Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[Outspacer]

Calm yourself, it's back on again

Not sure what my brain's telling me, but this popped into it...

Although our future's looking black
We'll go downtown and join the pack
Let's celebrate and vapourize

 

[Danoff]

I'm gonna throw something out there, and you fine folks feel free to tell me I'm completely off-base.

Is the UK political system unable to agree on anything partly because of presence in the EU? Is this some kind of self-governance atrophy, where given the constraints of the EU the UK government has been able to sit back and not accomplish anything?

 

[baldgye]

I'm gonna throw something out there, and you fine folks feel free to tell me I'm completely off-base.

Is the UK political system unable to agree on anything partly because of presence in the EU? Is this some kind of self-governance atrophy, where given the constraints of the EU the UK government has been able to sit back and not accomplish anything?

They've been unable to agree on Brexit because they campaigned on Brexit making the country stronger (MP's from both major parties campaigned on this fallacy). The problem is that reality shows this to not be the case and so neither party want to be seen to agreeing to something that will harm the country. While also not wanting to go against the result of the referendum.

Both major parties leaders support Brexit and so are paralysed by this paradox.

 

[Touring Mars]

They've been unable to agree on Brexit because they campaigned on Brexit making the country stronger (MP's from both major parties campaigned on this fallacy).

That said, all of the major parties and some of the most prominent politicians of the time campaigned quite vociferously against Brexit - though the likes of Boris Johnson did campaign to Leave, as did UKIP (whose raison d'etre is/was leaving the EU).

Once Leave won the referendum, however, things changed. The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, resigned. Then, faced with a small majority in Parliament, the next Prime Minister Theresa May called a General Election, where both of the main parties (Conservatives and Labour) vowed to respect the referendum result and formally supported leaving the EU from that point onward. This strategy (famously) back-fired, as May was left without any majority at all and was forced to form a coalition with the Northern Irish Unionists, the DUP.

But... Parliament was left in the awkward position of being composed mainly of MPs who had themselves voted and campaigned to Remain, but whose constituents voted to Leave, and whose official party policy was now to support Brexit.

Subsequently, things got more and more complicated owing to the fact that, unlike a Remain result, a Leave result offered a multitude of options, ranging from an extremely soft form of EU exit (soft Brexit) that would actually leave the UK even more under EU control than it is now, all the way to a 'No Deal' exit, where all EU laws and EU-UK agreements cease to apply overnight. It also became clear (though it was clear to many prior to the referendum) that the EU would not agree to any terms that would leave the UK in a stronger position than it had as an EU member. This (obviously) meant that many of the more optimistic claims and hopes of the Leave campaign quickly became discredited or viewed as 'cherry-picking' - but, paradoxically, this approach by the EU also raised the prospect of the ultimate lose-lose scenario, a No Deal Brexit. (Leave campaigners had, of course, figured this out and realised that the EU would ultimately do what they had to do to avoid a No Deal scenario... but the EU's position was strengthened enormously by the lack of support in Parliament for a No Deal exit.)

Parliament was thus split between a whole bunch of options, none of which could command a majority - until now at least. What happened to change matters was, ironically, the advent of Johnson as PM and the threat of the UK leaving without a deal. The EU played hardball with Theresa May and basically humiliated her at every opportunity. She was left with a Brexit deal that would, in effect, have left the UK in the position of being permanently (and legally) trapped indefinitely inside the EU, but with no voting rights or mechanism to escape. Obviously, this doomed her form of Brexit to failure, and she was forced out. Johnson, however, has played much harder with the EU and basically threatened to walk away unless the EU softened their approach. Fortunately (and in spite of Parliamentary efforts to "take No Deal off the table") it has worked to a large extent, with the dreaded prospect of being trapped inside the EU's legal orbit (via the 'Irish protocol' or 'Backstop' as it was known) now pretty much gone.

The danger now, however, is that although Johnson now has a deal agreed with the EU, and it has (finally) got a Parliamentary majority to back it, too many MPs are still opposed to it for a variety of reasons - some because it is too 'hard' and others because it is not hard enough. Johnson is now taking the same gamble that May took - a General Election in order to strengthen his hand in Parliament. But - like May before him - he could well face the prospect of having to form a coalition again and it could involve the Brexit Party - but most people will be hoping that this doesn't happen, as they would likely reject Johnson's current deal in favour of a far harder form of Brexit or indeed a No Deal Brexit. The EU must be hoping that Johnson wins a clear majority and can deliver the deal as agreed and move on to the next steps, because right now the only thing stopping a No Deal Brexit is a Parliamentary majority against that outcome... but if that goes in December, then the EU may well come to regret making it so difficult to reach a deal that the UK was likely to accept.

@Danoff Not sure that actually answers your question, but never mind

 

[MatskiMonk]

Is the UK political system unable to agree on anything partly because of presence in the EU? Is this some kind of self-governance atrophy, where given the constraints of the EU the UK government has been able to sit back and not accomplish anything?

In short, no.

The presence of the EU has not eroded our systemic ability to self-govern. It probably hasn't even affected the localised elements within the system of governance either. The EU simply hasn't been making all our decisions for us, that's not how it all works, if it were, we could remove our own parliament completely and nothing would change.

Simply, the issue is strongly contested by two sides of roughly equal size and our long established system has shown all it's failure points.

The worst thing is, whether we do indeed leave, or somehow stay, there'll still be people that think they've "won".

 

[baldgye]

I agree with you but...

if it were, we could remove our own parliament completely and nothing would change

...we could remove our government and we'd still have a government that did **** all

 

[Dotini]

The worst thing is, whether we do indeed leave, or somehow stay, there'll still be people that think they've "won".

This reminds me of H. L. Mencken's famous remark that a Puritan is one who suspects “somewhere someone is having a good time.”

 

[MatskiMonk]

This reminds me of H. L. Mencken's famous remark that a Puritan is one who suspects “somewhere someone is having a good time.”

Which reminds me of The Daywalker, Blade's remark that "some mother ****** is always tryin' to iceskate uphill"...

.. and I'm not sure either are a correct inference from what I'm getting at.

Giving your enemy carte blanche to kill whoever they want, then celebrating when the don't kill you, is not a victory.

 

[Touring Mars]

The Brexit Party are launching their General Election campaign right now.

Boris Johnson has, once again, ruled out any form of election pact with the Brexit Party, but Farage is currently asking Johnson to reconsider and to scrap the deal he has agreed with the EU. He thinks that Johnson himself does not fully understand the implications of the deal he has agreed with the EU and is urging him to renegotiate a ‘free trade deal’.

Farage also seems to be citing the date of July 1st a lot - I missed the start of his speech, but I can only assume that this is his provisional date for leaving the EU.

Farage has also confirmed that The Brexit Party will field a candidate in all constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales unless the Tories agree to a pact which would see The Brexit Party contest 150 Labour ‘Leave’ seats only, with presumably the Tories standing aside in those seats.

I can’t see that pact happening...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Farage has also confirmed that The Brexit Party will field a candidate in all constituencies in England, Scotland and Wales unless the Tories agree to a pact which would see The Brexit Party contest 150 Labour ‘Leave’ seats only, with presumably the Tories standing aside in those seats.

I can’t see that pact happening...

I think the Conservatives would be more worried by Fartage standing against them in their "own" constituencies rather than Farage standing against them for Labour seats. Still, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

 

[Danoff]

That said, all of the major parties and some of the most prominent politicians of the time campaigned quite vociferously against Brexit - though the likes of Boris Johnson did campaign to Leave, as did UKIP (whose raison d'etre is/was leaving the EU).

Once Leave won the referendum, however, things changed. The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, resigned. Then, faced with a small majority in Parliament, the next Prime Minister Theresa May called a General Election, where both of the main parties (Conservatives and Labour) vowed to respect the referendum result and formally supported leaving the EU from that point onward. This strategy (famously) back-fired, as May was left without any majority at all and was forced to form a coalition with the Northern Irish Unionists, the DUP.

But... Parliament was left in the awkward position of being composed mainly of MPs who had themselves voted and campaigned to Remain, but whose constituents voted to Leave, and whose official party policy was now to support Brexit.

Subsequently, things got more and more complicated owing to the fact that, unlike a Remain result, a Leave result offered a multitude of options, ranging from an extremely soft form of EU exit (soft Brexit) that would actually leave the UK even more under EU control than it is now, all the way to a 'No Deal' exit, where all EU laws and EU-UK agreements cease to apply overnight. It also became clear (though it was clear to many prior to the referendum) that the EU would not agree to any terms that would leave the UK in a stronger position than it had as an EU member. This (obviously) meant that many of the more optimistic claims and hopes of the Leave campaign quickly became discredited or viewed as 'cherry-picking' - but, paradoxically, this approach by the EU also raised the prospect of the ultimate lose-lose scenario, a No Deal Brexit. (Leave campaigners had, of course, figured this out and realised that the EU would ultimately do what they had to do to avoid a No Deal scenario... but the EU's position was strengthened enormously by the lack of support in Parliament for a No Deal exit.)

Parliament was thus split between a whole bunch of options, none of which could command a majority - until now at least. What happened to change matters was, ironically, the advent of Johnson as PM and the threat of the UK leaving without a deal. The EU played hardball with Theresa May and basically humiliated her at every opportunity. She was left with a Brexit deal that would, in effect, have left the UK in the position of being permanently (and legally) trapped indefinitely inside the EU, but with no voting rights or mechanism to escape. Obviously, this doomed her form of Brexit to failure, and she was forced out. Johnson, however, has played much harder with the EU and basically threatened to walk away unless the EU softened their approach. Fortunately (and in spite of Parliamentary efforts to "take No Deal off the table") it has worked to a large extent, with the dreaded prospect of being trapped inside the EU's legal orbit (via the 'Irish protocol' or 'Backstop' as it was known) now pretty much gone.

The danger now, however, is that although Johnson now has a deal agreed with the EU, and it has (finally) got a Parliamentary majority to back it, too many MPs are still opposed to it for a variety of reasons - some because it is too 'hard' and others because it is not hard enough. Johnson is now taking the same gamble that May took - a General Election in order to strengthen his hand in Parliament. But - like May before him - he could well face the prospect of having to form a coalition again and it could involve the Brexit Party - but most people will be hoping that this doesn't happen, as they would likely reject Johnson's current deal in favour of a far harder form of Brexit or indeed a No Deal Brexit. The EU must be hoping that Johnson wins a clear majority and can deliver the deal as agreed and move on to the next steps, because right now the only thing stopping a No Deal Brexit is a Parliamentary majority against that outcome... but if that goes in December, then the EU may well come to regret making it so difficult to reach a deal that the UK was likely to accept.

@Danoff Not sure that actually answers your question, but never mind

You paint a different picture than the one usually painted. The normal profile kinda looks like this:

- Politicians campaigned on bread and circuses as a result of leaving the EU, and the people bought it, and now they can't deliver and are stuck.

What you describe kinda looks like this:

- A grass-roots campaign to leave the EU surfaced with little political support. The people forced a generally reluctant government to pull it off, and they're dragging their feet.

But there's another element that I'm hearing, which is what keeps me from putting the concept that I floated earlier completely out of my head. And that's the part where the UK government is so beholden to minority views that it can't get anything done. Too much agreement seems to be required to move forward, and so nothing happens. I think very few people would describe the UK government as being "effective" or "coherent" or "purposeful" right now. It's more like "conflicted" and "inept" and "stymied". I get that this is a difficult question, but government should be able to work that out. Especially with a mandate from the people. My basic question is, has it always been so incompetent? Like before the EU handled a lot of international relations for you? I mean when you don't have to set your own import rules, and tariffs, and trade agreements, and immigration policies... and then suddenly you have to deal with all of that...

Ok so perhaps I should turn the microscope on America for a moment if for no other reason than to soften my message. Brexit is a little like the US being able to vote for a referendum on universal healthcare. Can you imagine if the US population was able to create a federally-binding vote saying that universal healthcare was required, but leaving the details up to the politicians? It would essentially break our government.

 

[Touring Mars]

What has made recent months/years difficult is the lack of a useful majority in Parliament, which is not normally the case in UK politics.

But even when Theresa May had a majority, Brexit was complicated massively because (as Dominic Cummings, the 'evil genius' behind Brexit, once noted) Brexit is not a left-right issue, and hence both the major parties (Tory and Labour) were split right down the middle in terms of their voters. Also, while two-thirds of Labour (opposition) voters voted to remain, almost the same figure (64%) of Labour constituencies voted to leave, putting Labour MPs in a tough spot.

Perhaps the single biggest problem was that both major parties agreed that the referendum result 'should be respected', even though the winning option (Leave) won 'only' 52% of the vote - and that was complicated more by the fact that 'Leave' was, in reality, not actually a single option, but a multiplicity of them. That meant that Parliament, let alone the Government, struggled to reach a majority for any option that delivered on what both major parties promised to do i.e. leave the EU.

The UK is now moving further away than ever from the old two-party system that has dominated politics in the UK for the last century, and is moving towards a more European-style system where coalitions are becoming more likely/necessary - but Brexit has proven a tough nut to crack under coalition conditions, and really requires a Government with an overwhelming majority that can back a single option, and that is not easy to achieve. The forthcoming General Election is probably going to prove this point even further - anyone hoping that this election might help clarify things are probably going to be sorely disappointed...

In contrast, the Remain option is, by virtue of its simplicity and by being 'honest by default' (i.e. you can't make false promises about an option that involves doing nothing) is gaining more traction, to the point where it is easily possible that support for remaining in the EU could now be over 50%... it would be the height of irony if Parliament, when instructed by a majority of the UK people to leave the EU, failed to get us out until that majority had swung toward remaining, only for Parliament to now agree a way to leave!

 

[TenEightyOne]

I think very few people would describe the UK government as being "effective" or "coherent" or "purposeful" right now. It's more like "conflicted" and "inept" and "stymied".

You could look at it another way: there are many opinions amongst the public about how, or if, Brexit should be done. That's represented pretty well in the Commons given that no large majority can be found for any plan.

Like before the EU handled a lot of international relations for you? I mean when you don't have to set your own import rules, and tariffs, and trade agreements, and immigration policies... and then suddenly you have to deal with all of that.

In the EU Britain had (has) the ability to control many things that were erroneously touted as areas where we were taking back control if we left the EU. Boris Johnson's Kipper is a good example, he waved it aloft bemoaning ridiculous EU transport rules only to find that Britain made its own rules in that regard. Passport colours, non-EU immigration requirements, world-wide trade agreements, all things that were presented as being "under EU control" at one time or another but which never were.

Even for things that were set by the EU... we held elections and sent our own representatives (by local area) to the European Parliament and thereby had a say (and a national veto) in how those things happened. If we leave the EU we won't be doing that, we lose our power to control how legislation is made (despite still having to conform to it for trade to EU countries) and our senior lawmakers will be the Lords, an unelected body.

 

[Daz555]

A sad irony that the UK, which is probably going to leave the EU in the next few months, now has the largest pro-EU movement in history.

 

[UKMikey]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...my-dalla-mura-guilty-of-harassing-anna-soubry

 

[UKMikey]

I only just found this tweet from July, so I'm not sure whether it's already been posted.

Not suitable for work.

Spoiler: Language Warning

 

[Dotini]

I only just found this tweet from July, so I'm not sure whether it's already been posted.

Not suitable for work.

Spoiler: Language Warning

That looks like a pertinent questions. Can it be answered objectively? Who is it that's reproducing? Who is it that's lacking sperm motility?

 

[UKMikey]

That looks like a pertinent questions. Can it be answered objectively? Who is it that's reproducing? Who is it that's lacking sperm motility?

I think it's more about social interaction. Not all sex is for reproduction.

 

[Touring Mars]

Boris Johnson will bring the Withdrawal Agreement bill back to Parliament this week, but this time with a bunch of sweeteners removed. This basically means that much of the opposition to the WA thus far has been for nothing... and this could indeed serve as a cautionary tale to the EU as well - the days of playing hardball/silly buggers might be over as a newly-empowered UK PM can now call the shots with considerably more confidence and clout... in other words, the hard Brexiteers might just be about to get their way, and the EU/opposition may well be regretting the fact that they have let the chance of a less bad deal slip through their fingers.

I reckon that the WA will now pass with ease, but that this is going to set up a showdown with Brussels where No Deal is not only back on the table, but the opposition to No Deal has been destroyed. This will enable Johnson to push for a deal that is far more favorable to the UK than the EU may have previously hoped for.

That said, the EU have repeated yet again that they will insist on a 'level playing field', as well as a host of concessions from the UK that, at this moment in time, make a trade deal look virtually impossible - let alone by the end of 2020. Put these two things together (unrealistic demands from both sides, and a large Tory majority) and we can see the spectre of a No Deal exit raising its ugly head once again... the big question is, will common sense prevail and the UK-EU agree a deal that doesn't do irreparable harm to one or both?

 

[Liquid]

the UK-EU agree a deal that doesn't do irreparable harm

 

[Woodybobs]

I reckon that the WA will now pass with ease, but that this is going to set up a showdown with Brussels where No Deal is not only back on the table, but the opposition to No Deal has been destroyed. This will enable Johnson to push for a deal that is far more favorable to the UK than the EU may have previously hoped for.

I don't get it. The EU already support the WA. It is the deal.

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't get it. The EU already support the WA. It is the deal.

I probably should have been clearer... yes, the Withdrawal Agreement (WA) would still stand and thus technically 'No Deal' is off the table - but there's still the small matter of the 'future relationship' and a trade deal between the EU and the UK to thrash out, and that is looking increasingly unlikely to happen.

So although the WA would at least mitigate some of the worst effects of a proper 'No Deal' Brexit, failure to negotiate a new trade deal by the end of the transition period (or an extension to that period) would effectively result in a 'no deal' outcome that opponents of Brexit were so keen to avoid...

 

[MaxAttack]

I have a layman's point to make here;

I've heard of paying a fee and jumping through administrative hoops to JOIN a club, but to leave one? New to me.

Why exactly is the UK beholden to anything the EU asks? Isn't it sort of none of their business? How do they have a leg to stand on in asking for a level playing field when the very fact we (just about) voted to leave sort of demonstrates that we're not sold on the level-playing-field-for-Europe thing in the first place?

I'm clearly missing something, but if they insist on a bunch of "concessions" and make a trade deal difficult, seemingly purely out of spite, don't they sort of end up looking like the nobheads here?

 

[Touring Mars]

It cuts both ways...

The UK wants/needs a good trading relationship with its biggest trading partner, which basically means as much access to the Single Market as possible.

But the Single Market only works by insisting that those who have full, unfettered access to it play by the same rules.

The UK (nor anyone else) cannot have it both ways - we either have a lower level of access to the Single Market (e.g. with tariffs, border controls, checks on goods, checks on people etc.) and the freedom to diverge from EU rules or we have unfettered access (no tariffs, no border controls, freedom of movement etc.) but accept EU rules.

It is indeed not up to the EU which way the UK decides to go, but they do have the right to expect a level playing field should the UK want/request a higher level of participation in the Single Market or a free trade agreement that delivers a similar outcome.

 

[Woodybobs]

I have a layman's point to make here;

I've heard of paying a fee and jumping through administrative hoops to JOIN a club, but to leave one? New to me.

Why exactly is the UK beholden to anything the EU asks? Isn't it sort of none of their business? How do they have a leg to stand on in asking for a level playing field when the very fact we (just about) voted to leave sort of demonstrates that we're not sold on the level-playing-field-for-Europe thing in the first place?

I'm clearly missing something, but if they insist on a bunch of "concessions" and make a trade deal difficult, seemingly purely out of spite, don't they sort of end up looking like the nobheads here?

The UK are free to leave any time they like. The EU are not obligated to open trade negotiations with anyone. As the UK wished to open trade negotiations before they left, they had to negotiate a withdrawal agreement that would be acceptable to the EU. Pretty standard negotiating tactics really.

So although the WA would at least mitigate some of the worst effects of a proper 'No Deal' Brexit, failure to negotiate a new trade deal by the end of the transition period (or an extension to that period) would effectively result in a 'no deal' outcome that opponents of Brexit were so keen to avoid

There will be some sort of deal by the end of the transition period, with or without an extension period. Everything is negotiable now and everything has a price. It made sense to legislate against no deal when the EU were clear they wouldn't move on certain issues. I don't see how it would work after the WA is passed.

 

[Touring Mars]

The UK Parliament has voted in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill and the corresponding timetable motion, keeping the UK on track to leave the EU at the end of next month.

The Withdrawal Agreement Bill has been modified since the election to scrap several concessions that were put in the original Bill to sway opposition MPs... that ship has now sailed. The new Bill also enshrines in law the end of the ‘transition period’ as the end of 2020. This is pretty important because it places a limit on trade deal negotiations, but it also limits the amount of time the UK will have to spend in the potentially uncomfortable position of being subject to EU law without any say in how those laws are made. This is the main reason that the new UK Government are adamant about not extending the transition period.

It is now clear that the UK Government are aiming for a ‘bare bones’ free trade agreement between the EU and the UK, but it is looking very likely that Boris Johnson’s hopes of “no tariffs” are pretty far-fetched. Ironically, if there are going to be tariffs on trade between the UK and the EU, it puts Scotland in a tough spot should the nationalists win an independence referendum, as it would mean that leaving the UK in order to join the EU would automatically place tariffs on trade between Scotland and its largest market by far - England.

 

[TenEightyOne]

leaving the UK in order to join the EU would automatically place tariffs on trade between Scotland and its largest market by far - England.

I thought US exports at $45 billion exceeded exports to the remainder of the UK?

 

[Touring Mars]

I thought US exports at $45 billion exceeded exports to the remainder of the UK?

Exports from Scotland to the US?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Exports from Scotland to the US?

That's what I meant... I fell slightly short of actually saying it

 

[Touring Mars]

That's what I meant... I fell slightly short of actually saying it

Exports from Scotland to the US are a fair bit lower than $45 billion - it's more like £5.5 bn as far as I can tell.

My point is that 60% of exports from Scotland currently go to the rest of the UK, which is around 4 times greater than our trade with the EU.

Supporters of Scottish independence point out that leaving the EU will make our trade with the EU much more expensive - which is true. So they are proposing to resolve this issue by quitting the UK and rejoining the EU.

But - in the absence of a zero tariff trade deal between the UK and the EU, this would mean that an independent Scotland within the EU would face tariffs on trade with the rest of the UK - thus making a much larger chunk of our trade more expensive. Given that Scotland currently trades with both the EU and the rest of the UK on a zero tariff basis, leaving either one is likely going to be a net loss for Scottish business, but arguably Scotland faces a far bigger hit from leaving the UK internal market than leaving the EU single market.