Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Liquid]

The bits where Northern Ireland is different are quite happily tolerated by Loyalists so they can persecute women, homosexuals and Irish speakers, for example.

And as you say, @Touring Mars , they're willing to shoot themselves in the foot and seek a less prosperous, more financially crippled Northern Ireland than they already have with the 658 days without a government when the alternative on the table is a Northern Ireland with the best of both worlds. Hypocrites.

Every time I see or hear "Northern Ireland must be identical to Great Britain and the rest of the UK" it makes my :censored:ing eyes roll.

 

[DK]

Every time I see or hear "Northern Ireland must be identical to Great Britain and the rest of the UK" it makes my :censored:ing eyes roll.

Especially when the DUP's fundamentalism rears its head.

 

[Robin]

You need somewhere to live whilst building a new house.

Unless you like being homeless, of course...

Or you could stay in a hotel, I think £48 billion ought to cover it

On a side note, Daily Mail did an interesting illustration,

 

[Touring Mars]

I reckon Theresa May is either one of the worst politicians of all time, or the greatest - the odds are so heavily stacked against her, and yet she seems to be winning - it is truly remarkable.

It is fairly ironic that none other than Tony Blair has said that this deal is going to crash and burn, and that "nobody wants it" and 'far from taking back control, we're losing the control we had'... it is ironic because Blair is a super-duper Remainer, but this 'BRINO' (Brexit In Name Only) deal is only likely to make the link between the UK and the EU even stronger than it was before we voted to leave You couldn't make it up!

One reason why May is winning, I suspect, is that there is a queue a mile long of people who want to get rid of her, but no-one who stands a chance in hell of replacing her. Prime Minister Rees-Mogg? Johnson? The other Johnson? Fartage? Jeremy CHunt? Comrade Corbyn?? Not a chance.

 

[UKMikey]

Brexit secretary Dominic Raab has followed NI secretary Shailesh Vara in slinging his hook:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46219495

 

[baldgye]

Brexit secretary Dominic Raab has followed NI secretary Shailesh Vara in slinging his hook:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46219495

That'll at least make the lives of civil servants who are the ones actually doing the work easier

 

[Touring Mars]

Brexit secretary Dominic Raab has followed NI secretary Shailesh Vara in slinging his hook:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46219495

The first major domino to fall...

Expect a Vote of No Confidence in May to be called this afternoon - the joke is that she could well survive such a vote, but like a horse with a broken leg it would just be prolonging the agony... the EU now need to be prepared for the total rejection of their plan - and it will not be pleasant.

Let's play Spot The Quote:

Who said this yesterday about May's Brexit deal?

"Far from taking back control, we are losing the control we had"

A. Nigel Farage
B. Boris Johnson
C. Jacob Rees-Mogg
D. Tony Blair

Spoiler

D

 

[baldgye]

The first major domino to fall...

Expect a Vote of No Confidence in May to be called this afternoon - the joke is that she could well survive such a vote, but like a horse with a broken leg it would just be prolonging the agony... the EU now need to be prepared for the total rejection of their plan - and it will not be pleasant.

Let's play Spot The Quote:

Who said this yesterday about May's Brexit deal?

"Far from taking back control, we are losing the control we had"

A. Nigel Farage
B. Boris Johnson
C. Jacob Rees-Mogg
D. Tony Blair

Spoiler

D

Wouldn't a vote of no confidence would seemingly destroy the Tory party?
We seem to have three parties, non of which with leaders or potential leaders that could not only win a GE.. but then lead the country in a meaningful way?

If May got a vote of no confidence the lower house would descend into chaos and the EU would surely be like "well I guess we'll put this to one side and continue like non of this nonsense ever happened..."

 

[UKMikey]

The first major domino to fall...

I think you mean DomiNIC.

But yes, another backbencher to tear down and undermine the PM's plan.

 

[Touring Mars]

Wouldn't a vote of no confidence would seemingly destroy the Tory party?

Yes - but the fact is that it is already broken - at the very least, Theresa May can now no longer muster the support she needs even within her own party, and that means that she is now effectively powerless.

We seem to have three parties, non of which with leaders or potential leaders that could not only win a GE.. but then lead the country in a meaningful way?

If May got a vote of no confidence the lower house would descend into chaos and the EU would surely be like "well I guess we'll put this to one side and continue like non of this nonsense ever happened..."

It'll be a huge mess, but the blame will be (and should be) laid squarely at the feet of the EU negotiators who have essentially brought down the UK government. There will probably be a snap election next month but who knows what effect that will have - Leave voters - half the country - will never vote for the Tories or Jeremy Corbyn again, unless the Tories put in place an ultra-Hard Brexiteer who vows to fight the EU (Boris Johnson is the likely candidate for that) but even then I can't see any major party winning anything close to a majority. As such, there will probably be a 'unity government' of some description to see us through a No Deal Brexit - a disastrous outcome, but UKIP will be on red alert right now and licking their lips at the prospect of a major coup.

The UK must now tread very carefully though, because if anyone thinks this 'deal' is a cave-in to the EU (it definitely is), it will be nothing compared to what could happen if the UK goes back to the negotiating table cap in hand and asking to stay in - the EU have already won, but that doesn't mean that there is not still very substantial gains to be made from forcing our hand even further. Ironically, this will only make the backlash against the EU even greater insomuch as it could tip the balance of popular support towards supporting a No Deal outcome in order to avoid the very real (and very dangerous) prospect that the EU destroys what is left of British democracy and sovereign status.

No matter what the result of the referendum was, no-one in the UK voted for what is now a very real prospect - far from leaving, and far from merely keeping things as they are, the UK is now at risk of being swallowed whole into the European project against the will of the people. How can a 52% vote to Leave the EU turn into that?!

 

[baldgye]

Yes - but the fact is that it is already broken - at the very least, Theresa May can now no longer muster the support she needs even within her own party, and that means that she is now effectively powerless.


It'll be a huge mess, but the blame will be (and should be) laid squarely at the feet of the EU negotiators who have essentially brought down the UK government. There will probably be a snap election next month but who knows what effect that will have - Leave voters - half the country - will never vote for the Tories or Jeremy Corbyn again, unless the Tories put in place an ultra-Hard Brexiteer who vows to fight the EU (Boris Johnson is the likely candidate for that) but even then I can't see any major party winning anything close to a majority. As such, there will probably be a 'unity government' of some description to see us through a No Deal Brexit - a disastrous outcome, but UKIP will be on red alert right now and licking their lips at the prospect of a major coup.

The UK must now tread very carefully though, because if anyone thinks this 'deal' is a cave-in to the EU (it definitely is), it will be nothing compared to what could happen if the UK goes back to the negotiating table cap in hand and asking to stay in - the EU have already won, but that doesn't mean that there is not still very substantial gains to be made from forcing our hand even further. Ironically, this will only make the backlash against the EU even greater insomuch as it could tip the balance of popular support towards supporting a No Deal outcome in order to avoid the very real (and very dangerous) prospect that the EU destroys what is left of British democracy and sovereign status.

No matter what the result of the referendum was, no-one in the UK voted for what is now a very real prospect - far from leaving, and far from merely keeping things as they are, the UK is now at risk of being swallowed whole into the European project against the will of the people. How can a 52% vote to Leave the EU turn into that?!

You really think any two parties could form a functional coalition government at the moment (or in a few months time)?

No matter what the result of the referendum was, no-one in the UK voted for what is now a very real prospect - far from leaving, and far from merely keeping things as they are, the UK is now at risk of being swallowed whole into the European project against the will of the people. How can a 52% vote to Leave the EU turn into that?!

I’m going to be honest, personally I’d imagine that’d make people who pushed for Brexit (the UKIPPERS etc) very happy. It’d basically keep them in business for decades!

 

[Liquid]

Five hundred and eighty-five page EU Withdrawal paper:

Mentions of Northern Ireland - 100
Mentions of Gibraltar - 30
Mentions of Scotland - 0
Mentions of Wales - 0

I obviously know the other two are mentioned for good reasons but the contempt and ill-consideration held for Wales and Scotland continues.

And just now Esther McVey has also resigned from the cabinet, joining Shailesh Vara and Suella Braverman. That's four in 24 hours. Here are Theresa May's government resignations:

Dominic Raab
David Davis
Boris Johnson
Jo Johnson
Damian Green
Michael Fallon
Priti Patel
Justine Greening
Amber Rudd
Steve Baker
Guto Bebb
Greg Hands
Phillip Lee
Tracey Crouch
Shailesh Vara
Suella Braverman
Esther McVey

Staggering. Simply staggering.

 

[Lizard]

Surely this is a record for most resignations without an election.

 

[Touring Mars]

Five hundred and eighty-five page EU Withdrawal paper:

Mentions of Northern Ireland - 100
Mentions of Gibraltar - 30
Mentions of Scotland - 0
Mentions of Wales - 0

I obviously know the other two are mentioned for good reasons but the contempt and ill-consideration held for Wales and Scotland continues.

It is, frankly, a disgrace.

 

[Scaff]

It'll be a huge mess, but the blame will be (and should be) laid squarely at the feet of the EU negotiators who have essentially brought down the UK government.

Its the EU negotiators job to ensure the government stays in place?

I was under the impression it was to negotiate a deal that would be best for the remaining EU members, not to agree to one that kept the UK government in place.

Its a mess because the UK was negotiating from a position that no one in the government agreed on in the first place, based upon an impossible position that Leave promised in the first place, and the EU stated from the outset was never going to be agreeable!

 

[eran0004]

It does bear some resemblance to Game of Thrones.

I guess the most likely outcome is a no-deal brexit.

 

[Touring Mars]

Its the EU negotiators job to ensure the government stays in place?

I was under the impression it was to negotiate a deal that would be best for the remaining EU members, not to agree to one that kept the UK government in place.

Its a mess because the UK was negotiating from a position that no one in the government agreed on in the first place, based upon an impossible position that Leave promised in the first place, and the EU stated from the outset was never going to be agreeable!

The EU needs to realise that unless they offer a deal that respects the fact that the UK is leaving the EU, but that future trade between the EU and the UK is inevitable and of (huge) mutual benefit, then they bear as much responsibility for the failure of the Brexit process as the (admittedly inept) UK government does. Insofar as their aim is to ensure the best possible outcome for the remaining member states, they will have failed spectacularly on that front too if the only type of deal they will accept is rejected wholesale by the UK government. And let's be clear here - whether one voted to Remain or Leave, somehow the UK government and the EU have conspired to produce a deal that no-one supports.

 

[Robin]

May really needs to go over this, I don't know who is going to succeed her but she has done a number over literally everyone. The EU wouldn't budge and she wouldn't fight so both have ended up with nothing.

I would expect more resignations will happen over the next 24 hours and there should be a vote of no confidence. Even the excuse of 'keep her in otherwise we will have Corbyn' doesn't fly with the Tory party anymore.

 

[TheCracker]

Who'd have ever imagined that the whole ill prepared concept of Brexit would end up as such a ****storm?

 

[Scaff]

The EU needs to realise that unless they offer a deal that respects the fact that the UK is leaving the EU, but that future trade between the EU and the UK is inevitable and of (huge) mutual benefit, then they bear as much responsibility for the failure of the Brexit process as the (admittedly inept) UK government does.

I don't agree at all, they have no requirement to offer a deal that 'respects' anything at all, the UK took the option to leave the EU, from that point the EU's focus (quite rightly) was on negotiating a deal that is best for the remaining members, and if that's not possible then one that minimizes the impact it has on the remaining states.

Take one example, that of the Irish border, what 'deal' could the EU have possibly offered that would have been acceptable to every side in the UK? Not a single one, something that is of no fault of the EU, but quite firmly that of the lack of agreement of the various parties within the UK. A point that can be expanded to almost every area of the negotiation.

The EU have successfully negotiated trade deals with the world,

Insofar as their aim is to ensure the best possible outcome for the remaining member states, they will have failed spectacularly on that front too if the only type of deal they will accept is rejected wholesale by the UK government.

Simply because the UK doesn't have (and never has had) an agreed position on almost any area of this, something that is not within the control of the EU side of the negotiation. Since day one the UK side of the negotiation has been unprepared, internally wildly at odds with itself and fully aware of the position the EU would take and what its red-lines would be.

And let's be clear here - whether one voted to Remain or Leave, somehow the UK government and the EU have conspired to produce a deal that no-one supports.

The EU have been clear on the standpoint it would take from day one (actually well before the vote even took place. In contrast the UK have never managed to agree on an approach (in part because many of the 'leave' promises could never have been achieved), something that is not the responsibility of the EU, and 100% the responsibility of the UK.

Quite simply its each sides 'job' to speak to all involved within their respective sides and agree and approach and then negotiate with each other around that, the EU managed that (mainly because it has a massive amount of experience in doing so). The UK failed utterly to do so, leading with little more that mixed messages, internal infighting, outright arrogance (easiest deal ever done, an hour over a cup of tea) and utter incompetence.

 

[Tired Tyres]

It is, frankly, a disgrace.

Nope. Show me the special requirements two countries physically connected to England and not to the EU require any such thing.

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't agree at all, they have no requirement to offer a deal that 'respects' anything at all

Yes, they do.

The entire process of leaving the EU, from the pace and scope of the negotiations to the content of the draft treaty, is defined and controlled by the EU in accordance with European law, all of which has been abided by and respected by the UK at every turn. As such, they very much do bear responsibility for how the process pans out. In offering something that bears virtually no resemblance to a state of independence from it, the EU have made it virtually impossible to leave in an orderly manner. It will cost them very dear - though it will cost the UK very dearly as well.

I cannot overstate enough, however, what the biggest problem with this is - the EU are demonstrating that they are not capable of respecting a democratic vote that sees a member state legally decide to leave, even by their own rules. It is an unfortunate accident of geography that the UK has a land border with the EU, as otherwise there would be absolutely no issue at all. All I can say is, good luck to them when Italy, Greece or Hungary leave - if this is how they handle a non-belligerent member state leaving of its own free will, then good luck when it comes to what will happen when they are faced with a belligerent exit from the EU.

Nope. Show me the special requirements two countries physically connected to England and not to the EU require any such thing.

Theresa May said that the reason Scotland and Wales are not mentioned is because "they are part of the UK". Sorry, but last time I checked so was Northern Ireland. Yes, there are different circumstances because NI has a land border with the EU, but the principle that any part of the UK can be given different status to the rest of the country is what is being applied (by the EU) here. The principle that one part of the UK can be given special status means that other parts surely can too.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Yes, they do.

The entire process of leaving the EU, from the pace and scope of the negotiations to the content of the draft treaty, is defined and controlled by the EU in accordance with European law, all of which has been abided by and respected by the UK at every turn. As such, they very much do bear responsibility for how the process pans out. In offering something that bears virtually no resemblance to a state of independence from it, the EU have made it virtually impossible to leave in an orderly manner. It will cost them very dear - though it will cost the UK very dearly as well.

I cannot overstate enough, however, what the biggest problem with this is - the EU are not capable of respecting a democratic vote that sees a member state legally decide to leave, even by their own rules. It is an unfortunate accident of geography that the UK has a land border with the EU, as otherwise there would be absolutely no issue at all. All I can say is, good luck to them when Italy, Greece or Hungary leave - if this is how they handle a non-belligerent member state leaving of its own free will, then good luck when it comes to what will happen when they are faced with a belligerent exit from the EU.


Theresa May said that the reason Scotland and Wales are not mentioned is because "they are part of the UK". Sorry, but last time I checked so was Northern Ireland. Yes, there are different circumstances because NI has a land border with the EU, but the principle that any part of the UK can be given different status to the rest of the country is what is being applied here. The argument that NI can be given special status means that Scotland can too.

United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland. It has always been seperate from the British nations.

 

[Touring Mars]

United Kingdom of Great Britain AND Northern Ireland.

Yes... that is what Theresa May said - Scotland and Wales are part of the United Kingdom, as is Northern Ireland.

 

[baldgye]

Yes, they do.

The entire process of leaving the EU, from the pace and scope of the negotiations to the content of the draft treaty, is defined and controlled by the EU in accordance with European law, all of which has been abided by and respected by the UK at every turn. As such, they very much do bear responsibility for how the process pans out. In offering something that bears virtually no resemblance to a state of independence from it, the EU have made it virtually impossible to leave in an orderly manner. It will cost them very dear - though it will cost the UK very dearly as well.

I cannot overstate enough, however, what the biggest problem with this is - the EU are demonstrating that they are not capable of respecting a democratic vote that sees a member state legally decide to leave, even by their own rules. It is an unfortunate accident of geography that the UK has a land border with the EU, as otherwise there would be absolutely no issue at all. All I can say is, good luck to them when Italy, Greece or Hungary leave - if this is how they handle a non-belligerent member state leaving of its own free will, then good luck when it comes to what will happen when they are faced with a belligerent exit from the EU.


Theresa May said that the reason Scotland and Wales are not mentioned is because "they are part of the UK". Sorry, but last time I checked so was Northern Ireland. Yes, there are different circumstances because NI has a land border with the EU, but the principle that any part of the UK can be given different status to the rest of the country is what is being applied (by the EU) here. The principle that one part of the UK can be given special status means that other parts surely can too.

I don’t think that’s fair.
The U.K. is a complicated arrangement of nations. If England was an individual and independent state and it wanted to leave then it probably could do with little problem. The issue was that Leave never had a plan for actually leaving and that literally zero planning or thought was put into our dependence’s.

They stated from the outset what they wanted/needed and the U.K. didn’t and couldn’t.

 

[Liquid]

two countries physically connected to England

But that's part of the problem. The idea that "it's the UK so just shut up about it".

Devolution exists for a reason and it has been disregarded and treated as something to keep the respective nationalists quiet rather than any attempt to actually have a meaningful union of four co-existing countries. The Scottish and Welsh Government were not consulted about the EU Withdrawal Bill and were not even mentioned in the 585 pages. The devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly mean that they ought to be consulted as to what it means for their powers, funding and options. It is ignorance, willful or otherwise, to totally dismiss out of hand the idea that Scotland and Wales deserve at least some mention.

Northern Ireland has already been done to death in this thread and it's worse than Wales and Scotland as it is. They haven't had a government to which they are legally entitled for 658 days.

Why doesn't England have any special recognition? It forgot to give itself any devolution when it attached Wales, Scotland and Ireland to the English parliament like tumours it would rather didn't exist. And it is beyond any reasonable doubt that the interests of England are by far those most represented in the Parliament of Westminster. And I think England should get devolved powers but the fact is that it doesn't and the other three do.

This is a union of four countries, at least on paper, or two if you want to count it as GB & NI. If this is a supposed union, then it is grossly imbalanced. You yourself described Great Britain as two countries connected to England rather than three countries combined into one.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, they do.

The entire process of leaving the EU, from the pace and scope of the negotiations to the content of the draft treaty, is defined and controlled by the EU in accordance with European law, all of which has been abided by and respected by the UK at every turn. As such, they very much do bear responsibility for how the process pans out. In offering something that bears virtually no resemblance to a state of independence from it, the EU have made it virtually impossible to leave in an orderly manner. It will cost them very dear - though it will cost the UK very dearly as well.

Article 50 only references that negotiations must follow Article 218,, which doesn't prohibit any element of what the EU has proposed.

 

[Touring Mars]

Article 50 only references that negotiations must follow Article 218

You're kind of making my point for me here.

Meanwhile, a letter of No Confidence in the Prime Minister has been submitted by Jacob Rees-Mogg.

 

[Scaff]

You're kind of making my point for me here.

So which part of Article 218 have the EU ignored?

Article 218 is actually quite clear that they can't bend in regard to fundamental rights or Human rights "agreement on Union accession to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;"

While 207 (which is referenced in 218) states that they have to protect the Eu and its members " The exercise of the competences conferred by this Article in the field of the common commercial policy shall not affect the delimitation of competences between the Union and the Member States, and shall not lead to harmonisation of legislative or regulatory provisions of the Member States in so far as the Treaties exclude such harmonisation."

Which at this stage doesn't include the UK, as when Article 50 came into place they no longer apply to the UK (which makes sense as these are the regulations regarding negotiations with a 3rd party).

 

[baldgye]

Who'd have ever imagined that the whole ill prepared concept of Brexit would end up as such a ****storm?