Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[mongrel]

We could have done things differently yes. The UK has a portion of the blame, yes. But Theresa May has been god-awful in these negotiations, our brexit secretary only had about an hour of talks, and Barnier has been a dip to us in general.

British voters have a right to feel betrayed.

British voters badly need a political education. They betrayed themselves by beleiving the siren call of the Daily Mail, Bozza, Gove and Russian trolls.. Now they are learning the hardest way possible. I not sure what Barnier has to say. It's not as if we don't already know the fundamental EU principles. The UKREP knows this. The saddest part is that working people had to endure austerity for 10 years in order to save the economy, so they said. Now they hell bent on following a course that will toss away our finances. No deal is electoral suicide.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Oh, the "you cannot leave me or it will be economic suicide threat". It's the type of thing that was quite common in keeping abusive marriages together.


Now you would think with these kind of headlines the Government would be positively crowing.
And yet the project Fear propaganda continues to spin, even by our own Chancellor.

Just on the economic point- Exports and the budget surplus aren't things being shouted out about because for the latter- its actually not a 'good' thing, considering the complete inadequacies in public funding currently, the issues around the typical stuff i usually moan about , but also councils on the brink of bankruptcy and a failing private sector in the provision of public services- the fact there is a surplus in this context of quite frankly desperation is ridiculous (Bearing in mind there is still a public sector pay freeze- the rises finally coming aren't 'new money' but funds being squeezed from existing budgets- thus actually more cuts- and still waaay below inflation). Not to mention the real killer with brexit on the horizon is the spiraling levels of private, not public debt- the Tory fascination with the latter is downright blinkered- their not crowing about the surplus simply because they wouldn't actually have one if they were being economically competent about fixing their mess- or indeed if they'd dropped the insanity from the start. I mean christ the actual debt has trippled or doubled depending upon measurement- borrowing is still happening, but instead of that money being put to good use- its being used to off-set austerity's consequences...and not even in a 'good' sustainable way. The only thing honestly i am glad of is that the morons haven't made a bigger press thing of it, as it would have been quite sickening seeing it spun as a positive- Worse than Blairs 'better together' or Cameron's 'we're all in this together'

Exports i wouldn't put on the table due to this structural issue, until the domestic economy is fixed to where it should be for a modern first world nation and put on a 'stable' footing (private debt being the key issue here) things like brexit, housing bubble crash or whatever can have an undue effect. The exports part is still largely reliant on European markets in no small part and on EU trade deals which we are not guaranteed to replicate at the same level (i.e. good or neutral for us) and moreover for whatever reason (Fox being incompetent) we haven't really even been 'sounding out' alternate markets yet. The most has been a debacle in India, a terrifying capitulation threatened to the US to get an FTA... and the looming danger of China. Also of course the big thing to note about exports is that services are included in it- which shifts it into a whole other board game alas that's far more polarizing for the UK economy.

But in fairness i'm not saying brexit will have some disastrous impact- more we're already at that point for one due to a complete lack of domestic planning- at least Cameron had the idea of the 'Northern powerhouse' and 'Midlands Engine'- which have become mostly words under May. You've got major issues of poverty and rising inequality actively going unaddressed, and you add brexit and Conservative incompetence and a poor fiscal policy to the mix, on top of an already quite frankly rotten economic structure- any brexit fallout will be magnified- its not brexits fault necessarily though- its just the government will try and spin for all its worth to avoid electoral oblivion (which is honestly impending- and quite frankly for purely just the domestic front debacle will be well deserved).

But aye, the reason their not crowing about it, i suspect is less to do with brexit and more given our current economic context is pretty damn dire it would actually make the Conservative government look worse to make a big thing of this- a record surplus in public finances and high exports of goods and services at a point when wages are squeezed, living standards have declined, working poverty has continued to rise (as has relative poverty and inequality) and they've butchered with Universal Credit not just those who are out of work, but those who are in work. At this point too no attempt has been made to challenge the biggest problem- that the UK economies main engine of growth and stability is debt-fueled consumer spending on the domestic front. Exports don't even (even with an increase) come close to touching the sides of the issue- and its the biggest weakness going into brexit for obvious reasons, and its why i cannot believe the Conservatives are simply sitting on their hands whistling as we approach the crunch time. There should have been a radical shift in growth policy two years ago (Heck five years ago)- but for whatever reason its just been sidelined- the crap about the 'Midlands Engine' even and 'Northern Powerhouse'- mostly political and still relied upon the same structural tenant of consumer spending to 'work' (If they even have).

Its sort of like their former favorite 'employment at an all time high'- which didn't account for the overall larger population, and also when its largely the consequence of the changes they did to how figures are recorded (under 21 and 25's being discounted from some areas- access to job seekers denied in these and other circumstances- a shift to including underemployed as 'in employment' and the active block on recording the number of people using food banks and their employment status that could offeset these- to name some of the contexts for how they've achieved that).

But yeah- rant over on that I get what your saying, so its not you i'm really arguing with you, as i know from our conversations your on the same page iirc mostly- its more the outright shite reporting of these figures that has been going on (I get they haven't made a big thing of it- but they shouldn't just be presented as a 'yay' what so ever by the government).

[Iskar]

Oh, the "you cannot leave me or it will be economic suicide threat". It's the type of thing that was quite common in keeping abusive marriages together.


Now you would think with these kind of headlines the Government would be positively crowing.
And yet the project Fear propaganda continues to spin, even by our own Chancellor.

And as for the opposition benches, their opinions on Brexit are truly deafening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGLHadex0B0

Britain is a great country Mongrel, in or outside the EU, even if there are parts of our government that don't believe it.

The rising tide floats all boats and a two billion surplus isn't that much seen in proper proportion: Germany's surplus for the federal government alone in the first half of 2018 was over 10 billion Euro (9 billion Pound) and the federal countries adding a further 15 billion Euro (13.5 billion Pound) in surplus.

Looks like we were never going to be allowed to leave in good grace by the EU from the start.

I’m not so sure we would have joined in 73 knowing this is the treatment we get when we try to leave. As caratacus says, it’s an abusive relationship.

We’re leaving the EU, not barricading ourselves out and raising the drawbridge for pete’s sake.

Those points you raise mongrel could have been avoided by May.

Why, I thought "Global Britain" had a brilliant future as master negotiator of profitable trade deals? Where does this fatalism come from to count only on what the EU "allows" the UK to get? If leaving in good grace means cherry-picking the parts you like without the corresponding obligations then it was clear from the start the EU27 could never agree to this. It was the British government that triggered article 50 and as such it was primarily the British government's obligation to come up with viable solutions for the time after. Unfortunately neither had the Cameron government prepared anything for the eventuality of leaving, nor had the vocal Brexiteers any real plan what do if they won, except admitting that the 350 million were a lie perhaps, nor has the May government managed to produce anything but nebulous talking points of "creative" or "innovative" solutions to trade and the Irish border, without presenting anything of substance. One cannot leave the EU and then expect the EU to somehow sort out favourable trade, migration and administrative deals.

For the sake of clarity: We didn't majorily want Britain to leave and would prefer close relationships with Britain, but the EU is founded on certain principles which we are bound to maintain. Yes, a no-deal Brexit would do harm to both parties, but the short-term gain from giving Britain the cherry-pick deal it wants would be severly outweighed by the long-term damage to the basic principles and credibility of the common market and our institutions.
Maybe this point goes deep to a fundamental difference in perspective, as I have noticed often that the long term importance of more abstract principles is valued higher on the (Franco-German idealist) continent than in (empiricist) Britain, as is aptly mirrored in their most prominent philosophers.

The British government now quickly needs to come up with at least a shred of a viable deal, as time is running out. That a deal the EU agrees to is most likely very far from the Brexit dreams of Johnson, Farage or Reese-Mogg is anyone's guess, since anyone could have guessed that negotiations between 60 million and 440 million would be somewhat asymmetric.

[Daruwind]

1) I can understant that there were no specific plans before vote but honestly I cannot understand why the leave must be ASAP. The reality of getting so many agreements, diplomatic, economic and other complex treaties was probably obvious to everybody. So why on Earth the Brexit was not planned for like 2025, 2030? Because just by doing things ASAP means a lot of pointless chaos and probably even the treaties are not as perfect as they could be with enough time to check everything tventy times. I´m not saying that Britain if on edge of economic collapse, just simply stating that with planned Brexit the damage would be even lesser. Simply this decade feels like a lost one for Britain. And time means money one way or another...and if markets prefer one things, it is prediction and long term stability..

2) The vote result is simply weak. It doesn´t matter who won. Even if we switch the number, it will be again very weak result. Point is, democrary is not without problems and even people have right to change opinions. I just have feeling that change of 5% could be easily done via a few interviews, scandals, affairs or just be influenced by completely different things. I cannot understand why such complex procedure which will influence heavily next decade didn´t have treshold like 66% or 75% of all voters. Because 75+/-5% is still majority. What if really the majority opinion will swing back to "remain"? It can happen and in democracy why these people would not be allowed to change direction of their future? That´s the problem. With such result, it could again result in lost decade one way or another.

Britain has every right to choose the future for itself. But in both these points I feel like Britain shot itself into knees, pointlessly.

[Aexodus]

In a hypothetical Irish unity referendum, I’d like to see people try and delay NI leaving the UK the way people are with the EU lmao

You think Brexit is consitutionally difficult?

[Papay]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8547076.html

May's plan for Brexit was rejected and its now dead. I am quite curious what UK will do.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Probably what the Conservatives always do at these points- devolve into more back-biting and jockeying for leader.... for a leadership election that will probably take place post-brexit as Davis, Hammond, Boris, Moggs and co all lack the balls to step-up to their rhetoric in how 'things should be done' (In fairness because logistically none actually have the support base among MP's necessary to do anything, they'll be in the same situation as May, except they'll have a month or so lee-way to blame everything on her, and this is on the huge assumption they'll actually win...which actually given the numbers is very unlikely ironically). Note too the way things are going this leadership battle will merely be for leadership of the Conservative party (Providing it doesn't split) as they'll be out of office pretty quickly unless they can somehow conjure up a serious domestic agenda that actually does....well...something... which considering just to take a micro, yet key political issue- the failure of private railways they're still nowhere near to doing (The new stop-gap 'review' to buy time not being fit for purpose in terms of only investigating a limited amount of alternative options thus it already has a narrow scope for providing workable solutions).

[Aexodus]

not least because it risks undermining the single market,” Mr Tusk said, giving his account of the Council’s working lunch discussion.

Oh of course it’s going to undermine the single market! That’s the point of Brexit Tusk you plank

[caratacus]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8547076.html

May's plan for Brexit was rejected and its now dead. I am quite curious what UK will do.

Fake news! Anyone who believes that the PM hasn't been in constant liaison with the EU and its leaders Merkle and Macron, about the contents of this document, doesn't really understand the machinations of European politics today. A complete charade, designed to hoodwink the British public that this meeting was anything but a PR stunt and that her Chequers Plan hasn't already been given the green light as part of a scheme of damage limitation.

If it is agreed, we don't leave the EU fully and in all probability Brexit will be reversed over the next 2-3 years. If refused because one of the 27 that isn't in the loop (eg Poland, Hungary) takes some objection to some aspect, May's government will collapse, a Labour one will be elected, which will then overseee that reversal.

Brexit: Chequers plan still 'credible', says minister
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45596470
The UK government insists Theresa May's Brexit proposal is a "workable, credible" deal, despite being rejected by EU leaders at a summit in Salzburg.
Minister James Brokenshire said "tough words" were to be expected near the end of negotiations but the government was "resolute" in its bid to get a deal. He said the so-called Chequers plan "does deliver" and it was now for the EU to "be specific" about its concerns.

Opportunity for a bit of publicity humour on something that coud seemingly break the Customs Union? even wreck the EU itself, really! They must appeal to all those young social media viewers.

"Ohh Mr Tusk, with these cakes you are really spoiling me.. haha!!"

Brexit: What's behind Donald Tusk's Instagram diplomacy?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45599122
"A piece of cake, perhaps?," said the head of the European Council, alongside a picture of him and May at the summit in Austria. "Sorry, no cherries."

This provocative post was Tusk's idea and is part of a wider strategy to appeal to young people via the app, an EU source has told the BBC.
"He's the one coming up with these posts - he has a good sense of what works and what doesn't," says an EU source working with Tusk on social media.

I prefer this for humour, still relevant more than a year on!

[Aexodus]

a Labour one will be elected, which will then overseee that reversal.

Are you sure Corbyn would do that?

[caratacus]

Are you sure Corbyn would do that?

Corbyn is too weak aginst the Blairites in his party who are gainst Brexit, whilst Momentum seemingly are pushing for a second referendum. Whatever Corbyn believes in is irrelevant.

[Aexodus]

You’re probably right in that.

[Iskar]

To be honest, Tusk's post is both funny and unprofessional. It is something I would expect from a political caricature in a newspaper perhaps, not a leading political figure.

That being said, I wonder why May is now so shocked that her insistence to try and cherrypick aspects of the common market while having no actual plan for northern Ireland is being met with rejection. It was clear from the start that the EU27 could not and would not allow the common market principles to be split up and enjoyed at leisure. And frankly, coming up with a solution to the Irish border is solely the task of the British government as it was them that initiated article 50. This is probably just another episode of empirism vs idealism, though: The EU give a reason by principle to reject the Chequers plan (no splitting of the common market) and May claims afterwards they didn't give any (practical) reasons. She's probably not even to be blamed that much - that a reason by principle is more than just wrapping paper for an "actual" practical argument probably does not occur to a thoroughly British mind, just as the utter prevalence of the immediately practical is a strange concept to us.

[Muizer]

Hadn't looked it up yet, but if this is an accurate summary of the plan then "cherry picking" doesn't begin to do it justice. It's a hoax. May must have had no illusions whatsoever about this deal going through. It was what she needed to kling to power domestically and she'll now again turn the (fully anticipated) rejection into domestic political capital. I do think it's fair to suspect this proposal was never really alive to begin with. Maybe she's hoping her party will come together once the EU is firmly established as a common enemy and any talk of a 'bespoke deal' can be left behind in relative political safety?

[Katsumoto]

I think you've given her too much credit. As I understand it, she genuinely believed her Chequers plan was the only viable deal. Now that it's been rejected, she's been humiliated and her political position is even more precarious.

[Muizer]

How could she possibly think the EU would allow the UK to continue trading within the common market without restrictions yet allow the UK to compete against it in relations with 3rd parties?

[Kyriakos]

This really should come as no surprise. The eu won't bulge and Britain should get real and at least attempt to negotiate an interim period instead of a 'sudden death' half a year from now. When the eu is closer to either change for the better (i am not seeing it, but who knows) or more states leaving, it will be easier for Britain too.



Just watch May's automatic body language/tick at 4.43 in the video - just after she says: "(Britain) are preparing for (a) no deal". No, it isn't. It better start preparing, though.

One can also quote from a Johhny Rotten song: there is no future; and England's dreaming. The eu won't help you, cause it has no interest to.

Similar threads merged. ~Abdülmecid I

[Dante Von Hespburg]

@Muzier

I honestly don't think we're really even there in the UK at seriously looking at that possibility yet. The issue from the beginning (as i've droned on about previously i know ) is that the UK isn't just divided politically among leavers and remainers, but within those two camps, their are also further divisions. But among the electorate and the political establishment. The lack of any 'working' majority for brexit again electorally (and more importantly in the short term politically) due to both the outright numbers, but also these further divisions has meant that the government has essentially spent the last two years negotiating with itself (Unsuccessfully i might add) to get an agreement they can even agree on.

In fairness Chequers was in this context (Not the practical economic and geopolitical one) a fair stab at it- in that all camps on the Remainer and leaver side hated it.

This is even before though British proposals come into contact with the EU. So you essentially have a muddled, ill-prepared and infighting UK- who finally triumph (in some ways) in getting together (Or ramming it down Cabinets throat as happened with Chequers, losing only two ministers), so the UK government then is all 'victory', pats on back all round- who then proceeds to have to fight every inch to force the plan to the EU's table, and the while the 'actual' struggle of negotiations being (as far as most British politicians and the media at least are concerned) are background noise- until its brought into stark focus by the EU.

I've said it once and it'll be true again. There was never going to be a way for the UK to get what brexiteers have promised. We recently had Reese-Moggs unveil his paper on the fallout of brexit, where he claimed a 'no deal' would see an extra £1 trillion to the UK... there was only one economist in the room at an event called 'Economists for free trade', and for anyone who's read the paper can understand why- it frankly is in fantasy land and is economically illiterate in the extreme. Regardless of that nonsense though, the fact the UK is in such a mess means its even less likely we'll get any positives from the EU (as it builds on the inbuilt power disparity), and a no-deal is a bad deal(Pending quick deals made in the aftermath for instance, we literally will not be able to have a functioning automobile industry for instance due to expected issues regarding 'quick trade'- let alone the costs) https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...-Brussels.html.

No deal would also see Brexit probably indeed reversed quite quickly as the Conservatives get toppled, and either A Remain-leaning Tory government wins (unlikely). Or a technically pro-brexit Corbyn government appears, but who can't and won't work with the mess the Conservatives made of brexit, and whose Blarite faction will capitalize on that fact to pressure the UK back into the EU. To make brexit work, you have to show the electorate its 'worth it'- this is an argument that has consistently failed to have been made by brexiteers. Thus we're reliant on the impact of personal lives (economics), and that's not an area where a 'no deal' can ever win honestly.

The answer of course thus far by brexiteer MP's has been that a no-deal/ us walking away would hurt the EU too... Yes it would. But not nearly as much, and not nearly with the same political consequences. Its why i've taken to sighing and laughing my arse off every-time that's been brought up by some Brexit-leaning left-wing or right-wing politician or reporter as our 'final trump card' as its equivalent of saying 'you'll kill us, but we'll punch your arm!'. Hope is never a strategy, and that's entirely what both the brexiteers and the British government generally so far have nailed their flag to.

[caratacus]

When the eu is closer to either change for the better (i am not seeing it, but who knows)

You guys seem to forget that the contents of May's Chequers plan was made known to the EU and the principle EU leaders sometime before Salzburg. In fact May flew for a meeting with Merkle as soon as the ink was dry, even before showing it to her ministers. Unsurprising therefore that there was very little surprise or frustration expressed by the other member states when they got the opportunity to sit together and discuss it. In fact the whole meeting seems to have been held with a high degree of triviality especially by Donald Tusk, considering the gravity of the issue, which for me points to insincerity.
Either:
1. The EU has purposefully led May up the garden path, so that she will fail and her government collapse, forcing new elections to install a more amenable Labour Party.
2, They are assisting her in winning over those opposed to her plan in the UK (which isn't a workable long lasting Brexit for anybody), presenting her as a Joan of Arc figure, only to return the UK back into the fold after it ultimately fails.
3, Preparing the ground for an extension of the transitional period to act as a hold on the UK leaving the EU.
“May’s Brexit fightback”?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Kyriakos]

Ah, the Sun. A rag of roughly the same gutter-level as the german Bild Always reliable.

Of course the eu won't help May. It isn't logical to think that a Corbyn gov would be "more amenable" though; what would be more amenable to people of x quality is more people of x quality, and May (along with most tories) are 'birds of a feather' with the main eu scum.

They won't help May not because she isn't just the type of pm they want to have in Britain; they won't help her cause Britain has no negotiating hand as long as is it set to default to No deal in half a year.
Which is why - as Corbyn suggests as well, if one has to remind you - you must first secure an interim period, eg a Norway-type membership, and then have time to prepare for a full brexit in a few years. The eu currently is in no way going to lose face to Britain; that makes zero sense.