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 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Stevintendo wrote:
Maq wrote:

Not in the pro-brexit press/twittersphere. They are still convinced that it a great idea being sabotaged by the EU and Remoaners.

This is a great world we live in right now, isn't it?

I'm astonished at how much of the Brexit debate boils down to certain people wanting to both have their cake and eat it, and not understanding that they can't do both.

Maybe the British Empire's lasting legacy in England is going to be continual confusion about why other countries no longer listen when the UK tries to dictate unilateral terms.

I guess I'm used to America's self-believed myths (manifest destiny, claiming to spread freedom without examining the method being used, etc.) but I'm not inured to the British ones. Though I guess having the foundational myth be "The British are tyrannical to their colonies and should be thrown out" probably also helps.

How do Canadians view this whole thing?

DanB wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/o...

You could just about substitute "the Scottish" throughout that article also...

That was a really insightful read. Thank you.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
DanB wrote:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/o...

You could just about substitute "the Scottish" throughout that article also...

That was a really insightful read. Thank you.

If you didn't catch it at the start of this thread this is also worth a read:

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top...

Also very insightful. Thank you!

A couple things stand out to me, as an American, while reading. One is that many of the accusations leveled at the English in that piece could just as easily be leveled at White Americans and their diminishing role in the US. Another is that from outside of the UK, Brexit is transparently a thing driven by the English at the cost of the Scots and Irish; I'm a little surprised that anyone could possibly see it otherwise.

And finally, it's a little disorienting to see this line: "[t]he destruction by the USA of the British empire, after its finest hour in 1940". The post-World War II narrative in the United States is obviously very different. We're taught that the British Empire was irreparably damaged by the two World Wars and broke apart as a result. I'm a little ashamed to admit that it never occurred to me that the narrative elsewhere might be that the US opportunistically undermined and destroyed the British Empire.

That is a really good article danB, thanks. Nothing that's much of a surprise up here, certainly, but a good read nonetheless.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

Also very insightful. Thank you!

A couple things stand out to me, as an American, while reading. One is that many of the accusations leveled at the English in that piece could just as easily be leveled at White Americans and their diminishing role in the US. Another is that from outside of the UK, Brexit is transparently a thing driven by the English at the cost of the Scots and Irish; I'm a little surprised that anyone could possibly see it otherwise.

And finally, it's a little disorienting to see this line: "[t]he destruction by the USA of the British empire, after its finest hour in 1940". The post-World War II narrative in the United States is obviously very different. We're taught that the British Empire was irreparably damaged by the two World Wars and broke apart as a result. I'm a little ashamed to admit that it never occurred to me that the narrative elsewhere might be that the US opportunistically undermined and destroyed the British Empire.

I would say that the central premise of that second article - that the vote was against the EU and not anything else isn’t quite true. It was about Immigration and austerity - however the blame for those issues was neatly pinned on the EU after many years of careful propaganda by the UK's virulently anti-EU media and the Tory/UKIP parties. The only issue that could legitimately be pinned on the EU is the perceived loss of sovereignty to Brussels. That issue is one that tends to get curiously underplayed I think - it was the primary reason for people voting to leave after immigration.

Also saying Brexit is English driven, while accurate, doesn’t really mean as much as it sounds. The population of England in the UK is approximately 54 million. The Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh combined barely scrapes past 10 million. Everything in the UK is English driven just because of that disparity in population numbers. For example, many many more English people voted remain than did Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh - raw numbers see to that. It’s a great deal more complex than ‘everyone English voted leave and everyone else voted remain’.

As for the English Empire - it started to fracture after the First World War. The second was really just it’s death knell. The UK was pretty much bankrupted by the war, and the US was happy to give us material and money at very favourable terms, so long as we paid it back (which we finally finished doing in 2006)

Because of that, the need to rebuild the UK post war and various other factors (I’m generalising massively there) the post war labour government had an active programme of reducing or eliminating the UKs overseas ‘commitments’ (i.e. the colonies) and thus the Empire came to a gradual end.

As I said that’s grossly generalised but while the US wasn’t really directly involved (“break up the empire or else”) those debts were sort of a contributing factor. A very minor one though.

1944 Bretton Woods meeting was another factor in the fall of the British Empire. Probably the final nail in the coffin. The UK used Sterling as a means of control for centuries and the irony was not lost on many when Eisenhower used the Dollar during the Suez Crisis to control the UK.

As for the impact of the English on Brexit, Fintan O'Toole has been developing a theory that he lays out well in this video. Your points are well made but it's English nationalism that is essentially driving the issue.

Sorbicol wrote:

The only issue that could legitimately be pinned on the EU is the perceived loss of sovereignty to Brussels. That issue is one that tends to get curiously underplayed I think - it was the primary reason for people voting to leave after immigration.

The Brexit White Paper's opening line is: "The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that."

I really don't see how something that the UK government has stated is not true, is somehow the EU's fault. I suspect, like the most of the issues, the reason for the perceived lack of sovereignty is can be found in the British media.

Axon wrote:

I really don't see how something that the UK government has stated is not true, is somehow the EU's fault. I suspect, like the most of the issues, the reason for the perceived lack of sovereignty is can be found in the British media.

To be fair the EU is a large and complex international treaty with many signatory states. Part of signing an international treaty is an act of ceding some sovereignty autonomy (over the topic covered by the treaty) in agreeing to achieve regulatory alignment and co-operation.

The two problems here is people's lack of appreciation of the scope of the EU, which largely restricts itself to issues of trade and commerce (although that is interpreted broadly enough to include worker's rights). And the fact that people don't appreciate this can be squarely blamed on the euro-skeptic press and the failures of successive governments to make a case for the EU. And secondly if we break away from the EU and negotiate new trade deals what is it that brexiters think will happen? New treaties will require ceding some degree of sovereignty, unless they really believe we are going to resurrect the empire.

DanB wrote:

unless they really believe we are going to resurrect the empire.

There it is.

DanB wrote:

The two problems here is people's lack of appreciation of the scope of the EU, which largely restricts itself to issues of trade and commerce (although that is interpreted broadly enough to include worker's rights). And the fact that people don't appreciate this can be squarely blamed on the euro-skeptic press and the failures of successive governments to make a case for the EU. And secondly if we break away from the EU and negotiate new trade deals what is it that brexiters think will happen? New treaties will require ceding some degree of sovereignty, unless they really believe we are going to resurrect the empire.

I'm wondering if the two problems are related? Not only did brexiters fail to appreciate that scope, they didn't even *consider* how trade and commerce work when they voted? Beyond like, what that bus told them?

Nobody knew international trade and treaties could be so complicated.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I'm wondering if the two problems are related? Not only did brexiters fail to appreciate that scope, they didn't even *consider* how trade and commerce work when they voted? Beyond like, what that bus told them?

They considered it.

"Bloody Brussels telling us how bendy our bananas can be, it's an assault on our sovereignty."

It's not so much people's lack of appreciation of the scope of the EU, as people's lack of appreciation of anything beyond Bake Off and royal weddings.

The irony of the bendy bananas myths, if I remember correctly, is that the directive it's based was an almost an exact copy of the British legislation. Everyone was using the British one as the default so the EU just did a copy and paste.

That's the tragedy to me. The greatest impact for the good on the EU was from Britain. The Single Market and English as the language of business and politics. Never-mind all the regulation based on British legislation. A different press could have easily spun the modern day EU as Britain's greatest achievement.

Seems the shape of the deal is coming into view. Northern Ireland to get it's own arrangement and UK to get a customs union which will be temporary. Expect a microphone to be put in front of Nicola Sturgeon soon.

Edit: For those following the thread, I'd advise following Tony Connelly for an accurate view of the process. He is well sourced and has proved to provide good quality reportage on institutions in Europe and Brexit in particular. I strongly suspect his initial source is Mairead McGuinness who is VP of the European Parliament and is a former RTE employee. She has introduced him to the right people.

Edit 2: Just watched that twit Jacob Rees Moog on Channel 4 news. He was incensed. And the issue that vexxed him most? The RTE broke the story and not a good and decent British outlet. Aww, diddums.

No punches pulled here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/f...

When future historians try to understand how Britain ended up with a choice between chaos and becoming a satellite of the European Union, one question will stump them. Were these people telling deliberate lies or were they merely staggeringly ignorant?
Axon wrote:

Northern Ireland to get it's own arrangement and UK to get a customs union which will be temporary.

And the "temporary" nature of the customs union will end up becoming perpetual in so far as the UK will likely do nothing to prepare its various institutes to actually leave a customs union with the EU so will always need to keep requesting extensions. And this is by and large what smart observers had predicted was going to happen 2 years ago. Although I'm somewhat surprised that services aren't covered.

Axon wrote:

Expect a microphone to be put in front of Nicola Sturgeon soon.

Also unexpected given that the SNP have always maintained that they'd push for a 2nd referendum whenever there are material changes to the economics or politics of Scotland. And it would be hard to argue that leaving the EU and NI getting some privileged position doesn't fit that bill.

Edit: There seems to be some countervailing information though: https://twitter.com/faisalislam/stat...

I don’t think the deal will get through Parliament to be honest. It won’t help, it’ll just delay it all or make no-deal more likely.

Watching May outside Downing Street getting screamed at by protesters in the distance. Thing is, you can't tell if they are leavers or remainers. What a disaster.

Barnier has confirmed it, Northern Ireland to get it's own special status. As I type BBC has confirmed it.

He said that Northern Ireland would stay in the same customs territory as the rest of the United Kingdom, but that the region would remain aligned to some EU regulations to avoid a hard border.

That means a border down the Irish sea. The DUP will go ape. Keep your eye on Sinn Fein now. Could they take their seats after nearly 100 years and support the deal?

Forgive my ignorance from the States but the rest of Ireland is it's own place and is just a normal member of the EU? Is that right?

Yes, Rahmen. Here is a simple map that explains it.

IMAGE(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/British_Isles_terms.gif)

And I know that was made by someone in Britain because we don't recognise the term "British Isles" and our country is called Ireland and not Republic of Ireland Give you some idea how fractious our little part of the world is which in fairness is hard for even some on the Islands to get right.

Thanks. That helps.

Axon wrote:

Barnier has confirmed it, Northern Ireland to get it's own special status. As I type BBC has confirmed it.

I really don't understand how May thinks she'll get this through parliament

From Nicola Sturgeon:

It is obvious that the Prime Minister can barely unite her cabinet on this deal, and ‎it is also increasingly clear that she will struggle to get a majority for it in Parliament.

In these circumstances it is more important than ever that we are not faced with a false choice between a bad deal and no deal.

No one should be effectively blackmailed into a choice between the frying pan or the fire.

This proposed deal would be a bad one for Scotland, taking us out of a single market eight times the size of the UK market alone and posing a huge threat to jobs, investment and living standards.

If this deal is indeed rejected by Parliament then the UK Government must return to the negotiating table to secure a better one.

Our bottom line – short of continued EU membership – is continued, permanent membership of the single market and customs union.
-Nicola

Tanglebones wrote:

From Nicola Sturgeon:

It is obvious that the Prime Minister can barely unite her cabinet on this deal, and ‎it is also increasingly clear that she will struggle to get a majority for it in Parliament.

In these circumstances it is more important than ever that we are not faced with a false choice between a bad deal and no deal.

No one should be effectively blackmailed into a choice between the frying pan or the fire.

This proposed deal would be a bad one for Scotland, taking us out of a single market eight times the size of the UK market alone and posing a huge threat to jobs, investment and living standards.

If this deal is indeed rejected by Parliament then the UK Government must return to the negotiating table to secure a better one.

Our bottom line – short of continued EU membership – is continued, permanent membership of the single market and customs union.
-Nicola

That's considerably more restrained from her than I was expecting. I was expecting "If there's going to be a border in the Irish Sea, there's going to be one across Cumbria & Northumberland and the Border counties".

Bruce wrote:

No punches pulled here:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/f...

When future historians try to understand how Britain ended up with a choice between chaos and becoming a satellite of the European Union, one question will stump them. Were these people telling deliberate lies or were they merely staggeringly ignorant?

The answer is, yes.

And Dominic Rabb has resigned. Supposedly he's the 20th minister to resign from May's Cabinet over its two years.

There is no way this gets through parliament.

DoveBrown wrote:

And Dominic Rabb has resigned. Supposedly he's the 20th minister to resign from May's Cabinet over its two years.

There is no way this gets through parliament.

Ester McVay will be next. Maybe we should have a sweep stakes or something.

....and Ester McVay has gone...

This is going to be an interesting day in UK politics for sure.

Just wanna say that, even though I don't have anything to contribute, I appreciate being able to use this thread keep up with all the developments.

Rahmen wrote:

Forgive my ignorance from the States but the rest of Ireland is it's own place and is just a normal member of the EU? Is that right?

Don't feel too bad for that question, I encountered someone in England who thought Dublin, Ireland was some place around Manchester (big city in the north of England).

On a less comical note, I remember that while I worked there my colleagues circulated a video that broke down the differences between England, Great Britain, United Kingdom, Commonwealth, etc, etc. So even for people who grow up in it, it can still seem complicated.