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 If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Meh. Revoting is good if circumstances might have changed.
Such as a new referendum.

Revoke Article 50 petition hits 1 million signatures:

Andrea Leadsom wrote:

Should the petition reach more than 17.4m signatures [ie, the number of people who voted leave], there would be a very clear case for taking action.

Come on people, we can get there! Extrapolating from the current rate (5 per second?) it's going to take a while though...

Zelos wrote:

Revoke Article 50 petition hits 1 million signatures:

Andrea Leadsom wrote:

Should the petition reach more than 17.4m signatures [ie, the number of people who voted leave], there would be a very clear case for taking action.

Come on people, we can get there! Extrapolating from the current rate (5 per second?) it's going to take a while though...

... or roughly 1/3 of eligible voters in the UK. That seems like a lot. But then there's this interesting statistic:

In January 2019 Britain will officially switch from a pro-Brexit to an anti-Brexit country, and this is how we know

(side note: is that article really conflating "UK" and "Britain," or does the writer mean just voters in Great Britain?)

BadKen wrote:

(side note: is that article really conflating "UK" and "Britain," or does the writer mean just voters in Great Britain?)

The Nation state is called 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain' acceptable abbreviations are 'The UK', UK and GB.

Great Britain: The island with wales, scotland and england on it.
United Kingdom: Great Britain plus Northern Ireland
Britain: Often used as short hand for 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain'

Which means 'UK' and 'Britain' are often used interchangeably. Things are a bit slack and you'll see 'Great Britain' used to refer to the UK too.

That said, I called a Scots woman "British" once and she just about murdered me. The English seem much more comfortable with referring to the UK as Britain than the rest of the people in the UK are.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

That said, I called a Scots woman "British" once and she just about murdered me. The English seem much more comfortable with referring to the UK as Britain than the rest of the people in the UK are. ;)

"British" is an acceptable is an acceptable term for citizens of the UK but a great number of Scots see themselves as Scots first and British a very, very, very distant second. And that kind of Scot will have a general distaste to be being lumped in with any set of Englishman

May gave a speech last that.. well watch it yourself. It's short. Worth a watch.

As it stands, she is meeting currently with the EU27 and it appears that the extension will only be granted if she passes the deal. Early reports are that she is facing a serious cross examining from other Council member over what she will do with her extension if granted.

I know some think that the EU27 isn't prepared but the Irish government has already begun that process and the other member states have done so as well. Barnier himself has advised that member should "Finalise all preparations for a no-deal scenario". The UK on the other hand has a bit to go.

The EU27 is calling the no-deal bluff. We're about to find out if the UK is prepared to go all in. I want to say they wouldn't dream of it but...

ClockworkHouse wrote:

That said, I called a Scots woman "British" once and she just about murdered me. The English seem much more comfortable with referring to the UK as Britain than the rest of the people in the UK are. ;)

That's because English national pride was the preserve of the far right (think neo-facists/Nazis) for a very long time - certainly since the 1970s. It is still is to be honest, it's just a lot of that thinking is now apparently mainstream acceptable. So long as you are relatively subtle about it. The only time it's vaguely acceptable these days is when we are celebrating English sporting success. And Andy Murray.

Welsh/Scottish national pride however is perfectly acceptable, because everyone hates the English.

DanB wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

That said, I called a Scots woman "British" once and she just about murdered me. The English seem much more comfortable with referring to the UK as Britain than the rest of the people in the UK are. ;)

"British" is an acceptable is an acceptable term for citizens of the UK but a great number of Scots see themselves as Scots first and British a very, very, very distant second. And that kind of Scot will have a general distaste to be being lumped in with any set of Englishman

I'm a "West Brit" to some in my country because I played and follow rugby (Garrison Game). Oddly enough, the main sport that a lot of these people follow is English football and do not enjoy that irony being pointed out to them

Axon wrote:

The EU27 is calling the no-deal bluff. We're about to find out if the UK is prepared to go all in. I want to say they wouldn't dream of it but...

The problem here is that the EU think they are calling the UKs bluff. They aren't, they are trying to play chicken with the Tory party and they absolutely will not give way first unless someone else can get a hand on the wheel. We'll find out next week if that actually happens.

Everything May has done as been about trying to hold the two diametrically opposed parts of the Conservative party together, so they can remain in Government. It has nothing at all to do with what's best for the country. It stopped being that quite a long time ago. if it ever was.

The UK parliament isn't looking for a no-deal brexit. It's just that those in the conservative party who are apparently hold a great sway over Theresa May than those that don't.

There's not a hope in hell she'll get her deal passed unless she bribes the DUP/ ERG to a level that would really cause major issues on a political stage - probably enough to enable Corbyn to call another Vote of No Confidence and win, and force another GE.

There is also still no guarantee John Bercow will allow her to bring her deal to a third vote on the basis it hasn't changed since last time when it got rejected. He has warned her about this.

Nothing stoping a large number of Labour party members helping her out. She doesn't need the DUP or the ERG and should have jettisoned them several weeks ago now. There is no deal that will make them happy and it's hard to know who is more fanatic in their ideology. Different ideologies but sharing a similar goal.

The names escape me but their were some complaints from some MPs over Bercow's decision that they didn't know the second vote was the last. Seems there is a number who just wanted to vote against right to the last minute without realising when the last minute was.

And Bercow said his decision wasn't absolute. Once the extension is made dependant on the vote I can see an argument that the basis for the vote has materially changed.

If I were the EU, I would just deny the extension and get it over with. The US and UK have shown they’re not rational actors on the international stage and it’s time to set boundaries on them.

Reaper81 wrote:

If I were the EU, I would just deny the extension and get it over with. The US and UK have shown they’re not rational actors on the international stage and it’s time to set boundaries on them.

I certainly don't understand what an extension hopes to accomplish.

Axon wrote:

Nothing stoping a large number of Labour party members helping her out. She doesn't need the DUP or the ERG and should have jettisoned them several weeks ago now. There is no deal that will make them happy and it's hard to know who is more fanatic in their ideology. Different ideologies but sharing a similar goal.

The names escape me but their were some complaints from some MPs over Bercow's decision that they didn't know the second vote was the last. Seems there is a number who just wanted to vote against right to the last minute without realising when the last minute was.

And Bercow said his decision wasn't absolute. Once the extension is made dependant on the vote I can see an argument that the basis for the vote has materially changed.

If the choice in front of them is ‘general election or no deal but with Tory government for next 3 and half years’ - labour MPs will vote general election.

Reaper81 wrote:

If I were the EU, I would just deny the extension and get it over with.

If I were the EU I'd also be looking for whatever way the UK could be economically punished for wasting everyone's time with its pointless, pathetic, and ignorant nationalistic flex.

UK is doing the punishing quite effectively on their own. EU is probably better off not acting aggressively, even if UK might deserve it.

Shadout wrote:

UK is doing the punishing quite effectively on their own. EU is probably better off not acting aggressively, even if UK might deserve it.

Would stretching out the renegotiation of WTO tariffs and quotas a couple of years be considered aggressive?

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

If I were the EU, I would just deny the extension and get it over with. The US and UK have shown they’re not rational actors on the international stage and it’s time to set boundaries on them.

I certainly don't understand what an extension hopes to accomplish.

It's to allow time to ratify the deal with across the EU. Even if May got the deal over the line now there is no time to bring into effect before the 29th.

OG_slinger wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

If I were the EU, I would just deny the extension and get it over with.

If I were the EU I'd also be looking for whatever way the UK could be economically punished for wasting everyone's time with its pointless, pathetic, and ignorant nationalistic flex.

The best punishment is for the UK to remain under the influence of EU's regulations and the ECJ. Which it will

Reaper81 wrote:

If I were the EU, I would just deny the extension and get it over with. The US and UK have shown they’re not rational actors on the international stage and it’s time to set boundaries on them.

No one is acting rationally. You've got racist euroskeptical movements all over Europe, too. The National Front made it to the final round in the last French elections, right? You've got the Lega Nord in the Italian ruling coalition. AfD is the largest opposition party in Germany.

I don't think there is any such thing as an EU that can act tough right now. There's an EU that trying to hold on to some sense of union against rising clouds of fascism that see the EU as an example of everything that's wrong with 'globalism'.

edit: well, just watching Brexit and our elections, I shouldn't say they can't act tough. Clearly we all need to recalibrate our understanding of how smart people can do stupid things. Just that letting the UK crash out does nothing to help the cause of the EU. Whatever deterrent example it sets would, I think, be overwhelmingly outweighed by the damage it would inflict on...everybody. The people who stand to gain the most would be the fascists.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

That said, I called a Scots woman "British" once and she just about murdered me. The English seem much more comfortable with referring to the UK as Britain than the rest of the people in the UK are. ;)

I never considered myself British until I moved to the states. Up until then i referred to myself as English.

EU leaders have agreed on a plan to delay the Article 50 process, postponing Brexit beyond 29 March.

The UK will be offered a delay until 22 May, if MPs approve the withdrawal deal negotiated with the EU next week.

If they do not, the EU will back a shorter delay until 12 April, allowing the UK time to get the deal through or to "indicate a way forward".

The UK is due to leave the EU in eight days, with or without a deal, if no extension is agreed.

Glad to see that they want to end the extension before the next election. That avoids a whole lot of potential mess.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

If I were the EU, I would just deny the extension and get it over with. The US and UK have shown they’re not rational actors on the international stage and it’s time to set boundaries on them.

No one is acting rationally. You've got racist euroskeptical movements all over Europe, too. The National Front made it to the final round in the last French elections, right? You've got the Lega Nord in the Italian ruling coalition. AfD is the largest opposition party in Germany.

I don't think there is any such thing as an EU that can act tough right now. There's an EU that trying to hold on to some sense of union against rising clouds of fascism that see the EU as an example of everything that's wrong with 'globalism'.

edit: well, just watching Brexit and our elections, I shouldn't say they can't act tough. Clearly we all need to recalibrate our understanding of how smart people can do stupid things. Just that letting the UK crash out does nothing to help the cause of the EU. Whatever deterrent example it sets would, I think, be overwhelmingly outweighed by the damage it would inflict on...everybody. The people who stand to gain the most would be the fascists.

Well, I'd have to disagree but I don't blame you for having this perspective. I'm banging a drum here that is getting quite worn but there is a false narrative in the UK and US media that Europe is about to be overrun be the far-right any minute and the EU is in a state of chaos. This was the narrative that led many to believe that the EU was susceptible to making a deal and avoiding trouble. And turned out to be completely untrue for two reasons.

One is the EU is a rules based organisation. The EU27 are not "punishing" the UK for leaving, they just can't give them want they want. Never could regardless of every member state's political reality. There is simply no way this was going to work out any differently. Even if the UK crashes out in a no-deal scenario, within 12 months it will be back following EU regulations in order to access the single market. The UK is simply not big enough to justify the scenario the pro-Brexit crowd sold them. The UK will end up as either a full member state or a member state in all but name.

The other is It's a mistake of trying to layer US or UK first-past-the-post two parties politics onto a European proportional multi-party system. Just because the far-right win seats or are even the largest party it simply doesn't follow that the a country is becoming less supportive of the EU. Take Germany and the AfD. Yes, they are the party opposition by the fact that they are the largest opposition party. But they are isolated because they only have 12% of the seats and polling is showing them on the wane. It's not ideal but they are a long way from actual power and going in the wrong direction. On the tother hand, the parties that are pro-EU are arguing for greater integration and not less.

As well as that we are seeing the Green's overtake AfD and SPD in the polls. If a relatively small AfD gets so much coverage and is proof Germany is swinging right why is it when the Green Party are running second on 18-19% it fails to raise the same reportage as the former? It's almost as if selling a false narrative is more lucrative than the truth

Axon wrote:

The other is It's a mistake of trying to layer US or UK first-past-the-post two parties politics onto a European proportional multi-party system. Just because the far-right win seats or are even the largest party it simply doesn't follow that the a country is becoming less supportive of the EU. Take Germany and the AfD. Yes, they are the party opposition by the fact that they are the largest opposition party. But they are isolated because they only have 12% of the seats and polling is showing them on the wane. It's not ideal but they are a long way from actual power and going in the wrong direction.

To give an example, in a proportional system the racist extremists get 12% of the seats, which sounds terrible. Then you realize that in a FPTP system the racist extremists incredible power in the primaries due to their higher voter rate coopts an entire party over the course of a few decades and now 50% of the legislators and the goddamn President are completely beholden to them, many of them willingly.

While yeah, we shouldn't exaggerate how widespread the nationalists and racists are, even in a proportional system they can cause havoc, like in Sweden which struggles to get working governments, with SD taking up 17%. Germany is kinda the same.
Not that it is necessarily bad, forcing some of of the traditional parties to work more together, when none of them can gain a majority might have positive outcomes down the road - or it might lead to inaction when nobody can agree on anything substantial.
Got to worry about how France will do in their next presidential elections too.

Also, even if 10-20% racist parties cant take control, it serves as encouragement for the right-wing to see that they can succeed. With all the violence that follow.

Honestly, I bet a lot of Europen countries have "lucked out" (if you can consider out current world situation lucky in any way), by our right-wing rise being outdone by Trump, serving as a warning sign to everyone. And Brexit doing the same. Anti-EU parties seem to mumble when asked about leaving EU these days, because saying you want to be a complete mess like UK is not the most popular thing right now.
It has also really made the EU members stick together more, with a few noticeable exceptions in Hungary and Poland.

I would still say right-wing fascism is very much on the rise, and a real danger to, well, everything.
It isn't like fascists actually need a majority to take power, if they get daring enough.

My favourite thing from the EU summit press conference from Juncker,

Juncker is speaking now. He says the summit also talked about China. It was easier talking about China than the UK, he says. Not that it is joining the EU, he says. But it is not leaving either.
Axon wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Reaper81 wrote:

If I were the EU, I would just deny the extension and get it over with. The US and UK have shown they’re not rational actors on the international stage and it’s time to set boundaries on them.

No one is acting rationally. You've got racist euroskeptical movements all over Europe, too. The National Front made it to the final round in the last French elections, right? You've got the Lega Nord in the Italian ruling coalition. AfD is the largest opposition party in Germany.

I don't think there is any such thing as an EU that can act tough right now. There's an EU that trying to hold on to some sense of union against rising clouds of fascism that see the EU as an example of everything that's wrong with 'globalism'.

edit: well, just watching Brexit and our elections, I shouldn't say they can't act tough. Clearly we all need to recalibrate our understanding of how smart people can do stupid things. Just that letting the UK crash out does nothing to help the cause of the EU. Whatever deterrent example it sets would, I think, be overwhelmingly outweighed by the damage it would inflict on...everybody. The people who stand to gain the most would be the fascists.

Well, I'd have to disagree but I don't blame you for having this perspective. I'm banging a drum here that is getting quite worn but there is a false narrative in the UK and US media that Europe is about to be overrun be the far-right any minute and the EU is in a state of chaos. This was the narrative that led many to believe that the EU was susceptible to making a deal and avoiding trouble. And turned out to be completely untrue for two reasons.

I'm thinking more along the lines of everyone facing a common problem. I'm sure from over there, the US looks worse than it actually is, too.

One is the EU is a rules based organisation.

Eh, after that re-interpretation of Article 50, I'm not so sure!

The EU27 are not "punishing" the UK for leaving, they just can't give them want they want. Never could regardless of every member state's political reality. There is simply no way this was going to work out any differently. Even if the UK crashes out in a no-deal scenario, within 12 months it will be back following EU regulations in order to access the single market. The UK is simply not big enough to justify the scenario the pro-Brexit crowd sold them. The UK will end up as either a full member state or a member state in all but name.

Sure, and don't get me wrong, I'm *glad* they retconned Article 50 because I'm sure the drafters never considered a country like the UK would get duped into a mess like this, and right now an EU in the turmoil of a hard Brexit is in no one's interest but the Putins of the world.

The other is It's a mistake of trying to layer US or UK first-past-the-post two parties politics onto a European proportional multi-party system. Just because the far-right win seats or are even the largest party it simply doesn't follow that the a country is becoming less supportive of the EU. Take Germany and the AfD. Yes, they are the party opposition by the fact that they are the largest opposition party. But they are isolated because they only have 12% of the seats and polling is showing them on the wane. It's not ideal but they are a long way from actual power and going in the wrong direction. On the tother hand, the parties that are pro-EU are arguing for greater integration and not less.

As well as that we are seeing the Green's overtake AfD and SPD in the polls. If a relatively small AfD gets so much coverage and is proof Germany is swinging right why is it when the Green Party are running second on 18-19% it fails to raise the same reportage as the former? It's almost as if selling a false narrative is more lucrative than the truth :)

A case where I hope you're right and I'm wrong. Also a case where, like I said, things might look worse being *too* far away. The drubbings Trump and the Republicans are taking over here suggest the same as what you're saying.

It's especially concerning for those of us who really believe in social welfare states. We could always point to countries like the UK/France/Germany as an example, and I know *I'm* rattled to watch what's happening. I guess we can still look to the Scandinavian countries, but as an American liberal, it's scary.

What makes you think they’ve reinterpreted Article 50?

And you’re meant to think the developed European countries with strong welfare states are in trouble and scary places. Don’t believe it. As I said, the narrative pushed in all US media is shoddy journalism at best. The reason they do it I can only guess.