The Brexit process

[kabbes]

A lot of people voted leave because they were fed up of being ignored by elitists who think they know better, so our solution? Find a way to redefine what leaving the E.U means so that we don't actually have to leave the E.U, but in a way so that the plebs won't realise.

Don't you get it? Doesn't anyone get it? People see condescending shit like this on their FB timeline or hear it from friends & wait till the privacy of the ballot box to say 'fuck you', & then don't tell the pollsters or their mates what they did because it's more fun to watch everyone scratch their head after the result.

When asked "should there be more or less immigration?", 83% in a recent poll said "less". But when asked "how much are you willing to see your personal pay reduce to have less immigration?", the overwhelming majority say "nothing".

So people's attitudes are a lot more nuanced than "out, whatever the cost".

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Really surprised that that's not a much, much bigger story - first proper insight into the pre-negotiations etc

On the contrary IMO. Hushed tones about the elephant in the room - hugely neglectful cluelessnss, is to be expected from the disinfo matrix masquerading as "news" media.

 

[brogdale]

Workers to pay for capital's reduced trading costs.

 

[Raheem]

Workers to pay for capital's reduced trading costs.

No-one has access to the single market without paying. This is just more "no plan".

 

[brogdale]

No-one has access to the single market without paying. This is just more "no plan".

As long as its <£350M/week...bargain, obviously.

 

[weltweit]

As long as its >£350M/week...bargain, obviously.

Don't you mean <£350M/wk ?

 

[brogdale]

Don't you mean <£350M/wk ?

Yes; my (mathsy) bad.

 

[Raheem]

As long as its >£350M/week...bargain, obviously.

How much is another question. But in terms of what he was asked, what else could he have said? That, actually, it should be them paying us?

Some people seem to have got quite excited about this, but the reality is it tells us absolutely nothing, except that anything is possible.

 

[brogdale]

How much is another question. But in terms of what he was asked, what else could he have said? That, actually, it should be them paying us?

Some people seem to have got quite excited about this, but the reality is it tells us absolutely nothing, except that anything is possible.

The political significance being that "possible" includes the very opposite of what many thought they were voting for.

 

[Raheem]

The political significance being that "possible" includes the very opposite of what many thought they were voting for.

Some. But it's nothing new that the government is saying it would like access to the single market. if they were saying they would be willing to accept free movement of people, that would be new.

 

[brogdale]

Some. But it's nothing new that the government is saying it would like access to the single market. if they were saying they would be willing to accept free movement of people, that would be new.

I expect that we could try to quantify the 'some'/'many' with polling or some such, but I reckon significant numbers of Leave voters would have cited not paying "£350M" to Brussels as a fairly significant motivation.

 

[Raheem]

I expect that we could try to quantify the 'some'/'many' with polling or some such, but I reckon significant numbers of Leave voters would have cited not paying "£350M" to Brussels as a fairly significant motivation.

Yes, it may disillusion some or many people. But it doesn't reveal anything new about what the government thinks it is playing at.

 

[gosub]

No-one has access to the single market without paying. This is just more "no plan".

Actually EFTA does, none of payments EFTA countries make are to do with access

 

[Raheem]

Actually EFTA does, none of payments EFTA countries make are to do with access

No-one's payments come with a receipt with "for access" written on it. They're just part of an overall package. But if you one day decide you're not going to pay any more, you would lose your access.

 

[hot air baboon]

That, actually, it should be them paying us?

...if we just default to WTO rules then - given our massive & seemingly structural - trade deficit with EU that's exactly what would happen isn't it....


...and not just in goods as is commonly believed apparently :

I was looking at UK-German trade data and found something that surprised me. Germany is not only exporting more goods to the UK, which we knew; it also has a surplus in services, including finance, according to the Federal Statistics Office. UK services exports to Germany were €24bn in 2015, while the UK imported services of €41bn from Germany.

Subscribe to read

 

[Raheem]

...if we just default to WTO rules then - given our massive & seemingly structural - trade deficit with EU that's exactly what would happen isn't it....

Yes, although "them" would really be the end consumer, so it would be us paying us, through regressive taxation.

Or, more simply put, it's importers that are responsible for paying the duties, not exporters (i.e. WTO rules would mean the UK taxing British importers and Germany etc taxing German etc importers).

 

[gosub]

No-one's payments come with a receipt with "for access" written on it. They're just part of an overall package. But if you one day decide you're not going to pay any more, you would lose your access.

they pay a disclosed amount to be part of specific schemes like the Science and Erasmus and things and that is all the EU get. EFTA in addition spends money directly on assisting the poorer European states - (which we would be obliged to do if we joined EFTA) but thats got fuck all to do with the Single Market or the EU

 

[gosub]

How much is another question. But in terms of what he was asked, what else could he have said? That, actually, it should be them paying us?

Some people seem to have got quite excited about this, but the reality is it tells us absolutely nothing, except that anything is possible.

Apart from under WTO rules, as a regional body the EU can impose tariff barriers in a way that would be illegal for a single country to do

 

[CRI]

David Davis: UK may pay for access to EU single market

 

[Yossarian]

David Davis: UK may pay for access to EU single market

These clowns are going to have signed Britain up for the Euro by the time negotiations finish.

 

[Raheem]

they pay a disclosed amount to be part of specific schemes like the Science and Erasmus and things and that is all the EU get. EFTA in addition spends money directly on assisting the poorer European states - (which we would be obliged to do if we joined EFTA) but thats got fuck all to do with the Single Market or the EU

No, it hasn't. It's a condition of their single market access, set out in the EEA Agreement.

 

[Diamond]

Just a thought this morning - is it worth having a thread on emergent Brexit factions?

This is clearly going to be a process on a scale and timetable that was not anticipated by most prior to the referendum. I'd suggest, in fact, that we are looking at a generational struggle with the crisis point lasting around 5 years at the lower end of the spectrum with many more years at the higher end.

So within that, I think we can already start to map out emergent factions around Brexit. At either end of the spectrum you have the hard Brexiteers and the hard remainers but then across the rest there are some interesting groups starting to coalesce.

Maybe it's a bit early but just a thought.

 

[Diamond]

There is also a very important variety of constitutional failure going on too that is worth dwelling on.

This failure is the result of a clash between a single issue democratic referendum on the one hand and our system of representative parliamentary democracy on the other.

Both are varieties of democracy, however when they are run alongside each other in a larger constitutional system it leads to problems.

Put simply, MPs feel obliged to vote in favour of any government sponsored article 50 bill given the referendum result, despite the fact that their duty as an MP is to represent all of their constituents, including a huge proportion of remainers in most cases.

Consequently the referendum result is compounded in a way that it shouldn't be - there is the fact of the result, which is advisory, and then separately there is the fact that MPs feel that the result of the referendum somehow trumps their duty to their constituents regardless of how those constituents may have voted.

It is a variety of this idea that it is undemocratic to ignore the 48% minority referendum vote, however because it triggers specific constitutional concerns around representation within our system it has greater weight.

 

[Supine]

I'd say mp's should vote with their hearts, or at least with the views of their constituency. If they vote purely based on the overall result they are representing nobody properly.

 

[Raheem]

I'd say mp's should vote with their hearts, or at least with the views of their constituency. If they vote purely based on the overall result they are representing nobody properly.

Fair enough, but for some MPs, their hearts may be telling them that they should vote to realise the outcome of the referendum, regardless of their own personal view (even if it might be only a small subset of them).

 

[Diamond]

Interesting new development to the a50 issue.

The applicants in the N.Ireland litigation, which has now been appealed to the Supreme Court as well and separate from but alongside the Miller litigation, have directly raised the issue of the revocability of a50 and argued that a preliminary reference to the ECJ will be required on that point:

The Northern Ireland Appellants’ Case

 

[Pickman's model]

with every day that passes the activation of article fifty seems more unlikely

 

[FridgeMagnet]

with every day that passes the activation of article fifty seems more unlikely

Perhaps at the end of the negotiating process it will turn out that the new agreements are in fact the same as the old ones and so it would just be a waste of taxpayer's money to trigger Article 50. And we know the Tories hate wasting taxpayer's money on red tape. But we'd definitely still have left Europe. Oh yes.

 

[Duncan2]

with every day that passes the activation of article fifty seems more unlikely

Totally agree.Immediately after the result I would have thought it impossible that we would stay in anyway but as someone else said it now seems likely that the EU will fall apart before we leave it.If it could be definitively proved that wages would be lower for the jams going forward if they wish to insist on an end to freedom of movement that would be a good thing.Currently a great many people,probably most,don't believe it.

 

[gosub]

Interesting new development to the a50 issue.

The applicants in the N.Ireland litigation, which has now been appealed to the Supreme Court as well and separate from but alongside the Miller litigation, have directly raised the issue of the revocability of a50 and argued that a preliminary reference to the ECJ will be required on that point:

The Northern Ireland Appellants’ Case

You had me worried for a minute. Would be the case if HMG were using potential revoke as their argument, (which they are not)
. I share their understanding that requires it both sides to revoke, and any clarification would have to be done at ECJ. So HMG will avoid, and rightly so. Any negotiations that took place under the cloud of revoke would be how big a shit sandwich can we make this, rather than good faith.



Still think the initial judgement were the right ones. But the case for a Federal UK is becoming overwhelming (though I'll let somebody else work out how, part of an overdue HoL overhaul I'd guess)