement as one between the north and the south.

So the options are either some kind of local fudge - and there actually ways of doing that (cf. Switzerland) without EEA membership. But the EU has effectively ruled Canada out without Annexing Norther Ireland.

Which is frankly an outrageous proposition if they stick with it. On what basis can there be any kind of agreement with the EU at all if the EU doesn't respect the territorial integrity and self determination of the UK?

large member
Mon Sep 24 10:53:08
She cannot get a Canada deal. Good Friday. This was known before the referendum.
large member
Mon Sep 24 10:58:26

But there are lots of other variants.
Mon Sep 24 13:35:33

There is no reason we couldn't get Canada.

By calling for a customs border in the UK which NI does not want, the EU has already conceded the key point in the GFG - the principle of consent - which states constitutional affairs of NI must be supported by the majority.

I know people lapse into this romantic myth that NI is under the jack boot but the majority party there is still the DUP.

Mon Sep 24 13:42:22

All variants have the same issue if the EU insists as per Ireland's demand that the North remains in the single market.

It cannot be done.

So no deal.
large member
Tue Sep 25 01:20:27
It is becoming patently clear that the only possible outcomes from negotiations for any country leaving the EU is:

1. WTO norm
2. EAA (Norway)

There is simply no way to negotiate a comprehensive agreement in the 2 year window and extention will always run into barriers.

It actually makes sense.


The problem here is expectations.
Tue Sep 25 03:36:15

The only barrier to an FTA here is the NI border which is somewhat manufactured, and that acts as a barrier to WTO.

The leaving provisions are more of an ornament than a functional piece of law.

Hastily drafted by Lord Kerr to give the figleaf of a mechanism to exit the EU (partly to assuage Eurosceptics) and never intended to be used.

The UK would be better off if it had never been inserted into the Lisbon treaty.

The thing is, WTO exit is practically impossible in under ten years. And EAA is no exit at all - and would disrupt the EAA.

We need a more realistic timeframe for a divergence framework - the EU doesn't like it because it thinks it might give competitive advantages to a leaver - but the net result I think is to create either complete chaos or undermine the democratic legitimacy of the EU.

Because either people leave on WTO terms over a two year basis which causes damage to all concerned, or people remain when they would prefer to leave.

large member
Tue Sep 25 04:14:39
I meant a WTO baseline agreement with the EU. It will take the UK a long time to sort out its WTO position otherwise.

FTA with the EU take decades to achieve. I provided the link showing how long term those negotiations are.

The leaving provisions are what the UK used to leave.

The EAA is a natural stepping stone. The UK leaves the EU, signs an EAA and uses the mechanisms there to finalize Brexit in the form it wants and can achieve.

I think that is actually a pretty good procedural approach. Disengage politically, then negotiate within the framework of an EAA.

Not only for the UK, but for everyone wanting to leave the EU.

As an alternative to WTO terms. For actual pain in leaving unions. See virtually anywhere for historical examples (Even Norway's dissolution with Sweden had troops mobilized at the border).
large member
Tue Sep 25 04:26:40
I just don't see the logic in why current membership in the EU should be leveraged into securing special privilege after leaving the EU.

The pragmatic arguments counter each other (loss of growth potential is one reason, but rewarding countries for leaving as a bad thing is another)

But ultimately, that is up the EU members to decide. They can collectively change Article 50 to any mechanism they like.

Perhaps that is something the UK should have explored before invoking Article 50.
Tue Sep 25 07:57:51

In principle, an FTA for an exiting country should be relatively easy compared to other countries as you are starting from a very aligned position and both countries should, in principle, not want to raise tariff barriers.

Regulatory divergence may become an issue, but you could put in review triggers should these eventuate.

The downside for EEA though is then how to exit EEA, the fear from an exiting country is that the EU will seek two bites of the cherry.

"I just don't see the logic in why current membership in the EU should be leveraged into securing special privilege after leaving the EU."
In what way do you think I'm suggesting that? If so I think I may have not explained myself well or am overlooking something.

"Perhaps that is something the UK should have explored before invoking Article 50."
Yes. Brexit is inevitably bad, but it is being pursued in the worst way possible

large member
Tue Sep 25 16:04:06
I just think EEA is a great procedural stopgap.

1. Trigger Article 50.
2. After max 2 years EU membership reverts to EEA

The EEA functions as a placeholder until the leaving party and a qualified majority agree on a different format (with the leaving party always free to leave with notification and revert to WTO).

large member
Tue Sep 25 16:07:53
Though ideally the EEA article 102 should become a qualified majority.

Yah, that is what the UK should do. Go for EEA. Join forces with the other EFTA countries. Collectively ask for 102 to be changed to qualified majority.

Then go for the migration quotas or whatever the hell limitations on the 3 freedoms the UK wants.
large member
Tue Sep 25 16:09:21
According to Article 56 of the EFTA Convention, “any State may accede to the Convention provided that the EFTA Council decides to approve its accession. As regards further formal requirements, any new member state would have to apply to become a party to existing EFTA free trade agreements (Article 56(3)).”

The EFTA Council is the highest governing body of EFTA, where the four EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland – meet at ambassadorial or ministerial level. Each Member State is represented and decisions are taken by consensus.
Tue Sep 25 16:45:38
Far too sensible.

We need to don a bowler hat, three piece suite and do a silly walk off the White cliffs of Dover.

Hearteningly, Kier starmer just got a minute or more standing ovation at labours conference when he suggested remain should be an option in any peoples vote.

So I suspect Corbyns commissars shall send him to the gulags for political education tonight, and he shall be airbrushed from all photographs of the dear leader.

Nothing must get in the way of leaving the neoliberal blairite / socialista communist plot that is the EU.
large member
Tue Sep 25 19:57:44
heh, at least we put together some semblance of salvaging the wreckage we know as Brexit.

That the beatings must continue until moral improves is something we cannot influence.
Wed Sep 26 02:40:10
In all seriousness though, the problem with EEA is that brexiteers are rightly concerned it would become a trap: as hard to leave from as the EU itself, no influence, and no way back in if we wanted. The EU could easily keep is in orbit in perpetuity. Meanwhile the substantial volume of leave voters would see it as failing to deliver. Perpetual transition.

At a high level those are sound arguments that require a lot of detailed work to assure we are protected against.

Pretty much any brexit fails the "what's the point?" test though.
large member
Wed Sep 26 03:07:39
Brexit does fail on "what's the point" unless its all about self-harm.

EFTA does feel different than EU. We got it because we said no to the EU.

But the point would really have to be to renegotiate bits of the EEA along with EFTA partners.

You do get to negotiate your own trade deals. Its the migration quotas you would want to add to get what was promised for brexit.
Wed Sep 26 05:16:28

It won't feel different to brexiteers/leave voters:

We'd still have members dues (likely higher than now thanks to no rebate).

We'd still have freedom of movement.

We'd still have to comply with EU regulations.

The differences are not that fundamental.

"But the point would really have to be to renegotiate bits of the EEA along with EFTA partners."

Why would the EU agree to that? If anything, with the very large UK economy in the EEA, it will want to tighten alignment to the four freedoms as interpreted by the ECJ.

The sole benefit is to negotiate our own FTA's but I'm not really convinced this is an actual "thing". What Brexiteers (rather than leave voters) have come to realise they actually want from trade is to radically reduce the non-tarrif barriers as a means to reduce the costs to consumers.Unilaterally if necessary*.

This is a great idea in principle from an economic standpoint, but politically challenging to implement due to vested interests domestically, and is fundamentally incompatible with EEA membership.

If that's the principle benefit of brexit - EEA is ruled out. Hence Brexiteers focus on Canada.

The EEA would also need a customs border with Ireland now I think of it as it doesn't imply customs union. So you still need the fudge of chequers for this to be an option for the UK.

And EEA plus Customs union is basically EU membership.

*(which seems the wiser course frankly as we lack the weight of market size to get the big economies to change regulations, but if we showed this model was successful we would shift policy by example as we have in the past)
Wed Sep 26 05:20:46
While all Brexits are pointless, I think EEA membership is particularly obviously so.

The only thing that makes coherent sense is full exit and an FTA (even if we here all agree that would probably leave the UK much worse off, I appreciate someone who hasn't looked at the fundamental facts might believe it might allow an adoption of a model that would leave us better off).

The question is how you get there given Northern Ireland and the need to change 40 years of regulation, supply chain evolution etc.

I think EEA is initially soft, but I don't really think it avoids the cliff edge, only defers it.
large member
Wed Sep 26 07:17:37
"The European Economic Area (EEA) was established by the EEA Agreement, which entered into force in 1994. Its objective is to extend the Internal Market of the EU to the three participating EFTA States, creating a homogeneous European Economic Area. Currently, the EEA comprises the 28 EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States – Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway."

You do not have to be part of Schengen, so can have all the passport controls you desire.

You can make your own trade agreements with other parties.

I think the EU would favourably view aligning the EEA with Lisbon. Particularly 102 with 50.

You think Brexiters are basing their votes on substance?

The principle reasons are border control, making own trade arrangements and reduced transfers to the EU. You get 2 of three with EFTA and EEA.

The only thing that makes coherent sense from a EU perspective is full exit and WTO basis.

A cost for a hard border in Ireland and also - tariffs are not the big deal. The transfer of British industrial and financial bases to the common market is.

And that part is 0 sum.
large member
Wed Sep 26 07:21:13
Incidentally, you might want to look at a Turkish model.
Wed Sep 26 08:31:30

We are not in schengen now though - that isn't and has never been the issue in terms of control of borders. What the UK wants is to remove the automatic right for EU citizens to work and settle here. (I appreciate "control of borders" isn't accurate description of this, I'm afraid one adopts the nonsensical argot of brexit when immersed in it).

Yes, we can have our own trade agreements, but only if we are not in a customs union, which means a hard border. And in any case what brexiteers want is actually to change product regulations.

Brexiteers != leave voters. Leave voters are largely with guts, there are a caucuses of figureheads which have a specific vision of what they are trying to achieve. Broadly: get rid of all the annoying regulations that get in the way of them making a buck, and buy off the population by reducing costs of living.

Turkish model always seemed the more sensible half-way house but it also creates the problem for trade deals with third parties: if they have free access via Europe to UK markets for their goods (as we must align that way), why would they ever give better terms than what they offer the EU in any area?

But it probably makes more sense than EEA in some respects. Or if you were to think about a phased approach: EU > EEA > Turkey > WTO + FTA (aka Canada).

But you can see why Brexiteers would never trust that to happen so prefer no-deal or straight to Canada.
large member
Wed Sep 26 11:41:45
The voters wanted the UK to be able to control its own borders. That it might impact on EU migrants is could inferred, but not by much. That issue road the coat-tails of Syrian and Sub-Saharan Africans.

Schengen requires countries to streamline border control in specific ways. The UK more or less complied, but did it on its own terms for practical reasons (if it had less rigerous than Schengen, then border controls would have been aligned around the UK).

The mandate for leaving comes from voters, not from Brexiters.

But I am edging more and more into thinking the Brexiters might get their no-deal preferance.

I don't think that will impact to heavily on the EU. Though I will have to change my internet ordering habits from the UK to some other country we do not have trade barriers with.

I think Norway will end up with the same deal the EU has with the UK.
large member
Wed Sep 26 11:42:22
Wed Sep 26 15:04:25

Again, you need to understand that "control our borders" is not what voters of that ilk say on the doorstop.

What they say is "there's all these foreigners coming, and they get first dibs on housing benefit, they jump the queue, and our bob is still on the waiting list. And he can't get no job, they hire them foreigners instead. They take the best jobs. they come here for our benefits right, and they send their benefits home, so there's none left of us right? and all the shops are in polish, I just want my country back, is that so much to ask?".

"Control our borders" is the polite way of saying "kick out all the foreigners and don't let them in".

Immigration as an issue goes back to the huge polish migration when the accession countries joined and the UK was the only big country not to put immigration caps in for the first 7 years.

We've taken what? 2000 Syrians?

When people complain they don't recognise the shops on the high street, well the ones (outside of a very few districts in London) they are talking about all say "Polski Sklepp".

No deal will impact very heavily on specific parts of the EU. E.g. for Ireland, it may actually be worse than for the UK immediately and in the medium term (UK can make asymmetric moves like waiving import regulations).

Systemically, no deal has the potential for some truly horrible financial turbulence all around because of the way many contracts would be voided as I understand it, and the legalities will be harder because of the way EU structures work than for the UK. The UK has already said what it will do, whereas the Commission has made no central provision and instead tried to make companies hedge against it - preferably by moving - most haven't and the EU's ability to make quick movements without breaking it's own laws is limited. And if it breaks said laws, it undermines some of the Euro's structures and generates moral hazzard so I'm told.

In security terms, the EU loses the bulk of anti-terror, sanctions and other intelligence led capability. The UK provides the bulk of the signals intelligence etc. that underpins this - and I don't think the UK will conduct a side agreement on that if we are in the middle of an acrimonious dispute where we are struggling to import food and energy.

Overall, the economic effect may be small to the EU in the medium term (provided the systemic shock doesn't cause some kind of crash), but one area overlooked is that the UK public is probably more prepared for pain, whereas the affected segments of the EU are totally unprepared to be taking an economic beating - so it will probably drive some degree of populist animus there.

Basically, no deal is a very real possibility (I think the EU has wrongly concluded that the UK will never let that happen - which is the mistake of the run up to WWI all over again); and it's going to be horrendous for everyone, even if the pain in quantitative and qualitative terms is worse for the UK.
large member
Wed Sep 26 15:36:55
Border control meets the threshold of keeping the referendum promise is my point.

I don't see the high impact on Ireland beyond a hard border. And the border is what is stopping meaningful agreement. I checked the trade data.

If leaving the union means contracts will be voided, then a FTA will not stop that.

Moral hazard? Heh.

I think the EU is pretty clear that any agreement hinges on a borderless Irish island.

large member
Thu Sep 27 07:16:12
"The Labour leader is travelling to Brussels alongside shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer for the talks.

It comes after he told his conference he would back Theresa May if she proposed a "sensible" deal that kept the UK in a customs union with the EU.

The PM has repeatedly ruled this out.

After Mr Corbyn's conference speech, shadow international trade secretary Barry Gardiner told ITV's Peston the offer to Mrs May was genuine and the party would "bend its red lines" if she did too."
Thu Sep 27 08:31:24

Ireland's financial system is heavily intertwined with the UK which goes tits up badly.

The BoE's point of view is that a treaty (and not anything about passporting) that specifies how contracts that would otherwise be voided works.

If there is no deal, then there is no coordinated action, so you end up with contracts one party can consider voided and the other doesn't - it all gets messy.

Yes, the only deal the EU appears to want to accept is one where NI is in a customs and regulatory union.

Which the UK will not ad politically probably cannot accept.

I think this is foolish position for the EU. It is unusual to attempt to impose such a thing, and the GFA is quite clear that for the UK to impose such a deal on NI would be a violation of the GFA.

And in the absence of the UK agreeing on this point, the default is that the thing the EU doesn't want happens anyway.

Labours position continues to be fantasstically immature.

large member
Thu Sep 27 09:02:54
How exactly. Ireland is not the one losing passporting rights, but beyond that, financial services are highly globalized and not subject to tariff or border controls.

What is inmature about wanting a customs union? Or a new election?

I really don't understand why contracts would be voided and I seriously doubt EU courts would hold that position. I also doubt UK courts would.

The EU can wait out the UK I think. Let it feel the pain of a mangled depature, then figure on the UK doing the EFTA and AEE after the next election.

The UK has dealt itself a crap hand.

large member
Thu Sep 27 09:06:32
Ah, you are talking about financial asset contract continuity.

There is no way in hell that will remain unsorted.
Thu Sep 27 09:36:49
Fun fact,
Syrias are now the second largest (after Swedes) ethnic group in Sweden, overtaking Fins.
Sam Adams
Thu Sep 27 09:43:08
Rip sweden
Thu Sep 27 10:39:28

I don't know the details, but there are a lot of peple jumping up and down all of a sudden in my financial friends circle.

"What is inmature about wanting a customs union? Or a new election?"
Their position is all over the place. It would take a long time and cover how their position has evolved over the last few months to explain it properly.

The short version is first they were clear they were going to knock down any deal to get an election - on the basis they would then start an exit negotiation from scratch on the basis they could do a better deal than the Tories (though their proposed deal was pure Cakeism).

Then they said they would votea against whatver happened even if it meant no deal and a castrophe, in order to get their GE.

Then they adopted a position that seemed to be gauranteed to push TM into a harder brexit or no deal - essentially allied themselves to ERG.

Yesterday they seemed to be moving towards the sensible option: to push for a referrendum with remain an option. Now they are holding out the option of supporting TM in a soft brexit.

Combined with Corbyns complete botching of the anti-sematism thing, the overall impression is they are every bit as obsessed with managing their own party and totally uninterested in the national wellbeing, and as cack handed as the Tories.

I genuinely have no idea, were I to vote for them, what they would do. I have no idea how they intend to vote when the vote comes.

And if they are daft enough to table a "no confidence" ammendment to the vote on the deal (the only way to get a GE) rather than a simple rejection and instruction to hold a new referrendum, it will almost gaurantee that TM will win that vote.

And if they vote in support of May, they get a soft brexit, with no point to it at all, but no GE. So that's just fucking stupid because a huge chunk of their activist and voter base hate brexit on principle and will likely punish them as a result (cf. Lib Dems and tuition fees).

The only sensible thing politically and philosophically is a new referrendum vote. It's really not this hard. Labour is being run by fucking idiots.

"The EU can wait out the UK I think. Let it feel the pain of a mangled depature, then figure on the UK doing the EFTA and AEE after the next election."

What would be the point? We'd have felt the pain then, and sunk cost falacy would have sunk in. Once out, especially acrimoniously, why go for EEA over an FTA? Business will have gone, the financial industry will have moved as much it is going to move, supply chains will be well into re-configuring; and a huge fraction of the population would blame Europe and many of the political leadership will be blaming Europe.

How's that going to work politically?

Just as it is one thing not to sign up to maastricht and a very different thing to try and leave ten years after, so I think once we have actually left and suffered a year of pain, rejoining is very different from regretting leaving.

The path for a Breturn can only be a properly managed exit into EEA.

"There is no way in hell that will remain unsorted."

Might be, I'm rather busy with the job change so was doing stuff on my phone the last time we had drinks. The gist of it (and there was something in the FT a few weeks ago), is that the BoE have basically said "yeah, we'll issue instructions to fix all of that centrally" but the EU have tried to make people sort it out themselves and/or relocate, but they have left it too late to be able to do much now and they don't think the ECB will be able to do it without breaking the law.

show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share