[Discussion] Brexit means Brexit

Discuss the political fallout and other issues around Britain's exit, Brexit for short, from the EU.

For the sake of clarity, I'm including the full text of Article 50.

Article 50 wrote:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

DanB wrote:
They noted that our economy was growing, that we were almost at full employment, and thus that migration was more or less inevitable. They showed us how our rate of financial distribution to the areas under pressure was much lower than, say, Germany’s, and concluded that we should just spend a lot more money addressing the challenges there.

And this right here is the rub. Successive governments have slashed public spending to the point that our social services are suffering and then the nationalist right has blamed our struggling public sector on immigration rather than the deliberately underfunded truth (and the left has done little to counter this narrative).

Wait, are we talking about Britain or the US now?

Can't it be both.
Not like most people seem to let facts get in the way of feelings these days.

In the end that is what makes the current trends so scary. If it was "only" the US, or the UK going crazy all alone, most of us could probably survive in the end. But for some reason we have to synchronize insanity.

Demosthenes wrote:

Wait, are we talking about Britain or the US now?

Both countries are turning rather similarly because they are both the most staunch adherents to the most extreme version of neo-liberal economics.

DanB wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Wait, are we talking about Britain or the US now?

Both countries are turning rather similarly because they are both the most staunch adherents to the most extreme version of neo-liberal economics.

Actually I would refute that (certainly in the UK) but both have electorial systems that are utterly bias to the ruling parties that espouse extreme neo-liberal economics.

I'm a huge advocate of Proportional Representation, mainly because I think it forces politicians to talk to other people who don't agree with their world view and compromise just so that they can govern effectively. I'm fully aware that comes with its own problems, but at the very least it prevents the ruling party from completely ignoring the majority of people who didn't vote for them just because they got the biggest slice of the pie in the election.

Sorbicol wrote:
DanB wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Wait, are we talking about Britain or the US now?

Both countries are turning rather similarly because they are both the most staunch adherents to the most extreme version of neo-liberal economics.

Actually I would refute that

What's to refute? Both economies have been staunchly neo-liberal since rise of Thatcher and Reagan.

FPTP voting certainly leads to a two party system and right now in both electoral systems both parties appear to be strongly polarised. But I'm not sure to what extent FPTP has caused that polarisation. I'm inclined to believe FPTP is the cause but the period from 1950 to 1980 in both countries there was a period of social democratic consensus under an FPTP electoral system.

DanB wrote:
They noted that our economy was growing, that we were almost at full employment, and thus that migration was more or less inevitable. They showed us how our rate of financial distribution to the areas under pressure was much lower than, say, Germany’s, and concluded that we should just spend a lot more money addressing the challenges there.

And this right here is the rub. Successive governments have slashed public spending to the point that our social services are suffering and then the nationalist right has blamed our struggling public sector on immigration rather than the deliberately underfunded truth (and the left has done little to counter this narrative).

Hammer. Nail. Head.

This is a little complex but Martin McGuinness, Deptuy First Minister for NI, has resigned over the "cash for ash" scandal.

This could spell an election in NI which could result in a referendum to unify the Island. Let me be clear, this is not likely and I'm not completely delighted about the prospect as it could see the return of violence but I've learned from last year to expect everything.

This is head in hands stuff.

Meanwhile, Sterling is taking a battering after May's confusing interview on Sunday which explained precisely nothing and prompted her to issue another statement claiming that the media are misrepresenting her. Rudderless doesn't even begin to explain it.

Axon wrote:

Meanwhile, Sterling is taking a battering after May's confusing interview on Sunday which explained precisely nothing and prompted her to issue another statement claiming that the media are misrepresenting her. Rudderless doesn't even begin to explain it.

She is beyond incompetent on this issue and yet her approval ratings are great.

Changes in Sterling prices have meant that the last computer hardware we bought for work was 30% more expensive than before the referendum. Supermarket prices are climbing already

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...

The whole thing is going to end up as an inflationary nightmare for the conservatives.

Well, it'll stop the immigrants coming. So win-win?

Axon wrote:

Well, it'll stop the immigrants coming. So win-win?

Ha!

Axon wrote:

Meanwhile, Sterling is taking a battering after May's confusing interview on Sunday which explained precisely nothing and prompted her to issue another statement claiming that the media are misrepresenting her. Rudderless doesn't even begin to explain it.

Thanks for posting that. I'd not seen the full interview. It's a weird interview in that it's clear that May is still focused on immigration over any trade issues but refuses to say that the UK will not be a member of the single market after it's all said and done. The markets are clearly reading this for no full membership of the single market, I think you can make the case that her comments on taking control of laws that membership of the European Customs Union (which is adjudicated by the ECJ) is also off the table.

At this point I don't know what the "best deal for Britain" could be in a straight bilateral deal? It's a nice phrase but if the EU gave everything that it technically could, what would it be?

DoveBrown wrote:

At this point I don't know what the "best deal for Britain" could be in a straight bilateral deal? It's a nice phrase but if the EU gave everything that it technically could, what would it be?

Welcome to the joy of "being Switzerland"

In the abstract I don't have a problem with the UK leaving the EU (I think some of it is fundamentally and unfixably broken). But it is clearly evident that we are woefully and totally unprepared for the task and triggering Article 50 in March will be a political and economic calamity.

If the government reaction had been along the lines of "we've taken on board the referendum, now we'll spend 2-3 years working out how to leave, hiring all the necessary people, expanding the roles of various departments and then we'll trigger Article 50" then I'd be fairly optimistic that we'd make a good go of leaving. Right now it seems like the plan is "just slam our hands down on the self-destruct button and see what happens".

Well, it looks like that's all going to be moot, Dan. While I still cling to the view that May won't be that short-sighted it seems that I've got precious little to cling to. The fact the Irish government has more or less given up on anything but a "hard" Brexit is deeply worrying.

As for Northern Ireland, it appears that the Tories couldn't care less. No point even addressing any further.

Yes indeed.

Did you also read the Philip Hammond interview in Die Welt?
https://www.welt.de/english-news/art...

Having reflected on this article a bit I think what is really revealed here is that the Conservative Gov't are not going to enter in to Article 50 negotiations in good faith. They are going to take a position they know a priori will not be acceptable to the EU, not back down and allow negotiations to fail (to some degree).

I seems to be that the negotiating position will be something akin to "give us what we want or we turn the UK in to a tax haven on your doorstep".

Personally I think that countries probably should be able to pick and choose which portions of the free market is acceptable to them. There's no particular reason that there can't be a plurality of relationships with the free market. But I know and Philip Hammond knows (because he says as much) that the appetite in the EU is for further integration and further integration means that free market access is a whole package and not something a la carte.

Ultimately the telling phrase is "we could be forced to change our economic model and we will have to change our model to regain competitiveness." So I think the conservative plan is roughly to enter in to negotiations in bad faith taking an unacceptable position and refusing to budge on it. Negotiations will fail. The Conservative government will "blame" the EU for being unreasonable. And then this will be used as the cover/explanation for why the conservatives just HAVE to restructure the economy as a tax haven (because the bad men at the EU made us do it).

Listening to May now. She basically want everything.
Good luck.
Oh, you are right, there the threat was of going tax haven/change economic model if EU does not behave.

The problem with the 'tax haven' approach is that it depends on European law remaining the same. If Britain takes this hard line and tries to do that, the EU can slap so many duties on British imports, and controls on currency movement, that their lack of tax won't make them an attractive location for most companies.

It seems to me that the conservatives in the British government have a rather a better opinion of their importance in the world than they actually have.

Malor wrote:

If Britain takes this hard line and tries to do that, the EU can slap so many duties on British imports, and controls on currency movement, that their lack of tax won't make them an attractive location for most companies.

Indeed. But you're kind of pre-supposing that the Conservatives want to manage the economy for either growth or for the benefit of all. If they mostly just want to make their cronies even more wealthy at the expense of everyone else then they simply don't have to care all that much about ever increasing, punitive EU duties.

f*cking hate Tory filth.

Just saying.

#indyref2. Now.

I've seen some speculation that Trump's lack of support for the EU will make Britain's negotiating position easier. (Of course, they seem to be predicated on the idea that his recent remarks are new information, which seems dubious to me.) Thoughts?

EU might fear the future so much that they play it safe - though I'm not sure anyone can really answer what playing it safe is in this situation. Is it to make a good trade deal for UK to avoid further economic shocks, or is it to be hard on UK to discourage others from leaving. That is one area where UK has the the better position in the negotiations; they know what agreement would be perfect for them (aka. they get everything). For EU both too little and too much could be bad.

With 1-2 years of negotiations, there is quite some time to see how Trump acts in office though. So his current remarks ought to be irrelevant.

I'm too angry about all this to have coherent thoughts but I think the only predictable thing about Trump is that he's an entirely unpredictable liar who will do and say pretty much whatever is on his mind at the time...so I really couldn't even begin to guess what kind of affect he'll have (actually..."adverse"...yeah that word keeps springing to mind).

He does seem to LOVE an arse-kisser though, and Darth May sure does look like she's happy to oblige, so maybe she'll get some special favours.

I can see the logic for it working both ways:

Stronger: Trump talking points that suggest possible weakening of free trade, less Nato support, etc, make EU countries want a larger negotiating base, which means that they will be more likely to want to keep the UK.

Weaker: Those same talking points also provide motivation for a more unified/integrated EU. As a historical opponent to that higher level of integration the more integrated members, especially those that have been pro-EU Armed Forces, have an incentive to keep an opponent to those measures out of the union.

Personally I think that in the overall "strength vs unity" calculus here, unity will win out. I think that win you have a lot of external uncertainty in the form of Trump, the last thing you want is internal uncertainty coming along with it, even if that internal uncertainty brings a nice economy to the table.

Note also that the UK has operated quite a profound trade deficit since the late 80s so it's hard to see the extent to which the EU really needs us. Which certainly doesn't help the UK negotiating position.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...

pyxistyx wrote:

#indyref2. Now.

Testify sister!

pyxistyx wrote:

f*cking hate Tory filth.

Just saying.

#indyref2. Now.

This is the throwing off the colonial oppressors revote?

Words cannot describe how much I loathe Theresa May.

To have the audacity to threaten to deliberately turn the Uk into a tax haven (which hey....we were SUPER CRITICAL of and preachy about not one year ago if memory serves) to blackmail the rest of Europe into giving us whatever we want (which...come on...seriously? That's some ridiculous delusions of grandeur right there from a country that's clearly forgotten it doesn't even have a fraction of the power or influence it used to) ... that's bad enough.

But to drag the rest of us kicking and screaming along side their descent to the bottom...

Uuuurgh! Blood....boiling....must...watch ASMR...videos....

I worry that people will see May's assurance that "Parliament will of course get to vote on whether to accept the deal after it has been made" and forget that that is the deal that will be signed after the exit declaration, so if Parliament declines that deal the UK WON'T be reverting to the 2015 status quo, but will instead leave the EU without any sort of agreement in place.

Maybe that won't trip anyone up, but recent history hasn't given me a lot of faith in the electorates' ability to deal with ignorance or nuance.

Edit: I also am not meaning to imply that May is creating that confusion intentionally.

Whereas I am absolutely meaning to state that May is creating that confusion intentionally.

so if Parliament declines that deal the UK WON'T be reverting to the 2015 status quo,

Unless I missed something somewhere, Parliament has to actually authorize Brexit. The public vote was advisory/non-binding, and Parliament is the only entity in the British government that can trigger Article 50.

No matter what noises May makes, it's not happening unless Parliament says so. You could end up in the position you describe, but right now, it's 2015 status quo, and it's not changing without explicit affirmation from the ministers.

It seems to me that you can still stop Brexit there. May is trying to confuse you, pretending like it's a done deal, but she doesn't have the authority to take the UK out of the EU.

May is referring to the deal that will be negotiated after the exit is formally signed in March. The EU has made it quite clear that they won't start negotiating anything until the 2 year exit formally starts.