World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Brexit - ciao Britain? She doesn't go anywhere
It’s chaos only in Parliament the real country is sick to death of the subject. We voted out 2.5 years later we still aren’t.Overwhelming majority of MPs though are Remain except approx 100 from all parties who want out
The PM failed multiple times and various ex-Ministers have stated she refused to listen to anyone but her civil servant main negotiator who like her also is a remainder.
Now we come to votes and there is no majority for the deal, for no deal, or remain. Current legislation is leave with No Deal on 29th March because that has already been voted through
2nd Referendum is proposed but has no legislation to enact it and that would also need to get through Parliament. Unclear what would be asked and what outcome might be. UNder some transferable voting system with preferences.
Yes - Leave
No Stay in
Yes Leave but PM’s deal
No think again
Delay
Straight yes - leave, no - out with no deal I.e. re-run is deeply unpopular and current polls still show tight result.
If we had such a referendum would we then have a best of 3 run off
Now to negotiations or lack of them - EU has long history of not budging until last second and also trying to reverse referenda it does not like (Ireland, France, Netherlands)
Personal view is that we started from No Deal and should have looked to negotiate from that position. Instead current Divorce - PM (And another failure) negotiated form lets pay a divorce settlement first without deciding who got custody or share of assets or even what visiting arrangements applied
Appalling leadership, lousy negotiating tactics but she’s still PM but has no hope of getting her deal through Parliament unless EU moves on Backstop - that might and only might get a majority in Parliament to accept it instead of current No deal
EU today has said no so - who knows what will happen
If Philip is right, you leave on March 29 with no deal and no preparation for no deal. All the stories about chaos are also lies, UNLESS inept politicians make it come true. There is actually no driving reason for border inspections. You don't have them for goods now, so why change? AS for illegal immigrants, you have the means to get rid of them. yes, you will need to change border controls sooner or later for efficiency, but if March 30 turns up and you haven't got around to it yet, well, so what? The sun will still come up on March 31, and April 1 for that matter. The only problem is that with no deal a real possibility, the idiot politicians have seemingly made zero preparation for it.The argument about trade with Europe is silly. Your goods going to Europe will have to meet EU rules - just as goods coming to the UK have to meet UK rules. Exporters in all countries know they have to meet these sort of rules. The EU won't get spitefully stupid because the UK actually has a trade deficit with the EU. The whole issue reminds me of the "Millennium bug". The world did not self destruct on January 1, 2000.
Philip wrote: "It’s chaos only in Parliament the real country is sick to death of the subject. We voted out 2.5 years later we still aren’t.Overwhelming majority of MPs though are Remain except approx 100 from all parties who want out..."
Who could have thought of such a scenario? As sometimes happens, the reality is more bizarre than fiction
After the Parliament rejected the deal, looks more like breaksit now. Seeing Britain's struggling and allowing for different aftermath scenarios, some other countries may just start to realize that they are "trapped" forever
After reading a BBC analysis, I think "No Deal" is looking more likely. There are apparently legal requirements for another referendum, including consultation as to the nature of the question, etc, and the required time would take it past March 29. Further, unless there is a clear majority in parliament for something, the exit happens on March 29. Can anyone see that bunch coming to a clear majority? From what I can make out, Corbyn refuses to get off the fence and say what he would do about Brexit because many of his electorates are the ones that voted for it in the referendum.I have no real idea what the average British public thinks (if there is such an entity) other than I imagine there is great disappointment with the performance of politicians. Corbyn might want an election, but even that takes time, and he can't have one with this hanging over the nation without his coming out and saying clearly where Labour stands, and he shows no sign of doing that. Added to which, the thought of unemployment might sharpen a few politicians minds, so (and here is a big neck stuck out) I think Corbyn will lose the vote of no confidence. (Are many eggs coming at face??)
Ian wrote: "After reading a BBC analysis, I think "No Deal" is looking more likely. There are apparently legal requirements for another referendum, including consultation as to the nature of the question, etc,..."Well Corbyn lost that farcical attempt and now he has refused to join other party leaders in discussions with the Government. Nothing has changed. The legal position remains that the UK will leave on 29th March with no deal. Parliament actual approved that and would have to reverse that decision to get any deal.. Both main parties 550+ of the 650 MPS stood on manifesto promises at the last Gen Election (2017) to honour the referendum result. Unfortunately many of these have decided they don't want this. Their way of fudging the issue is to demand a second referendum. The last one took nearly 2 years to organise. It requires a further Act of Parliament. Approval of the question/questions and then organising and conducting and still no one knows if the outcome would be any different. If it is do we have a best of 3 decider?
Meanwhile the EU continues the same approach it always does. No compromise, no change, and ignore democratic will unless it fits in with EU bureaucrat viewpoint. i.e. they have ignored that a democratic Parliament has overwhelmingly rejected the deal. You have Macron and others pushing UK to stay - in because they cannot believe the UK might not want that.
Meanwhile the EU is clinging to the deal that can't now be accepted because it guarantees money for many years. The UK has never really used the money as a real bargaining chip - very late in the day to do so, but the EU without the UK has a major budget challenge even if this deal had passed.
What's next - no one knows but I go back to my legal position unless the UK Parliament passes an Act of Parliament cancelling Article 50 notice the UK leaves on 29th March
Ha! My face remains egg-free, at least for the moment :-) What I don't understand is why someone does not demand Corbyn actually comes out and states clearly what he wants. Maybe I have missed the attempts, which, bearing in mind where I live, would be quite probable if people had tried.As Philip says, there is actually a decision on the table because it has been passed by parliament. My personal view is all this talk about chaos is silly. There is no need for border checks. For the financial part of things, adjust the VAT rules - everything that is sold gets VAT. As far as people go, let them come and go, but they cannot work without registering, and if they are illegal, get rid of them when they try. Checking agricultural goods for disease, etc, should be no more difficult than it is now. Viruses will not suddenly change because the UK decides on Brexit. Of course it will be difficult, but if it is chaotic, it is the politician's fault. In my opinion anyway.
Ian wrote: "Ha! My face remains egg-free, at least for the moment :-) What I don't understand is why someone does not demand Corbyn actually comes out and states clearly what he wants. Maybe I have missed the ..."The no-deal option has stated this repeatedly but there is the political elite view in nearly all institutions in favour of EU membership including TM current Prime Minister. They don't want to leave regardless. The majority of MPs seem to have this view regardless of the mandate they ran on in the last GE.
Philip wrote: "The no-deal option has stated this repeatedly but there is the political elite view in nearly all institutions in favour of EU membership including TM current Prime Minister. They don't want to leave regardless. The majority of MPs seem to have this view regardless of the mandate they ran on in the last GE. .."Do some of them want to dress it as exit, but essentially remain?
Nik wrote: "Philip wrote: "The no-deal option has stated this repeatedly but there is the political elite view in nearly all institutions in favour of EU membership including TM current Prime Minister. They do..."Yes - this is the Norway option i.e. in Single Market accepting freedom of movement and jurisdiction of ECJ. All rules come from EU but no voting rights. Seems like worst of all worlds. The biggest issue with the deal blocked by Parliament is is left the Irish Backstop in place requiring mutual agreement to remove permanently and treated Northern Ireland as different from rest of UK. All EU had to have done was state Back stop lasts maximum time until 2023 as an example. UK wants trade deal with EU which should be really easy given total alignment now. But Backstop meant that EU could negotiate forever on trade deal. meanwhile to add to conspiracy theories lead EU parliament negotiator from Ireland is Sinn Féin member who want United Ireland as do main Irish government. The backstop gives EU "control" of NI and treats it differently from rest of UK or official title United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Major issue for DUP supporting the Conservative minority Government and many many Conservative MPs.
The basic problem here is the EU wants to prevent further breakup of the EU, so it is going to make it as unpleasant as possible for the UK to actually leave. The whole key to any effective negotiation is you have to be prepared to say you will walk if the other side does not make reasonable compromises. The Norway solution is really not a exit at all. The ability to restrict movement and not defer to the EJC are critical to leaving - if you do not have those, you haven't left.If Tess really wants to leave, she should have made each member declare publicly where they stand, and prior to the last GE, tories that refused to stand up and state what their position would be to the public and promise to act that way should have been refused to stand for the Cons. party. Then challenge Corbyn to do similarly. Challenge Corbyn to tell the people of the UK exactly what he stands for.
Ian wrote: "The basic problem here is the EU wants to prevent further breakup of the EU, so it is going to make it as unpleasant as possible for the UK to actually leave...."First - unpleasant, next - tanks -:) I imagine if say - Hungary or Czech wanted to leave, there would be a very 'modest' bill they get
My feeling is if Hungary decided to leave, they might reject the "modest" bill.
That's exactly when the tanks come into play
If Hungary is a member of NATO, would tanks from other European countries trigger US intervention? The treaty suggests so, and I can't see Europe managing a satisfactory response to the US
Not sure inside NATO conflagration would trigger a US intervention. Greece vs Turkey sort of demonstrated that
Not sure Germany would want to see the "Wehrmacht" on the move again either.
The Brexit saga rumbles on - we still haven't left. 29th March got delayed to 11th April. No one in Parliament seems capable of compromise except pushing their own position endlessly. More votes than in some general elections.More concerning is the effect on democracy - now the UK may have to contend an EU parliament election on 23rd May. The 12th April date is when all candidates have to be nominated to the EU Election officials.
Macron is spinning a 5 year extension and the remainers continue to push for another referendum to approve a deal. All whilst hiding the EU's and their wish to reverse the previous referendum as per the Irish referendum a few years ago. Macron is also running scared on the EU elections for the rise of the right and the impact of the Yellow Vest protests.
Meanwhile a 'no deal' is now banned by UK parliament vote but part of EU law - so no one knows. Even a Government minister stated this morning that it was law - not seen an Act of Parliament to that effect but maybe it slipped through in some of the worst reporting i have ever seen. The Media need to take a long hard look at themselves. Some facts would be helpful. e.g Article 50 voted for by 498 votes to 114 in March 2017 the Act receiving Royal Assent on 17th March. This set the date as 29th March. A short extension to 11th March was agreed by Parliamentary Secondary legislation (House of Commons only no Royal Assent) on 27th March. The bill against no deal was passed by one vote 321 to 320 on Wednesday 3rd April. It is now in the House of Lords until Monday before returning to the Commons possibly Monday and if not rejected by the Lords. Then for Royal Assent - if approved. Not sure what that does as EU has to agree any further extension although UK can withdraw Article 50 notice completely -so a pointless piece of political theatre that fixes nothing but keeps TV screens running.
No deal for EU means an immediate cessation of budget payments to the tune of £38b. This is why the EU want the divorce agreement commonly known as the withdrawal bill agreed. The failure by the British government to use this bargaining chip still amazes me. The Irish backstop issue could be resolved if the EU wanted to in an instant by agreeing a future trade relationship. It is the absence of such a relationship that mean the backstop is needed (or not dependent on opinion) The Eu has refused to discuss a future trade deal until the withdrawal deal is done. Like refusing to discuss the future of the children until the decree is absolute.
What an utter farce but the potential backlash on political parties is concerning.
Philip wrote: "The Brexit saga rumbles on - we still haven't left. 29th March got delayed to 11th April. No one in Parliament seems capable of compromise except pushing their own position endlessly. More votes th..."Absolutely, Philip. I couldn't agree more.
Trying to take the No Deal option off the table by law - an imperative bargaining tool - is irresponsible. Considering it was originally agreed upon in Parliament, they all seem to be meandering into a chaotic mess. In the end, we will have to pay for their blundering.
The whole affair and the disgusting behaviour of those who should know better are setting an appalling example to current and future youngsters and our country's long-respected reputation lies in tatters on the world stage.
Yep, Britain seems bogged down in politicking & politizanship, turning into farce indeed. Initiated without meaning this outcome by Cameron, it became mission impossible for so called people's representatives and the executive branch. Obviously, somebody's able and empowered to get things done is missing, and the limbo just gets more ridiculous. Someone who can make it "Great" again?Unwittingly, the name of the thread became prophetic...
As I see it, the UK parliament does not decide the outcome. I had not heard it passed a "no deal" bill, but even if it did, it has legally stated to the EU it is leaving. There have been extensions suggested, but basically the EU position is there are three only options: remain, the May deal, which is agreed by the EU, or no deal. As I understand it, "No deal" was not permitted to b voted on in the "four option" vote because Bercow stated it was the default position, so it cannot be ruled out.In my view, a further referendum to approve a deal is stupid because there is no deal to approve, and in any case, a stupid deal that nobody wants or remain is merely a trick by the remainers. I agree the "No deal" option should have ben presented to the EU more forcibly. You should get something back for £38 billion. Also, the Irish backstop issue is, in my opinion, easily overcome. There is no need for border hassles. If the Irish keep crossing the way they have, where's the damage? Ireland is not an obvious stopping off point for refugees, and you can over a few weeks set up a system to stop that if it were to become a problem. It is all degenerating into a farce, when the "remainers", by trying to screw the exercise up, could very well end up with their worst option possible.
It is anybody's guess what will happen now.
In my morning newspaper today (8th April) there was an item stating that May is trying to get some unspecified (secret??) deal with Jeremy Corbyn to get the softest possible Brexit through (it suggested following all EU rules but no voting rights, which seems to me to be the most stupid outcome of all, but maybe the article was wrong) AND to put in some block by law that a future parliament could not overturn it. Which raises a question: in the UK can one parliament pass law that no future parliament can overturn? I am tolerably sure that cannot be done here, because the next parliament is sovereign, but I know not about the UK.
I've been following the votes in the British Parliament. Their inability to understand how weak the British position really is seems to have cast the die for a very hard Brexit. Between the relatively small number of British manufacturers that are owned by British nationals and the number of hedge funds that are shorting British banks, a recession is almost inevitable. I'm mostly wondering if that economic downturn will help Corbyn become PM.
MY guess is if Jeremy can't get rid of the tories after this, he is a loser. The Tories have made such a mess of it. The one saving grace is the Labour members have been all over the place too.
Ian wrote: "In my morning newspaper today (8th April) there was an item stating that May is trying to get some unspecified (secret??) deal with Jeremy Corbyn to get the softest possible Brexit through (it sugg..."Parliament is sovereign and can rescind previous laws as it frequently does. One issue with ECJ and EU is preventing such behaviour or insisting what laws are passed often with little or no democratic debate.
As for Jeremy he has spent his political life voting against the EU until he became leader. Both main party manifesto pledges in 2017 promised to uphold the 2016 referendum result; however, several hundred of those MPs have decided they don't want that, or not decided, or some of them have decided as long as it's their own version. The Conservatives explicitly made it clear there would be no customs union and yet that appears the most likely.
Shambolic...
The newly formed 'Brexit,' party has gone berserk in the polls.https://finance.yahoo.com/news/brexit...
Will the UK be represented in Brussels by a bunch of Brexiteers?
Good strategy for a brexiteer - whatever else Brussels needs, a bunch of noisy disrupters is not one of them, given the agitation going on in a number of other EU countries. It may very well fore Brussels to kick the EU out with no deal rather than give additional time. Whether it is good for the UK is another matter, but at least they have an intelligent and coherent strategy. The UK politicians, on the other hand, seem to be all at sea. They have been given about three months, from memory, and as far as I can see, they have wasted at least a month of it.
I'm wondering how many affluent DNC supporters are quietly pushing a hard Brexit. If our British cousins muck it up badly enough the economic consequences will be severe and contagious. Going by the quality of the announced Democratic candidates, an economic downturn just before the election might be the only thing that can unseat Trump.
Almost sounds like a conspiracy theory :-) It is hard to know how severe the economic consequences will be because it is almost certain that trade will continue between the UK and the EU, however if there is one thing we have learned over recent years, it is that whatever downturn appears, it becomes contagious. My guess is that is because too many carry too high a debt burden, and they can't help themselves from trying to cut their losses. An easier way to get rid of Trump would be to select a good candidate. With a country that big, they must have one lying around somewhere.
Politics is so destructive, any quality candidates we might have just don't want to do it. The destruction of one's reputation is not worth it, that's why we get so many people running for high office without any character to begin with...
J.J. wrote: "Politics is so destructive, any quality candidates we might have just don't want to do it. The destruction of one's reputation is not worth it, that's why we get so many people running for high off..."That's sort of depressing, but I can understand it. Anyone who wants to be a politician is a different sort of animal.
Oops, sorry sir. I'll try not to do it again :-)
Now we've just had a ridiculous EU election in UK electing 73 MEPS to go back to Brussels (approx cost £150m). 35% turnout is pathetic but not surprising given state of politics. Result Brexit party formed 6 weeks ago with 32%. Lib Dems (Pro remain) in 2nd with 20%
Lots of rubbish combining variations of votes to show that overall the country believes their own opinion based on zero fact.
No one knows why someone voted a particular way.
Labour, the official opposition lost ground. The Conservatives (allegedly the government) lost even more. The Greens increase (they are remain but for Green)
In reality not all Greens are Remain, not all Conservatives are leave. Labour are all over the place and even the former director of comms for Tony Blair, Alistair Campbell stated he voted Lib Dem because he was remain and he did not know what his own party was for. UKIP was destroyed (by Brexit party it is presumed)
Scotland voted SNP but full result not in. Northern Ireland have not started counting yet and Wales voted Brexit number 1 party
In parliament we'll have a new Prime Minister soon. The rest of the arithmetic stays the same. Impasse. Next deadline 31st Oct
I have no idea what will happen.
Philip wrote: "I have no idea what will happen...."The most honest comment on the internet today. Well done.
Neither do I. (Shakes head in perplexity).
Philip, I would give a reasonable probability that the UK will leave by Oct 31, probably with no deal. The reason - Boris Johnson has said he will leave then if he is PM. If he gets to one of the last two, one of my other English friends rates him a shoe in (i.e. to avoid him, he has to be knocked out earlier). The point is, no deal and out is the default position, and by then the EU will be sick of this whole business. I think that also Boris is a man who wants to get things done. Whether they are the right things is another matter, but whatever else happens, if he gets to PM he will not want to be bogged down with more of this Brexit business. He will want to finish it.As to why people voted the way they did, the whole EU election was a bit of a farce for Britain. They have voted to leave, they are in a stew as to how to leave, but whatever else, voting for MEPs would strike many as either so irrelevant they wouldn't bother voting, or if they did, they would throw their vote at some irrelevant candidate, as a protest.
From the EU perspective, again, Farage etc is at worst a pest because the UK seems to be going. More serious is that in many of the other countries, there were big drifts to either the Greens or the far right. It is the centre, with the established politicians, that are getting hollowed out. I think that is serious for the EU, and is a big vote of no confidence in the EU Commission, who, of course, are unaffected by the voting. The question then is, will the Commission adapt to the vote of no confidence, and if so, how? Or is the EU experiment about to collapse?
I don't believe the EU Commission is capable of adaption - hence collapse to some other form of the EU.
It was the lack of reform, the ever closer union agenda, and the underlying corruption that drove the UK to vote out in the first place.Remainers continue to claim that immigration was the reason and perhaps it was for some but they miss the point.
The rise of the Greens also reflects society's concern with real big picture stuff i.e. the fate of the planet. Big increase in Germany and UK from 2014. This has been claimed by Remain as support for that cause. I believe it is wider than that.
The Netherlands appears to have bucked the trend for movement left and right after several recent elections where the right appeared to be gaining.
Italy, Spain showed the same hollowing out as UK.
I also compared this EU election with 2009. The movement for Lib Dems can then be seen in context. In 2014 they were badly hurt (as they were in the 2015 General Election) by association with the coalition government and in particular the internal to UK position on Tuition fees. They won 13.3% then and 20.3% this time - a 7% increase. In the 2010 General election they won 22% and the 2015 Gen Election only 7.9% - more a recovery to normality in the longer term.
Brexit did not exit then let alone a party that has just won 32% of the vote. The then exit party UKIP won 16%. Labour in Gov under Gordon Brown in 2009 won 15.2% compared to 14.1%. Conservatives now in Gov (just) won 27.4% compared to 9.1% now. The Greens won 7.8% in 2009 up to 12.1% this time.
Turnout then was 34% and this time 37%
Not quite the sea change being described by Remain (for Lib Dems) or Brexit.
From what I understand, the EU parliament really is not that important because the Commission is the one that has most of the power. If so, then protest votes are easier to make. I have always thought the Commission is far too inflexible and far to prone to add in more bureaucracy.
Well, maybe now Britain will go somewhere-:) Congrats to Boris! To me - a likable dude. Will he be a successful PM? The time will tell. But what do you think?
My guess he still has a dysfunctional bunch of politicians who don't seem to agree on anything. Can he rope them in and get some order? Who knows, but what most seem unable to comprehend is that come Oct. 31, he does not have to do anything to leave - the EU can simply accept the leave notice.
The preferable option is still an agreement, but not fearing its absence can be a good starting point for renewed negotiations
Nik wrote: "The preferable option is still an agreement, but not fearing its absence can be a good starting point for renewed negotiations"Indeed. In any negotiation, if you are not prepared to walk, the opposition, on detecting your weakness, will simply get everything they want and you gt nothing you want.
Ian wrote: "Nik wrote: "The preferable option is still an agreement, but not fearing its absence can be a good starting point for renewed negotiations"Indeed. In any negotiation, if you are not prepared to w..."
This was fundamental issue with current agreement - EU got what it wanted because they never believed UK would just walk taking money with them.
Despite the agreement being rejected 3 times by UK Parliament (Democracy in action) EU still insists that this is the only agreement. They still believe publicly and privately that UK will reverse its decision. They support calls fro a new referendum and offer the opportunity to stay. Basically, and sounding crass I know, they need the UK's money to pay for all the EU projects.
As I said get the popcorn in as the new PM from statements seems very keen to call the EU's bluff.
My guess an amended agreement but more likely further delay.
Britain is (soon will be was) a major net contributor of funds to the EU.REF: https://www.statista.com/chart/18794/...
7B Euros in 2017.
Will opt for beers instead of the popcorn. Unlike my impractical curiosity, I'm sure there are nations watching how it'll play out with practical interest of maybe pulling out after the UK. As soon as internal contradictions surfaced, EU doesn't look as monolith as it used to be, although there are countries that still aspire to join it.
The countries that aspire to join it tend to wish to do so because they believe they will get more from it than they put in. There are not that many net donors. My guess is Italy will at least make threatening noises. My guess is also that if the EU thinks that if they draw it out long enough Boris will yield they may have him completely wrong. I think he is as likely as not to pull out before October 31 if the EU pushes too hard. Me, I vote for both beer and popcorn :-)
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
Thirty Years from Now (other topics)Against the Double Blackmail: Refugees, Terror and Other Troubles with the Neighbours (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Nikolai Gogol (other topics)Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (other topics)
George Santayana (other topics)
On the other hand Tess has the problem that she didn't organise her troops before she started negotiations. What should have happened is that she sorted out what they absolutely needed, what they were prepared to give, and what would happen if she did not get it. Amongst other things, she has to be prepared to walk, but is appears she is buried in some strange middle position where she pretends she is leaving, but she is sort of staying, but not really. Most puzzling.