Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Exarch]

Trump recommended May sue the EU, because apparently that's how new york real estate moguls get things done.

[NorseThing]

A link to give some authority to the 'Sue the EU' comment. https://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...488217011.html

The purpose of the lawsuit is to focus attention and so that the other party does not ignore or simply try to run out the clock on negotiations. Of course PM May probably wants to run out the clock as much as the EU technocrats.

[Aexodus]

At this rate I feel like the remainers in parliament (the majority of MPs) wanted to ‘scrap brexit’ from the start.

Trump recommended May sue the EU, because apparently that's how new york real estate moguls get things done.

The EU sued Poland and Hungary, explain why it can’t go the other way.

Oh right yeah, the EU is our master and we can’t question them.

[95thrifleman]

Theresa may is standing in the middle of the road and is going to get crushed when the remainer/brexiteer head-on collision hits her.

She's putting in a deal that shafts both sides and is political suicide, only problem is that it's the only solution she can see given her lack of power.

The hard left Labour leadership smell blood in the water and chance for power, they have put party politics above the good of the nation. The Tories have put party infighting above the good of the nation, the SNP are desperate for a second referendum to legitimise a second one on Scottish independence.

This is the biggest political mess this country has seen since Edward VIII abdicated

[caratacus]

Well it looks like Theresa May is desperately trying to stabilise her government and to prevent the threat of a leadership challenge. The end of parliament for the summer recess has suddenly been proposed to be brought forward to Thursday this week instead of Tuesday next week. Whilst an urgent meeting was called today in London, with representatives of the Conservative Party's local associations, over 600 of the them. Grass root party members have been dismayed and incensed by the events surrounding the release of May's White Paper on Brexit, and it seems this is an effort to assure them over its contents and the Party's course of action. The details of this plan being a surprise to everybody, not least the Brexit Minister himself, David Davis.

Like the Labour party, the Conservative party membership views on the EU diverge significantly from the parliamentary party, something which those at Westminster are uneasy about. There was even a plan being prepared under the former PM David Cameron to scale down the number of Conservative associations to prevent the accumulation of dissent for decisions being made contrary to their wishes, of which the contents of this White Paper is a prime example. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...as-leader.html

However a leadership challenge is the best chance the Conservatives have to prevent Jeremy Corbyn winning the next election, because right now "strong and stable" is not the words you would associate with the present government, something entirely brought about by the present PM. through her management of the Brexit process. Should Labour win though, Brexit will almost certainly not be carried out, because the Remainers dominate their agenda and the leadership is more interested in obtaing the keys to Number 10 than standing up for his own principles.

[Greyblades]

I have developed the opinion that considering the EU as being evil or the driver of our ills is wrongheaded. While its leadership are stubborn and happy to bluster they have not actually acted underhanded to force us into anything.

No it was not the EU, it was our own politicians, they who voted the country into every treaty without consulting us, brussels didnt come from on high and forced our pen to paper our politicians signed away willingly and happily.

Even now as those politicians have blundered, allowed sentiment to turn against thier desires and been presented with orders to leave; the EU havent tried to force us to stay with beuracracy or violence merely stated thier position and refused to compromise when asked.

Its been them that have driven us to our misfortune, the EU's just a beuraucratic machine it has been our politicians that has pushed the country's hands ever further between its gears and then blamed the tool for continuing to do what it was made to do.

Now does this mean I have changed my opinion on our staying in? No. Its still bad for Britain I'm just not going to pretend our political class had no rssponsibility for 20 odd years of allowing it to expand its remit. The EU didnt mask its intentions in any degree as much as those on our side that wanted us in it..

[95thrifleman]

I have developed the opinion that considering the EU as being evil or the driver of our ills is wrongheaded. While its leadership are stubborn and happy to bluster they have not actually acted underhanded to force us into anything.

No it was not the EU, it was our own politicians, they who voted the country into every treaty without consulting us, brussels didnt come from on high and forced our pen to paper our politicians signed away willingly and happily.

Even now as those politicians have blundered, allowed sentiment to turn against thier desires and been presented with orders to leave; the EU havent tried to force us to stay with beuracracy or violence merely stated thier position and refused to compromise when asked.

Its been them that have driven us to our misfortune, the EU's just a beuraucratic machine it has been our politicians that has pushed the country's hands ever further between its gears and then blamed the tool for continuing to do what it was made to do.

Now does this mean I have changed my opinion on our staying in? No. Its still bad for Britain I'm just not going to pretend our political class had no rssponsibility for 20 odd years of allowing it to expand its remit. The EU didnt mask its intentions in any degree as much as those on our side that wanted us in it..

Couldn't agree more

[caratacus]

Its been them that have driven us to our misfortune, the EU's just a beuraucratic machine it has been our politicians that has pushed the country's hands ever further between its gears and then blamed the tool for continuing to do what it was made to do.

Now does this mean I have changed my opinion on our staying in? No. Its still bad for Britain I'm just not going to pretend our political class had no rssponsibility for 20 odd years of allowing it to expand its remit. The EU didnt mask its intentions in any degree as much as those on our side that wanted us in it..

If the EU is a "bureaucratic machine" who is the operator.? Perhaps if you knew this, you would have a clearer understanding about domestic politics. Transparency should be the central concept of all good government. When there is none, there is a question of legitimacy created by a division between those that govern and those who they govern for.

The preparation of Thereasa May's White Paper on Briexit was certainly not undertaken in the manner it should have been. Her hasty consultation with Angela Merkel over its contents, before its publication in the UK, presents some serious questions of democratic accountability given the Brexit vote and the role of this document in expediting it.

News--But perhaps we should stil have a little more faith in democracy eh

A key vote has been won tonight by the Government in Parliament, which would have forced it to accept a position of remaining within the EU Customs Union. This amendment would have made any negotiating position very difficult and is very much contrary to the result of the referendum. It came down to a slim majority of only 6 votes, with many pro-EU Conservatives voting with the opposition side.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44864496

Various other amendments were also defeated with similar slim majorities, with the exception of one which would keep the UK in the European medicines regulatory network.

[Greyblades]

If the EU is a "bureaucratic machine" who is the operator.? Perhaps if you knew this, you would have a clearer understanding about domestic politics. Transparency should be the central concept of all good government. When there is none, there is a question of legitimacy created by a division between those that govern and those who they govern for.

I am not clear on the point of contention here. My understanding is the operator is the comission president; a bureaucrat, appointed by a council of european heads of governments with the only democratic arm of the union being allowed only to rubberstamp whoever is presented and what he propses. The current one, Juncker, is a extremely disagreeable person.

It's hardly democratic, it's unacceptably opaque, hence why I want us to leave and would accept a hard brexit to be free of it. But I point the responsability, of allowing that undemocratic opaque system to gain power over us, not on it as much as on the previous prime ministers and thier parties.

It's not a good thing but I view it with a degree of moral ambivilance, similar as I would view a pawn shop owner that didnt refuse to buy the heirloom your wastrel relative sold them without your consent.

Though in this case the wastrel allowed the pawnshop to turn into a pawnshop instead of a co-op that you thought it was supposed to be in the first place... And the heirloom was your name address and mothers maiden name?
Please dont think too hard about that metaphor.

[NorseThing]

From 8 days ago: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...-idUSKBN1JZ1FP

So PM May has lost the confidence of the voters. No way she can now force an election. So she must ride or fall on the confidence within Parliament. I may be a bit gloomy, but her days are numbered. It looks like the 'remainers' have won by simply running out the clock.

[Aanker]

Public support for Brexit, in general, is waning. Demographic change alone (e.g. deaths of leave voters and coming of age of would-be remain voters) means that Remain is now the by far biggest camp in the polls.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/grap...daily-chart-14

[Cyclops]

If the EU is a "bureaucratic machine" who is the operator.? ..

... My understanding is the operator is the comission president; a bureaucrat, appointed by a council of european heads of governments with the only democratic arm of the union being allowed only to rubberstamp whoever is presented and what he propses. The current one, Juncker, is a extremely disagreeable person.

It's hardly democratic, it's unacceptably opaque, hence why I want us to leave and would accept a hard brexit to be free of it.

Is the EU is a very continental system? It has those hallmarks, a highly bureaucratic structure, and its what I would expect from it being minted by France and Germany. Not doubt there's corruption and wooliness in all systems, but unfamiliar corruption and strange wooliness must be more offensive for a Briton looking in at the EU.

I m pretty ignorant of course and have ideas based on little knowledge. I imagine the EU was founded as a vehicle for French power, and has come (through dint of hard work and whole hearted involvement) a vehicle for German power. I guess those countries combine against Britain, who has been less whole hearted (having links along other axes, especially with the US) and less efficient at the same work (expressing power through quite different political system and so most people and even some politicians are less versed in Brussels politics, leading to further alienation). The UK sees the US more as a partner, the other EU states maybe see it more as the lesser of two evils?

De Gaulle strove to keep Britain out from inception, and seems to have built in limits to British involvement, mostly structural, is that a fair observation?

...But I point the responsability, of allowing that undemocratic opaque system to gain power over us, not on it as much as on the previous prime ministers and thier parties....

I think you're right about responsibility, Britain was sold a version of Europe and the leaders have been ahead of the electorate. From where I sit it looks like a reasonable deal but its up to the people to accept. Good leader5s lead, but if you feel like you've been mislead leaving is your right. I'd never try to interfere in the workings of a friendly nation like GB. Friendly when its not the cricket that is, you Poms.

[Geronimo2006]

I think a Hard Brexit is now more likely following May's victory over the Remainers by about 3 votes yesterday on the question of remaining in the Customs Union if theres no deal. Most likely there will be no deal and one of two things will happen: either Britain crashes out of the EU by reaching the 2 yr deadline since Article 50 was triggered, or the European Council agrees to an extension of the deadline to allow for a deal.

[95thrifleman]

I think a Hard Brexit is now more likely following May's victory over the Remainers by about 3 votes yesterday on the question of remaining in the Customs Union if theres no deal. Most likely there will be no deal and one of two things will happen: either Britain crashes out of the EU by reaching the 2 yr deadline since Article 50 was triggered, or the European Council agrees to an extension of the deadline to allow for a deal.

3 votes is a government with no power. May is finished, it's a bloody coin toss every time she tries to get legislation passed.

[Aexodus]

Public support for Brexit, in general, is waning. Demographic change alone (e.g. deaths of leave voters and coming of age of would-be remain voters) means that Remain is now the by far biggest camp in the polls.

https://www.economist.com/blogs/grap...daily-chart-14

Irrelevant

[Aanker]

Irrelevant

Irrelevant.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Irrelevant

Its one of those 'yes and no' answers in regards to its relevancy i'd say .

It's irrelevant in terms of its power to be a key decider in if brexit is carried out- that's been made clear...ish, one referendum (Though a small chance it seems now given the current lack of a majority for a hard brexit...or the type of 'soft', that we might see a second referendum to provide legitimacy if needed) is enough.

But in the mid-term, its going to take realistically a fair while to disentangle from the EU (If we ever do fully indeed), The working white paper of a few years ago prior to this mess gave it 15 years (that included a good 7 though or so prior to article 50 actually being activated- the key mistake for the Tories). Even this one, we're looking at 2020/2021 being bandied around, and probably longer. With the demographic changes being fairly rapid, and the vote being so close in the first place- their is an issue that the UK will simply, leave the EU...ish (or fully if suddenly the Conservatives become decent administrators) to basically u-turn, before fully leaving, or a few years shortly after to rejoin it. Its going to make, from a purely academic view- interesting writing over the next decade to see just what happens, as its very likely a party will stand on regaining EU membership (Or a campaign force achieves another referendum a few years down the line) and we end up with a turn-over to other things. Made more likely if their does turn out to be an economic cost that impacts services or the standard of living. It could be one of the shortest independence victories in history from a certain viewpoint.

Now i'm not saying this is desirable or not- but it is interesting and probably likely, given that unlike the Scots referendum of 'once in a generation' (and even that's looking pretty shaky), the EU referendum was based on a specific political context in the Conservative party, for which their was no parliamentary majority, and for which the referendum electorally did not provide an 'end all' answer- particularity if in the next decade their are less 'believers' in it, making its political capital swing the other way. I also suspect that regardless of what you believe the economic consequences to be, the UK is already in trouble with its private debt bubble looming darkly on the horizon (courtesy of Conservative austerity to make political capital)- and lets face it, the party in power will no likely place the emphasis not on them, but on brexit (be it accusingly, or to say 'we expected this')- which as austerity did, would have a stark impact upon perceptions of new voters and reinforce those against is rightly or wrongly. Brexit can only work in a long-lasting way providing for the next few decades as the UK adjusts to its new position (whatever that may be) and builds up alternative relationships- that we have a competent government at the helm who are committed to it- i see commitment from barely anyone (Not even Boris or Moggs) , but no competence among any (And that's not a bias shot- genuinely domestic policy from Labour is radical- not the best bet when you need stability after an actual brexit, and the Tories are absolutely rubbish objectively thus far, with no signs of changing given the candidates of the next generation). Without this, your going to have a hard time convincing the public its a good idea, particularly a demographic down the line who were against it (Thus confirmation bias), while the support has dwindled. You need competent government, and no decline in living standards or the economy- and that means declines unrelated to brexit, but could potentially be spun as being due to brexit- i.e. we need an economic boom somehow to ensure long-term legitimacy.

[Aexodus]

Well you see, they could just procrastinate for long enough, wait until public opinion changes because they’re making such a mess of Brexit, then say ‘oh well, guess we’ll just give up now’. I find it irrelevant because the decision was made in 2016, and that’s that.

A vote on the deal itself? Sure, but not on Brexit itself.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Well you see, they could just procrastinate for long enough, wait until public opinion changes because they’re making such a mess of Brexit, then say ‘oh well, guess we’ll just give up now’. I find it irrelevant because the decision was made in 2016, and that’s that.

A vote on the deal itself? Sure, but not on Brexit itself.

That indeed is one view- though i feel it gives far too much credit to the Conservative party in having such a plan, brexit was down to their historic civil war over Europe- the dithering has been because that civil war, far from being decided by the referendum, was essentially brought out into the open by brexit- hence what has traditionally been one of the 'slickest' parties in the UK for achieving and maintaining power at all costs over ideology, has rather strangely fractured.

To your point though about brexit being decided in 2016- sure, but for how long? Unlike say an election, where their typically since the fixed term act is a set number of years (pending crisis of course!), brexit is a policy decision itself. Two years down the line already, whose to say that legitimately, particularly because the brexiteers have failed to secure a 'sustainable' brexit plan for domestic consumption- a further two years, we can't just join again when public opinion is a majority for membership?

This is the key threat that brexit has thus far failed to tackle. By pulling out the whole 'will of the people' especially to provide legitimacy- in lieu of building a bridging consensus between leave and remain- brexiteers effectively have opened brexit up to being reliant solely on this. A poor decision for long term policy. Now we could argue again if this is the governments fault, or the leave campaigns fault- but it doesn't really matter as the damage has effectively been done, unless of course those circumstances i described above miraculously appear. Or a more radical concept- is the UK actually reforms and creates a written constitution similar to Sweden's historic commitments (Which is recently dropped) of neutrality and a libera-welfare based model- which essentially would prevent too close an attachment to institutions like the EU- of course that's a distant dream currently.

So we're stuck that legitimately given the political context and no clear existing majority for brexit that is sustainable, effectively we could leave in 2020 or whenever it will be, and two years later seek to rejoin based upon an election result, another referendum based on EU ascension (So nothing to do with brexit- a different entirely) or indeed as happened previously a government merely decides as part of its foreign policy initiatives to go and join the EU again. There is no sustainable plans in place for how brexiteers are going to bridge the gap here and broaden their church to ensure the stability of brexit for at least the mid-term- indeed currently they've actively ruined the chances of that by relying on 'will of the people'- a terrible idea for ensuring stability when at the time the political capital was non-existent, let alone now or a few years on.

So no i'm not saying a vote on brexit itself- i'm saying that actually there won't need to be one realistically- either an election could decide it in a few years that we're rejoining (assuming we've left by then), or indeed a new referendum on ascension- or simply the government exercising its mandate in the area of policy.

[The Noble Lord]

So no i'm not saying a vote on brexit itself

British people already voted and gave their opinion on the issue.... Everything else is just a bunch of formalities.