Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Commentators here say May is primarily concerned with preventing a schism in her party. That is of course way more important than actually making progress on a deal....

By and large i think this is spot on indeed. May's key concern now (especially as she is not standing in the next GE) is legacy. She has a very short time left. She cannot be the PM to have destroyed the Tory party (also apparently her core driving force has even before brexit been a case of Party and its unity), nor can she be the PM who was 'held hostage' by either side (adding to what reportedly is already a stubborn nature), she also cannot be the PM who wavered on 'her' (key part here) plan on brexit. Particularly as she has reneged on nearly all of her domestic promises to the point where Universal Credit (which has been a disaster thus far- and ironically costs the tax payer far more than the older system) has been consistently pushed out, despite experts, those on it, charity groups and her own MP's trying to delay or revamp it. Its literally only mounting pressure that has seen her add changes to it- much like brexit. She technically 'breaks' rather than bends- her famous U-turns, are not her bending at all, but a break- seen with the fact that each time, she doesn't re-engage with the policy, but leaves it in ruins and goes back to 'status-quo'.

Its also the wider issue with Brexit. It was always a Conservative party project, and here's the thing as we've indeed seen over the past few days, and last year- She is unwilling to make brexit cross-party as that would rip the Conservative party apart. There was never any hope of brexit not being essentially under the thumb of the Conservatives and i would argue that is exactly why brexit is not, and cannot be 'sustainable' given this fact and the referendums result. It was always going to be 'party politics'.

Which is why we've had a divide UK while ironically a relatively united EU. As i mentioned the process of this Conservative managed brexit- its Britain's biggest political failure since Suez.

[NorseThing]

I am not certain with what we have discussed in this thread. Perhaps May was doing the right thing by trying to honor the Brexit vote with what her government could try an negotiate failing a hard Brexit. Not the real problem is not how to wiggle out of the 'nonbinding' vote, but how to deal with the alternative which is a hard exit from the EU. Make hard exit and then have a general election. PM May of course will not be the head of the Tory party, but then probably Labor will have changes as well. A new start is needed and not a new vote on Brexit. If he Remain voters are serious, then push for a party that wants to join the EU. Despite the polling that favors Remain as an option for a new Brexit vote, I suspect there is a great deal less support for an (re)entry in the EU.

[Ludicus]

Eh.I’m really not so sure that it belongs to anyone else to be honest.

You see, there still might be a trace of old imperial dreamings (conservatives), and national realities (Labour's reality). George Orwell wrote that the loss of empire would reduce England to a "cold and unimportant little island". He grossly exaggerated, but the UK is an European country.

[Daruwind]

Not the real problem is not how to wiggle out of the 'nonbinding' vote, but how to deal with the alternative which is a hard exit from the EU. Make hard exit and then have a general election. PM May of course will not be the head of the Tory party, but then probably Labor will have changes as well. A new start is needed and not a new vote on Brexit. If he Remain voters are serious, then push for a party that wants to join the EU. Despite the polling that favors Remain as an option for a new Brexit vote, I suspect there is a great deal less support for an (re)entry in the EU.

Leaving EU only to join EU..that would be great wtf moment. Just keep in mind that after all of this mess EU won´t be looking gladly on UK. EU will love UK to get back but the status of UK will be damaged. Plus right now UK is enjoying some exception and rights above an average member. It is not like UK is A class while others are B,nono only that Uk is like 5% up? Maybe? Anyway renegotiating right after brexit will mean probably mean worse terms in comparison with today and probably a lot hard question from other states....at least this is risk i would expect. Real mess start once UK really leaves. :/

[NorseThing]

The problem (at least as I see it) is how to respect the 'nonbinding' vote of the people and the vote of Parliament that shot down what PM May thought was the best her government could negotiate from the EU. You may think it wtf or whatever, but I think the hard Brexit is now the only realistic path unless either Parliament or the EU reconsider. May and her government have been shot down. Parliament is feasting on the walking dead in May and company and the EU is still wanting to move to if not past the brink of a hard Brexit break. The future health of the EU may weigh in the balance on this. I would hope the EU technocrats can appreciate the risk being run here. Eastern Europe is already a bit of an unwanted sister in the family. The Southern European (read Mediteranean) countries have their difficulties as well. The EU bureaucrats cannot do justice by simply following whatever Germany wants. Even Macron is having second thoughts.

https://www.politico.eu/article/emma...rise-and-fall/

The problem is not all within the UK and with Brexit. It has to do with the style of solutions favored by Europe and how the dissent of those solutions are handled by the majority. At the moment disputes are simply either ignored or worse, those who disagree are punished for simply complaining. This is why Brexit happened and with or without Brexit, the problem persists in the EU.

[Ludicus]

EU will love UK to get back but the status of UK will be damaged

Not at all.
The absurd fear of a damaged reputation is intrinsically linked to the British genes. Please read Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. Shooting an Elephant / George Orwell

"..I had halted on the road. As soon as I saw the elephant I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him. It is a serious matter to shoot a working elephant — it is comparable to destroying a huge and costly piece of machinery — and obviously one ought not to do it if it can possibly be avoided. And at that distance, peacefully eating, the elephant looked no more dangerous than a cow. I thought then and I think now that his attack of “must” was already passing off; in which case he would merely wander harmlessly about until the mahout came back and caught him. Moreover, I did not in the least want to shoot him. I decided that I would watch him for a little while to make sure that he did not turn savage again, and then go home.
...But at that moment I glanced round at the crowd that had followed me. It was an immense crowd, two thousand at the least and growing every minute. It blocked the road for a long distance on either side. I looked at the sea of yellow faces above the garish clothes-faces all happy and excited over this bit of fun, all certain that the elephant was going to be shot. They were watching me as they would watch a conjurer about to perform a trick.

...And suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it; I could feel their two thousand wills pressing me forward, irresistibly

Don't shoot the elephant!

[caratacus]

Not at all.
The absurd fear of a damaged reputation is intrinsically linked to the British genes. Please read Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell. Shooting an Elephant / George Orwell

Don't shoot the elephant!

The problem is not all within the UK and with Brexit. It has to do with the style of solutions favored by Europe and how the dissent of those solutions are handled by the majority. At the moment disputes are simply either ignored or worse, those who disagree are punished for simply complaining. This is why Brexit happened and with or without Brexit, the problem persists in the EU.

But there cannot be deviation from what is described a common path, which is why the UK has chosen not to follow. It is not about leaving an organisation that is static. It seems very odd that amongst all the debate going on by politicians about Brexit here in the UK, hardly anyone mentions the failings of EU reform, which triggered the referendum in the first place. Those wishing to leave, speak of fabulous trade deals outside the EU and those who want to remain speak about nothing but the potential loss of benefits of trade directly with the EU as a member state. Nobody refers to the the direction the EU is being taken in by France and Germany towars greater intergration, and whether this is acceptable from a UK standpoint.

[Cyclops]

Joining the Common Market was the first step on the path to integration. It was also a path to shared regional power and wealth. Every country that joins the EU gets access to wealth and markets: some (EG Greece) chose to pocket the extra and bribe their electorate with increased pensions until the credit card maxes out and then mumble about leaving. They will eye the outcome of this mess with interest, if Britain can screw Brussels expect some more votes: Grexit/Spexit etc

At least Great Britain had an honest vote about the loss of sovereignty. Lies were told in the campaign but that's the nature of campaigning and the truth about the loss of money was told and set against the truth about the loss of sovereignty. People chose something, they are not getting it.

Britain may have lost sovereignty going into the EU but it did not lose democracy: there was very little of it to start with. The current mess in parliament shows how the current parties do not reflect the will of the people in their actions or planning. May's mess is not Brexit, its what Cameron promised if the vote was Remain. British voters are getting the opposite of what they asked for.

People who argue "Parliament knows better than the people" maybe should have a look at how they are functioning right now. The same line of reasoning concludes with "maybe elections are a waste of money? Just let Parliament elect itself".

The City wants May's plan to keep Euromoney flowing doesn't it? Or is Brexit their way of rattling the EU's cage for daring to attempt tax haven reform? Her Majesty runs a lot of black money for a lot of criminals, dictators etc. maybe this kerfuffle is all about keeping open the Royal Laundry for Oligarchs. In any case the money will talk.

Parliament in many ways is just a safety valve for bilious gammons and ratty lefties, a scrum to distract from the decisions being made in the corporate boxes.

[Love Mountain]

But there cannot be deviation from what is described a common path, which is why the UK has chosen not to follow. It is not about leaving an organisation that is static. It seems very odd that amongst all the debate going on by politicians about Brexit here in the UK, hardly anyone mentions the failings of EU reform, which triggered the referendum in the first place. Those wishing to leave, speak of fabulous trade deals outside the EU and those who want to remain speak about nothing but the potential loss of benefits of trade directly with the EU as a member state. Nobody refers to the the direction the EU is being taken in by France and Germany towars greater intergration, and whether this is acceptable from a UK standpoint.

Why is that relevant to staying in the E.U.? UK is already extraordinarily unique in it's agreement with E.U. While France and Germany seeking greater political and economic ties is certainly "signaling" the direction of the Union, that does not have any particular relevance for U.K. who can always negotiate it's own deal and walk away from the table if push came to shove. I think nobody refers to Franco-German entente because that's not what started Brexit and it's not something that really adds anything contextually to the current Brexit discussion either.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I fail to see too, what the german-french friendship could have to do with the british Brexit...

The Aachener Treaty is only a symbolic renewal from the Elysee treaties of De Gaulle and Adenauer from 1963 with some few new content.

Since i was a boy 25 years ago it was clear that EG / EU should be one day United States of Europe.

So it was only a matter of time, when the next small step is following.

France and Germany won' t simply wait, till the UK has ended its Brexit Squaredance.

Its a symbolic gesture that the european idea isn't dead, nothing more. Especially no "axis" against UK.

Sorry WW II rhetoric isn't adaequat to explain the world of today.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Really interesting discussion going on above guys. Awesome to read. I think just to weigh in on Caratacus's point about EU integration never particularly being used by either side. Sukiyama hit it spot on. Essentially among the big two, there is no appetite for pursuing integration within the EU. The idea has always been to shape this system of 'two-tier membership', a concept that Britain shared with Much of Eastern Europe, Denmark and iirc the Netherlands to name a few. So there was also a significant 'bloc' that the UK did, and could have led against such moves (I.e. Germany and France who seem the most on board with integration and the creation of an EU state can and will be able to form one regardless). If indeed moves were made and somehow the UK's 'bloc' fell apart, there was also no need to join in. We could leave then or more likely formalize that second tier of membership.

So it never was really a major political issue and rightfully Leave and Remain have stayed away from it. Particularly as the way brexit has been conducted thus far in terms of the dismal mess is something of an off-put to other potential 'exits', and also the UK- who had a fairly weighty voice for promoting the idea of 'two-tier membership' and leading the 'anti-integration' bloc is now no longer there- this ironically means that integration may now be in larger scope. The UK's key geopolitical goal has always been to prevent a truly unified EU from exerting massive influence over it, the best way of doing this was to be within the EU, being able to shape policy and more importantly lead that coalition against integration (arguably why the UK was such a firm backer of EU enlargement), without that we essentially lose sovereignty (and our whole so-called 'lieutenant strategy' falls apart which is a disaster).

Brexit as we've seen, even without May's deal essentially would make the UK a vassal- even a 'no-deal' walk away would only give us potentially a few years of respite (and arguably make the terms much worse when we do due to bad blood)- we also of course come back to the domestic political situation in which that is not politically sustainable anyway.

The only 'hope' in this context is that the EU either A) doesn't actually integrate or B) falls apart- the issue being here that if that is the case, then there isn't any point to brexit either. Particularly as if the EU falls about, the UK was economically removed enough to not be too damaged (i.e. Euro-crisis), and any damage that does happen would happen if we were in or out due to how a globalized economy works when one of its major players receives an upset.

So i think when you have that in mind, the sovereignty argument against integration specifically becomes one that is incredibly hard to sell as a means to support brexit as it doesn't make much sense.

Domestic News:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d...Kdme4WZmI9u4eU

God damn paywalls, but for those not able to see- apparently up to 40 members of government are set to resign next week if Conservatives are banned from stopping a no-deal in the previously mentioned amendments. They will resign and then vote in favour of the amendment. So seems i was on the right path, which is nice . With at least 40 Tories prepared to vote against May and in favour of killing off any potential for a no-deal, even with the ERG and DUP, May cannot win.

This does mean the ERG will move as Reese-Moggs has said to supporting May's deal as the brexit spectrum shifts to at one end Remain at the other Mays-deal. It also seems that if indeed this happens the softies/remainers have the initiative indeed now. I do not think though this will be a Tory split- May is too concerned about unity for that, i think she'll either allow the resignations and not remove the whip (If you remember on her vote she threatened to remove the whip from any Tories who voted against her.... when she lost by 230 she realized that would be faaaar too many Tories- same issue here) or indeed just allow a free-vote and prepare to lose any chance of no-deal. This is not the thing that'll bring down the government (As some excited opposition media groups ae saying), unless May's a complete moron and takes an ultra hard-line....

Strangers things have happened . Bur yep, interesting stuff ahead.

EDIT:

None Paywall summary-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-469554...ource=facebook

Two amendments- both by Labour, but Yvette Coopers is the one that these Conservatives are supporting- it essentially means that if a brexit deal is not agreed by 26 February, the government MUST (if it passes) seek an extension to article 50. Thus it also removes May's ability to merely 'run the clock down'- which given the previous two weeks worth of amendments is the only way 'no-deal' can go ahead.

That it potentially has 40 'out there' backers among the Conservatives- means its highly likely to pass. So there is no-way in these circumstances for a no-deal even through time running out. Can May convince enough of these Tories to not support this amendment? I doubt it, but i'd not bet money on it.

So if this amendment kills the last way for a no-deal 'running down the clock'- what does everyone think will be the most likely brexit outcome now?

[Paggers]

[/B]None Paywall summary-https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-469554...ource=facebookTwo amendments- both by Labour, but Yvette Coopers is the one that these Conservatives are supporting- it essentially means that if a brexit deal is not agreed by 26 February, the government MUST (if it passes) seek an extension to article 50. Thus it also removes May's ability to merely 'run the clock down'- which given the previous two weeks worth of amendments is the only way 'no-deal' can go ahead. That it potentially has 40 'out there' backers among the Conservatives- means its highly likely to pass. So there is no-way in these circumstances for a no-deal even through time running out. Can May convince enough of these Tories to not support this amendment? I doubt it, but i'd not bet money on it.So if this amendment kills the last way for a no-deal 'running down the clock'- what does everyone think will be the most likely brexit outcome now?

Thanks @Dante for the summary. Really good. On a personal level I don't like Yvette Cooper for what her influence has done to my local hospital. However, during the last 6 months or so she has shown just how well she understands the mechanics and processes of the House, and unlike Mrs May, just how MPs feel and think about the Brexit (expletive deleted) . I agree that her amendment is highly likely to pass, but I'm not at all certain that it overturns the fact that under UK Law, the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019. After all there is no certainty that our friends/allies in Europe will accept a request for an extension to Article 50. I still don't understand why any prominent and well respected MP (ie not Sir Vince Cable) has not called for Article 50 to be revoked. I realise this is the nuclear option, but it'd certainly stop no-deal. Sorry it's a bit confusing, but that's what I actually want to happen. As per before I agree with the thread title.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Thanks @Dante for the summary. Really good. On a personal level I don't like Yvette Cooper for what her influence has done to my local hospital. However, during the last 6 months or so she has shown just how well she understands the mechanics and processes of the House, and unlike Mrs May, just how MPs feel and think about the Brexit (expletive deleted) . I agree that her amendment is highly likely to pass, but I'm not at all certain that it overturns the fact that under UK Law, the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019. After all there is no certainty that our friends/allies in Europe will accept a request for an extension to Article 50. I still don't understand why any prominent and well respected MP (ie not Sir Vince Cable) has not called for Article 50 to be revoked. I realise this is the nuclear option, but it'd certainly stop no-deal. Sorry it's a bit confusing, but that's what I actually want to happen. As per before I agree with the thread title.

Your welcome mate cheers again for such thoughtful input.

In regards to the 29 March leave date. This is something i'm interested in seeing. Theoretically this amendment which forces May to seek an extension by late February if there is no 'deal' agreed exploits a loop-hole in that 29 March self imposed end date, as was said at the time by both May and the brexiteers (It was Davis specifically)- if negotiations are 'on-going' then, but with hope of being resolved then of course the 29 March would be ignored- pragmatism would rule the day.

In that context- seeking an extension beyond that date would fall into this 'pragmatic' use of the act- as negotiations would still be on-going (in theory- in practice it would probably be the UK scrabbling around for a new position). So i think that this amendment would comfortably exploit the loop-hole in the arbitrary date.

Of course i would expect if this amendment passes the ERG to ask some very pointed questions then about the 'usefulness' of the 29 March end date and if its still relevant. May i suspect would respond with the same line she used a year ago- its still relevant and will be kept unless there is an ongoing negotiation taking place, which of course there will be. She could of course potentially ignore the amendment and leave regardless, but unlike 'running the clock down' without this amendment which could perhaps be spun as the EU's fault, with the amendment it means that a no-deal would firmly be a Conservative government choice. This as i've bored people to tears about before in my personal opinion is one of the only two options that have a tangible electoral impact (Though i'm quick to note, not the 'change the system' one that many hoped brexit would deliver- merely that the Conservatives would be at risk of losing the next GE). Again with May and her legacy now key, this is something that i don't think she'll do (especially given the other amendments that have passed that essentially make no-deal a nightmare for any government in terms of the constitution and financing the state).

So i think 29th Match 2019 is going to still be touted as 'the one'. But if this amendment passes it essentially in practical terms (pending May drawing upon her inner Nero) nullifies its actual effect in a legal-enough way for it to be ignored.

[Daruwind]

General EU rant?

Interesting reading really. So it is really boiling down to whether EU project will be successful or not. I was considering UK to be another EU power like France,Germany. The point is, in Europe is peace for the last 70 years mostly due to the cooperation of those three major countries because looking at history, those three were usually involve in any kind of war around continent...I know EU is not perfect project but I would prefer UK staying in and trying to reform it from within because as I say Uk has many common points with other V4 countries. By leaving Uk is saying it has no guts and actual power to go toe-to-toe with France/Germany. I hope Eu project will live because between USA, China, Russia, India... Czech republic is nothing as other small countries are. I remember Munich agreement, I remember 1968 and invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw pact. Just a few thousand km away is Georgia and Crymea. Czechoslovakia was under russian occupation (heh, they even force new goverment to make it friendly visit and welcome them ) for almost 40 years until Velvet revolutian. (firstly after WW2/1948 under Russian influence, after 1968 for 20 years uder direct occupation). EU is not perfect but nothing like that. Yeah, we have NATO for security but how long do you think it will last if countries will start to seek economical advantage and damaging others? NATO is stable in Europe partly due to existence of EU..

Back to Brexit fun:

To me, May is basically bluffing and trying to time out her deal by keeping no deal option as second default doomsday scenario. She is dead set on this course and probably won´t divert at all. There were some commnets in czech news that amendments are not legally binded and that even May said that she will take them into consideration but is not binded by them. Is it true? Technically could she continue even with amendments in play?

Anyway I predict it will boil down to the very last moment, full of emotion when either she will win by bluffing or lose. And if she lose then article 50 extension (for possible GE/second referendum) or even cancellation is possible. Just imagine situation, this current course is continuing till 27.3. basically nothing new happens, EU/UK/May nobody is making any crucial changes in deals, offers, May is dodging all attemps to seize control of Brexit and not caring about rest of parliament.... So it is 28.3. and people are again debating. The last day...IF you get to vote about postponing, they will vote..if they got option to cancel , they will ...because it would be very chaotic very emotial day..

[neoptolemos]

General EU rant?

Interesting reading really. So it is really boiling down to whether EU project will be successful or not. I was considering UK to be another EU power like France,Germany. The point is, in Europe is peace for the last 70 years mostly due to the cooperation of those three major countries because looking at history, those three were usually involve in any kind of war around continent...I know EU is not perfect project but I would prefer UK staying in and trying to reform it from within because as I say Uk has many common points with other V4 countries. By leaving Uk is saying it has no guts and actual power to go toe-to-toe with France/Germany. I hope Eu project will live because between USA, China, Russia, India... Czech republic is nothing as other small countries are. I remember Munich agreement, I remember 1968 and invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw pact. Just a few thousand km away is Georgia and Crymea. Czechoslovakia was under russian occupation (heh, they even force new goverment to make it friendly visit and welcome them ) for almost 40 years until Velvet revolutian. (firstly after WW2/1948 under Russian influence, after 1968 for 20 years uder direct occupation). EU is not perfect but nothing like that. Yeah, we have NATO for security but how long do you think it will last if countries will start to seek economical advantage and damaging others? NATO is stable in Europe partly due to existence of EU..

There are some fine points argued here mate, +rep

Back to Brexit fun:

To me, May is basically bluffing and trying to time out her deal by keeping no deal option as second default doomsday scenario. She is dead set on this course and probably won´t divert at all. There were some commnets in czech news that amendments are not legally binded and that even May said that she will take them into consideration but is not binded by them. Is it true? Technically could she continue even with amendments in play?

Anyway I predict it will boil down to the very last moment, full of emotion when either she will win by bluffing or lose. And if she lose then article 50 extension (for possible GE/second referendum) or even cancellation is possible. Just imagine situation, this current course is continuing till 27.3. basically nothing new happens, EU/UK/May nobody is making any crucial changes in deals, offers, May is dodging all attemps to seize control of Brexit and not caring about rest of parliament.... So it is 28.3. and people are again debating. The last day...IF you get to vote about postponing, they will vote..if they got option to cancel , they will ...because it would be very chaotic very emotial day..

If i was a British citizen and I was living in this mess for the last 2 years, witnessing the sheer amount of incompetence and pitty personal interests displayed, I would have wanted to stay in the EU at least EU is a familiar situation. British politicians are looking unable/incompent or plain passive to handle the whole issue to outsiders IMHO.

[caratacus]

Why is that relevant to staying in the E.U.? UK is already extraordinarily unique in it's agreement with E.U. While France and Germany seeking greater political and economic ties is certainly "signaling" the direction of the Union, that does not have any particular relevance for U.K. who can always negotiate it's own deal and walk away from the table if push came to shove. I think nobody refers to Franco-German entente because that's not what started Brexit and it's not something that really adds anything contextually to the current Brexit discussion either.

Really interesting discussion going on above guys. Awesome to read. I think just to weigh in on Caratacus's point about EU integration never particularly being used by either side. Sukiyama hit it spot on. Essentially among the big two, there is no appetite for pursuing integration within the EU. The idea has always been to shape this system of 'two-tier membership', a concept that Britain shared with Much of Eastern Europe, Denmark and iirc the Netherlands to name a few. So there was also a significant 'bloc' that the UK did, and could have led against such moves (I.e. Germany and France who seem the most on board with integration and the creation of an EU state can and will be able to form one regardless). If indeed moves were made and somehow the UK's 'bloc' fell apart, there was also no need to join in. We could leave then or more likely formalize that second tier of membership.

What influence would a country with a "extraordinariy unique agreement" within the EU, stand influencing the direction of the organisation? The country is not part of the Eurozone and sees no desire for greater intergration. It's position is entirely at odds with the direction Macron and Merkel (mostly the latter) wish to take Europe. To argue that somehow Great Britain had some influence amongst other nations within the bloc as a counter balance is to deny the influence of German finance. What Germany is attempting to do is move the EU project along on a path to intergration, its not signalling to anybody!

Bitain has little or no say over decisions made in a European Union increasingly dominated by German interests, Iceland’s prime minister has said.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...warns-iceland/
A leader of non-EU member state, Iceland’s Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson warned larger member states like the UK wield “diminishing power” in institutions still under the sway of the Franco-German alliance.
“When it comes to the big stuff the decisions are made by two, and increasingly one country” Mr Gunnlaugsson told The Telegraph.
“Others are called to meetings to approve of what has been decided, if not in the afternoon then during the middle of the night.
“This seems to have become the standard way of doing things in Brussels”, he said.

Is Germany too powerful for Europe?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ful-for-europe
Twenty years ago, Germany's economy was stagnating. Today, as the eurozone crisis deepens, this giant is keeping Europe afloat. But what does it want in return? Stuart Jeffries talks to German sociologist Ulrich Beck, who believes that his country has become a political monster
"The new German power in Europe is not based as in former times on force," writes Beck in German Europe. Which is a consolation. "It has no need of weapons to impose its will on other states," he says. "It has no need to invade, and yet is ubiquitous."

His homeland's latest iron chancellor Angela Merkel rules Europe, imposing German values on feebler client nations, bailing out southern Europeans with their oversized public sectors, rampant tax evasion and long lunches. "In the countries most harshly affected by the crisis, many people think they are losers because the austerity policy pursued jointly by Berlin and Brussels deprives them of their means of livelihood – and also of their human dignity," argues Beck.

And this is absolutely relevant to a discussion about Brexit because it is fundamental as to why the UK cannot remain within the EU. The dialogue about Brexit has been incredibly poor, to such an extent, that I actually am begining to feel the whole thing could actually be an ellaborate ploy to ultimately ditch that special status we have within the EU and force it into further intergration. The EU is moving on a course to intergration because its principle financial control lies in Berlin and Frankfurt, not Rome, not Madrid, not Athens etc and that is where the shape of Europe is decided.

In fact all the debate so far about the impact upon the British economy by Brexit seems rather misplaced when you look at todays statistics.

UK employment total hits record high
Employment rate highest since 1971
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46958560
The number of people in work in the UK has reached a record high of 32.54 million, latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show.
Unemployment was flat, with a small increase of 8,000 between September and November for a total of 1.37 million.
Average earnings excluding bonuses increased by 3.3% in the year to November, as wage rises continued to outpace inflation.
The number of job vacancies rose by 10,000 to a record high of 853,000.

[Elmetiacos]

Thanks @Dante for the summary. Really good. On a personal level I don't like Yvette Cooper for what her influence has done to my local hospital. However, during the last 6 months or so she has shown just how well she understands the mechanics and processes of the House, and unlike Mrs May, just how MPs feel and think about the Brexit (expletive deleted) . I agree that her amendment is highly likely to pass, but I'm not at all certain that it overturns the fact that under UK Law, the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019. After all there is no certainty that our friends/allies in Europe will accept a request for an extension to Article 50. I still don't understand why any prominent and well respected MP (ie not Sir Vince Cable) has not called for Article 50 to be revoked. I realise this is the nuclear option, but it'd certainly stop no-deal. Sorry it's a bit confusing, but that's what I actually want to happen. As per before I agree with the thread title.

Yvette Cooper's amendment is the only one which would have legal force, so it's being said. Any attempt to oblige the government to seek an extension would likely just result in May kicking the can down the road even further to try and delay things for another 6 or 9 months - as she has been doing - in her determination to make Brexit all about her and her desire for a personal triumph. The "No No Deal" amendments will offer a real possibility - in spite of the intentions of their sponsors - to make the unwanted deal pass, since many of the ERG extremists are only blocking Brexit in the hope of forcing the nation off the cliff edge into No Deal - while denying the existence of the cliff.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

In fact all the debate so far about the impact upon the British economy by Brexit seems rather misplaced when you look at todays statistics.

As always, well argued. Was good to read.

To the points .
Brexits economic impact is debatable (in all scenario's but a no-deal), however you know better Caratacus than pulling the same line May tries by using statistics that economically do not mean anything. High employment is not an indication of a healthy economy when it means productivity levels are still relatively low, working poverty is increasing steadily (that is people included in those high employment figures who actually can't afford to live- the moronic Tory minister defense is then to call on 'absolute' poverty' i.e. 'we're not as bad as Africa' but that also means all in a developed economy as a developed economy cannot afford to have too many economically inactive units- which are essentially what the rising number of people in working poverty are due to the reliance on consumer spending to drive economic growth...and that consumer spending as we've seen consistently over the past few years is getting increasingly thin on the ground, instead private debt has absolutely rocketed- which should be downright terrifying for basically anyone who cares about economic health, particularly as we're set to slide into a global recession 2019/2020.

Now this is due to the UK's structural issues, brexit could make them worse sure, but its not reliant on brexit. But don't fall into the trap that the UK is doing 'well' simply on employment statistics. If anything those high levels of employment should scare everybody considering the 0 positive impact its had on trends such as cost of living (indeed its arguably exacerbating it), working poverty, relative poverty and the increasing levels of private debt at a time when we actually never technically recovered from the last recession and yet we're heading into the cycles next downturn.

Back to brexit

What influence would a country with a "extraordinariy unique agreement" within the EU, stand influencing the direction of the organisation? The country is not part of the Eurozone and sees no desire for greater intergration. It's position is entirely at odds with the direction Macron and Merkel (mostly the latter) wish to take Europe. To argue that somehow Great Britain had some influence amongst other nations within the bloc as a counter balance is to deny the influence of German finance. What Germany is attempting to do is move the EU project along on a path to intergration, its not signalling to anybody!

I think the issue here is you are assuming i've said that we could stop the EU integrating. Which might be my bad as 'exerting influence' can imply that, however its not my intent. Inside or outside the EU We cannot stop integration of members who are willing. Inside or outside the core of the EU- France and Germany and whoever else fancies it IS going to unify. Brexit will not change that, neither will remaining.

But you've got to see the EU on a geopolitical level. It is not remotely as straight-forward as 'Germany dominates' thus that's where everyone is heading down their route. The EU operates in terms of political blocs far more like the UN than the US, and will continue to do so right until that point in the future when Germany and France amalgamate. Which coincidentally they don't need the 'EU' itself for. Merely they need the EU as a platform for further integration. This is why most models of EU membership involve the 'core' integrated states and then varying circles around them of 'membership types'. The UK was a huge and successful proponent of a two-tier system. What Icelands PM and the Guardian's article has missed is that Germany and France- but specifically Germany dominate their core group with their vision of a federal Europe. It will happen providing Germany has the will for it (Debatable currently). However, they do not dominate states on the periphery who are not interested in that vision- the UK, Poland, Hungary, Italy and Spain to name a few. With these powers the UK acted as a focus for promoting and defending the interests of this second-tier who in this context would not have joined and are not interested in joining a more federal system. The UK though has partly due to our party-system been haphazard in having a concrete EU policy- we wanted expansion to gain influence and allies, and then when domestically politically convenient (i.e. the government was failing to control immigration) we blamed those very states we helped to newly join and alienated ourselves from them somewhat (to cover up incompetence in regards to immigration). But the potential is and always has been there for the UK to continue to exert its voice, use its vetos and maintain its anti-federal coalition.

Its not a 0 sum game essentially. Those states in the EU who want to federate- they will- Britain would never be able to stop them, those who want to share an army- they will. But Britain was never in any danger of being dragged into this- unless one of our parties at a GE decided that would be the vote winner (I doubt anyone would of course). While we were there as well the V4, Spain and co were also never in any danger of being sucked too deeply into a federal project (now we've left, they'll probably still be able to avoid it). But the battle was never between 'free market zone vs federalization'- the two could and did exist alongside each other.

In this context- literally it thus has 0 to add to the brexit debate beyond showing that we've been premature probably. We were never in danger of losing sovereignty (unless of course we distrusted our Westminster parties - of course post-brexit its exactly the same people, so it begs the argument why we should trust them with brexit- it then becomes a domestic political reform question as opposed to a leaving the EU question, as it was literally impossible for the second-tier of federally disinterested members to ever be forced into federation. But as to its value to brexit- it doesn't help the argument in wanting to leave as once anyone understands that the EU is a space in which multiple polities and co-existing visions already exist it has no real relevance.

If of course your argument is that a united Franco-German EU core (Perhaps with other states like the Netherlands and Austria joining- ironically its hard to actually find too many states around Europe who support a federal vision) would be difficult for Britain to counter in terms of soft or hard power and thus while not being federated ourselves we may be sucked into their orbit. You may have a case. Its the UK's geopolitical nightmare, and has been for centuries. However it wouldn't matter if we were in or out in this case- the same thing would happen anyway. A brexited UK will still be under significant EU influence (if federation of the core did happen) at best in the way Canada is to the USA, at worst in the way Scotland was to England- it essentially depends on how much this EU core is an interventionist power. It certainly would make life even harder for the UK financial sector (Tax havens...there is legitimate grievance with us laundering mass amounts of dodgy money). However the follow-up to this is that a UK still within that EU membership on its second tier, with the core federated EU, and the the UK, Eastern Europe and co- we'll still both have goodwill enough to not be geopolitcally screwed with- but in less wishy-washy terms will have a seat in directing policy as we currently do (though instead of Germany and France being desperately at the table, they now sit as one state). It also in terms of the lieutenant strategy off-sets US domination, which incidentally is why the UK has been trying to court China as a replacement to the EU for this power balance- the difference being that China, unlike the EU we in return have very little to 0 influence over them, and they are quite an aggressive power (despite their protests of 'peaceful expansion'). Not someone you'd like to get into bed with

And this is absolutely relevant to a discussion about Brexit because it is fundamental as to why the UK cannot remain within the EU. The dialogue about Brexit has been incredibly poor, to such an extent, that I actually am begining to feel the whole thing could actually be an ellaborate ploy to ultimately ditch that special status we have within the EU and force it into further intergration. The EU is moving on a course to intergration because its principle financial control lies in Berlin and Frankfurt, not Rome, not Madrid, not Athens etc and that is where the shape of Europe is decided.

I agree in terms of the quality of debate from both sides, but i suspect that's because talking academically about real geopolitical realities as we do here is boring to most of the electorate beyond us . The issue again though is that part of the EU is moving along those rails to closer integration of course, and its driven indeed by Germany. However if you look at the political situation in Europe- there are multiple centers of power that are not interested in federalization, and over who Germany or Brussels could never even if they truly tried drag into a federal project- and multiple blocks with competing interests. Again Britain could never stop this federal body group- but we never needed to either to be an influential EU member and head our own faction. We have a large degree of influence and if we had properly known how to play international politics, we had a coalition ready and waiting- and we didn't even need to 'fight' Germany for the heart of the Euro project, there were already different spheres of membership- we dominated the non-integration sphere, Germany dominated those who want integration, and beyond that their were members like Hungary who like the idea of an even looser trading bloc and who would be unable to be pushed into either sphere.

Just to finish though- what i'm getting is (and you have a fair point if so) is that its not the EU federalization project that's actually the issue due to the reasons i've laid out, its lack of trust that Britain's political elite were up to the task of leading a second tier/not merely joining us up with the federalizers (which is unlikely in pragmatic terms, but i get the fear). That brings us back to it being a domestic politically issue, something that brexit as we've seen, will not fix. Those same MP's and parties have adapted well to the new political context, It would require domestic political reform. Which is something not on the table yet.

[Ludicus]

As expected,
Labour calls for vote in Commons on holding second ... - The Guardian

it is almost inconceivable that the EU would agree” – citing the EU’s Lisbon treaty – and that “being in a customs union without a say would be very damaging” because the UK would be force to liberalise markets to third countries on a non-reciprocal basis.

Obviously.
It seems that May is stuck between scylla (hard-Brexit) and charybdis (the impossible Norwegian-plus plan).The Irish backstop solution for avoiding a hard border involves the whole of the UK staying in a customs union with the EU. On a side note, the Norway rejects the plan.The UK would need Norway's permission to join its EFTA club. Not going to happen.

I was considering UK to be another EU power like France,Germany.

Conservatives tend to see the EU as a constraint on British influence in the world. They believe in the isle's exceptionalism. And yet, an european woman introduced the British to tea-drinking.
----
If there was a referendum tomorrow with the option of accepting the government’s Brexit agreement or remaining in the EU, which would you support?

If there was a referendum tomorrow with the options of remaining in the EU, accepting the government’s Brexit agreement, or leaving the EU without a deal, which would you support?

A majority now think Britain should remain inside the EU.

[mongrel]

I like this visual gag.