Political Mudpit
Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?
Page 90 of 113 First ... 40658081828384858687888990919293949596979899100 ... Last
Thread: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?
May 26, 2019, 05:28 PM #1781
Daruwind
Re: Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?
Funny part would be, if UK will get no deal scenario without actually asking for it. Missing some EU deadlines or something....
And there will be somebody new by Autumn. Only problem will be, what he will tell the EU....starting anews after 3 years and a few missed deadlines? And this time you trully wish to go this road and would implement it and so...?
Last edited by Daruwind; May 26, 2019 at 05:31 PM.
Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg
I think i'm being a bit slow this evening. I'll see how you answer Aexodus's question mate. But essentially rejoining the single market after 'leaving' is deemed by some factions of leavers to be 'no brexit at all' (Boris and co for instance and the ERG as well as Farage and the Brexit party). Thus though if as you've said, that joining the single market- like Norway is, isn't being 'part of the EU', there is an issue here, and it highlights just how myriad the position of leave is.
Likewise, if being part of the single mark still constitutes 'having left the EU' as i've argued and as you stated about Norway yourself, (as Norway is not an EU member, but is is part of the single market)- then negotiating to leave the EU with a deal that keeps the UK as part of the single market, is also actually leaving, as the UK no longer is a 'member state' of the EU, but merely a state with single market access- thus we have 'left the EU' but with a negotiated treaty- which is exactly what leavers and remainers who do not want 'no-deal' want.
No. What I have done is accepted what Jom said, which was that the single market part of EU policy, and that Norway is in the single market without being in the EU. See posts 1749-53
Was Jom being misleading when he said those things?
I have also said:
You can leave the EU, and then negotiate for trade deals and that you don't have to be in the EU to negotiate a deal.
Last edited by Infidel144; May 26, 2019 at 05:53 PM.
Originally Posted by Infidel144
You won´t escape a lot points of withdrawal agreement, not talking about future trading agreements...like UK will be still same island near coast of France with borders and problems in Ireland. Only difference will be, you will be negotiating from position of outsider who cause a lot of damage...
A Place of Greater Safety
Originally Posted by Settra
I must have missed the new extension. But if there still is half a year why was May "fired"? Isn't it kind of stupid to bring in someone new when you have a decent deal on the table?
Sad to have that sack of baldricks leeching off our taxpayer money for another 5 months though. Anti-EU party members be should banned from receiving pay checks from EU institutions.
I'd have thought it was obvious that the majority of Parliament doesn't actually think that the deal is decent, hence why it has been defeated several times.
And you need to represent all political beliefs: some people will have voted anti-EU parties in order to hopefully promote some kind of reform in the EU.
Patron to Lord Mov, Azog 150, JaM, Lord William, Grouchy13
"For what it's worth: it's never too late to be whoever you want to be. I hope you live a life you're proud of, and if you find that you're not, I hope you have the strength to start all over again."
Dante Von Hespburg
Sloth's Inferno
Civitate Magistrate
No. What I have done is accepted what Jom said, which was that the single market part of EU policy, and that Norway is in the single market with out being in the EU. See posts 1749-53
No Jom is spot on there, as indeed i've said too. The single market is part of EU policy, but you can be a member of the single market, but not be part of the EU (As Norway is).
Thus 'leaving' the EU, does not mean just 'leaving' as you implied mate, it means we attempt to leave as we have been doing- in two parts- the 'Withdrawal agreement' which is Britain leaving and then afterwards phase two of the negotiations is that over what type of future relationship we have with the EU. They happen straight after the other. The idea being that by the time we 'leave', we walk straight into our future role (be that a customs union, May's deal or Single market access) without any 'delay' that would cause economic disruption.
Its why with this in mind i'm not sure what you meant by 'leave means leave', when we are leaving but negotiating as we have been 'access'/our future relationship with the EU is part of leaving in a sensible way, and one that some factions of leavers are for, with other factions not wanting the UK to negotiate anything, but simply leave with 'no-deal'.
You don't have to be within the EU to negotiate a deal indeed, but leaving without one, even Farage, Boris and co admit will have short-term economic consequences. So if you want to then negotiate a deal, you may as well do it before you leave and save citizens pointless set-backs. Not to mention a UK coming back to the EU to negotiate post-leaving will actually be in a weaker negotiating position than before we've left. So for the UK it makes sense that if we wanted a deal (which the government currently do, Labour do and various leave voters do) we negotiate that and sort it prior to us actually leaving. Daruwind essentially has it spot on here indeed too.
EDIT: And to bring this around to talk of a confirmatory vote or second referendum or whatever. The reason behind this is that there is no clear political plan going forward- there is no majority for 'no-deal' (indeed as i watch the British EU election results, if you had the brexit party and Conservative vote share together vs Lib-dems, Green, SNP and Chuck- its fairly even- and indeed if we assume most Labour voters are remain/follow Corbyns policy- which is customs union/second referendum and indeed seems likely after tonight for Labour to go 'full remain', it actually makes things very interesting. So there is no one clear path forward that would A) be acceptable to all factions involved and B) be sustainable currently. Hence why we're rather stuck and can't simply 'leave' as i mentioned previously- that course of action would likely see the UK under Labour implementing their own policy (which is currently a customs union, but is now likely to be 'remain' in the EU if some of their front bench comments are anything to go by).
It goes back to both remain and leave failing to build sustainable positions through compromise (and their counterparts inability to compromise- from internal factions and the 'other side', now of course i'm not for an instance saying these factions shouldn't fight there corner, but they should not be surprised if as i suspect will happen, the chance of what some deem a 'true' brexit is lost due to the Brexit party splitting the Conservative vote share at any soon GE), and worse it might continue thus until 2022 if the brexit that happens fails to satisfy a solid majority (Spoiler- with the increase in polarization, its almost certain that a solid majority will be dissatisfied).
Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; May 26, 2019 at 06:08 PM.
House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable
Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby
ep1c_fail
Originally Posted by Jom
Or makes it very easy to see exactly what they want to happen...
When a political party publishes a broad manifesto covering a wide range of social, financial, international and constitutional issues, it becomes much more difficult to know which parts were specifically attractive (or not) to voters.
Hindsight is always 20/20.
It is, but you claimed these people were not a fault for the "ill-conceived" nature of the referendum. Clearly they are.
In the Roadmap to a People's Vote the authors discuss multiple referendum options:
Unless the proposal to hold a confirmatory referendum without a remain option has the support of prominent Parliamentarians then it's a non-starter. The probability that Cable, Soubry, Watson et. al would offer their backing to an election which didn't include their preferred option is unlikely in the extreme.
Seems you're in the minority then.
Even if that's true, I'm not entirely sure why it's relevant.
So you don't have any proof.
The Europhilic elite (of which New Labour politicians were enthusiastic members) irrevocably lost my trust when, after having being defeated in major referenda in France and the Netherlands, they simply cancelled prospective continent-wide elections (including one in the United Kingdom), re-branded their failed constitutional settlement as the "Lisbon Treaty" and forced it through the European Parliament. That the basis of the European Union's current settlement is based on an act of democratic vandalism should be evidence enough that the arch-remain political class are not to be trusted.
Last edited by ep1c_fail; May 26, 2019 at 09:42 PM.
And yet EU is waiting and time is ticking for UK to decide. The default option sooner or later is no deal scenario and it might happen as Eu cannot force UK into extension and I quess with time it will be harder and harder for EU27 granting the same extension over and over. And EU cannot even cancel the question, UK activated article 50...Uk alone has power to stop it (yet). It is like voage of Titanic, we know the story we cannot pause the invevitable scenario...
Ok i really don't want to cross-contaminate, but two key things brexit related-
1) Voter turnout has been as i suspected, shockingly poor in the UK. The EU average is 51%, in Britain its only 38% according to the daily mail (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...urnout-38.html). We thus can't as i think most of us spotted at the beginning take this to mean any kind of actual 'referendum' as both remain and leave are pushing for, considering its nowhere near the turnout of the actual referendum. Essentially this is mostly the 'hard-core' of both sides. I'm actually rather shocked its so low.
2) The EU elections more broadly- it seems the Euro-Skeptic surge hasn't happened in remotely the same sweep as predicted. I've been keeping one eye on this: https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ories-may-live
Which goes into details about wider European results, but it seems in most places, pro-parties are 'winning' the seats, more-over the Euroskeptic parties that are in are coming from the left and not the right. So its an interesting dynamic, and i'll need to look into if the 'rise of the right' has either stalled, or is limited to certain states.
What this has to do with brexit? It appears there will be no divided EU parliament of any real significance that might be a voice for the UK during brexit (or that the UK could use to divide the EU).
Originally Posted by Daruwind
Indeed, i think ironically it might end up being (if we remove the internal UK politics aside) the EU who essentially just (fairly i'd add) has had enough and gives us the boot. I know the EU are prepared to give a further extension if there is a meaningful 'GE', which is i suspect why Labour and some Tory moderates have indicated they may try and force one if any new PM tries to pull the 'Hard brexit' leaver.
EDIT: As i think everyone kinda expected- BBC right now remain, Brexiteers and 'Labour' are all arguing over different mandates and interpretations from the EU elections. Brexit Party- that this is a clear message to leave, while the Remainers are pointing out that lib-dems and Greens together in many areas are equal or outnumber the Brexit party share, and if Labour is added indeed its a 'remain' approach that may happen now, then a very different picture emerges... the big question going forward will essentially be, not what the Tories do, but what Labour does according to this rhetoric. All of this of course on my earlier point that UK voter turnout has been crap for such a 'big' event . So take from it what everyone will i think.
Settra
the Imperishable
Content Emeritus
Nehekhara
Parliament is functionally retarded in that case. You got a better deal than anybody else would have gotten.
Under the patronage of Squid Girl. I am here, click me!
Aexodus
Persuasion>Coercion
Before the referendum, leave campaigners openly said they wanted to leave the single market:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politi...endum-36270203
In the past week, Leave campaigners have confirmed that they would not want to remain part of the single market by signing deals similar to Norway or Switzerland.
They say that because of the strength of the UK economy and the need for EU countries to continue trading freely with the UK, Britain would be in a very strong position to get a deal that exempted the UK from free movement and single market regulations while allowing free access to the single market.
Because the UK already complies with single market regulations, a UK-EU free trade deal on goods may be fairly straightforward.
But the UK's service sector is about 80% of our economy and the City of London dominates financial services in the EU. In the negotiations that would follow a British exit from the EU everything would depend on the deal the remaining EU members wanted to cut.
And the Remain campaign insists the EU would demand the UK accepts free movement and common regulations in any deal that provides single market access.
We do not know what the outcome of such negotiations would be - it is one of the biggest question marks hanging over this referendum.
Before the referendum, the customs union specifically wasn't talked about at all, but there was heavy emphasis on the leave side about the EU striking it's own trade deals and representing itself at the WTO. This, in my opinion, indirectly references the Customs Union.
The Leave campaign rejected a Norway, or a Switzerland style agreement. I understand that a Canada style deal with a free trade agreement was their preferred option.
http://voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_trade.html
Britain lacks the power to strike free trade deals with its trading partners outside Europe. Being in the EU means that Brussels has full control of our trade policy. We don't even have an independent voice in the World Trade Organization – Brussels negotiates everything on our behalf and does a bad job… If we Vote Leave, we can negotiate for ourselves
The above, the UK striking its own trade deals, is clearly directly related to leaving the customs union.
The UK Treasury wrote a pre-referendum analysis of Brexit, stating:
https://assets.publishing.service.go...ership_web.pdf
…a common external trade policy is an inherent and inseparable part of a customs union...
...The customs union allows for the removal of routine customs controls within the EU Single Market, supplementing tariff-free trade. With the exception of Turkey, all the alternatives involve leaving the customs union. The effects of this would apply immediately on exit...
...Imports to the EU from outside the customs union, which include imports from the non-EU EEA member states, are required to comply with EU customs procedures. These would apply to the UK if it left the EU.
THE FAILURE OF THE 'SINGLE MARKET'
The 'Single Market' is a poor substitute for having control over trade policy. Single Market rules include disastrous regulations such as the Clinical Trials Directive that badly delayed the testing of cancer drugs. 'Single Market' rules control how we build schools and hospitals adding billions to costs and favouring huge multinationals over small and medium sized businesses. Even on the Commission's most optimistic figures of its benefits (which should not be believed), the costs of its regulations are higher.
The above confirms that the leave campaign based Brexit on leaving the EU political organistaion, and the economic parts of the EU such as the Single Market and Customs Union. Again and again leaving the single market and having an independent trade policy are mentioned.
Last edited by Aexodus; May 26, 2019 at 06:45 PM.
Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
Originally Posted by Cyclops
Makes me think when I share my porridge with Cyclops Jnr every morning what I'm really doing is celebrating twin genocide-by-replacement events. "The oats represent the Borging of Mesolithic Europeans, the milk is for the Yamnaya rapist-warriors, and the salt is the tears of their victims. We add honey at the end because screw the bees, right?"
QuintusSertorius
EBII Hod Carrier
Turnout in the UK election is the second highest we've had. European elections usually have low turnouts here, most people just don't care under normal circumstances. So spare me the attempts to argue this is unrepresentative because the turnout is "low" compared to other countries.
Labour's fence-sitting strategy has proven to be an utter failure. If they break to Remain, they could lose up to 40% of their base (the 5 million Labour Leavers), and would also have to contest the Lib Dems as the main party of Remain. If the Conservatives don't break to a proper Leave stance, they're toast too.
Last edited by QuintusSertorius; May 26, 2019 at 06:51 PM.
Originally Posted by Aexodus
I appreciate the work you've put in here mate +rep when possible, but i'd just point out this:
https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was...on-referendum/
Customs Union- was not referenced really, and was implied arguably. So i disagree with your point on that. In regards to the single market, there was enough confusion around the issue (though indeed it was not straightforward) to mean that a 'clear-line' is a stretch. Also the simple point i mentioned earlier, it doesn't really matter about the referendum campaigns as it was not a binary arena and things have developed and indeed what voters believed is different (Again i know brexiteers who are pro single market, and again look at the Norway example, but also we have brexiteers now arguing that we should leave the ECHR, which is nothing to do with the EU, so go figure).
Just to highlight the confusion- here's the issue with the brexiteers and the single market- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY
If you have several figures giving interviews who are ok with the single market, there's an issue there that needs to be resolved and of course it will create multiple factions. This is why i think its a strech to advocate leaving the EU means leaving parts of it that you do not have to be an EU member to be part of essentially. That their exists contrary information from other brexiteer supporters dilutes the message somewhat.
The common base denominator- do you have a say in how the EU runs makes far more logical sense in my view at least.
Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius
Turnout in the UK election is the second highest we've had. European elections usually have low turnouts here, most people just don't care under normal circumstances. So spare me the attempts to argue this is unrepresentative because the turnout is "low".
Not what i said at all. I'm comparing it to the actual referendum turn-out, which is shockingly low considering the issues discussed (I don't think anyone for a second believes this is comparable to an average EU election) and that this has been made a 'brexit' referendum. Moreover as expected, all sides are spinning this and interpreting the mandate as they will, take up sparing you with them, especially as remainers and leavers haven't really bothered to turn up to what was billed by both sides as essentially a second referendum (if we're to follow the Brexit Party and Lib-dem/Green rhetoric).
It depends on what polls your asking honestly here, i think going too far either way would be silly strangely, as if Labour go 'brexit' they potentially lose the majority, especially the 'core vote' they currently have relied on for movement. For instance here we can see they'd gain more than they'd lose going for a 'remain' position
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...pean-elections
However, its far better not to lose either bunch/lose as little as they can from them. So i suspect either a second referendum as a compromise with remain voters may be on the cards, or they carry on as current and hope to outlast brexit.
The issue being again, according to most Westminster voting intention, Labour just needs to carry on as is. FPTP protects them (And makes the brexit parties life incredibly difficult in gaining seats, much as UKIP who had similar EU success found, particularly when we add in the issues of a domestic manifesto being required that would see the left and right combined support for the brexit party start to disintegrate depending upon the path Farage took), however the brexit party in any snap GE will be enough to eat up the Conservative vote share, which ironically might see Labour in power. So it'll be interesting to see if this essentially means the Conservatives try and stave off a GE as long as possible now, or if indeed their own 'moderates' might force them into one to bring down their own government rather than a so-called 'hard brexit'.
Essentially translating the EU results to a GE is fraught with difficulty as the UK isn't exactly the most open and democratic country compared to other democracies, as UKIP previously found. The Conservatives have a major institutional advantage that prevents them from being 'toasted' easily, even if in terms of vote-share they should be well on the way to being nicely heated currently.
So why is there no such explanation on paper lower? Then again it is not my problem...but there should be at least some papers with a few details. Some FAQ, notes, remarks... Or was there any explanatory acompanying papers? Monster manual, players handbook, dungeon masters guide to brexit? ..
EDIT: have anybody checked the back side of the thing????
There was actually a voting guide sent out by the electoral commission in which the leave campaign said they would leave the single market and allow the uk to have an independent trade policy.
Thanks! Have no idea about that before!
Ok two things chaps, firstly @Aexodus- here is the confusion over the single market personified -
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44532288
The polling on it since brexit has essentially had neck and neck voters wanting to 'end freedom of movement' (I.e. leave the single market) with those who want single market access. The same is true when voters polled if controlling immigration is more important than trade- its very close. Only a few percent difference depending on time asked. Hence its not simple to then discount single market access (Though again i can see the arguments indeed from all sides here).
Second thing: The EU election results are in fully, Scotland and N.Ireland will do there's tomorrow. But here's the results for England and Wales:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-eu-parliament
THE GREAT VOTE SHARE DEBATE:
Look at the vote share. Now i hope we can all see the issue
The Brexit Party has stormed as everyone said they would- 33% of the vote share. They are arguing quite fairly, they are tonight's winners. However, look at the vote share of certified 'remain' parties who campaigned on a remain platform (i.e. Lib-dems and Greens, you could also add the SNP here i guess tomorrow). They have also stormed. Their vote share is 32% combined. Add Change UK (though frankly Change UK were slaughtered as expected) and its 35%. In this context the 'Remain' group are also claiming victory as they too have had a good night. The UK is essentially just as polarized and stuck as it has been, while you could argue this shows a percentage swing to 'remain' overall, i don't think so, its too small to be significant. I think (and this is where voter turnout is important @QuintusSertorius) the reality is not much has changed since the original referendum (as again voter turnout here has been poor by comparison). Thus both remain and leave are indeed on tricky ground trying to use this as a 'clear victory' for themselves.
In fact its essentially i would argue a draw for the Remain-Leave groups, and a failure for the UK in trying to find a clear way forward.
What's more with Labour on 14% and the Conservatives on 8%, how do we divide up these guys? I'd argue you can't really as the Conservatives who voted Conservative did so perhaps mainly in support of May's deal as opposed to wanting 'no deal' (prior to her leaving), While Labour represent both sides and tried to ignore Brexit essentially.
So polarization remains and victory is quite fairly i think claimed by both the 'hardcore' sides of leave and remain.
The big story is essentially the same as the local elections, the big two parties took a pounding to the benefit of the smaller guys. But again i emphasize i don't think remain or leave should make the mistake of trying to translate this directly across to a GE, where the big two have all the advantages and are under FPTP protection (plus the myriad of issues a GE throws up domestically, a 'brexit' GE completely failed last time as it was shifted into the domestic sphere very quickly). So i'm going to say, we're essentially going to see brexit business as usual going forward. This might act as an extra club for the next Conservative PM to be a brexiteer, however this also comes with its own set of Tory polarizations and issues as previously discussed.
EDIT: According to the polling company 'Europe Elects' my figures are off...
...which i refuse to believe, then i notice their counting smaller parties like Plaid Cymru which might explain the difference:
Remain parties: 40.4%
Hard Brexit parties: 34.9%
Conservatives/Labour: 23.2%
https://twitter.com/EuropeElects/sta...683712/photo/1
Which again, is a close picture (comparatively in terms of actual meaning). The debates will rage around if 'one party' is better than many- however these are kinda moot, as much like the Conservatives traditionally enjoy, their is only 1 party supporting a 'hard brexit' (the Brexit party), while remain are indeed split across several. So again i don't think there is a mandate here to be had, but i'll find it interesting watching the remain and brexiteer MP's and parties try and spin this to suit there needs.
I will say one thing though- Labour and the Conservatives have until now essentially pursued a 'compromise' strategy over Brexit. However from the 38% at least who came out to vote, compromise is not popular. We have a clear majority for the two 'extreme' positions (Remain vs 'Hard brexit'). There is no easy middle ground from these results at least for parties to tap into moving forward regarding brexit. I think its safe to say that my point about sustainable brexits is now rather confirmed . There has been no successful gather of support, that 40% Remainers or 35% Leavers will go along with. This is not great for UK politics healing over the long-term.
Carmen Sylva
Palace of Neuwied
Brexit Party has in reality mainly absorbed UKIP and partial Tories. I can't see that they win the majority, its still tie break.^^
Only out of curiosity: Is nobody in worry, that because of holy Brexit British Steel is going bankrupt?
UK is already having bad economical impact and nobody cares?
Christ was crucified, Socrates was poisoned, Phidias was accused of theft - it is almost an honor to be abused by contemporaries.
Carmen Sylva (1843 - 1916), actually Princess Elisabeth Pauline Ottilie Luise zu Wied VA (Royal Order of Victoria and Albert), German writer and lyricist, by marriage Queen Elizabeth of Romania
Proud Non-Citizen / Unschuldsengel / My Mods
I really don't see the logic in adding up all the remain and leave parties and treating it as a referendum.
Well i did try and say way back we shouldn't use this as a proxy for brexit, but everyone insisted (The current MP's, Tory candidates, Farage and co as well as the political commentators)
Essentially everyone is adding up the remain and the leave parties, and leaving out Labour and the Conservatives. For the BBC's Curtice, it comes to a dead heat of 35% each (Though he's leaving out the SNP as he notes).
It does highlight as i've mentioned just how polarized British politics has become over brexit, with the 'compromise' parties taking a hammering. (Again this will not translate to a GE outcome- i want it known i said this way before Laura Kunesburg got in there with it in that link ). But while its rather useless indeed as a referendum on vote share (hence my point about how low it was earlier), it will inform somewhat what the Conservative and Labour parties now do, both in terms of strategy (Corbyn has just again implied a second referendum could be supported), and for the Tories in terms of candidates- they have more to lose through ignoring the polarization than Labour does, the question is though, in trying to meet it, they might split their own party.
But you just agreed with QuintusSertorious that Norway is an 'associate member' of the EU. See posts 1776-77