Brexit or Bust !!

I sympathise with your views Rich1... but I think you will find with the EU it’s the case of all or nothing... this is where that ridiculous overly used phrase ‘not cherry picking’ came from with the EU negotiators.

Essentially the EU membership appears non negotiable.. it is not designed to be exitable. Clearly not much thought had gone into the exit procedure. The migration from our initial EEC continued membership referendum in 1975, to the more federated Union EU of 1993 under the Maastricht treaty (of which there was no UK referendum) to the  Amsterdam Treaty of 1997 (agreeing the major eastward expansions) to current day EU has taken clearly decades to evolve.

To think one can leave without some sort of reversed process of probably not much less than a decade is farsicle. 

In essence your suggestion, let us imagine that some how the EU would accept, which I suspect resonates with many in the UK, would take us back to the pre Maastricht EEC..ie it was more about a fair trading community old countries with a common interest rather than political union or federation, and after all it was the EEC the U.K. had voted on to be part of, not the EU... The EU Maastricht treaty was the major change and we were encoraged to sleep walk into it.. there was no referendum here, unlike in some other countries. I can’t help feeling if the government of the time had trusted a debate with the people and a referendum, assuming the U.K. agreed, the mandate for EU membership would be hugely stronger now... and we would now  not be in this mess...  

Thiis what happens when you are inconsistent with the electorate.. you can’t ‘cherry pick’ on what you ask the electorate to vote on and not expect division and surprises. You either fully inform and have the electorate specifically vote on throughout  key stages of the EEC/EU journey or you don’t at all, you just leave it to the government and parliament of the day to ‘representvely’ manage it  as they see fit.. which until Camern’s folly had become the UK line in recent decades.. possibly as the governments and parliament didn’t really trust the electorate to make the ‘right’ decision anyway, and I suspect most in the current Tory government think the wrong decision has been made now.

Have to agree with you Simon and Don. Rich 

Happy New Year Don (wherver you happen to be in the world),

Good of you to resurrect this old chestnut .

My opinion is that TM's deal will be rejected and she will ask the EU for a 1 year extension to Article 50 and a re-opening of negotiations with Barrier and Tuts.

How events un fold after that is anybody's guess.

Ray

I agree with Simon's précis of the UK's relationship with Europe since our membership.

The big question is where do we go from here.

thebigfredc posted:

Happy New Year Don (wherver you happen to be in the world),

Good of you to resurrect this old chestnut .

My opinion is that TM's deal will be rejected and she will ask the EU for a 1 year extension to Article 50 and a re-opening of negotiations with Barrier and Tuts.

How events un fold after that is anybody's guess.

Ray

That wouldn't be a bad fallback option. I too hope that TM's deal is indeed rejected. However, I hope we continue planning to leave and trade under WTO terms and let the EU approach the UK with its proposals. If they are not forthcoming, or we don't find them acceptable, then we continue with a clear path. 

Clive B posted:

However, I hope we continue planning to leave and trade under WTO terms and let the EU approach the UK with its proposals. If they are not forthcoming, or we don't find them acceptable, then we continue with a clear path. 

Interesting (excellent) idea.

We let the EU come up with a few suggestions for the UKs future. We then decide what to go for, by having a referendum.

fatcat posted:

Clive B posted:

However, I hope we continue planning to leave and trade under WTO terms and let the EU approach the UK with its proposals. If they are not forthcoming, or we don't find them acceptable, then we continue with a clear path. 

Interesting (excellent) idea.

We let the EU come up with a few suggestions for the UKs future. We then decide what to go for, by having a referendum.

Its not for the EU to determine the future for the UK, but to to make proposals on the relationship between the two parties as is the case in any trade discussion.  With a known way forward, the U.K. would be in a better negotiating position than it has been so far. If Brexit was meant to mean Brexit, as the PM told us, this is what the UK should have started preparing for 21 months ago.

Clive B posted:

fatcat posted:

Clive B posted:

However, I hope we continue planning to leave and trade under WTO terms and let the EU approach the UK with its proposals. If they are not forthcoming, or we don't find them acceptable, then we continue with a clear path. 

Interesting (excellent) idea.

We let the EU come up with a few suggestions for the UKs future. We then decide what to go for, by having a referendum.

Its not for the EU to determine the future for the UK, but to to make proposals on the relationship between the two parties as is the case in any trade discussion.  With a known way forward, the U.K. would be in a better negotiating position than it has been so far. If Brexit was meant to mean Brexit, as the PM told us, this is what the UK should have started preparing for 21 months ago.

Isn’t that what’s been going on for the past 21 months. TMs been saying ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, while negotiating withdrawal/future trade arrangements.

The UK government and the EU have come up with an agreement. The EU are happy to sign the agreement, the problem lies with the UK government. All factions in parliament want their cake and they want to eat it, problem is, they can’t agree on the type of cake.

When you say ‘or we don't find them acceptable’. Who are you referring to as ‘we’.

fatcat posted:

Clive B posted:

fatcat posted:

Clive B posted:

However, I hope we continue planning to leave and trade under WTO terms and let the EU approach the UK with its proposals. If they are not forthcoming, or we don't find them acceptable, then we continue with a clear path. 

Interesting (excellent) idea.

We let the EU come up with a few suggestions for the UKs future. We then decide what to go for, by having a referendum.

Its not for the EU to determine the future for the UK, but to to make proposals on the relationship between the two parties as is the case in any trade discussion.  With a known way forward, the U.K. would be in a better negotiating position than it has been so far. If Brexit was meant to mean Brexit, as the PM told us, this is what the UK should have started preparing for 21 months ago.

Isn’t that what’s been going on for the past 21 months. TMs been saying ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’, while negotiating withdrawal/future trade arrangements.

The UK government and the EU have come up with an agreement. The EU are happy to sign the agreement, the problem lies with the UK government. All factions in parliament want their cake and they want to eat it, problem is, they can’t agree on the type of cake.

When you say ‘or we don't find them acceptable’. Who are you referring to as ‘we’.

 

Good question; I used it in the colloquial sense without really thinking. In this case, I probably mean the government. I wouldn't  wish to pursue another referendum, unless it was based on a choice between two options, both resulting in the UK leaving the EU so as to continue to honour the first result and respect the democratic process.

thebigfredc posted:

Happy New Year Don (wherver you happen to be in the world),

Good of you to resurrect this old chestnut .

My opinion is that TM's deal will be rejected and she will ask the EU for a 1 year extension to Article 50 and a re-opening of negotiations with Barrier and Tuts.

How events un fold after that is anybody's guess.

Ray

I'm not sure that the EU would give an extension; I think that I've read as much somewhere- after all they state we have their final offer so why would they put themselves through the pain of another year of 'negotiations'.

Of course, since the ECJ ruled the UK can unilaterally withdraw A50, our Government could threaten withdrawal... and re-submission... and start the whole sorry mess all over again. Frankly though... the EU has other things on its agenda and I suspect the patience of many Governments has worn more than a little thin.

For years I considered the trend of society towards a more tolerant state to be more-or-less inevitable. Economic inequality continues to worsen (that's the whole pint of capitalism), yet social equality seemed to be trending in the right direction. But the events of the past 2 or 3 years in politics all over the world (but most notably the US "electing" he-who-must-not-be-named, and the UK with Brexit) have reminded me of how fragile this all is.

My fervent wish is that the UK call the whole thing off. (At least in the US, another election cycle can start the healing. Brexit is forever.)

winkyincanada posted:

For years I considered the trend of society towards a more tolerant state to be more-or-less inevitable. Economic inequality continues to worsen (that's the whole pint of capitalism), yet social equality seemed to be trending in the right direction. But the events of the past 2 or 3 years in politics all over the world (but most notably the US "electing" he-who-must-not-be-named, and the UK with Brexit) have reminded me of how fragile this all is.

My fervent wish is that the UK call the whole thing off. (At least in the US, another election cycle can start the healing. Brexit is forever.)

winkyincanada posted:

For years I considered the trend of society towards a more tolerant state to be more-or-less inevitable. Economic inequality continues to worsen (that's the whole pint of capitalism), yet social equality seemed to be trending in the right direction. But the events of the past 2 or 3 years in politics all over the world (but most notably the US "electing" he-who-must-not-be-named, and the UK with Brexit) have reminded me of how fragile this all is.

My fervent wish is that the UK call the whole thing off. (At least in the US, another election cycle can start the healing. Brexit is forever.)

I think cancelling brexit isn't the cure to the UK's ills.   Frankly I hope we find a way to do it, but so much else needs fixing.

I am fortunate to live in the beautiful city of Bath and went shopping with my wife today.  There were at least 8 people obviously living on the streets sheltering outside shops in a 1-200m stretch.  How did we get to this as a society?  I don't recall hardly any homeless people when I was in my teens (40 or so years ago).

Something's gone badly wrong and we need to think hard about how the 'assets' are distributed since currently it's just not working for a very large part of our society- and I'm happy to pay more in tax *if* it is to right some of the unbalance.

Stephen packer posted:

I think cancelling brexit isn't the cure to the UK's ills.   Frankly I hope we find a way to do it, but so much else needs fixing.

I am fortunate to live in the beautiful city of Bath and went shopping with my wife today.  There were at least 8 people obviously living on the streets sheltering outside shops in a 1-200m stretch.  How did we get to this as a society?  I don't recall hardly any homeless people when I was in my teens (40 or so years ago).

Something's gone badly wrong and we need to think hard about how the 'assets' are distributed since currently it's just not working for a very large part of our society- and I'm happy to pay more in tax *if* it is to right some of the unbalance.

Yep, agree. The issue of wealth inequality overlaps with the way society regards "people not like us" but the answers to all this are very complex. In my darkest times, I think that the solutions are incompatible with human nature (As an example look at how the National Parks in the US are currently being trashed and destroyed in the absence of supervision due the government shut-down).

Yes like the amount we give to India and yet they have there own space program! Something is certainly adrift and yet it’s blatantly obvious to everyone!

Popeye posted:

Yes like the amount we give to India and yet they have there own space program! Something is certainly adrift and yet it’s blatantly obvious to everyone!

We spend 0.7% of our gross national income on foreign aid (which is the UN's target for developed economies).  This amounted to roughly £13.5Bn (or so) last year.  Of this we spent £98M in aid to India.

Personally I'm comfortable with both of those figures- especially given the UK's history with India. 

And... if the UK wants to be in a position to make a decent trade deal with India in the not too distant future then maybe the give or take 100M aid figure might want to be kept...  especially given that India will be the larger economy by the time we enter this negotiation (if it happens)

Trade deals these days are very complex and about many more things than trade. If you want to retain sovereignty then it’s best to stick to WTO rules! 

Phil

Kevin-W posted:

jlarsson posted:

The trouble is not the land border. It is the GFA peace agreement that is built on both countries (RoI and UK) being EU-members.

Have I got it wrong?

Have you got it wrong?  Quite spectacularly.

The Good Friday Agreement is absolutely nothing to do with the EU. It played no part in brokering it, and has no power to change it.

It is an agreement between two sovereign nations, the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom, and it is nothing to do with anyone else. All parties involved, apart from the DUP, signed up for it. It largely brought to an end thirty years of bloody strife, and gives the people of Northern Ireland the right to "identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both".

And here's the tricky bit. Brexit should be irrelevant to the GFA, but it's not. Because despite the fact that nobody in the Republic of Ireland; or in Great Britain; or (apart from a few swivel-eyed loons) in Northern Ireland, wants a hard border, the EU , thanks to its demented insistence on its rules being followed to the letter and whatever the cost, does.

Of all the egregious sophistry spouted by EU grandees over the past two and a half years, this interference in the affairs of two sovereign nations is the most disgraceful, and for me demonstrates the kind of organisation we're dealing with. Despite the GFA doing more than anything to bring the north and south together, the EU and its supporters want to tear it up, much to the glee of extremists on both the Unionist and Republican sides.

As far as I am concerned, the border arrangements of both countries are no business of Brussels.

Kevin - while the EU had no role in brokering the GFA, the prospect of the Irish Land Boundary becoming a boundary to a 'third country' is very much the legitimate business of the EU, wouldn't you agree? Also, since Eire is remaining as an EU member and therefore has a say in what the EU's negotiating position should be towards the UK , that too gives Brussels legitimacy in looking to secure Eire's interests on the ILB and wider relationship with the UK. That the Irish border issue has over recent months become something of a potential deal-breaker for the EU and many MPs in the House of Commons seems to have come as a nasty surprise to TM's government.  But it was blindingly obvious when the referendum campaign was underway that this issue and the possibly of Brexit posed a huge and potentially irreconcilable problem.  At the time the leading Brexiteer campaigners swept such concerns aside, eg talking about technological solutions but neither did the remain campaign do justice to the issue. 

I think Don's forecast for how the events may develop looks as good as any I've heard.

Since TM deferred the vote on her deal so that she could seek "reassurances" on the Irish boundary issue, I've not seen any progress since or over the Xmas/New Year break.  To paraphrase TM, 'nothing has changed, nothing has changed!'  so unless a lot of MPs have had a big change of heart over the break, it still seems likely that her deal will be voted down.  Since very many MPs have said publicly that they will not support the UK crashing out of the EU on the 29th March without a deal, and that includes some members of the TM's cabinet, I think that option is unlikely.  The Tories and possibly DUP will unite in the face of any 'vote of confidence' called by Corbyn so unless TM decides to seek an election, I think she'll play for time by seeking an extension to Art 50 or, if the EU won't agree to that, withdrawing her Art 50 application.  The can will be kicked down the road. 

If we leave with no deal the UK will not put in place physical border controls because of the Belfast Agreement. The responsibility for goods flowing freely across the border and on into the wider EU will rest with the Irish government rather than the UK as required by the deal! That is why the EU places so much importance on the border. 

All the legislation to leave with or without a deal is in place. It will require new legislation to change what is in place. There is some high stakes poker taking place. I’ve made my views known to my MP, who I didn’t vote for. 

Phil

I wonder if Theresa M was listening to R4 this morning when the DUP's Brexit spokesman, Sammy Wilson, said he was "more alarmed" than ever about the PM's deal, saying that there is no way his party can back her deal?  Hard to see how she can defer the vote again in the hope that something turns up.   

MDS posted:

Kevin - while the EU had no role in brokering the GFA, the prospect of the Irish Land Boundary becoming a boundary to a 'third country' is very much the legitimate business of the EU, wouldn't you agree?

Mike, I can see where you are coming from but as a believer in self-determination, sovereignty and liberty, I cannot in all conscience agree. If The Irish Republic and the UK decide between them decide that there will be no hard border (and apart from a few loons in the North, that seems to be what everyone would like) then it is nobody else's business, especially that of a dogmatic and rules-based supranational body like the EU.

Kevin-W posted:

MDS posted:

Kevin - while the EU had no role in brokering the GFA, the prospect of the Irish Land Boundary becoming a boundary to a 'third country' is very much the legitimate business of the EU, wouldn't you agree?

Mike, I can see where you are coming from but as a believer in self-determination, sovereignty and liberty, I cannot in all conscience agree. If The Irish Republic and the UK decide between them decide that there will be no hard border (and apart from a few loons in the North, that seems to be what everyone would like) then it is nobody else's business, especially that of a dogmatic and rules-based supranational body like the EU.

But, Kevin, on matters of the EU's external frontier, no EU member state has complete soverienty. Being a member of the EU club means you have to abide by the customs and regulatory control requirements for which member states have long ceded competence to the EU.  As a matter of law that is the EU's business.  Now in practice if the UK and Eire find a way of making the Irish/UK border 'work' without breaking the GFA, it's hard to see the EU stepping in and saying no and taking infraction proceedings against Eire (assuming we have left the EU by the time the Commission get around to acting).  So perhaps we might agree that in legal terms the EU has competence but in practical and political terms it would probably butt-out.      

Kevin-W posted:

MDS posted:

Kevin - while the EU had no role in brokering the GFA, the prospect of the Irish Land Boundary becoming a boundary to a 'third country' is very much the legitimate business of the EU, wouldn't you agree?

Mike, I can see where you are coming from but as a believer in self-determination, sovereignty and liberty, I cannot in all conscience agree. If The Irish Republic and the UK decide between them decide that there will be no hard border (and apart from a few loons in the North, that seems to be what everyone would like) then it is nobody else's business, especially that of a dogmatic and rules-based supranational body like the EU.

Of course it is the legitimate business of the EU - do you really suppose other EU members could have their own border agreements with a neighbouring nation without consulting the other member states? That's what being a member of a Union is about.

[@mention:74356846675335341] and [@mention:12970396060785205] - this is precisely why so many in Blighty want to leave.

We never had these problems with the EEC which was - CAP and CFP aside - a pretty good idea.

Brussels' mania for ever-stricter rules and ever-closer union will one day be its undoing I suspect.