Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-18-2019, 04:39 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,516

What will the UK do wrt Brexit?


I know there have been threads on this, but we seem to be coming down to the wire with no agreement in sight, so was wondering what 'dopers thoughts on this, especially our UK or EU 'dopers. I was watching the latest from John Oliver where he was discussing this, and one of the things he mentioned is that the UK government could, even at this late date, call the whole thing off. Is that actually a possibility? I don't mean politically, I mean just is it possible in their system? I'm guessing that, politically, this would be the equivalent of putting a gun to ones political head and pulling the trigger, but if one was willing to take one for the team, is this even viable...and who would have to be the one(s?) taking it for the team?

If it doesn't happen and they just go along until the automatic Brexit (next month?), what then? I understand there are some fundamental issues that are just hanging and that this would or could be the worst possible course...yet that seems to be what is happening. What are the other options?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #2  
Old 02-18-2019, 04:53 PM
Pithily Effusive is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 100
They will struggle along with an economy that's suddenly reduced by almost 10%. This will last until they can negotiate trade agreements sufficient to make up the shortfall. During this time there will be seething recrimination and finger-pointing. Two major political parties will fall into disrepute, leaving but one to rake in the chips. It's sort of like asking, "After the man shoots off his own foot, what will happen?"
  #3  
Old 02-18-2019, 05:43 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,745
The UK government sent an A50 notice to the European Union to withdraw from that organization--which the UK Parliament approved. This notice can be unilaterally withdrawn according to the European Court of Justice. And the UK Parliament can do this up until the date of withdrawal. So technically it is still possible. The problem is the majority of Parliament favor leaving.
  #4  
Old 02-18-2019, 05:44 PM
XT's Avatar
XT is offline
Agnatheist
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The Great South West
Posts: 35,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
The UK government sent an A50 notice to the European Union to withdraw from that organization--which the UK Parliament approved. This notice can be unilaterally withdrawn according to the European Court of Justice. And the UK Parliament can do this up until the date of withdrawal. So technically it is still possible. The problem is the majority of Parliament favor leaving.
So, legally they could...it's simply not viable politically?
__________________
-XT

That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter!
  #5  
Old 02-18-2019, 05:55 PM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,362

What will the UK do wrt Brexit?


Pretty much, but even more, I wager, are against being blamed for having thousands of their constituents laid off for for zero benefit. I still feel No Deal won't happen. On my optimistic days (hah) a delay to Brexit and a second referendum is called. But I reckon it's going to be May's Deal, even though nearly everybody hates it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Last edited by Malden Capell; 02-18-2019 at 05:55 PM.
  #6  
Old 02-18-2019, 06:11 PM
Pithily Effusive is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
...the UK government could, even at this late date, call the whole thing off. Is that actually a possibility?

If it doesn't happen and they just go along until the automatic Brexit (next month?), what then?
As a matter of fact, yes. The UK could have another referendum and vote stay and pull the plug on the whole thing. In fact, the Labor Party is agitating to do just that. They've threatened their leader, Corbyn, and vowed to either get their referendum or they'll leave the Labor Party - the majority this, presumably to attempt it on their own.

Guess another what...the way the EU constitution is written all it takes is ONE no vote from one member country to sh*tcan any negotiated settlement PM May may have managed to reach. As you can see, there's been a lot of lying going on in the UK.

My previous post may seem terse, but it's true. The UK would then have to negotiate trade deals. All their trade arrangements at present are based on being an EU member, not as an individual state. There will be an estimated 9.42% reduction in the overall size of their economy and however long it takes them to make other arrangements to meet this shortfall. NOT TO MENTION the displacement of EU citizens living in the UK, and UK citizens living in other EU countries.

It will be an economic debacle the magnitude of which will leave them wondering for decades to come about the wisdom of believing things they see painted on the sides of large buses.
__________________
If you want to know what God thinks of money just look at the people He gave it to.
-Dorothy Parker-

Last edited by Pithily Effusive; 02-18-2019 at 06:14 PM.
  #7  
Old 02-18-2019, 07:35 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by XT View Post
So, legally they could...it's simply not viable politically?
As a matter of EU law, they can.

As a matter of (the current state of) UK law, they can, but it's complex and arguably there isn't time. There's academic debate about whether this is something the executive can constututionally do on its own authority, or whether the approval of Parliament would be required. There's also the awkard fact that Parliament has already legislated for EU law to cease to apply in the UK with effect from 29 March; if the UK revokes its departure notice, but that law is not amended or repealed, then the UK will remain a member from 29 March but will be in massive breach of its membership obligations, leading to chaos not much less than if they had left without a deal.

So, realistically, if they wanted to revoke the Article 50 notice, they'd either have to move protty sharply, and with the backing of a comfortably majority in Parliament, or they'd have to request an extension of time.

But it's all academic. Politically, a decision to revoke seems very, very unlikely.
  #8  
Old 02-18-2019, 08:17 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pithily Effusive View Post
Guess another what...the way the EU constitution is written all it takes is ONE no vote from one member country to sh*tcan any negotiated settlement PM May may have managed to reach.
No. The withdrawal agreement requires a qualified majority in the Commission and approval of the European Parliament. Anything within the exclusive competence of the EU requires the same (most aspects of trade deals). Thus one no vote will not kill such agreements.

However for issues which competence is shared with member states, these deals have to be approved by all members.

So you see the recent agreement with Japan split into two deals because of these two separate types of ratification requirements.
  #9  
Old 02-18-2019, 08:25 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,745
As to UDS comment there isn't enough time, Parliament has the ability to Fast-track legislation. For example Parliament has done this with certain anti-terrorism measures.
  #10  
Old 02-18-2019, 08:42 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
As to UDS comment there isn't enough time, Parliament has the ability to Fast-track legislation. For example Parliament has done this with certain anti-terrorism measures.
Yes, but this requires a solid majority in Parliament that wants to fast-track the legislation, and no obstructive minority standing in the way. How likely do you think that is for an Article 50 revocation?
  #11  
Old 02-18-2019, 11:59 PM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by PastTense View Post
The problem is the majority of Parliament favor leaving.
Not quite. In their heart of hearts the majority of Parliament favour staying, but recognise that the referendum result didn't go that way. Moreover, a majority of Parliament opposes leaving without an agreement on both the legacy consequences of leaving and a clear future relationship.

But there is no majority for any particular form of agreement, above all, for the deal which the government has secured, which is opposed by diehards on both sides of the leave/remain debate. Which is why there are so many different ideas floated about how best to try to break the deadlock.
  #12  
Old 02-19-2019, 02:52 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,080
We're essentially in a big game of chicken. As Patrick says, a majority of MPs recognise that No Deal is the worst outcome. They know they can prevent No Deal by voting for some alternative. But for e.g. Labour MPs that would mean voting for May's deal against the wishes of their party and thus helping out the Tories. For Tory MPs it would similarly mean betraying their party to back Labour's preferred option. That will come at a political cost to the individual MPs.

So right now, there are lots of MPs saying to themselves, "We're heading for disaster and somebody is going to have to step up and do what it takes to stop it, even if that costs them personally." But what's needed is for them to go on to say, "And by golly, that someone is me." (To paraphrase political commentator Stephen Bush)

As we get closer to the deadline, and pressure mounts, perhaps some will. That is May's plan. But it's a hell of a stake for a dodgy bet.
  #13  
Old 02-19-2019, 03:03 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
At the moment, I'm pretty pessimistic. It's been obvious since May's deal failed in parliament that the UK is out of options. Nobody wants May's deal, and a majority in congress are seriously saying shit along the lines of "go renegotiate it". This helps underline the degree to which nobody in parliament has a goddamn clue how any of this shit works. You cannot simply unilaterally renegotiate a deal made in two years in a span of months. The EU has cleanly rejected changing that deal, and there's no way for the UK to force their hand. (They're not about to budge on the backstop, either, because the party that wants the backstop is, y'know, a member of the EU.)

So our options largely boil down to:

- Parliament changes its mind on May's brexit deal and votes for a treaty that was rejected in a record rout
- Parliament changes its mind on leaving the EU
- Parliament does nothing and the UK crashes out of the EU without any new trade deal in place

Given that parliament has shown itself to be utterly incompetent and unwilling to take either of the two first options, and that the third will happen by default if they don't get their shit together... Yeah. Color me pessimistic.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 02-19-2019 at 03:04 AM.
  #14  
Old 02-19-2019, 03:23 AM
Toffe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Europe/Latin America
Posts: 273
I don't understand how MPs are thinking mid-to-long term. Utter incompetence isn't a satisfactory explanation. Why are both the Tory and Labour parties insisting on delivering Brexit at any cost? Why is a referendum suddenly a sacred thing when the outcome was 48.1% for one clearly-defined outcome and 51.9 were split among various paths for a nebulous concept of Brexit? I keep hearing that MPs could never face their electorate if they failed to deliver Brexit, but do they reckon they will be any better off once the UK crashes out with no deal, the economy contracts, and trade and tourism with the EU gets huge immediate roadblocks? Why does this Westminster decision take precedence over the feelings of the electorate in Scotland and Northern Ireland - does devolution only matter in unimportant things?

I'm expecting the UK to crash out with no deal, even though it's idiotic and would likely lead to real chaos in Ireland and Scotland. I can sort of sympathise with some of the thinking behind wanting to leave the EU - I left the EU myself - but the approach, expectations, and execution are completely cack-handed. It just looks like the MPs are trying to turn a hung parliament into a hanged parliament. Or maybe it's because all the decision-makers are coffin-dodgers ready to retire at the end of this parliament, or rich enough that they feel they won't be affected beyond being a slightly smaller fish in a much smaller pond.
  #15  
Old 02-19-2019, 05:32 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
We're essentially in a big game of chicken.
Stanislaus has pretty much nailed it. My personal summarisation of the political commentary Iíve read is that May is delaying a decisive vote for as long as possible in order to force MPís to choose between her Brexit plan and a no-deal Brexit. Sheís trying to force a vote against a no-deal Brexit where the only other choice is her deal. Laura Kuenssberg had a pretty good write-up of the delaying tactic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47219386

The question is whether May will hold her nerve. If she gets more scared of a no-deal Brexit than parliament, then her only option is to ask the EU for a delay. And then you have to wander what the EU will demand in exchange for a delay.
  #16  
Old 02-19-2019, 05:39 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,393
I have enough time wondering what's up with America to prognosticate about the equally confused British situation. It's so confusing that I don't even know what the major parties in England stand for (as opposed to the other national parties and Lib Dems).

I can't rule out a hard Brexit even though it seems unthinkable: an election of an evil incompetent seemed unthinkable in America but it happened nonetheless. (And, unlike the finger-waggers who say I shouldn't have thought that: the world is a huge place, and you are a small part of it. It does not care what you do, let alone what you feel. My attitude had nothing to do with the final outcome. What should I have done, bought airtime in the swing states myself with my paltry amount of money? The same goes for complacent Remainers: one person's lack of fear would ulitmately not have made a difference unless it caused them to stay at home instead of voting Remain.
  #17  
Old 02-19-2019, 05:41 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,239
I expect them to apply the quintessential British reaction to something that has become embarrassing - ignore it.
  #18  
Old 02-19-2019, 05:57 AM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,740
Several airlines, including Iberia and its little sister Vueling, could lose most if not all of their current EU operating licenses. And, although the articles always focus on Iberia, so would British Airways. These airlines are part of a group which must keep a certain % of its ownership EU; the group has already been shifting the distribution of which routes are covered by each airline, but if the group doesn't meet ownership requirements, those of its airlines which are based in EU-member countries will be grounded.


This may seem like something which is way above most people's worries - until they try to vacation to Tenerife.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #19  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:36 AM
yendis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I expect them to apply the quintessential British reaction to something that has become embarrassing - ignore it.
And when ignoring it doesn't work they'll employ the next favourite tactic, they'll 'muddle through'
  #20  
Old 02-19-2019, 06:52 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toffe View Post
I don't understand how MPs are thinking mid-to-long term. Utter incompetence isn't a satisfactory explanation. Why are both the Tory and Labour parties insisting on delivering Brexit at any cost? Why is a referendum suddenly a sacred thing when the outcome was 48.1% for one clearly-defined outcome and 51.9 were split among various paths for a nebulous concept of Brexit? I keep hearing that MPs could never face their electorate if they failed to deliver Brexit, but do they reckon they will be any better off once the UK crashes out with no deal, the economy contracts, and trade and tourism with the EU gets huge immediate roadblocks?
<post shortened>

Itís a combination of a lack of leadership clout from party leaders and also from independent-minded MPís, and commitment to party. Theresa May promised to deliver Brexit and is minded to deliver the softest meaningful Brexit she can, but sheís unable to get the Conservative party behind her. There are hardline Tory Brexiteers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg who oppose Mayís soft Brexit and tried to bring her down, but they failed and nobody else in Parliament is willing to work with them. And even they werenít committed enough to their position to vote against May in the Parliament-wide vote of no confidence.

On the Labour side, Jeremy Corbyn wants some ambiguous soft Brexit that maintains the customs union but opposes the Irish border backstop in Mayís plan, protects workersí rights, is definitely not the same as Mayís plan, and heíll tell us more about it after a general election is called. Theoretically, he could force some sort of compromise bill by building some sort of temporary cross-party coalition, but nobodyís going to cross party lines for a proposal that doesnít exist. Not to mention he also has his own problems with getting his party behind him. Even so, the Labour MPís who would be willing to back Mayís plan wonít do so out of fear theyíll lose their jobs.

The next leader is Vince Cable, the leader of the Liberal Democrats. Heís firmly in favour of a second referendum and has his party behind him. He could also probably get the Scottish National Party to work with him, but even together theyíre too small to have influence with the government or with opposition. Instead, heís been trying to do a grassroots campaign for a second referendum but itís been going nowhere. Probably, thereís a silent majority in parliament that would back a second referendum if they could do so anonymously, but theyíre not going to cross party lines and back Cable. Instead some MPís are making declarations within their party, but thereís no sign of a coalition supporting a second referendum.

TLDR: Itís a mess. Itís a mess thatís solvable by compromise, but that would require agreement among leaders, or MPís crossing party lines and neither is happening.
  #21  
Old 02-19-2019, 07:28 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toffe View Post
when the outcome was 48.1% for one clearly-defined outcome and 51.9 were split among various paths for a nebulous concept of Brexit?
This is not true. The options on the ballot paper were crystal clear: remain or leave. The UK made its choice, and the politicians are struggling to not implement it.
  #22  
Old 02-19-2019, 07:42 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by yendis View Post
And when ignoring it doesn't work they'll employ the next favourite tactic, they'll 'muddle through'
Jolly good, then.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #23  
Old 02-19-2019, 07:52 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
This is not true. The options on the ballot paper were crystal clear: remain or leave. The UK made its choice, and the politicians are struggling to not implement it.
We've been over this in other threads, but what, exactly, does "leave the EU" mean? Does it mean abandoning the shared borders but keeping the trade union? Does it mean leaving the trade union but keeping shared borders? "Leave" is not well-defined. "Remain" is - it just means "don't do anything". But the reason politicians are struggling to implement it is that, as it turns out, it's not clear what the hell people wanted! It certainly doesn't seem to be the no-deal brexit. And it clearly isn't the Theresa May deal either. So what the hell do they want?
  #24  
Old 02-19-2019, 08:09 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
This is not true. The options on the ballot paper were crystal clear: remain or leave. The UK made its choice, and the politicians are struggling to not implement it.
That is very funny....

It is the same as saying "We made the crystal clear voting choice to build the bridge between the Ireland and the UK for 100 USD and the politicians are struggling not to implement it" with the completely magical unrealistic pay no attention at all to the physical and the financial realities...
  #25  
Old 02-19-2019, 08:24 AM
flip-68 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 44
**I voted for my 100 dollar bridge, dammit - now DO it!**

whatever, the worst case scenario is - that's what will happen. I've long given up hope in people/politicians.

sleep walk into no deal, probably.
  #26  
Old 02-19-2019, 08:30 AM
Ramira's Avatar
Ramira is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
...But the reason politicians are struggling to implement it is that, as it turns out, it's not clear what the hell people wanted! It certainly doesn't seem to be the no-deal brexit. And it clearly isn't the Theresa May deal either. So what the hell do they want?
Indeed, it is such the great surprise that in fact the unwinding of 40 years of trade integration including the high intensive degree of the physical infrastructure built on the lack of any trade borders is very much more complicated than the slogans...

The complexities, which are on the order of a complex combination of the physical logistics infrastructure, the legal infrastructure, the legal agreements, the data and the technical agreements, are not things just waived away in the real world outside of the fantasies.
  #27  
Old 02-19-2019, 08:41 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
We've been over this in other threads, but what, exactly, does "leave the EU" mean?
It means exactly that. No more and no less. A deal between the independent UK and the independent UK is just that, a deal. Just like a deal between the independent UK and the independent USA.
  #28  
Old 02-19-2019, 08:47 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It means exactly that. No more and no less. A deal between the independent UK and the independent UK is just that, a deal. Just like a deal between the independent UK and the independent USA.
So it's your opinion that the UK voted to unilaterally abandon all EU treaties and deals? In other words, a hard brexit?
  #29  
Old 02-19-2019, 08:55 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
The UK voted to leave the EU. It's as simple as that. What treaties an independent UK chooses to negotiate are up to the UK and its treaty partners; I hope the UK negotiates a good deal with the EU.
  #30  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:05 AM
Nava is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,740
But that's the UK-sized point you're missing: the subjects on which the deals are to be negotiated are exactly the subjects which didn't need to be negotiated when the UK belonged to the EU. And the point of softening Brexit is to have as much of the negotiation done before March 29 as possible.

But no, let's sail on our own (never mind half the hull is missing) and, once we're drowning, then we'll get back to the table. Point. By. Point.

If Brexit ends up leading to an independent, EU-member Scotland and to Gibraltar espaŮol I'll laugh so hard I may need a hospital stay.
__________________
Evidence gathered through the use of science is easily dismissed through the use of idiocy. - Czarcasm.
  #31  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:11 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
So it's your opinion that the UK voted to unilaterally abandon all EU treaties and deals? In other words, a hard brexit?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
The UK voted to leave the EU. It's as simple as that. What treaties an independent UK chooses to negotiate are up to the UK and its treaty partners; I hope the UK negotiates a good deal with the EU.
I don't really feel like you answered my question. Did the British people vote to unilaterally abandon all EU treaties and trade deals?

You keep saying "The UK voted to leave the EU". In your head, what concrete policy does that equate to? Can you explain that?
  #32  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:24 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
You keep saying "The UK voted to leave the EU".
Yes. It's as simple as that.

Quote:
In your head, what concrete policy does that equate to? Can you explain that?
It equates to leaving the EU. It's that simple. All this talk about a hard Brexit or soft Brexit or whatever is all a red herring.

As I have also repeatedly said, Brexit is a decision I respect more than like. Do you believe in democracy? If you do, you must respect votes which do not go your way. Or are you a wannabe dictator?
  #33  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:30 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It equates to leaving the EU. It's that simple. All this talk about a hard Brexit or soft Brexit or whatever is all a red herring.
Then you should have absolutely no trouble explaining what this means in concrete terms. Or just answering "yes" to my question. Did the British people vote to unilaterally abandon all EU treaties and trade deals? Yes or no?

There is no good reason why it should be this hard to get a straight answer out of you to this question. For all I know, "Leave the EU" means "push the british islands towards Canada".

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 02-19-2019 at 09:30 AM.
  #34  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:55 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
You're obfuscating. The UK voted to leave the EU. It's that simple. I'm sorry you cannot understand that simple fact.
  #35  
Old 02-19-2019, 09:59 AM
Chingon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: the hypersphere
Posts: 640
Does this mean blowing up the Chunnel?
  #36  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:00 AM
PatrickLondon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
It means exactly that. No more and no less. A deal between the independent UK and the independent UK is just that, a deal. Just like a deal between the independent UK and the independent USA.

Bit of a Freudian slip there? Part of the present problem is that there wasn't even a clear "deal between the independent UK and the independent UK" before the referendum or before Article 50 was triggered, with the result that everything has been clogged up while we argue among ourselves: what should the deal be aimed at achieving, in concrete, operationable, legislated and justiciable terms?
  #37  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:02 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Heh: independent UK and independent EU.

Beyond that, I have made my position clear.
  #38  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:13 AM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
what should the deal be aimed at achieving, in concrete, operationable, legislated and justiciable terms?
Brexit means Brexit, Patrick.
  #39  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:18 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
As I have also repeatedly said, Brexit is a decision I respect more than like. Do you believe in democracy? If you do, you must respect votes which do not go your way. Or are you a wannabe dictator?
No, I believe that halfway intelligent people often reconsider previously held views when confronted with new information. And presumably the citizens of the UK have at least a somewhat better idea now of what Brexit might possibly mean than they did at the time of the referendum.

Now one could say, "So what if we know more now? We should lock ourselves into the decision we made when we were ignorant! If we believe in democracy, we must respect the decision we made then!"

Or one could say, "Now that we have a better understanding of what 'leave' might really mean, why don't we check to see if that's still what we want to do?"

Not to mention: was the original referendum supposed to be binding? If not, it hardly seems like an abridgment of democracy to reconsider it.
  #40  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:30 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Heh: independent UK and independent EU.

Beyond that, I have made my position clear.

You really haven't.

Brexit ranges from hard exit, breaking treaties, pulling up the drawbridge, to Norway plus plus.

Your inability/unwillingness to engage on the complexity if the issue and insist it's all quite simple makes you part of the problem, Quartz.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #41  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:32 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Well that exchange was hopefully illuminating to everyone reading. A simple "yes" or "no" answer to a very simple question was not forthcoming, for whatever reason. If I had to guess why, it'd be because "yes" is just factually indefensible (only 28% actually wants a hard brexit, which is very close to a familiar number...), while "no" completely undermines Quartz's point, as that's the most obvious meaning of "leave the EU", but not what we're talking about.

I'm forced to speculate, because he won't answer the question, but if he'd like to fill us in, he's welcome to. I'm not going to spend any more time trying to understand his position. I mean, maybe he just hasn't given it much thought - in that case, it's fair to admit that as well.

That whole exchange is kinda funny, right? Now here's the scary part: somehow, a substantial number of elected officials are operating at that level, to the point where "brexit means brexit" was May's slogan for quite a while. It's an asinine slogan, and it was clear that it was an asinine slogan two and a half years ago:

Quote:
Mrs May's slogans, on the other hand, seem firm and unambiguous, but after a little reflection unravel into a world of trouble ahead.

She rises from the ashes of the defeat of her side in the referendum, but how she copes with its implications will determine her success or failure in No 10.

"Brexit means Brexit," does mean of course, that she will take the UK out of the EU.

About the only thing she said about the whole central matter in her Birmingham speech launching her campaign was: "There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it by the back door, and no second referendum.

"The country voted to leave the European Union, and as prime minister I will make sure that we leave the European Union."

While there are many outside Westminster who will be furious (disMayed, even) at that, few inside the Palace can conceive of anything else. MPs will at least now debate the matter, as a sort of consolation prize.

But the manner of withdrawal, and the subsequent relationship, is up for grabs.
It boggles the mind that people find this shit convincing, but that's where we are. This is why I think the smart money is on a no-deal brexit. And, for what it's worth, the EU seems to think that as well, as, according to this extremely unreputable source, they're preparing to help supply UK food banks with aid in the case of a no-deal brexit.

Now, the only source I can find for this claim is the Express, which means that I don't have a source anyone can even remotely take seriously, but even assuming this is all pure hooey, just take a look at how they're framing this, holy shit!

The headline is "EU BLACKMAIL: Brussels threatens FOOD AID to UK in 'last throw of dice of Project Fear'"

That sounds really scary, right? Like the EU is going to take away food aid if the UK leaves? Well, here's the sub-header.

"THE EU is planning to send food aid to feed Britain’s poor in the event of a no deal Brexit, sources in Brussels have revealed."



"How dare that dastardly EU feed our poor?!" crows the Express, screeching from its offices (which, at this point, I have to assume are made out of the bones of orphans).

I wish this whole thing could be funny. Because that's just objectively funny, right? But it's a bit like making jokes about life in the aftermath of nuclear war if the Russians pledged to nuke Washington in 30 days if their demands for a free unicorn for every citizen aren't met - the whole thing has this dark, nasty undertone to it, because a whole lot of people are going to suffer as a result. It's gallows humor, and the bitter aftertaste comes mostly from the knowledge that there's no fucking benefit to it, the UK could stop any time it wants, but seems insistent to jump headlong onto that landmine. It all comes down to a whole lot of people, particularly people in positions of power, being unforgivably stupid.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 02-19-2019 at 10:35 AM.
  #42  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:41 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
I'm forced to speculate, because he won't answer the question, but if he'd like to fill us in, he's welcome to.
Reported.
  #43  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:55 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Reported.

Aw, bless.

Pitted. https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb...d.php?t=871075


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  #44  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:55 AM
filmstar-en is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 943
It is true the UK voted to leave the EU.

Unfortunately it means leaving all of the 40 or more deals the EU have done with other economies and trading blocs around the world and organising some kind of border between the UK and the EU in Ireland and deal with the re-emergence of a constitutional crisis in Ireland.

So Leave means rebuild the entire network of trading relationships between the UK and nearly all its international trading partners. At the same time it requires revisiting the delicate constitutional settlement in NI.

These are two quite big problems for any government to solve and they were not foremost in the minds of the general public when they were asked to vote. Most voters in the UK have the haziest notion of how the country trades with other countries and all the know of Northern Ireland is the memories of terrorist bombs and assassinations during the thirty years of the 'Troubles'. Foremost in their mind was immigration, interference from the EU and the European courts that impact British sovereignty and the financial benefits that would acrue for the NHS if the money sent to the EU was redirected to the Health Service.

The Brexit vote created a political imperative that a faction within the Conservative Party seized upon and Theresa May is anxious to appease. Brexit is promoted rather grandly as 'the democratic will of the British people' and the politicians live in fear of the reaction of voters who voted to leave. There are predictions of riots and civil unrest unless the UK government delivers Brexit. Sections of the UK press do their best to keep up the pressure the claims heard during the Referendum campaign that all the worries of the consequences of Brexit are part of 'Project Fear' conspiracy by the powers that be to keep the status quo. Theresa May insists that the British public simply want the Government to 'Get on with it' and stop making such a fuss. She has made it here mission to deliver Brexit for the British people and has been very vague about what it actually means, only that it will somehow be a benefit.

Consequently public opinion is confused and divided.

The political parties are divided. Both are being driven by factions from the Right and the Left that see a benefit to leaving the EU. The Right think it will usher in a period where the UK leads a charge towards international Free Trade unencumbered by the restrictions of being in trade bloc like the EU. The UK will cut clever, deals with economies across the world and will no longer be held back by the EU. The Left and the faction leading the Labour Party consider the EU to be a capitalist club controlled by the interests of Big business, though they do like some of the EU worker protection policies.

What will happen next?

As the deadline draws near. May presents this a challenge for the UK parliament to accept her negotiated Withdrawal Agreement or deal with the chaos and confusion that will result from a No Deal. The alternatives that have been proposed by various other factions in her party have been sidelined. Most conspicuously the rather obvious solution that is have another Referendum to see what whether the public still want to go through with it.

Pretty soon there will be another vote to see if Parliament will support her deal. If MPs vote against it the country will then have to deal with the consequences and May can lay the blame on Parliament for that happening.

If it goes to a No Deal, there will be a political, economic and constitutional crisis that will unfold over the next few years. Rather like in 1940 there will be a 'phony war', a period of anxious preparation for the coming tide of challenges begin. The British will don tin hats and look up to the skies once again. Except this time, the enemy is rather less conspicuously bad. It is rather difficult to see constitutional negotiations in Ireland and international trade talks in a heroic light. The economy will be the focus, there may be a run on the Pound and some years of austerity. There will be a succession of crises over immigration and anxious arrangements to stop an exodus of the EU labour crucial to different sections of the economy and most of all, the NHS.

If Parliament caves in and supports Mays deal as the lesser of two evils, this will kick the can down the road for another couple of years.

The British are inordinately fond of crises and this one will be exquisite because it will be completely self made. Whether any government will convince the public to support a national campaign to deal with these challenges, like a war effort. That I doubt. After all. Half the country will be saying they did not vote for it and those that did will say they they did not vote for the economy to be driven off a cliff, they were told everything would be fine.

The next few weeks should be interesting. The Labour party has started to split. It may be that some Conservatives join them. The tensions within the political parties are very tense, but UK politicians tend to put a high premium on party loyalty. In fact, the are concerned rather more with their party infighting than the interests of the nation (though they say the opposite.) Which is why we got into this mess in the first place.

Personally, I would have rather more faith that some good would come out of this if there was any sort of credible plan coming out of the government to promote international trade in services. Most of what I am hearing about the UK trade prospects after Brexit are not at all encouraging. UK trade negotiators are inexperienced, the EU did that sort of thing for us. So we have to learn from scratch and it takes two sides to reach any sort of deal. Just because the UK is in a crisis and has to cut deals, it does not mean that the rest of the world has to follow the same timetable. If the UK exits without a deal it undermines the credibility of our negotiators completely. If we treat our neighbours like that, the rest of the world will be right to be cautious in their dealing with the UK.

Will May get backing for her deal at the last moment? We will find out in the next few weeks. I suspect there are going to be some resignations. May might even call a General Election if she loses a vote. That would be a good reason to delay the leave deadline.
  #45  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:56 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Reported.
I'm sure there's a great "project fear" joke in here somewhere but I can't find it for the life of me.
  #46  
Old 02-19-2019, 10:57 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,861

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Reported.
Thanks for the report. Generally, unless it's spam we prefer to not publicly indicate a post report.

I wrote about this previously here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
In general, private reports are preferable because of the aforementioned potential of junior modding, and also to avoid the potential disagreement with the report. There is also the potential back and forth between posters saying they are reporting each other's posts.

[/moderating]
  #47  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:02 AM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 15,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
As I have also repeatedly said, Brexit is a decision I respect more than like. Do you believe in democracy? If you do, you must respect votes which do not go your way. Or are you a wannabe dictator?
How is holding a second referendum dictatorial? It strikes me as the very opposite of that. It sounds to me like the leavers are worried they wouldn't win a second vote.
  #48  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:35 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
How is holding a second referendum dictatorial?
The result of the first has yet to be implemented. Should the US have another presidential election just because Trump won (okay, poor example ) Should the UK have another general election just because?

Quote:
It strikes me as the very opposite of that. It sounds to me like the leavers are worried they wouldn't win a second vote.
And if the second results in another vote for leave, should we have a third? A fourth? Dammit, we'll keep them voting until they give the answer we want!

We live in a democracy. The democratic vote was to leave. In due course, the UK may apply to re-join the EU. I hope it does, and I hope that the EU gives us terms that the majority can accept.
  #49  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:37 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,925

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
Reported.
Iíd really prefer you just report a post and not announce you did so. It seems overly hostile.
  #50  
Old 02-19-2019, 11:45 AM
Inner Stickler's Avatar
Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 15,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
The result of the first has yet to be implemented. Should the US have another presidential election just because Trump won (okay, poor example ) Should the UK have another general election just because?



And if the second results in another vote for leave, should we have a third? A fourth? Dammit, we'll keep them voting until they give the answer we want!

We live in a democracy. The democratic vote was to leave. In due course, the UK may apply to re-join the EU. I hope it does, and I hope that the EU gives us terms that the majority can accept.
If the mechanism exists for holding an election or referendum ad hoc at will and the requirements for it are met, why not? If politicians start calling for too many expensive public referendums, the voters can elect new politicians who promise not to do that or pass legislation to change the rules.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017