Brexit process

[fuzzy]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... do-it.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... rists.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politi ... rseas.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... erges.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... ction.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... -stop.html

[Automaton]

You picked the wrong side Automaton.]

I haven't picked a side LJ. But if something is about sides, I usually find the right one to be on is the least popular!

You strike me as someone who usually sees the big picture, but I think you've maybe gotten caught up in the smaller one on this issue. Parliament is corrupt, and is not going to be any less so after Brexit. The people of the UK are unlikely to be any better off in that sense (and may be worse off).

The good reasons for Brexit, if we're honest, relate to the bigger issues that are coming to the world: climate change, overpopulation, mass migration, war, famine, etc. It's not going to help the little people in the short or long term, but it might just let us stumble on for a little while longer on our increasingly miserable little island(s). (Just to be clear, I definitely count myself as one of those little people: underpaid, underachieving, working class).

[Automaton]

Goodness... what would you folks do without the telegraph?

I guess you think listing a pile of links to Telegraph articles somehow counts as providing 'facts', Fuzzy. And yet you don't think you're manipulated by the media....

[Automaton]

And presumably the human rights lobby, and the EU will demand that these payments must continue after Brexit.

"The human rights lobby"?? Down with that sort of thing, eh Adam? Torture's fine by us, clearly.

It was a desire to end this sort of nonsense that lead to people voting to leave

Some people Adam, but maybe not that many. Most of them in my personal experience thought it would mean less Pakistani people would be allowed in. I kid you not. But even if yo'u're right... that's the sort of nonsense that made them vote leave? And you think that's a good reason???? I think it's pretty embarrassing.

[adam2]

I support human rights as in opposing torture.
However I am not convinced that "human rights" should include paying benefits for children, whom by common sense standards have no connection with the UK.
Likewise I am not sure that declining to provide benefits to adults from overseas whom have shopped around for the best deal is a "human rights abuse"

[Little John]

You picked the wrong side Automaton.]

I haven't picked a side LJ. But if something is about sides, I usually find the right one to be on is the least popular!

You strike me as someone who usually sees the big picture, but I think you've maybe gotten caught up in the smaller one on this issue. Parliament is corrupt, and is not going to be any less so after Brexit. The people of the UK are unlikely to be any better off in that sense (and may be worse off).

The good reasons for Brexit, if we're honest, relate to the bigger issues that are coming to the world: climate change, overpopulation, mass migration, war, famine, etc. It's not going to help the little people in the short or long term, but it might just let us stumble on for a little while longer on our increasingly miserable little island(s). (Just to be clear, I definitely count myself as one of those little people: underpaid, underachieving, working class).

I have never suggested the UK political class, as currently comprised, is anything other than utterly corrupt. That is a red herring. However, the EU political class is equally as corrupt and is also, in principle, as well as in practice, factually less democratically accountable to the citizens of this country. So, whichever way you cut it, a return of UK parliamentary and judicial sovereignty is at least as democratic and potentially more democratic than remaining in the EU. Which, in turn, at least in principle, has implications for the capacity of the UK electorate to do something about that. Inside the EU, that democratic capacity is absent, even in principle.

In short, whilst you can legitimately mount an economic argument for remaining in the EU (and, on that there will be legitimate disagreement), you cannot legitimately mount a democratic argument for remaining in the EU (including guarding against potential political corruptions born of a democratic deficit). Because there simply isn't one.

[Automaton]

I support human rights as in opposing torture.
However I am not convinced that "human rights" should include paying benefits for children, whom by common sense standards have no connection with the UK.
Likewise I am not sure that declining to provide benefits to adults from overseas whom have shopped around for the best deal is a "human rights abuse"

Exactly! It's a complex issue, so it's good to avoid lumping it all together into something like "human rights lobby". Baby with bathwater, and all that. Sometimes things need to be changed, rather than just thrown out.

[Automaton]

I have never suggested the UK political class is anything other than utterly corrupt. That is a red herring.

No one said you did. But the corruption of parliament is not a red herring: our 'democracy' does not give us a say in who rules us, it just gives the impression that we have a say. Sadly. It's like when your kids say they want a sweet, and you say "you can have an apple, a banana, or an orange", and make them choose one of those or nothing, and insist that they be happy with that choice because they got to choose. (A useful trick for parents, but not really appropriate for sorting out who rules the country!).

However, the EU is equally as corrupt

No argument there.

[Little John]

....our 'democracy' does not give us a say in who rules us, it just gives the impression that we have a say. Sadly. It's like when your kids say they want a sweet, and you say "you can have an apple, a banana, or an orange", and make them choose one of those or nothing, and insist that they be happy with that choice because they got to choose. (A useful trick for parents, but not really appropriate for sorting out who rules the country!).

That is a problem in practice with UK parliamentary democracy. Hence UKIP. Hence Corbyn, It is not an in principle problem. However, the same problem exists in the EU in both practice and in principle and it was deliberately designed to be that way.

All of which is precisely why the political class both here and in the EU are so afraid of Brexit.

[Potemkin Villager]

Goodness... what would you folks do without the telegraph?

I guess you think listing a pile of links to Telegraph articles somehow counts as providing 'facts', Fuzzy. And yet you don't think you're manipulated by the media....

Wot he said. Do people really have names like Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Surely it is a piss take?

[Little John]

In the meantime, care to address the arguments in the article? You don't have to like the Telegraph or Ambrose Evans Pritchard's name to do that you know.

Or, are infantile attacks on messengers as opposed to the message all that some Remainers have at their disposal now by way of argument?

[Potemkin Villager]

In the meantime, care to address the arguments in the article? You don't have to like the Telegraph or Ambrose Evans Pritchard's name to do that you know.

Or, are infantile attacks on messengers as opposed to the message all that some Remainers have at their disposal now by way of argument?

I find it fascinating how you will scrape every barrel going to bolster your deep emotional attachment to the idea that brexit will provide simple answers to complex questions. I can see how a pompous hack like he appeals to your prejudices as he seems unconcerned to let facts stand in the way of a good argument.

[Little John]

So, no counter arguments then?

[Lord Beria3]

The Brexit fog is beginning to lift and the picture is worrying



There is a sense of satisfaction of sorts when a hugely confusing political situation begins to clear up. The morning fog over the English Channel has not lifted yet, but is beginning to.

Salzburg could go down in history as one of the most disastrous EU summits ever, if it turns out to be the one which pushed Theresa May over the brink. May is now coming under domestic pressure to move towards the Canada option, which as we have pointed out before is not compatible either with the EU’s red line on Northern Ireland or with the British red line of avoiding a customs border inside the UK. It is possible that Canada stands for a fudge, if everyone compromises over their backstop provisions. This is possible, but not a given. Our reading of the UK position is a different one: the UK has effectively suspended negotiations and, as of now, is holding up Canada as a take-it-or-leave-it threat to the EU.

According to a FAZ report this morning, Salzburg constituted a massive miscalculation on Donald Tusk's part. There was genuine surprise in some quarters in Brussels about the fierceness of the UK reaction to the summit. The report cites an internal German position paper ahead of the summit, according to which the EU in Salzburg should remain hard on substance but warm in language. It is now beyond dispute that May made this difficult with what was widely seen as an inflexible and inept take-it-or-leave it presentation of Chequers over dinner.

But the single biggest diplomatic error during the summit in our view was Tusk’s wantonly aggressive Instagram posting, showing Theresa May at a cake trolley with a comment that there were no cherries to be picked. This was picked up by the Tories as an insult to the prime minister and the UK at large. Tusk has been fumbling for a 'modern' social-media strategy. Some of his earlier attempts had the whiff of the ridiculous. This one has the smell of the diplomatically disastrous.

By being seen to reject the Chequers plan outright, the EU has now manoeuvred itself into a position where it is under pressure to come up with its own Brexit proposal - for which we think it is far too late. May’s televised address on Friday has foreclosed a whole number of options. As Wolfgang Munchau argues in the FT, the problem has arisen because the EU falsely attaches a zero probability to a no-deal Brexit. This is a miscalculation, as evidenced by the endless rumbles by some EU leaders about a possible Brexit reversal. There can be no deal for so long as the EU does not attach a positive probability to a hard Brexit. When it does, it may already be too late.

What we also found remarkable was the tone of May's delivery. She was composed, but only barely hiding her anger. The Daily Telegraph reports this morning that the cabinet is now moving towards favouring the Canada option. Canada is in reality a euphemism for a no-deal Brexit. Another euphemism is a clean Brexit.

There are euphemisms on the other side of the debate as well. The Labour Party is discussing at its conference this week whether to endorse the People’s Vote, as the movement to reverse the Brexit referendum has chosen to call itself. The conference will take a formal vote on whether to endorse a referendum, but be aware that this is not necessarily the People’s Vote. Jeremy Corbyn does not want to reverse Brexit. Len McCluskey, the leader of the Unite trade union, which is close to Corbyn, said he wanted a referendum on the deal itself, and only if it were rejected in the Commons. That would imply a choice of accepting a deal or leaving without one, but not to re-open Brexit itself. The motion to be voted on tomorrow will leave all options open, including a full reversal vote. Corbyn himself said yesterday that his preferred solution for a Brexit crisis would be a general election, a view he shares with May

The fact that Labour is considering holding another Brexit referendum has the effect right now of pushing the Tories into a more united position. Over the weekend, one of the newspapers carried a story that Number 10 was making preparations for a snap election if the House of Commons were to reject a withdrawal deal. We think that the more likely option today is for the talks to go well into the New Year with the UK confronting the EU with a take-it-or-leave-it option. There may be no vote and no elections, at least not before Brexit. Or a climbdown by the EU, and a last minute vote in the Commons. Or a deal on March 29, followed by a small technical deadline extension to allow for fast-track ratification.

We think that Tusk’s diplomacy has failed because the EU will now need to spend the next few weeks rebuilding trust - at a time when the UK itself is shifting its position. The Telegraph reports in its coverage this morning that the Tories are preparing to align themselves behind a proposal to be published today by the Institute of Economic Affairs, a conservative think tank. The proposal is backed both by David Davis and Boris Johnson. It will argue that May should end the discussions, which she effectively already has, and accelerate trade talks with the rest of the world. The future relationship with the EU would then take the form of a trade agreement to be negotiated at some point in the future. The problem with this approach for the EU is that it would force the EU and Ireland to erect a border. Once erected, it will become much easier for the UK to propose a trade deal, together with customs facilitation.

May’s commitment to EU citizens that she would respect their agreed rights as already negotiated confirms the urgency of the situation. No-deal preparations are now becoming very public and very concrete. The government previously tried to avoid this, to ensure that these preparations would not take on a dynamic of its own.

Could the House of Commons still force a Norway option? In our view this is unlikely. There is no majority for Norway in the Tory party. The Telegraph calculates that, in the cabinet, a dozen members favour Canada and half a dozen favour Norway. That probably reflects the majority position in the party. Since neither the Tories nor Labour are committed to Norway, we see no chance for this.

Our conclusion is therefore that the probability of a no-deal Brexit has risen strongly over the last five days.

Latest Euro-intelligence briefing. Agree with every word of it.

No-deal looking increasingly likely.

[clv101]

The whole thing, and especially the language and terminology is a mess.

Anyone with just a casual understanding of European politics could see that Chequers was a complete non-starter. The Canada option (let alone plus or plus plus) are also non-starters due to Ireland.

No deal is also essentially impossible, there will always be at the very least a bare-bones deal. The interest is how large the scope of the bare-bones deal can get before it starts to look suspiciously like a 'deal'.

I think some degree of extension or can-kicking exercise is the most likely thing by the end of March.