Brexit

[Carbomb]

4 minutes ago, David said:

Well, it looks to me like the ball is firmly in our MP's court. A deal has been negotiated that the EU find acceptable and are happy to agree to, right? It was never going to be perfect, but we need to start somewhere.

Surely it's better to look at the Irish situation over the next two years than deal with the consequences of "crashing out?"

At this point, I'd argue revoking A50. Nothing that's gone on has given me any confidence that the people running this country will do a better job than the EU's supposedly done. And given the sheer mean-spiritedness and intellectual dishonesty of those driving Brexit, I don't trust that they won't try and complete this country's transition into becoming the 51st state.

[Factotum]

Article 50 definitely needs to be revoked. We cannot have the UK being on a countdown clock to chaos. It is shameful and horrendous. People's job and livelihoods are on the line. Revoke it, engage in shaping what Brexit will be with a cross party committee. The referendum should never have been the end of the debate, it should have been the start of a conversation.

Alternatively, a second referendum based on what type of deal the UK would have with REMAIN being an option.

 

[Dead Mike]

Vince Cable has claimed the PM said 'the people voted for pain' when asked about the economic impact of No Deal. Fucking madness if true. 

[Carbomb]

5 minutes ago, Factotum said:

Article 50 definitely needs to be revoked. We cannot have the UK being on a countdown clock to chaos. It is shameful and horrendous. People's job and livelihoods are on the line. Revoke it, engage in shaping what Brexit will be with a cross party committee. The referendum should never have been the end of the debate, it should have been the start of a conversation.

Alternatively, a second referendum based on what type of deal the UK would have with REMAIN being an option.

 

Absolutely. Not just that, but make this referendum legally binding, so there's no room for mealy-mouthing afterwards.

Three options: Leave with a deal, Leave with no deal, remain. If both Leave options total a majority, then form a committee to shape the process on the basis of which Leave option got the higher numbers.

 

Incidentally, "Countdown To Chaos" sounds like a great name for a band.

[David]

8 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

At this point, I'd argue revoking A50.

I think this is the key point. If we're honest, Theresa May could have negotiated the best exit deal possible, reached an agreement with the EU and many of our MP's would still vote against it, because the truth is they simply don't want to do it.

The current deal on offer, unless I'm mistaken, addresses many of the issues people had when the negotiations began. The issue of UK citizens living in the EU, and EU citizens living in the UK? The proposed deal codifies their rights. The UK's financial obligations to the EU? Terms have been agreed upon there. A transitional period? 21 months agreed upon on both sides.

Even the much-talked about Irish backstop has been agreed in such a fashion that it actually angers 'Tory Brexiteers more than anyone else. No permanent trading agreement between all parties within the initial 21 months would see the UK stay in a temporary customs union as a guarantee against a hard Irish border.

If I've gotten any of that wrong then please let me know, I'm far from an expert on the matter and just pick up bits & bobs as I go along, like most people.

But yeah, the truth is, in my opinion anyway, that there isn't a deal that would see a majority of MP's vote in favour. It just won't happen, due to a mix of political gamesmanship and the simple fact that some just don't want to leave and will refuse every deal in the hope that the whole thing gets thrown out and we can go back to how things were.

[Loki]

26 minutes ago, David said:

Well, it looks to me like the ball is firmly in our MP's court. A deal has been negotiated that the EU find acceptable and are happy to agree to, right? It was never going to be perfect, but we need to start somewhere.

Surely it's better to look at the Irish situation over the next two years than deal with the consequences of "crashing out?"

Except the government won't allow them to vote on anything other than May's deal.  If Parliament was allowed a series of indicative votes to find a solution that could command a majority, I suspect they would.

 I actually agree that May's deal should have been voted through, but it wasn't.  Twice.  And for very valid reasons on both sides of the debate.  May is effectively holding a gun to their heads and saying "sign this or else" and that's no way to run a country.  It's up to HER to put something before MPs that can actually get a majority, that's how Parliament is supposed to work!

[Loki]

Bad gateway...

Edited March 22, 2019 by Loki

[Factotum]

If she agreed to a customs union, or some sort of trading deal with the EU, this would have flown through Parliament as many Labour MPs would have supported it. But she's been utterly rigid in saying 'the people didn't vote for that' despite the fact that nobody knows why most people voted for it especially her. Why is she even trying to get a deal if this is the case? Nobody voted for her deal. Its all shit and she's useless.

[David]

Just now, Loki said:

Except the government won't allow them to vote on anything other than May's deal.  If Parliament was allowed a series of indicative votes to find a solution that could command a majority, I suspect they would.

 I actually agree that May's deal should have been voted through, but it wasn't.  Twice.  And for very valid reasons on both sides of the debate.  May is effectively holding a gun to their heads and saying "sign this or else" and that's no way to run a country.  It's up to HER to put something before MPs that can actually get a majority, that's how Parliament is supposed to work!

Like it or not, May is the Prime Minister. She's the one in charge. I doubt very much that if Labour had won the election we'd be seeing anyone giving a toss about what the Tory's have to say about things, would we? 

The bottom line is that she went to the EU and got a deal that they find acceptable, which personally I thought was looking impossible to be honest. I'm no fan of May's, but the deal she's got is a pretty good fucking deal. It's not perfect, but it's a start, and it covers a lot of the bases where issues could be found, giving us time and room to iron out the details as we move on.

Another thing, Theresa May could put a deal to the SNP, for example, which dictated that Jean-Claude Juncker would visit every Scottish home on the first of the month and hand them £1,000 in a tartan fucking bag and they'd still vote against it. 

Why? Because it's the Tories, and because they don't want to leave. Most of these MP's aren't interested in tweaking deals or discussing small details. They just don't want the fucking thing to happen.

[Carbomb]

15 minutes ago, David said:

I think this is the key point. If we're honest, Theresa May could have negotiated the best exit deal possible, reached an agreement with the EU and many of our MP's would still vote against it, because the truth is they simply don't want to do it.

The current deal on offer, unless I'm mistaken, addresses many of the issues people had when the negotiations began. The issue of UK citizens living in the EU, and EU citizens living in the UK? The proposed deal codifies their rights. The UK's financial obligations to the EU? Terms have been agreed upon there. A transitional period? 21 months agreed upon on both sides.

Even the much-talked about Irish backstop has been agreed in such a fashion that it actually angers 'Tory Brexiteers more than anyone else. No permanent trading agreement between all parties within the initial 21 months would see the UK stay in a temporary customs union as a guarantee against a hard Irish border.

If I've gotten any of that wrong then please let me know, I'm far from an expert on the matter and just pick up bits & bobs as I go along, like most people.

But yeah, the truth is, in my opinion anyway, that there isn't a deal that would see a majority of MP's vote in favour. It just won't happen, due to a mix of political gamesmanship and the simple fact that some just don't want to leave and will refuse every deal in the hope that the whole thing gets thrown out and we can go back to how things were.

I should clarify that what I'm railing at primarily isn't the deal itself. All things considered, it's not bad at all, although I personally would prefer the backstop was permanent. Fuck the DUP for not following the will of their people.

The problem is the way it's been gone about. I firmly believe that the way you do things are just as, if not more, important than what you do. There should've been more time allotted, no pandering to the childish demands of Brexiters to leave in two years - we've been integrated with the EU for forty years; whether we have a deal or not, that sort of thing will take time to deal with. The deal doesn't address the concerns of either ordinary people or business & industry regarding the impact of Brexit on their lives. Legislation will take time to be passed. Logistics are going to be fucked because nobody went into detail beforehand.

Also, from a PR perspective, May's actually fucked herself here. If the work had been done in preparation, the final deal could've been negotiated with enough time before the leave date for May to set up debates, discussions, promotional stuff and whatnot to talk about what's been done to assuage people's fears, and generate support for the deal. Instead, it's all looking very last-minute, rushed, disorganised, and it's just exacerbated people's worries that their future has been screwed up by a bunch of idiots who shouldn't be out in public, let alone be allowed to run the country.

Edited March 22, 2019 by Carbomb

[David]

7 minutes ago, Factotum said:

If she agreed to a customs union, or some sort of trading deal with the EU, this would have flown through Parliament as many Labour MPs would have supported it.

You're quite clued up on all of this, so if someone like me knows that a customs union would more than likely come with the UK being bound to some single market rules I'm sure you know that as well. It would be a condition that would effectively change a lot of the current deal and mean going back to the drawing board essentially.

Much like Turkey currently has, a customs union with the EU would probably see the UK obliged to apply the EU’s external tariff to imports from non-EU countries, correct? Turkey follows EU rules on industrial standards and is obliged to apply the EU’s external tariff to imports from non-EU countries.

Any country that has a trade agreement with the EU, which would include Canada, for example, has preferential access to that countries market if their goods enter the EU, but they don't have reciprocal access. 

As for agreeing to some sort of trading deal with the EU, do you seriously think that's not going to happen? Why do you think the EU agreed to her deal? The proposed deal comes with a Political Declaration that sets out "a common determination to forge a close future relationship between the UK and the EU in areas such as trade and security."

8 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I should clarify that what I'm railing at primarily isn't the deal itself. All things considered, it's not bad at all, although I personally would prefer the backstop was permanent. Fuck the DUP for not following the will of their people.

The problem is the way it's been gone about. I firmly believe that the way you do things are just as, if not more, important than what you do. There should've been more time allotted, no pandering to the childish demands of Brexiters to leave in two years - we've been integrated with the EU for forty years; whether we have a deal or not, that sort of thing will take time to deal with. The deal doesn't address the concerns of either ordinary people or business & industry regarding the impact of Brexit on their lives. Legislation will take time to be passed. Logistics are going to be fucked because nobody went into detail beforehand.

So you agree that the deal is probably the best we could have gotten under the circumstances then? It seems fairly reasonable to me, and the EU have agreed as well.

As for your other points, here's the thing. Be it two years, five years, ten years, it would have made no difference. The deal she's got that's been agreed by the EU? That isn't going to get any better. Not now, not in two years, not in five years. 

I'm sorry mate, I usually see a lot of sense in what you say, but it sounds to me like you're approaching this like a guy who's wife has told him she's done, and that divorce papers citing irreconcilable differences are in the post only for him to say "let's give it another month and see how we get on, please."

It's not going to get any better. The deal is as good as it gets. The delays and digging in of heels are simply futile attempts to try and hang on to see if somehow, someway, it'll all go away and we can go back to how things were.

There's a reason why no politician worth his or her salt will even really talk about revoking Article 50. They know that the ramifications on the democratic process would be huge. 

What we need to do is take this deal (which is quite decent really), and then we need to get down to the business of ousting the Conservatives from power so we can at least have someone different applying the terms and striking the future trade deals we'll need. Other political parties can include in their manifesto the idea of applying for EU membership in the future, and if they see a lot of public support for that then we can revisit the situation down the line.

That's maybe not what the petition-signers want to hear, but it's reality I'm afraid.

Just now, johnnyboy said:

If the Brexiters actually voted for it then it would have been far closer to going through.

The so-called Brexiter's don't really like the deal. They consider it "too soft" and are just an unreasonable as those MP's who won't vote the deal through regardless of what the deal is. While those who don't want to see us leave are essentially putting their heads in the sand, refusing any deals, and hoping it all just goes away eventually, or that we somehow see another referendum on the matter, the other side of the coin sees those Brexiters refusing the deal in the hope we just end up leaving with no deal. 

This deal May has got is the best that we can realistically expect.

[Loki]

1 hour ago, David said:

She's the one in charge.

I almost completely agree with your points here, but...  Although she is the PM, she does not hold sovereign power, Parliament does.  

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/sovereignty/

The PM is the leader of the party or faction who can command the largest number of seats and therefore ask the Queen to form a government.  BUT she is not sovereign and cannot make laws on her own, she requires the consent of Parliament.

This is why she's had such a tricky time - since becoming PM she has tried to pretend that this is entirely a matter for her as if she were a President.  It's not.  Parliament had to force her to concede that it even had a role to play, and now it is playing that role.

In the normal course of events, the first time she was not able to command control of the House she would have resigned - and particularly after her government was officially reprimanded by Parliament!  But she's stubbornly dug her heels in and tried to pretend that she is not bound by our constitution.  This has angered a lot of Parliamentarians, not least the Speaker who is responsible for protecting the power of Parliament.

[Carbomb]

11 minutes ago, David said:

You're quite clued up on all of this, so if someone like me knows that a customs union would more than likely come with the UK being bound to some single market rules I'm sure you know that as well. It would be a condition that would effectively change a lot of the current deal and mean going back to the drawing board essentially.

I know you were asking Factoterrr, but if I may contribute, from what I understand, a customs union wouldn't necessarily bind the UK to EU rules completely, because there's the possibility of parallel regulation for home or non-EU markets. Anything trade with the EU would have to follow their rules, but it wouldn't stop us from creating a parallel legislature and infrastructure if we felt we wanted something different either for us or to facilitate deals with markets whose regulation directly conflicts with the EU's structures.

It's more expensive, but it's possible. However, I'm perfectly happy to be corrected on this.

11 minutes ago, David said:

So you agree that the deal is probably the best we could have gotten under the circumstances then? It seems fairly reasonable to me, and the EU have agreed as well.

Under the circumstances, yes - but it's not the best we could've gotten, given that the government could've been smarter and arranged better circumstances.

11 minutes ago, David said:

As for your other points, here's the thing. Be it two years, five years, ten years, it would have made no difference. The deal she's got that's been agreed by the EU? That isn't going to get any better. Not now, not in two years, not in five years. 

Again: it's not the deal that's the problem, it's everything else. People's acceptance of it is a major factor, but also how the deal is implemented in material terms - that needed research and study, but as it is, we're just fumbling around in the dark.

11 minutes ago, David said:

I'm sorry mate, I usually see a lot of sense in what you say, but it sounds to me like you're approaching this like a guy who's wife has told him she's done, and that divorce papers citing irreconcilable differences are in the post only for him to say "let's give it another month and see how we get on, please."

Not really. 

I'm looking at it like a business who decided to change service provider, has been given the run-around with automated systems, shite customer service, very little communication, been sent around the houses to different departments, none of whom seem to be saying the same thing, and then been handed a contract that seems very reasonable, but by this point I'm just thinking "Nah."

11 minutes ago, David said:

It's not going to get any better. The deal is as good as it gets. The delays and digging in of heels are simply futile attempts to try and hang on to see if somehow, someway, it'll all go away and we can go back to how things were.

There's a reason why no politician worth his or her salt will even really talk about revoking Article 50. They know that the ramifications on the democratic process would be huge. 

What we need to do is take this deal (which is quite decent really), and then we need to get down to the business of ousting the Conservatives from power so we can at least have someone different applying the terms and striking the future trade deals we'll need. Other political parties can include in their manifesto the idea of applying for EU membership in the future, and if they see a lot of public support for that then we can revisit the situation down the line.

That's maybe not what the petition-signers want to hear, but it's reality I'm afraid.

Well, I'm afraid this whole experience has turned me pretty much into a Remainer. I wanted a Lexit, but I'm now firmly convinced that:

1. There's nobody in government who can deliver a pizza, let alone any kind of Exit.

2. The British public for the most part don't want a left-wing Exit, and much as I would like Scotland's overall approach to be the majority, it isn't. The EU isn't left-wing, but it's closer to it than the greater part of British politics and the British people, and I'd rather stay under their auspices to curb the excesses of the Rule Britannia gang.

3. The sheer disingenuousness from the extreme right in trying to hijack the referendum result at every step, even when the GE pretty much told them there wasn't an appetite for what they were selling, and to treat it as a zero-sum game where they get everything they want and fuck nearly half the country who had legitimate concerns when they voted Remain. They don't deserve Brexit, and I don't just want to hand them power, I want to see them thwarted and cast down.

4. Trump's actions and the general attitude of the USA politically has me thinking we're only going to have a chance against their increasingly aggressive stance against the rest of the world, not to mentioned Russia's also, if we're part of something bigger.

 

Bear in mind: I'm well aware that I'm not likely to get what I, or people who think like me, want. As it is, I guess the deal would be the best option in the end. But it's a bitter pill to swallow, because it rewards May's mediocrity and overall shit attitude towards parliament. She'll come away thinking of herself as the courageous politician who braved the storm of adversity to get through the right solution, and that history will prove her right in the end.

[David]

Just now, Loki said:

I almost completely agree with your points here, but...  Although she is the PM, she does not hold sovereign power, Parliament does.

Yeah, I know the technicalities of it all, but as we've seen in this thread and in the media in general it's her that's being held responsible, isn't it? Very few people are saying that it's Parliament who can't get the job done, they're saying it's her.

The problem I have with how Parliament has handled this has been laid out in my previous posts, where I honestly believe that a decent chunk of those involved aren't looking beyond UK political games, and are essentially trying in various ways to affect the outcome in a manner that they want to see, be it a no-deal scenario, or fucking about in the hope it all collapses.

If we're honest, there's no way May can really win in this situation. 

5 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I know you were asking Factoterrr, but if I may contribute, from what I understand, a customs union wouldn't necessarily bind the UK to EU rules completely, because there's the possibility of parallel regulation for home or non-EU markets. Anything trade with the EU would have to follow their rules, but it wouldn't stop us from creating a parallel legislature and infrastructure if we felt we wanted something different either for us or to facilitate deals with markets whose regulation directly conflicts with the EU's structures.

It's more expensive, but it's possible. However, I'm perfectly happy to be corrected on this.

Whenever this was raised in the past the situation regarding Turkey was brought up as the standard. From what I can find it works like this;

The EU created a customs union with Turkey in 1995. The customs union with Turkey covers industrial goods but not agriculture, services or public procurement. Turkey follows EU rules on industrial standards and is obliged to apply the EU’s external tariff to imports from non-EU countries.

This leaves Turkey with lopsided trading arrangements with the rest of the world. Countries that have a trade agreement with the EU, such as Canada, have preferential access to the Turkish market if their goods enter the EU, but Turkey does not have reciprocal access.

Could the UK have swung a better deal than Turkey got? Maybe, but you have to ask why the EU would go ahead with something like the Turkey deal but with more leeway on our side? 

9 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Under the circumstances, yes - but it's not the best we could've gotten, given that the government could've been smarter and arranged better circumstances.

How could it have been improved? Remember that anything further the UK could have gotten in the deal to benefit us would also have had a counter to benefit the EU.

I honestly believe this deal is the best both parties could have hoped for. It seems to be a great starting point, but contains language that allows for further deals and minor agreements down the line, which is ideal.

11 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Again: it's not the deal that's the problem, it's everything else. People's acceptance of it is a major factor, but also how the deal is implemented in material terms - that needed research and study, but as it is, we're just fumbling around in the dark.

This is an unprecedented move though, isn't it? I draw comparisons again with the independence referendum, where there were doubters who wanted to wait and see, to sit down and discuss things a bit more, but the truth is you can only discuss and plan so much.

In a situation like this you really do have to take a step into the unknown in a way, there's nothing else for it. The deal agreed by the EU is a great starting point, somewhere we can build from. Of course there's no guarantees, but that's just life I'm afraid.

Ironically enough, the same people who were telling me in pubs and suchlike during the Scottish situation that you just have to take something of a leap when it comes to this kind of situation, plan as best you can under the circumstances and take it from there, are the same ones now who are saying what you are saying because they want to remain in the EU.

17 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Not really. 

I'm looking at it like a business who decided to change service provider, has been given the run-around with automated systems, shite customer service, very little communication, been sent around the houses to different departments, none of whom seem to be saying the same thing, and then been handed a contract that seems very reasonable, but by this point I'm just thinking "Nah."

Unfortunately, that's how political negotiations go. If you thought this was going to go smoothly, with everyone getting along and the deal being done in no time then I don't know what to tell you. 

I did get a laugh at all of the "cross party" chat I'd heard, as if that could actually fucking happen. This is politicians we're talking about, not a group of charity workers. Virtually none of these self-serving pricks were ever going to act in a way that would possibly give the impression that the opposition had got something right. It's not in their nature. 

The opposition are watching May's deal fail with glee, because it helps to strike further blows to the public perception of the current governing party, which they'll no doubt try to use in upcoming elections. It would be the same if it were Labour in power trying to get this shit done and the Tory's were in opposition.

It was always going to be messy. The main thing for me is that we got a deal in the end that covers most of the hot button issues that people wanted dealt with, even to such an extent that many of the Tory Brexit crew who were thinking they'd get their hard Brexit have been left disappointed and pissed off. As @johnnyboy mentioned, many of the Tory Brexit diehards won't vote it through either.

You've already said that you want Article 50 revoked, so I wouldn't expect you to like any deal put forward, just like the MP's who are refusing to vote it through. You can talk about how the Government have been mean-spirited and so on, but the bottom line is that we're approaching the deadline and there's a good deal on the table, a deal that will be a great starting point for the process.

You know deep down, cutting through all the vague chat about mean-spirited discussions and not taking enough time to discuss things that this deal is pretty much as good as we can expect. It's a fine balance, and the more we ask for, the more we have to give up, which topples the whole thing eventually.

27 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

The British public for the most part don't want a left-wing Exit, and much as I would like Scotland's overall approach to be the majority, it isn't. The EU isn't left-wing, but it's closer to it than the greater part of British politics and the British people, and I'd rather stay under their auspices to curb the excesses of the Rule Britannia gang.

Speaking as someone who lives in Scotland, don't buy into the left-wing, inclusive image you get from Scotland as a whole. This is a country that's rife with religious bigotry, and to a certain degree anti-English bigotry. As sad as it may sound, many Scots voted remain simply because we'd been told that middle-England and the Tories wanted to leave. 

If England or the Tories issued a statement that the sky was blue, half the folk in Scotland would argue that it was actually azure, not blue. "Anyone but England," as they say up here.

You're right though, the British in general aren't left-wing at the moment, but that's how it goes. If it were the other way around and we had a left-wing government I wouldn't be happy with people trying to circumvent our democratic vote just so they could have a right-wing influence to curb the democratically elected left-wing government.

It's on the left, and the left-wing parties to make compelling arguments to those who are on the fence come election time. The dyed in the wool right wingers are what they are, you'll not change them, but there's plenty of people in the middle who can be swayed. It's just that the left haven't done a good job of arguing their case. That's on them I'm afraid.

36 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

Bear in mind: I'm well aware that I'm not likely to get what I, or people who think like me, want. As it is, I guess the deal would be the best option in the end. But it's a bitter pill to swallow, because it rewards May's mediocrity and overall shit attitude towards parliament. She'll come away thinking of herself as the courageous politician who braved the storm of adversity to get through the right solution, and that history will prove her right in the end.

That's the beauty of democracy, and why I'm always in favour of anything that reduces a centralising of power, be it the EU on Britain, or London on Scotland. 

If the right see Brexit as a victory then that's fair enough, but its up to the left to make a solid, credible counter argument and provide an alternative. Victory via technicality isn't the answer.

[David]

2 minutes ago, johnnyboy said:

*Given the red lines that she herself imposed.

Well, there are red lines in all negotiations, isn't there? The EU had red lines as well. 

EDIT: Can I assume that you agree with the rest of my reply to you, seeing as you didn't quote any of that?

Edited March 22, 2019 by David