International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Non-USA & General Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Continuation Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks... (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=333345)

Tolls 15th November 2018 08:30 AM

Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...
 
I asked this elsewhere on the interweb, but has the PM ever alluded to No Brexit (ie Remaining) as an option before?
Because she did last night:

"This deal, which delivers on the vote of the referendum, which brings back control of our money, laws and borders, ends free movement, protects jobs, security and our Union; or leave with no deal, or no Brexit at all."



Mod Info
Thread continued from here.

You may quote or reply to any post from that or any previous section of this thread.
Posted By:zooterkin

Michel H 15th November 2018 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erwinl (Post 12503315)
No. Then it is not ratified and thus not legally binding.

Well, a treaty has to be ratified, but does a "deal" have to be ratified too? Doesn't the government have some freedom to run the country (particularly in the UK system)?
I found this, on the website of the Daily Express (date: October 8, 2018):
Quote:

Michael Gordon, professor of constitutional law at the University of Liverpool, believes Mrs May would face a number of possible outcomes if MPs were to reject the agreement she returns to the Commons with.
The Prime Minister could face a no confidence vote, which would trigger a general election if an alternative government cannot be formed within 14 days.

EU diplomats believe the biggest chance of a no-deal Brexit would be brought along by Mrs May being ousted from Downing Street.

When the Prime Minister released her controversial Chequers proposal, European capitals recommended high profile figures not to torpedo the plans in order to preserve Mrs May’s position.

According to Mr Gordon, another possible outcome for Mrs May’s deal being voted down by MPs would be a second referendum, while another vote would infuriate Brexiteers it is unlikely possible to create the required legislation in time for March 2019.
(link: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...ons-Parliament )
Many politicians in the House of Commons seem to be against the deal, but there seems to be some support from business and Union leaders. So I am not sure Brexiteers are in a terribly comfortable position.
Note: I saw Captain Swoop's and Darat's posts after I wrote this one.

Lothian 15th November 2018 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12503353)
It doesn't need to be 'ratified' but if the PM tries to go ahead without parliament there will be an election.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12503355)
PM can sign any treaty, it's part of the sovereign powers.

I think you will find it is more complicated than that.
LINK

lomiller 15th November 2018 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHrozni (Post 12503110)
The gist of it is that UK remains in the EU, it needs to follow all the EU rules but without having a seat at the table when making them. British financial industry will no longer have the position it has within the EU and UK can't make new trade deals until both parties agree on a different kind of future relationship, sometime in the future.

I'm not an expert on the matter, but it seems to me the EU got just about everything it could possibly want from UK and UK got shafted in just about every way it could get shafted.

If Theresa May is trying to stop Brexit then she really did go all in with this one.

McHrozni

IMO it was an nearly inevitable outcome. I have no horse in the race myself, but there seems to be a huge disconnect on the Brexit side of things with the way sovereign independent nations actually work. Itís almost as if the pro Brexit crowd canít understand that that if the UK leaves the EU the EU has no choice but to treat them as a non-EU country.

I canít imagine the EU would ever agree to sign away any of itís sovereignty in a Brexit deal, nor is there any good reason why it should. This means that among other things: No non-EU country (as the UK would be post Brexit) is going to have say in making rules/regulations for the EU. The EU was never going to allow a non-EU country the type of influence over the EU banking system that the UK had within the EU. The EU was never going to allow the UK to act as a staging g point that could be used to bypass itís borders, trade agreements and regulations.


The first two would be non-starters. On any Brexit the UK would be immediacy an outsider wrt financial systems and decision making bodies. Full stop. The third has some alternatives beyond just staying in the EU. Have a hard border with the EU where each sides trade, product and customs rules could be enforced. Develop comprehensive trade and/or customs agreements between the UK and EU. Agree to follow EU trade, product and customs rules until one of the above could be established.


With no trade/customs deal in place and a refusal to have a border the 3rd option, follow all EU rules without having a say in making them, is the only option left. Itís a terrible option for a country whose goal was independence from the EU but having rejected all other options itís all thatís left.

jimbob 15th November 2018 01:49 PM

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1...260918784.html

Worth a read

One tweet from that which won't get autocensored:

Quote:

LIDINGTON: Suella Bravernann has gone
MAY: Okay seriously you made that name up
LIDINGTON: I didn't!
MAY: Who's next? Willie Dustice?
LIDINGTON: She's real! I swear!
MAY: Sure. Has Dwigt Rortugal gone yet?
LIDINGTON: Look! She's on Wikipedia!
MAY: That's not a valid source, David
Quote:

MAY <on phone>: I hear you're planning another pizza party
GOVE: <dry hissing>
MAY: How you do think I know?
GRAYLING: Hello!
GOVE: <sound of wet tentacles>
MAY: I propose an alternative: Be My Brexit Minister
GOVE: <ghoulish wail>
MAY: Think about it Michael this could be your chance to prove everyone wrong
GOVE: <wet clicking>
MAY: Brexit Secretary. They'd HAVE to admire you
GOVE: <subdued wet slapping>
MAY: They'd have to love you then, Michael. The people, they'd have to respect you
GOVE: <demonic purr>
Quote:

LIDINGTON: Rumours about Chris now. Shall I...
MAY: Grayling Grayling Grayling
GRAYLING: Hello!
LIDINGTON: I was going to call him.
MAY: The curse is quicker. Chris have you been speaking to Gove again?
GRAYLING: Um... No?
MAY: You're covered in ichor, Chris
GRAYLING: Okay yes.
MAY: What did Gove say to you?
GRAYLING: It sang a song, straight into my brain. Like sugar, sorrow and power intertwined. Through it all, one world resolved: 'resign'
MAY: Oh Jesus. Gove got to you.
GRAYLING: Also it gave me pizza
MAY:
GRAYLING: It was Hawaiian
MAY: Sweet mercy

Vixen 15th November 2018 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12503748)
IMO it was an nearly inevitable outcome. I have no horse in the race myself, but there seems to be a huge disconnect on the Brexit side of things with the way sovereign independent nations actually work. Itís almost as if the pro Brexit crowd canít understand that that if the UK leaves the EU the EU has no choice but to treat them as a non-EU country.

I canít imagine the EU would ever agree to sign away any of itís sovereignty in a Brexit deal, nor is there any good reason why it should. This means that among other things: No non-EU country (as the UK would be post Brexit) is going to have say in making rules/regulations for the EU. The EU was never going to allow a non-EU country the type of influence over the EU banking system that the UK had within the EU. The EU was never going to allow the UK to act as a staging g point that could be used to bypass itís borders, trade agreements and regulations.


The first two would be non-starters. On any Brexit the UK would be immediacy an outsider wrt financial systems and decision making bodies. Full stop. The third has some alternatives beyond just staying in the EU. Have a hard border with the EU where each sides trade, product and customs rules could be enforced. Develop comprehensive trade and/or customs agreements between the UK and EU. Agree to follow EU trade, product and customs rules until one of the above could be established.


With no trade/customs deal in place and a refusal to have a border the 3rd option, follow all EU rules without having a say in making them, is the only option left. Itís a terrible option for a country whose goal was independence from the EU but having rejected all other options itís all thatís left.


The UK has invested a lot in the EU. It is owed consideration and a duty of care. It shouldn't have to pay a £39bn divorce bill, or have to be locked into a euphemistic 'backstop'. The EU is acting like a truculent spouse who resists the separation.

Lothian 15th November 2018 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12503938)
The UK has invested a lot in the EU. It is owed consideration and a duty of care. It shouldn't have to pay a £39bn divorce bill, or have to be locked into a euphemistic 'backstop'. The EU is acting like a truculent spouse who resists the separation.

No the EU is happy to separate and have a hard border, the UK is insisting on no border that means there must be a customs union or a means of working out what is crossing the border.

The UK is acting like a husband who post divorce wants to still live with his kids when his wife has been given custody. That can only happen if he stays in the same house as his ex. It is not that his ex won't let him go, it is just that is the only way he can get what he wants (live with his kids) without the ex giving up her rights to custody.

dudalb 15th November 2018 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greebo (Post 12503168)
And Ester McVie

Remind you of a Queen song?


Another one bites the dust

That song is also being referenced in regard to GOP House members who are losing their seats....

p0lka 15th November 2018 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12503938)
The UK has invested a lot in the EU. It is owed consideration and a duty of care. It shouldn't have to pay a £39bn divorce bill, or have to be locked into a euphemistic 'backstop'. The EU is acting like a truculent spouse who resists the separation.

The UK used to have a veto, good job brexiters.

The Moog 15th November 2018 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12503938)
The UK has invested a lot in the EU. It is owed consideration and a duty of care. It shouldn't have to pay a £39bn divorce bill, or have to be locked into a euphemistic 'backstop'. The EU is acting like a truculent spouse who resists the separation.

The UK has benefited a great deal from being in the EU, now that you decided to quit you don't get to demand to keep all the benefits...

Vixen 15th November 2018 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lothian (Post 12503951)
No the EU is happy to separate and have a hard border, the UK is insisting on no border that means there must be a customs union or a means of working out what is crossing the border.

The UK is acting like a husband who post divorce wants to still live with his kids when his wife has been given custody. That can only happen if he stays in the same house as his ex. It is not that his ex won't let him go, it is just that is the only way he can get what he wants (live with his kids) without the ex giving up her rights to custody.

EU is like an ex-husband giving the ex-wife the matrimonial home - which was hers all along and bought with her money - but demanding it be partitioned, with one section cut off from the rest but demanding the same amount in domestic rates for the entire property.

Vixen 15th November 2018 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Moog (Post 12504038)
The UK has benefited a great deal from being in the EU, now that you decided to quit you don't get to demand to keep all the benefits...

In which way?

Captain_Swoop 15th November 2018 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12504056)
In which way?

Export to the common market. Lots of free trade treaties qwith the rest of the world, weight of the European economic power when it comes to negotiatiing international treaties ...

Amazer 15th November 2018 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12503938)
The UK has invested a lot in the EU. It is owed consideration and a duty of care. It shouldn't have to pay a £39bn divorce bill, or have to be locked into a euphemistic 'backstop'. The EU is acting like a truculent spouse who resists the separation.

Lol... the UK is owed consideration and a duty of care? Whatever gave you that quant notion?

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

Ian Osborne 16th November 2018 03:36 AM

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...ictureid=11948

Darat 16th November 2018 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazer (Post 12504141)
Lol... the UK is owed consideration and a duty of care? Whatever gave you that quant notion?

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

Because we are about to become a basket case!

Amazer 16th November 2018 05:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 12504621)
Because we are about to become a basket case!

Become?

Archie Gemmill Goal 16th November 2018 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12503938)
The UK has invested a lot in the EU. It is owed consideration and a duty of care. It shouldn't have to pay a £39bn divorce bill, or have to be locked into a euphemistic 'backstop'. The EU is acting like a truculent spouse who resists the separation.

It doesnt have to be locked into a backstop. It can have a border with the EU just like the Ukraine does. But it doesn't want that. It wants to have all the benefits of an open border with none of the responsibilities of one.

Earthborn 16th November 2018 06:30 AM

"We want to take control of our own borders! Except for the one place where we actually have a border; there we want no border at all.

Why can't you make that happen, EU? Why do you always have to make things so difficult, by applying rules we insisted on for the past 40 years?"

BobTheCoward 16th November 2018 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12504657)
It doesnt have to be locked into a backstop. It can have a border with the EU just like the Ukraine does. But it doesn't want that. It wants to have all the benefits of an open border with none of the responsibilities of one.

And what is the objection to that?

Archie Gemmill Goal 16th November 2018 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12504687)
And what is the objection to that?

That the EU would never accept such a proposal and therefore it is somewhat stupid to make it both a key aim of your negotiations and a fundamental promise to the people who elected you.

Strawberry 16th November 2018 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12504687)
And what is the objection to that?

It undermines the integrity of the Single Market and Customs Union and would also put both the EU and the UK in breach of WTO rules.

lomiller 16th November 2018 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Moog (Post 12504038)
The UK has benefited a great deal from being in the EU, now that you decided to quit you don't get to demand to keep all the benefits...

Nor should the UK expect to be able to just walk away from the costs it created for the EU.

lomiller 16th November 2018 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vixen (Post 12504054)
EU is like an ex-husband giving the ex-wife the matrimonial home - which was hers all along and bought with her money - but demanding it be partitioned, with one section cut off from the rest but demanding the same amount in domestic rates for the entire property.

So Ireland ďbelonged to the UK all alongĒ, huh? Iím pretty sure the Irish have a different view on that.

The EU is demanding that there be a border between itself and a foreign country. Save for cases of comprehensive customs and trade agreement thatís how independent countries work. If you didnít want that you shouldnít have insisted on being independent before such an agreement could be put in place.

BobTheCoward 16th November 2018 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal (Post 12504724)
That the EU would never accept such a proposal and therefore it is somewhat stupid to make it both a key aim of your negotiations and a fundamental promise to the people who elected you.

I'm asking why the EU would never accept the proposal.

ETA: let m rephrase. Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

Dave Rogers 16th November 2018 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12504857)
I'm asking why the EU would never accept the proposal.

If the border is open, goods can flow freely either way across it, and therefore regulatory standards can only be enforced on either side of the border if they're enforced identically on both; otherwise, goods that violate the regulations on one side only of the border only can cross to that side from the other freely. The EU holds the enforcement of regulatory standards to be crucial - this is well known to all parties in the discussion - and therefore it's clear that the EU will not accept an unregulated border with the UK unless all EU regulatory standards apply to the UK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12504857)
Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

The EU negotiators clearly appreciate that this is the EU reasoning, and have never advanced a coherent counter-argument to it. The problem is that a large segment of the UK population, who are not competent to understand the relevant issues, are demanding that the EU abandon its principles and do exactly what the UK wants, a stance that has never been and will never be realistic.

Dave

3point14 16th November 2018 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12504856)
So Ireland ďbelonged to the UK all alongĒ, huh? Iím pretty sure the Irish have a different view on that.

To the point where much blood was spilled and you can probably even now write a dissertation on it.

You'd think people would know that...

Archie Gemmill Goal 16th November 2018 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12504857)
I'm asking why the EU would never accept the proposal.

ETA: let m rephrase. Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

it undermines the single market, the principles of the EU and the whole point of being in the EU.

I believe he UK negotiators know this but through some mix of 1) having to go along with it even though they know it will never work because that what they promised and 2) Pig headed hubris that leads them to think the EU might give way if they just hold firm they simply continue to try to avoid the unpleasant facts.

Or to put it another way the EU may be willing to cut off it's nose to spite its face to avoid losing it's arms and legs but the UK is simply doing it for fun.

Mid 16th November 2018 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 12504558)

Typical EU, missing the fire off Wales :p Although at least they included it on the map this time :D

Lothian 16th November 2018 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12504857)
I'm asking why the EU would never accept the proposal.

ETA: let m rephrase. Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

Another example. Mr Trump currently is putting America first and whacking on high tariffs on some EU goods. The EU has responded with its own tariff increases. Clearly the EU will not be happy if goods with a high EU Tariff can come to the UK on a lower tariff and then travel into the EU via the open Irish border. That is why the EU is insisting that an open border needs either identical tariffs or a yet to be developed system of recognising when goods cross the border without involving any physical checks.

Similarly Trump will not be happy if to get round his protectionist policies EU cos can send goods to.the UK over an unchecked border and on to the USA on a preferential rate. Basically the open border has to be tied to a single customs area. You can't have one without the other. The UK will not be able to strike any new trade deals until it closes the Irish border or until technology develops.

Captain_Swoop 16th November 2018 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mid (Post 12504973)
Typical EU, missing the fire off Wales :p Although at least they included it on the map this time :D

Wales isn't a country though.

:boxedin:

lomiller 16th November 2018 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12504857)

ETA: let m rephrase. Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?

Itís not just a requirement on the EU side. Realistically itís a requirement on the UK side as well and at least some of the UK negotiators probably understand this. This is why the deal they came back with was inevitable.

The problem appears to be that Brexit supporters themselves donít understand why itís needed on the UK side let alone why the EU demand it. They want the UK to have control over its own borders, but they also donít want any border controls enforced. This is clearly nonsensical and contradictory but instead of looking at the situation reasonably they seem to be just pointing fingers and saying ďwe could have both if the EU would let usĒ

Lothian 16th November 2018 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mid (Post 12504973)
Typical EU, missing the fire off Wales :p Although at least they included it on the map this time :D

They should have put an English House on the map of Wales. It would soon turn into a fire.

quadraginta 16th November 2018 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12505094)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mid (Post 12504973)
Typical EU, missing the fire off Wales :p Although at least they included it on the map this time :D

Wales isn't a country though.

:boxedin:


Wales is permitted to warm its hands at England's fire.

(Well, they were when it was burning Welsh coal.)

BobTheCoward 16th November 2018 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12505126)
Itís not just a requirement on the EU side. Realistically itís a requirement on the UK side as well and at least some of the UK negotiators probably understand this. This is why the deal they came back with was inevitable.

The problem appears to be that Brexit supporters themselves donít understand why itís needed on the UK side let alone why the EU demand it. They want the UK to have control over its own borders, but they also donít want any border controls enforced. This is clearly nonsensical and contradictory but instead of looking at the situation reasonably they seem to be just pointing fingers and saying ďwe could have both if the EU would let usĒ

If there was different predicted probability of risk, that would be a perfect opportunity for the UK to insure the EU. But if they both acknowledge the alternative is bad, you really can't do that.

fagin 16th November 2018 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12505161)
If there was different predicted probability of risk, that would be a perfect opportunity for the UK to insure the EU. But if they both acknowledge the alternative is bad, you really can't do that.

Wut?

dudalb 16th November 2018 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12505094)
Wales isn't a country though.

:boxedin:



Try Telling the Welsh that.........

dudalb 16th November 2018 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by quadraginta (Post 12505159)
Wales is permitted to warm its hands at England's fire.

(Well, they were when it was burning Welsh coal.)

"Men Of Harlech, Stand Ye Steady"...

Lothian 16th November 2018 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 12505094)
Wales isn't a country though.

:boxedin:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dudalb (Post 12505292)
Try Telling the Welsh that.........

Walles isnwt y cwllwntwy thwogll

Vixen 16th November 2018 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lomiller (Post 12505126)
Itís not just a requirement on the EU side. Realistically itís a requirement on the UK side as well and at least some of the UK negotiators probably understand this. This is why the deal they came back with was inevitable.

The problem appears to be that Brexit supporters themselves donít understand why itís needed on the UK side let alone why the EU demand it. They want the UK to have control over its own borders, but they also donít want any border controls enforced. This is clearly nonsensical and contradictory but instead of looking at the situation reasonably they seem to be just pointing fingers and saying ďwe could have both if the EU would let usĒ

I get that when one leaves the Golf Club, you should no longer expect to enjoy its benefits.

However, in the unique case of the UK, there is a Good Friday Agreement in place in respect of Northern Ireland and its borders. The EU know that the unionists don't want to interfere with this sensitive issue, and of course the intention is not to let goods and terrorists (the Manchester bomber came to England via Dublin and crossed the border that way) evade the customs and border checks.


It's not reasonable to tie the UK to the EU for an indefinite spell because of this unique political issue.

As with the Golf Club, a former member could still be allowed to park in the Golf Club forecourt as long as he is not taking the p!ss.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2015, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.