We're only being told what to do by the PM of Luxembourg because we have realised, or about to realise, that as long as the EU "owns" Europe we have no good alternative to a close relationship with the EU on its terms. Which means the PM of Luxembourg gets a say over our affairs that he wouldn't have had if we had remained in the EU. You voted Leave, but want a close relationship with the EU, I believe? Luxembourg, the Irish etc telling us what's what is the consequence of that contradiction.
As James Connolly said: 'If you remove the English army tomorrow and hoist the green flag over Dublin Castle, unless you set about the organization of the Socialist Republic your efforts would be in vain. England would still rule you. She would rule you through her capitalists, through her landlords, through her financiers, through the whole array of commercial and individualist institutions she has planted in this country and watered with the tears of our mothers and the blood of our martyrs.'
How do you reconcile an integrated world economy that makes us all interdependent, alongside a desire for national sovereignty? We'll be alone in our little rowing boat getting tossed about by a stormy sea, free to row impotently in whatever direction we like, and we'll call it national sovereignty.
We have choices. We can be a participating member of the EU, we can tap into their system on a rule-taking basis or we can go it alone. We live in a globalised world, which relies on connections and common ground. Going it alone isn't attractive.
The Irish example is interesting because they did go it alone. A country where young people were forced to emigrate because there was nothing there for them doesn't seem a happy country.
As a child of immigrants myself, I have very little issue with immigration, but that's because I hve very little traditionally British cultural heritage. However, I can understand that people of a more culturally British family background would be sensitive to feeling it was under threat. When people look at these people and call them idiots on the left hand side of the bell curve who live in shitholes, I just find it ugly, intolerant politics. It's little better than the Momentum yobs that have taken over the Labour Party or the right wing UKIP bigots. It's all about dividing the country into tribes and throwing abuse at those in other ones.
To be clear, my view of the Brexit vote is that it was driven in such places precisely because the locals perceived them as failing - shitholes, if you like. The vote in such areas was at least as much a product of austerity as anti-immigration sentiment. In such places, the vote was not a product of people defensively protecting an area that they were proud of but desperately casting around for solutions to stop things getting still worse.
The really interesting question is why prosperous areas in the south voted for Leave in such large numbers. That was a much more unusual phenomenon, but is much less remarked upon.
In the North, Wales and parts of the Midlands their votes in both the EU referendum and general election were perfectly logical.
They voted Leave to end free movement and then for Corbyn to end austerity.
The Leave vote in the south was more based on sovereignty but of course although the South East voted Leave it had a higher Remain vote than any other region of England bar London.
Brexit might mean different things to different people but what unites the vast majority is opposition to freedom of movement. Any deal has to include no freedom of movement. Membership of the Single Market -what remainer call "Soft Brexit", and what in reality is staying under EU control in all but name, requires freedom of movement. If the EU is flexible on this issue all will be well. But the majority of voters will be very very angry, and the consequences will be dire, if parliament agrees to freedom of movement in any deal.
Brexit might mean different things to different people but what unites the vast majority is opposition to freedom of movement. Any deal has to include no freedom of movement. Membership of the Single Market -what remainer call "Soft Brexit", and what in reality is staying under EU control in all but name, requires freedom of movement. If the EU is flexible on this issue all will be well. But the majority of voters will be very very angry, and the consequences will be dire, if parliament agrees to freedom of movement in any deal.
If we agree freedom of movement we may as well stay in the single market permanently and have no deal at all. After a transition period free movement must end
He got a big clap for saying end freedom of movement - in a place with hardly any immigrants. This seems to a common theme - places with low immigration are very opposed to immigration. I want to understand why.
Brexit is about identity, as the article below explains quite well, I believe. Attitudes to immigration are part of those identities. Do you see freedom of movement as liberty or do you see it as an affront to nations being in control? [What Brexit actually means of course is giving power to bureaucracies and an explosion of red tape. But that's a practical issue that has nothing to do with identity]
I'm struggling to understand what is so Libertarian about being told what to do by the PM of Luxembourg.
Laters....
We're only being told what to do by the PM of Luxembourg because we have realised, or about to realise, that as long as the EU "owns" Europe we have no good alternative to a close relationship with the EU on its terms. Which means the PM of Luxembourg gets a say over our affairs that he wouldn't have had if we had remained in the EU. You voted Leave, but want a close relationship with the EU, I believe? Luxembourg, the Irish etc telling us what's what is the consequence of that contradiction.
Except in the situations where countries still have a veto, then he’d still have a say over our affairs even if we were in the EU.
The EU is a membership organisation that works almost entirely by consensus. The veto is almost never used internally, although the threat of its use does drive the effort to consensus. Decisions are made by horsetrading. Every member gets something they want and can avoid most of the things they don't want.
As a third country , the UK will be outside that consensus and won't have anything to horsetrade.
We have choices. We can be a participating member of the EU, we can tap into their system on a rule-taking basis or we can go it alone. We live in a globalised world, which relies on connections and common ground. Going it alone isn't attractive.
The Irish example is interesting because they did go it alone. A country where young people were forced to emigrate because there was nothing there for them doesn't seem a happy country.
And Ireland is not the only example of a country that cut itself off from its neighbours and suffered considerable economic damage by doing so.
Spain followed a similar path in the early years of the Franco dictatorship - and Spanish GDP did not return to its pre civil-war 1935 level until 1955. No significant growth occurred until the economy was opened to foreign investment and tourism in the early 1960s.
So we're not really leaving the EU until 2021 at the earliest.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PM. Rejoice.
So still before 2022, the last date for a general election then and really we will be still leaving the EU in 2019 just not the single market until 2021
So we're not really leaving the EU until 2021 at the earliest.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PM. Rejoice.
So still before 2022, the last date for a general election then and really we will be still leaving the EU in 2019 just not the single market until 2021
I remember only a few months ago you were saying it was nailed on that when Boris or David Davis become PM in 2019, they'd call a snap election by 2020, so how does today's announcement fit with that?
He got a big clap for saying end freedom of movement - in a place with hardly any immigrants. This seems to a common theme - places with low immigration are very opposed to immigration. I want to understand why.
Brexit is about identity, as the article below explains quite well, I believe. Attitudes to immigration are part of those identities. Do you see freedom of movement as liberty or do you see it as an affront to nations being in control? [What Brexit actually means of course is giving power to bureaucracies and an explosion of red tape. But that's a practical issue that has nothing to do with identity]
I'm struggling to understand what is so Libertarian about being told what to do by the PM of Luxembourg.
Laters....
We're only being told what to do by the PM of Luxembourg because we have realised, or about to realise, that as long as the EU "owns" Europe we have no good alternative to a close relationship with the EU on its terms. Which means the PM of Luxembourg gets a say over our affairs that he wouldn't have had if we had remained in the EU. You voted Leave, but want a close relationship with the EU, I believe? Luxembourg, the Irish etc telling us what's what is the consequence of that contradiction.
Except in the situations where countries still have a veto, then he’d still have a say over our affairs even if we were in the EU.
The EU is a membership organisation that works almost entirely by consensus. The veto is almost never used internally, although the threat of its use does drive the effort to consensus. Decisions are made by horsetrading. Every member gets something they want and can avoid most of the things they don't want.
As a third country , the UK will be outside that consensus and won't have anything to horsetrade.
Brexit might mean different things to different people but what unites the vast majority is opposition to freedom of movement. Any deal has to include no freedom of movement. Membership of the Single Market -what remainer call "Soft Brexit", and what in reality is staying under EU control in all but name, requires freedom of movement. If the EU is flexible on this issue all will be well. But the majority of voters will be very very angry, and the consequences will be dire, if parliament agrees to freedom of movement in any deal.
If it unites 95% of Leavers that's still not a majority of voters.
I have been surprised at the number of cars still bearing Yes stickers (I could stop there, but that wasn't my point) that are now also bearing Catalan symbols. It certainly seems to be a thing for Nats.
Clearly, you've never visited Lincolnshire ever. Boston where I was born in 1950 had very little immigration at all up to a few years ago. A few Irish a hundred years ago certainly and that's where the very few Catholic Churches came from. One or two of my ancestors helped there.
There has been a massive surge in the last twenty years of Poles and particularly Lithuanians. They are good Catholic lads and lasses and work hard but do have a proclivity for the gargle. The top three per capita drinkers of alcohol world-wide are Lithuania, Belarus and Estonia.
Please don't pretend this was merely a continuation of what was happening already. You may disapprove of Brexit Central's reaction (and you've every right to your opinion), but get the basic facts right.
PS It started with a trickle of Portuguese, but that was only a vanguard.
[2/2] Article 50 phase 1 agreement referred to regulatory "alignment" between the UK and the EU in the context of the Good Friday Agreement (GFA). This was seen as a fudge. It cannot remain so. By the time we get a permanent trade deal the EU and the UK will agree a treaty which will set out the rules - either follow the system rules (Norway) or follow these specified rules (Canada). If the rules aren't specified one way or the other, we won't be bound to do anything different. It becomes clear only Norway can be regulatory "alignment" - when the EU rules change so do ours. With Canada they are fixed for all time. That's one reason Canada is necessarily more restricted than Norway.
Regulatory alignment is a big issue for the EU, apart from the GFA. This suggests to me the EU will be pushing hard for us to have Norway style rule taking. It could be the opposite of what Mrs May wants - the greater obligations of Norway tied with the lesser benefits of Canada.
So we could say, in that case we want the benefits of Norway too. It's also easier to negotiate. The treaty essentially exists off the shelf as a forty page document, while a Canada style deal requires extensive and detailed negotiation. The Canada agreement runs to 1600 pages. We could say, we don't want any agreement, but I don't think that's a realistic outcome. One thing Mrs May has done for the Conservatives in the last week is to create the assumption of a deal. Mainstream Conservative MPs, who don't seem to enjoy talking about Brexit, breathed a big sigh of relief this week that it hasn't yet blown up in their faces.
But if curtailing Freedom of Movement is the be-all-and-end-all, you could have limited Canada trade benefits with Norway style rule taking on trade, business and the environment and a concession on freedom of movement Would that ultimately be acceptable?
Brexit might mean different things to different people but what unites the vast majority is opposition to freedom of movement. Any deal has to include no freedom of movement. Membership of the Single Market -what remainer call "Soft Brexit", and what in reality is staying under EU control in all but name, requires freedom of movement. If the EU is flexible on this issue all will be well. But the majority of voters will be very very angry, and the consequences will be dire, if parliament agrees to freedom of movement in any deal.
I posted on this a couple of days ago, apologies for the long post. Essentially we would end up with Norway rule-taking obligations and limited Canada benefits, but we would be able to avoid FoM and also another Theresa May's red line: limited payments to the EU. The third red line of no ECJ would be crossed or would have to be finessed a la EFTA Court. It seems a costly way of avoiding those red lines however:
------------------
If we avoid, on the one hand full membership of the EU, and on the other hand no preferential relationship with the EU (WTO), we end up in the Norway/Canada space. The difference between the two is that Norway (EEA) is an agreement to participate in the EU's trading system with the benefits and obligations that comes from being part of a system, while Canada (FTA) is a treaty between two trading units with the rules specified in a very long document.
In her Florence speech Theresa May indicated she wants the benefits of the more comprehensive and extensive Norway system, while being bound by the more limited obligations specified in a Canada style treaty. A form of having cake and eat, maybe.
But we could end up with the opposite: the much greater obligations of the Norway system, while receiving the more limited benefits specified in a Canada [1/2]
So we're not really leaving the EU until 2021 at the earliest.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PM. Rejoice.
So still before 2022, the last date for a general election then and really we will be still leaving the EU in 2019 just not the single market until 2021
But no one will notice the difference if we remain in the SM and CU. Nothing will change apart from cancellation of the 2019 MEP elections and the UK not being at EU summits. It's very much BINO.
So we're not really leaving the EU until 2021 at the earliest.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PM. Rejoice.
So still before 2022, the last date for a general election then and really we will be still leaving the EU in 2019 just not the single market until 2021
But no one will notice the difference if we remain in the SM and CU. Nothing will change apart from cancellation of the 2019 MEP elections and the UK not being at EU summits. It's very much BINO.
So we're not really leaving the EU until 2021 at the earliest.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PM. Rejoice.
So still before 2022, the last date for a general election then and really we will be still leaving the EU in 2019 just not the single market until 2021
I remember only a few months ago you were saying it was nailed on that when Boris or David Davis become PM in 2019, they'd call a snap election by 2020, so how does today's announcement fit with that?
We would still have Brexited though May might stay now until 2021 with Boris or Davis or Mogg or Gove or whoever not taking over until a year before the general election. So basically the Tories go for soft Brexit for 80% of the Parliament to secure anti Corbyn Remainers and protect the economy then go for fuller Brexit ie a FTA that ends free movement under a Leaver a few months before the next general election to ensure Leave voters do not shift from the Tories to UKIP
@hopisen: 18 months on, team 'Take back control' are delighted Brexit talks will move on to discussing how many years we will follow EU law without having a say.
So we're not really leaving the EU until 2021 at the earliest.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PM. Rejoice.
So still before 2022, the last date for a general election then and really we will be still leaving the EU in 2019 just not the single market until 2021
But no one will notice the difference if we remain in the SM and CU. Nothing will change apart from cancellation of the 2019 MEP elections and the UK not being at EU summits. It's very much BINO.
I disagree. Membership is massively different from participation on a rule-taking basis. Norway is cool with outsourcing the major part of its foreign policy to a third party. I can't see the UK being so easy-going And even so, the Norwegian government thinks its a nonsense. They have to accept it because they know they won't win a referendum on EU membership.
Very good! But seriously, they have a dress code for business class??
Not if you have a ticket for business or first. If you are there by the grace of the airline or via a loyalty scheme then they usually insist on a dress code.
It was for access to the lounge, not the flight.
Same rules aiui. Paying customers get to wear whatever they want, executive club members have to abide by the dress code.
Not for the Qantas lounge, apparently!
Yeah, that's a bit mental, if you've paid for club class then you should be able to use all of the services within the club class provision in whatever clothes you want.
Farage to be an MP after next GE at 17/2 on Betfair at the moment might not be a bad shout.
Don't want to lock any money up until 2022 but of course an election may come sooner. And I suspect he would find it impossible not to stand.
I'll give you 20/1.
Heheh. I've been watching the odds on that one closely as as it's a very good covering bet for a small wager I have with a friend on whether or not we will have left the EU by 2022. It was actually 11/1 a month ago.
Some thoughts on this one, as it relates to today's thread.
1. There is a non-zero chance the government falls over Brexit before GE2022.
2. There is also an outside chance that, should TMay be ousted, the new leader calls a GE, either to secure legitimacy for their mandate or in a "who governs Britain?" type move. You would think this would be impossible, but a hard leaver like JRM may prefer something like this to being pressured into a second referendum.
3. There is a significant chance that whatever deal is on the cards will not satisfy the type of voter in Matthew Goodwin's tweet. Anything but the hardest of hard Brexits may lead to cries of betrayal. Additionally, four more years of freedom of movement will - if we are to believe the comments in this thread - lead to four more years of competition for working class jobs, GPs appointments, etc. If Farage picked a northern Brexity constituency, one where people would rather spit on their mother's grave than vote Tory, he could do much better than he did in Thanet (where of course it is worth remembering that the Conservative MP has a trial date set for 2018 over his election expenses relating to 2015).
Anyone imagining that Farage will not either miraculously return as UKIP leader, or at the helm of some new Aaron Banks sponsored party, or simply standing as an independent, obviously underestimates the egotism of Mr Farage.
Now the main reason I'm not getting involved in this one is because I think (3) is likely but (1) and (2) are not, and I don't want to lock up money until 2022. I'd rather buy Bitcoin with it.
But the thread header makes a very good point, as does that Matthew Goodwin tweet. There is no form of Brexit, other than the hardest of hard Brexits, that will satisfy some voters - and a Farage type character can always cry betrayal.
Yeah this is going to annoy the likes of the Leadbangers.
I can see a vote of no confidence being triggered in the New Year.
Which May would likely win 60% to 40% at least ie the same number of MPs who voted for her against the MPs who backed Gove and Leadsom in the 2016 second round
So we're not really leaving the EU until 2021 at the earliest.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PM. Rejoice.
So still before 2022, the last date for a general election then and really we will be still leaving the EU in 2019 just not the single market until 2021
But no one will notice the difference if we remain in the SM and CU. Nothing will change apart from cancellation of the 2019 MEP elections and the UK not being at EU summits. It's very much BINO.
This rather depends on government policy. There are rules about FoM that we don't implement, eg. expecting migrants to go home if they don't have a job. There are several things that could make the UK somewhat less attractive as a FoM destination that we never took seriously because (despite the nonsense T May came out with while she was Home Secretary) the government did not really want to prevent business from getting as much cheap labour - and expert staff - as it required. That's one of Brexit's dirty secrets.
So we're not really leaving the EU until 2021 at the earliest.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PM. Rejoice.
So still before 2022, the last date for a general election then and really we will be still leaving the EU in 2019 just not the single market until 2021
But no one will notice the difference if we remain in the SM and CU. Nothing will change apart from cancellation of the 2019 MEP elections and the UK not being at EU summits. It's very much BINO.
This rather depends on government policy. There are rules about FoM that we don't implement, eg. expecting migrants to go home if they don't have a job. There are several things that could make the UK somewhat less attractive as a FoM destination that we never took seriously because (despite the nonsense T May came out with while she was Home Secretary) the government did not really want to prevent business from getting as much cheap labour - and expert staff - as it required. That's one of Brexit's dirty secrets.
The biggest thing we did not implement was transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries under Blair
@hopisen: 18 months on, team 'Take back control' are delighted Brexit talks will move on to discussing how many years we will follow EU law without having a say.
More self righteous remoaner nonsense based upon the premise that those who voted Remain are innocent victims who need appeasing whereas it is perfectly allright for remoaners to accuse leavers of being fascists, Nazis, liars, racists, xenophobes and even at one point complicit in the murder of a Labour MP
Comments
'Surely it's not going to rain today?'
She said
'It will, and don't call me Shirley'
...Forgot to take my phone off Airplane mode.
The Irish example is interesting because they did go it alone. A country where young people were forced to emigrate because there was nothing there for them doesn't seem a happy country.
They voted Leave to end free movement and then for Corbyn to end austerity.
The Leave vote in the south was more based on sovereignty but of course although the South East voted Leave it had a higher Remain vote than any other region of England bar London.
Don't want to lock any money up until 2022 but of course an election may come sooner. And I suspect he would find it impossible not to stand.
Who would have thought it ? ..
As a third country , the UK will be outside that consensus and won't have anything to horsetrade.
Just rejoice at that news and congratulate our PM. Rejoice.
Spain followed a similar path in the early years of the Franco dictatorship - and Spanish GDP did not return to its pre civil-war 1935 level until 1955. No significant growth occurred until the economy was opened to foreign investment and tourism in the early 1960s.
A bipartisan Brexit. How nice.
Will be done and dusted before the next GE.
next youll be saying youre a Theresite
They now have a meaningful vote to reject the deal.
I was less keen on the horsemeat from Italy
Clearly, you've never visited Lincolnshire ever. Boston where I was born in 1950 had very little immigration at all up to a few years ago. A few Irish a hundred years ago certainly and that's where the very few Catholic Churches came from. One or two of my ancestors helped there.
There has been a massive surge in the last twenty years of Poles and particularly Lithuanians. They are good Catholic lads and lasses and work hard but do have a proclivity for the gargle. The top three per capita drinkers of alcohol world-wide are Lithuania, Belarus and Estonia.
Please don't pretend this was merely a continuation of what was happening already. You may disapprove of Brexit Central's reaction (and you've every right to your opinion), but get the basic facts right.
PS It started with a trickle of Portuguese, but that was only a vanguard.
Regulatory alignment is a big issue for the EU, apart from the GFA. This suggests to me the EU will be pushing hard for us to have Norway style rule taking. It could be the opposite of what Mrs May wants - the greater obligations of Norway tied with the lesser benefits of Canada.
So we could say, in that case we want the benefits of Norway too. It's also easier to negotiate. The treaty essentially exists off the shelf as a forty page document, while a Canada style deal requires extensive and detailed negotiation. The Canada agreement runs to 1600 pages. We could say, we don't want any agreement, but I don't think that's a realistic outcome. One thing Mrs May has done for the Conservatives in the last week is to create the assumption of a deal. Mainstream Conservative MPs, who don't seem to enjoy talking about Brexit, breathed a big sigh of relief this week that it hasn't yet blown up in their faces.
But if curtailing Freedom of Movement is the be-all-and-end-all, you could have limited Canada trade benefits with Norway style rule taking on trade, business and the environment and a concession on freedom of movement Would that ultimately be acceptable?
------------------
If we avoid, on the one hand full membership of the EU, and on the other hand no preferential relationship with the EU (WTO), we end up in the Norway/Canada space. The difference between the two is that Norway (EEA) is an agreement to participate in the EU's trading system with the benefits and obligations that comes from being part of a system, while Canada (FTA) is a treaty between two trading units with the rules specified in a very long document.
In her Florence speech Theresa May indicated she wants the benefits of the more comprehensive and extensive Norway system, while being bound by the more limited obligations specified in a Canada style treaty. A form of having cake and eat, maybe.
But we could end up with the opposite: the much greater obligations of the Norway system, while receiving the more limited benefits specified in a Canada [1/2]
I can see a vote of no confidence being triggered in the New Year.
Some thoughts on this one, as it relates to today's thread.
1. There is a non-zero chance the government falls over Brexit before GE2022.
2. There is also an outside chance that, should TMay be ousted, the new leader calls a GE, either to secure legitimacy for their mandate or in a "who governs Britain?" type move. You would think this would be impossible, but a hard leaver like JRM may prefer something like this to being pressured into a second referendum.
3. There is a significant chance that whatever deal is on the cards will not satisfy the type of voter in Matthew Goodwin's tweet. Anything but the hardest of hard Brexits may lead to cries of betrayal. Additionally, four more years of freedom of movement will - if we are to believe the comments in this thread - lead to four more years of competition for working class jobs, GPs appointments, etc. If Farage picked a northern Brexity constituency, one where people would rather spit on their mother's grave than vote Tory, he could do much better than he did in Thanet (where of course it is worth remembering that the Conservative MP has a trial date set for 2018 over his election expenses relating to 2015).
Anyone imagining that Farage will not either miraculously return as UKIP leader, or at the helm of some new Aaron Banks sponsored party, or simply standing as an independent, obviously underestimates the egotism of Mr Farage.
Now the main reason I'm not getting involved in this one is because I think (3) is likely but (1) and (2) are not, and I don't want to lock up money until 2022. I'd rather buy Bitcoin with it.
But the thread header makes a very good point, as does that Matthew Goodwin tweet. There is no form of Brexit, other than the hardest of hard Brexits, that will satisfy some voters - and a Farage type character can always cry betrayal.
NEW THREAD
There will also be a difference between the start and the end of round 2.
This is known as negotiation and compromise