• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tolls

Philosopher
T
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
5,229
Location
UK
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."




Thread continued from here.

You may quote or reply to any post from that or any previous section of this thread.
Posted By: zooterkin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
erwinl said:
No. Then it is not ratified and thus not legally binding.
Click to expand...
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):
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.
Click to expand...
(link: https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...atest-Theresa-May-House-of-Commons-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.
 
Last edited:
McHrozni said:
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
Click to expand...

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. It’s almost as if the pro Brexit crowd can’t understand that that if the UK leaves the EU the EU has no choice but to treat them as a non-EU country.

I can’t imagine the EU would ever agree to sign away any of it’s 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 it’s 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. It’s a terrible option for a country whose goal was independence from the EU but having rejected all other options it’s all that’s left.
 
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1062983853260918784.html

Worth a read

One tweet from that which won't get autocensored:

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
Click to expand...

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>
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
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. It’s almost as if the pro Brexit crowd can’t understand that that if the UK leaves the EU the EU has no choice but to treat them as a non-EU country.

I can’t imagine the EU would ever agree to sign away any of it’s 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 it’s 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. It’s a terrible option for a country whose goal was independence from the EU but having rejected all other options it’s all that’s left.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
The UK used to have a veto, good job brexiters.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Lothian said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
In which way?
Click to expand...

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 ...
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...
Lol... the UK is owed consideration and a duty of care? Whatever gave you that quant notion?

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk
 
picture.php
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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?"
 
The Moog said:
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...
Click to expand...

Nor should the UK expect to be able to just walk away from the costs it created for the EU.
 
Vixen said:
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.
Click to expand...

So Ireland “belonged to the UK all along”, huh? I’m 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 that’s how independent countries work. If you didn’t want that you shouldn’t have insisted on being independent before such an agreement could be put in place.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
I'm asking why the EU would never accept the proposal.
Click to expand...

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.

BobTheCoward said:
Do the UK negotiators think the EU reason is well founded, or do they think the EU is wrong about the consequences?
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
So Ireland “belonged to the UK all along”, huh? I’m pretty sure the Irish have a different view on that.
Click to expand...

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...
 
BobTheCoward said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ian Osborne said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=885&pictureid=11948[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Typical EU, missing the fire off Wales :p Although at least they included it on the map this time :D
 
BobTheCoward said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
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?
Click to expand...

It’s not just a requirement on the EU side. Realistically it’s 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 don’t understand why it’s 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 don’t 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 “we could have both if the EU would let us”
 
lomiller said:
It’s not just a requirement on the EU side. Realistically it’s 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 don’t understand why it’s 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 don’t 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 “we could have both if the EU would let us”
Click to expand...

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.
 
lomiller said:
It’s not just a requirement on the EU side. Realistically it’s 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 don’t understand why it’s 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 don’t 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 “we could have both if the EU would let us”
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom