Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[NorseThing]

Getting back to the thread topic - Brexit. I did not think it until recently, but this will be a hard break and then all will need to scramble to pick up the pieces. My condolances to Ireland which will suffer.

Brexit: Irish government's 'stark' no-deal plan unveiled - BBC News



The harsh consequences for Ireland of a no-deal Brexit start to come ...



PM May tried and failed. The EU cannot afford to negotiate. The opposition in parliament is fractured so that all they can agree upon is opposition which does nothing towards passing laws. There may be a lesson in this ordeal for USA politicians but I doubt the lesson can be learned.

[TheDarkKnight]

Reopened. Apologies for the delay.

Be nice and on topic from here on out.

[mongrel]

The thread is about the almighty pig's ear made of the process by an incompetent Prime Minister. The OP was written by someone who voted Brexit and has profited from it already. That person is Mongrel. I could gloat, but will move on.


The current thinking is that there is no majority for Brexit to pass. But there are the numbers to pass a better deal than May’s (may require a suspension of Article 50). And there may be a majority, should May's deal be denfenistrated in January, for a second referendum. The obstacle is the Party system, whips and the control of policy/legislation by Ministers. If Parliament could put the national interest above that of their parties, Parlaiment might get somewhere. Forcing May to hold a meaningful vote was a partial success, but , assuming the DUP is bought, it needs a few more Tories to forsake the whip and more pressure on Corbyn to get off his arse and do something. Once Brexit is done, I dare say the Parliamentary process needs reform.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

The current thinking is that there is no majority for Brexit to pass. But there are the numbers to pass a better deal than May’s (may require a suspension of Article 50). And there may be a majority, should May's deal be denfenistrated in January, for a second referendum. The obstacle is the Party system, whips and the control of policy/legislation by Ministers. If Parliament could put the national interest above that of their parties, Parlaiment might get somewhere. Forcing May to hold a meaningful vote was a partial success, but , assuming the DUP is bought, it needs a few more Tories to forsake the whip and more pressure on Corbyn to get off his arse and do something. Once Brexit is done, I dare say the Parliamentary process needs reform.

Very much agreed here, good post.

As a general and probably rather unpopular perspective (Not least of all because i felt it was impossible a few days ago)- but i have this strange gut feeling that after all this, May will get her deal through. I suspect the opposition is too fractured (GE vs Second Referendum vs soft brexit) and now that May has essentially made it clear that she is running down the clock (it was notable yesterday that while she set down the date for the 14th January- that also this might be a 'new' debate and that she would not commit to not putting it off again),i think the Conservatives and the DUP who are against her currently, may rally to her as there is no other option on the table, and i think as we've mentioned before the only two scenario's that would probably have serious electoral consequences are 'no deal' or 'remain'- so they may judge their seats are more important and that her deal at least may secure that through lessening the economic impact (though again i'm going to have to do some real digging i think over the next few weeks on whose majorities are where, how their constituents voted and to gauge currently feeling in those constituencies- if its fatigued of brexit as commentators seem to claim, its likely leave supporters would not vote for Conservative candidates, but also not vote at all- this essentially while a political act, isn't seen as such in the UK and tends to not be relevant to the system, however it might mean in constituencies that are very close, that Labour or other party opponents may be given the 'edge' they need to win by default courtesy of a small active electorate. So we'll see. Would be an interesting exercise anyway..because you know...its Christmas... providing i have time .

I get why Corbyn tried half measures with the whole VONC in her, not the government. Sure it will probably make the brexiteers who just recently voted against her appear intransigent as they have to vote to support her (Its unlikely i think they would back his motion at this point). But i think it also had the added element that such a suggestion was bound to unify the Conservative party, while alienate potential allies in the opposition and Tory benches who if Corbyn wasn't doing 'Party politics' would probably begrudgingly follow a clear Labour lead.

So it's all a bit more uncertain, i tend to agree with Caratacus's previous assessment that regardless of what Corbyn muttered (Stupid woman, stupid people) while its not likely to effect his support (indeed across social media it seems to have won him support, however temporary, from some Conservative voters) it was a huge mess as it shifted the media narrative and gave May some breathing room. Enough room perhaps to see her to the break, and stave off Labours calls for a time for a VONC in her, and then back to her waiting game.

We're in real danger now ladies and gents of becoming the worlds first 'Great Power' (I.e. top 10) who will become a legal vassal (as opposed to the current neo-hegemonic relations that do indeed technically undermine sovereignty, but aren't so blatantly written down so as to cause fuss) to a on-paper superpower (But not in reality).
The only worse deal would be due to lack of preparation a 'no deal'- Some great options for us so far. But i suspect with Labour unwilling currently to go down the 'second vote' path and May stubbornly clinging to her deal, we won't actually get to look at alternatives prior to the time being run down (The irony being we can ask for more time, its literally the government who have created their own mess that has made all this necessary).

@Sharpe's Company- I genuinely thought we had seen the end of this 'we're a consumer, thus somehow have a lot more power than the producer' in international economics- there is a reason that even the most rampant Conservative brexiteers have dropped that argument- because its just not how it works. Germany through the EU (And in this context, it doesn't matter if Germany is illegally using the EU or not to extend its economic power- it helps the UK not at all, even if true) will be able to (as indeed they have been with Japan currently) forge other Free trade deals essentially as their one of the few 'developed nations' who have kept up a strong manufacturing base (Through various mechanisms).

The UK on the other hand cannot quickly replace the now more expensive and lost goods. A FTA with the US or China is fraught with difficulties for a weakened 'no deal' brexit UK (Which is what you are advocating in this scenario). A deal with the USA would see the end (As said themselves) by most of Britain's remaining manufacturing, agriculture and service industries as we do not have the economics of scale to compete. 'Rational consumer theory'- which you are i believe attempting to apply- is dead as a real basis for economic policy. Consumers do not rationally buy products, instead brand loyalty, marketing, proximity and 'cheapness' (not the traditional price +quality) all supersede it and are things that US companies can throw far more money at. Consumers are 'irrational' by nature. So no, we can't expect the British public to save our own (and that's regardless of US companies buying out British ones instead of grinding them into dust).

This is where the regulation issues come into contention too. The USA in all its FTA's has always sought and gained that quality standards are lowered across the board to its levels, Consumers bearing in mind they are not 'rational' by and large will use this. British companies to compete will lower theres. A race to the bottom ensues- in this context its almost guaranteed that the UK will lower its current employment protections, rights and wages (Or expand the 0 hour gig economy model)- which will at a time when the UK economy is domestically weak (not due to brexit, but structural issues that have consistently failed to have been addressed) will destroy the UK's economic base, as the cost of living will still exceed wage growth (Which already has a large gap) just now more people will be effected. It'll set up in the worst case scenario a spiral of diminishing 'active economic units' that the UK in its current crap state cannot afford.

Financial Services, which the UK relies on will be much diminished, an agreement with the USA would ensure this. So now you have a diminished consumer base, and large gaps in the government budget. This will essentially make any 'deficit gains' that Tory incompetence has managed to achieve pointless over the last 10 years.

We're also not even getting to the issue that the UK lacks negotiators, we have 30. We need iirc a few thousand. We've been using NZ and Australia's, and thus far no one has taken the training scheme up on its offer beyond another 20 according to the recent FT report. Thus trade deals, instead of being a 'flood' will take literal decades as the UK has to build its negotiating infrastructure up from scratch. The WTO terms presents another massive issue- falling back on those with our current schedule is still a no go- due to some states blocking our ascension- and around 20, including the USA being unhappy with various aspects of the UK's proposed plan. If we do not get the schedules- we'll have to negotiate one individually with each other the WTO's member states to get one that 'fits' Britain. As typical WTO tariffs (that do not include the level of access that the UK's financial services need) are actually quite bad for a modern developed nation (particularly one with a low skills service economy such as the UK)- the idea being that typically developed nations would never find themselves at 'default' relations with the rest of the world like this, with absolutely no preparation for that (Prep which takes years). Its rather unprecedented.

Now could this all be avoided if the UK had actually prepared for a no-deal scenario? Of course- there were plans around with estimates of time scales, everything from 10 to 15 years. Is 2 years enough? No, but if we'd started with a plan from the beginning at least some work could have been done. Is a few months enough? No. Its essentially the equivalent of putting a plaster over an eviscerated body. Is the UK government to blame? Hell yes. But its why a lot of what you are basing your assumptions on in the current UK context (Not a wish-list one of how brexit 'could have been'- as sure given prep time it could have been fine, great even) is false and a pipe-dream.

[Sharpe's Company]

Back in the real world.
Away from the 6th form common room.
Nothing to fear from a WTO, No Deal Exit.

[mongrel]

Back in the real world.
Away from the 6th form common room.
Nothing to fear from a WTO, No Deal Exit.

Alhough there are people whould benefit from Brexit , and I'm sure Lord Bamford is sitting quite comfortably in his Barbados palace, gazing upon his superyacht, there are also people whose more modest businesses and livelihoods will be jeopardised.

Filling in forms to trade with the EU under a car crash Brexit will add to the burden of doing business. That will cost money.The UK would need to borrow £80bn by 2033 under WTO according to Treasury forecasts to make up lost revenue , an army of civil servants and to employ extra staff to manage borders.


The increase in GDP from non-EU countries will be too puny to make up GDP lost from leaving the EU.


All the above could have been mitigated by the UK spending more time in preparation ( the original idea was to trigger article 50 after 10-15 years or so). But because May has done nothing except produce a half-arsed scheme which jeopardises the Union and and gives the UK no say on future regulations


https://www.ft.com/content/06c6ffc0-...7-42f857ea9f09

.

[Daruwind]

Great analysis @Dante

I would add only one important factor. Time. All these negotiations that are happening now or might soon happen are under time pressure. Just due to this factor UK has weaker position in any of these negotiations and potential deals are worse by how much 5-10% ? Just because of this. All other states, parties know it. UK is alone, in time press without whole EU behind its back...this is like the legendary difficulty diplomacy in Total War with new diplomats. I would not even be surprise if countries like Argentina would not try to bring up Falklands and similar topics...

[mongrel]

Great analysis @Dante

I would add only one important factor. Time. All these negotiations that are happening now or might soon happen are under time pressure. Just due to this factios UK has weaker position in any of these negotiations and potential deals are worse by how much 5-10% ? Just because of this. All other states, parties know it. UK is alone, in time press without whole EU behind its back...this is like the legendary difficulty diplomacy in Total War with new diplomats. I would not even be surprise if countries like Argentina would not try to bring up Falklands and similar topics...

Exactly. I am not sure what on Earth drove May to do this other than one crazed power trip. Corbyn is pro-Brexit , so would have been agreeble to anything sensible. His only issue is the protection of worker's rights. Why a cross party approach wasn't adopted Lord only knows.

[Sharpe's Company]

More dribble from project fear.
And attcking the man, not the argument.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

JCB employees get £1,000 Christmas bonus

More than 7,000 employees at manufacturing giant JCB will receive a £1,000 Christmas bonus.

JCB said machine production had reached a 73-year high in 2018 and it had recruited an additional 1,500 staff.
Its chairman Lord Bamford said JCB had had "a very successful year".
13 December 2018
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-46558265

Despite Brexit?

[Sharpe's Company]

More good news that won't get to see the light of day.
No one believes, Project Fear.
Didn't work in 2016 and it isn't working now.

The Best Countries For Business 2019: U.K. On Top



“The U.K. has a globalized economy that is more open than most across the world in terms of trade, investments, capital flows and, until recently, immigration,” says Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbad.../#74a8da6d52d5

[mongrel]

More dribble from project fear.
And attcking the man, not the argument.

Meanwhile, back in the real world.

JCB employees get £1,000 Christmas bonus

More than 7,000 employees at manufacturing giant JCB will receive a £1,000 Christmas bonus.

JCB said machine production had reached a 73-year high in 2018 and it had recruited an additional 1,500 staff.
Its chairman Lord Bamford said JCB had had "a very successful year".
13 December 2018
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-46558265

Despite Brexit?

The charman can afford it, he's worth $3.6 billion dollars. How are exporters /importers of fresh produce going to manage if their perishable goods are going to hang around in docks until the UK has enough infrastructure and personnel to cope?Will a a Welsh hill farmer be paying christmas bonuses to his farmhands, in the full knowledge that tariffs will destroy his export business? This is supposed to be a United Kingdom and the government is supposed to govern on behalf of all its people, not just the handful of not-residents and millionaires who might benefit from this.

. And of course Russia benefits from a no deal Brexit too, after all they had invested a ton of money and resource to enable it to happen.
Indeed he is telling May to protect his investment..
The was no reason why May had to work on her crazy timetable , without bothering to release any impact assessments until forced to be Parliament. She is the sole reason why Brexit is going pear -shaped.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kurtbadenhausen/2018/12/19/the-best-countries-for-business-2019-u-s-down-u-k-on-top/#74a8da6d52d5[/URL]

You failed to note the obvious point 'opportunities to remove any remaining structural difficulties'. In plain english, it means the removal of employment rights. Why Britain's working class would want the equivalent of Hungary's new'slave law'. Christ knows, but the leave campaign blinded them to that possibility with unicorns like NHS funding.As mentioned in a previous thread, Britains workers need a pay rise and more rights, so the state need not subsidise their wages.


Anyway, this is all a bit moot. I understand that you didn't bother to read the OP or the point of the thread.

If you did:

- you would not have embarrassed yourself yesterday by attacking a Brexit voter for 'blocking Brexit'

- you would have worked out that the thread is not about whether Brexit is in itself a great idea or a crock of . It is about what everyone agrees, whatever views they have , the failed negotiation a disgraceful Parliamentary process and where we go from here.

I strongly suggest that if you can't be bothered to follow the pupose of the OP, that you find another outlet to express your love of Brexit.

[Sharpe's Company]

Anyone would think before 1973 the UK didn't have a farming industry and we didn't have any ports to facilitate trade.

As clear as day on the Lord Bamford article, we have about 120 ports that can ease any congestion.
60% of our trade comes in from outside the EU at the moment, so stop worrying your little heads.
Food is going to become cheaper and if our farmers cannot compete, and yes they will, but if they can't, then that is their fault for running poor businesses.

I actually agree with New Zealand, all subsidies ought to be removed and let the farmers get on with farming than having the taxpayer fund them to sit there and leave their fields empty. It is time for work.

And please, just stop with your fear, fear, fear.
We're sick of it.

https://youtu.be/1j-Gb8Pk2Pk

[mongrel]

Anyone would think before 1973 the UK didn't have a farming industry and we didn't have any ports to facilitate trade.

As clear as day on the Lord Bamford article, we have about 120 ports that can ease any congestion.
60% of our trade comes in from outside the EU at the moment, so stop worrying your little heads.
Food is going to become cheaper and if our farmers cannot compete, and yes they will, but if they can't, then that is their fault for running poor businesses.

I actually agree with New Zealand, all subsidies ought to be removed and let the farmers get on with farming than having the taxpayer fund them to sit there and leave their fields empty. It is time for work.

And please, just stop with your fear, fear, fear.
We're sick of it.

https://youtu.be/1j-Gb8Pk2Pk

Did you not read a syllable of what I said? Let me repeat it.

Anyway, this is all a bit moot. I understand that you didn't bother to read the OP or the point of the thread.

If you did:

- you would not have embarrassed yourself yesterday by attacking a Brexit voter for 'blocking Brexit'

- you would have worked out that the thread is not about whether Brexit is in itself a great idea or a crock of . It is about what everyone agrees, whatever views they have , the failed negotiation a disgraceful Parliamentary process and where we go from here.

I strongly suggest that if you can't be bothered to follow the pupose of the OP, that you find another outlet to express your love of Brexit.

This thread is not a showcase for unicorns. I refer you to the excellent posts by Dante, Caractus, Paggers and others, who although they have differing views on Brexit, have plenty to say of May's inept* handling of the process.


* I refuse to beleive that there is anyone in the UK who genuinely believes she has handled things competently.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Anyone would think before 1973 the UK didn't have a farming industry and we didn't have any ports to facilitate trade.

As clear as day on the Lord Bamford article, we have about 120 ports that can ease any congestion.
60% of our trade comes in from outside the EU at the moment, so stop worrying your little heads.
Food is going to become cheaper and if our farmers cannot compete, and yes they will, but if they can't, then that is their fault for running poor businesses.

I actually agree with New Zealand, all subsidies ought to be removed and let the farmers get on with farming than having the taxpayer fund them to sit there and leave their fields empty. It is time for work.

And please, just stop with your fear, fear, fear.
We're sick of it.

https://youtu.be/1j-Gb8Pk2Pk

I've not yet understood why discussion is dismissed by either side as 'fear-mongering' it smacks of a rather weird and desperate stance that cannot abide open discussion.
Lord Bamford has made the same mistake you have in the previous few posts- your taking tiny examples as evidence of broader trends when to analyse how international trade cycles work you need to do the opposite. Its not about Congestion at ports, but international politics and economics of scale. Is there currently enough out there to replace the loss in value of the EU's trade? Arguably not, particularly with China's growing grip on Africa and Asia (Who as of today for instance are being treated by the UK as a geopolitical rival).

Also as i posted before this-
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/r...rade-m8025tqss

There is a major stumbling block for the UK to get its envisioned WTO trade plans. If this is not resolved, their will be a real problem. You mention nothing yet of finance, nor addressing this. Nor have you addressed just how in a 'no deal' brexit you can make the UK competitive given its existing structural constraints, without lowering living standards and purchasing power (Which is already comparatively abysmal compared to other developed nations). To see how brexit would work you look at the domestic situation (Which is poor at the moment) and then apply that to the context we're talking about. Brexit can work, and a no-deal can be mitigated somewhat if the UK have bothered to prepare...at all either before activating article 50, or at least over the past 2 years. The fact is we haven't.

Lets take a case-study though- how can British farmers stay competitive? And you imply you would let them die? I used to feel the same, but then you remember that agriculture and food production is considered a strategic industry, so before making decisions over this you need to assess is such a thing still relevant? Arguably in a world going into a protectionist phase again, its important to have something of a back-up, even if its not at all adequate. I agree UK farming though will need a major shake-up to have any remote chance of being competitive (The most obvious one is an increase in the size of cooperatives).

But the main point. Your not actually providing any evidence that would allay the political and economic hurdles that the UK has imposed upon itself due to the short time limit. Your arguing that we're all discussing some kind of 'doom' scenario that's all about 'fear', and if that makes you fearful i apologize. But what actually we're doing is discussing the current constraints the UK faces, criticizing the lack of action to overcome them and offering what we all feel may be the best way forward. Simply doing as you've done here spouting random 'feel good' evidence like a company giving a raise or making a sweeping statement based on Lord Bamfords article (who also does not take into account real-term geopolitics or economics- back is essentially a 'back in my day' piece) isn't really constructive.

It also is interesting though as the choice of language you use here has been exactly the same problem that the brexiteers have had- they have failed to create a stable sustainable majority post-referendum by merely falling back on 'fear mongering' accusations to all rival discussion, drumming up 'will of the people' (Which in the UK's political system is the weakest legitimizing factor you could rely on for long term policy, as again as discussed before, what happens 4 years down the line when Labour or the Conservatives offer rejoining the EU as part of their electoral manifesto? They politically can because no brexiteer bothered to create a clear consensus after they'd won the battle of the referendum). You are essentially here, still fighting that referendum perceiving us as needing to be either 'silenced' or 'convinced' of your argument, because of the lack of consensus building post-referendum. You don't need to- personally i find the whole process rather exciting politically and stand to gain a fair bit as a sleuth of academic jobs being readied for a post-brexit UK. But indeed, your stance is interesting here, as it also highlights just how constitutionally screwed the UK political sphere has become, and will remain for a decade or more due to the mess the government have made over the past 2 years of the process.

An interesting point though- given that a no-deal brexit (As with remain) will have political repercussions (As any hit to the economy or living standards- from brexit, or indeed from the UK's current dire performance due to its structural issues, weakened by the misapplication of austerity that then could and will be spun as 'brexit' by the government will have an electoral consequence), what will you do when people demand at the next GE a more pro-EU approach, or indeed EU membership? As a no-deal scenario is the guaranteed way (due to lack of preparation) to undermine brexit as a valid policy. It essentially will make EU membership the new political football as they'll be electoral gains to be made from blaming the Conservatives for a no-deal brexit and any subsequent issues (much as the Conservatives successfully spun the financial crash as being Labour's fault- political masterstroke), it makes brexit unstable as a policy. At best again we'll be back and forth and polarized for a decade or so, at worst, we'll end up in a few years time rejoining the EU and being forced to accept the euro and lose our opt-outs and vetos (A truly dire scenario for us).

So how will you Sharpe make a no-deal brexit politically sustainable over the next few years? How will you forge the consensus needed for it to stick and not become political football? And who do you see doing that? For instance if the Conservatives lose at the next GE (Which is a distinct possibility), do you expect Labour to stay 'brexited' (They may do, but only if Corbyn is still leader)? How do you see the Conservatives emerging from a 'no-deal' brexit as a still viable political force given the threats by Conservative 'soft brexiteers' and 'remainers' that they would resign the whip?

As here's the big issue, the way brexit has been conducted has essentially ensured it will continue to be a major political issue, years after its 'done'.

EDIT: Just so that i'm not accused of hypocrisy- and to further highlight my point about 'micro economics' being absolutely useless as a case for or against brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/business...sjUD9Yk6lDBDnk

This is pro-remain, from a pro-remain paper- they are highlighting that Jaguar-Land Rover is axing 5000 jobs- due to the governments botched handling of brexit. However as i'm sure Sharpe's Company will be the first to point out (and correctly so), this is only one factor- Sales globally are down, we're again heading into a position of squeezed incomes both in the 'west' and now China is feeling it too. The developing world by the way are also heading for an economic crisis due to the their growth being fueled by easy access to cheap credit, both its sources- Europe and the US, and China- are both facing interest rate hikes and the potential generally for a recession (Hence why again a no-deal brexit in which we're expected to rely on the 'fastest growing' parts of the globe to pick up the significant EU slack is foolhardy and a pipe-dream at best given that China and the fastest growing economies (Brazil, Nigeria, India et al) are by all accounts heading into serious issues in the near future. Not a great strategy really if you want brexit to be 'sustainable'- hence why no deal is the worst option possible.

Anyway that tangent aside that we need to be aware of- this is why we can't rely on 'piecemeal' articles to make the sweeping case that 'remain is great' or 'no-deal is great' or whatever. It doesn't work. You need a broader analysis, otherwise we look silly by attributing everything (good or bad) to brexit without consideration of other factors.

So again big picture is key- you can either stick your head in the sand, pretend that developing countries are not starting to struggle, or that Russia and co are not mucking around with the UK's WTO schedules, or that as a consumer state we wield far less power in a no-deal scenario that those who were selling to us, or that the UK government has not at all prepared properly for said no-deal scenario, or that UK manufacturing will somehow thrive in competition with the US without sacrificing already fragile disposable incomes and purchasing power through the erosion of worker protections, or that the UK doesn't already have a very weak and fragile economy that is over-reliant on services, low skilled jobs and finance or that the UK will not be in a desperate position in the face of a no deal brexit, signing away significant parts of the British state (NHS for instance) to foreign competition that will not have a direct political impact electorally later on (I.e. the Conservative party punished rightly, and Labour riding in who in this context would face exactly the same difficulties, but now having promised nationalization potentially make things even more difficult).

Or...we could discuss these things, not stick our fingers in our ears, close our eyes and cry 'fear-mongering', but instead continue identifying the issues, how the government messed up in allowing them/not addressing them and what might be done ideally going forward. Something honestly everyone in this thread until now had done a sterling job, brexiteer, remainer or otherwise.

EDIT EDIT:

@All

A more general thing, but also to Sharpe. It appears that a 'No deal brexit' will not be off the table potentially even if May tries to run the clock down:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ng-brexit-deal

Senior Labour and Conservative MPs are to ramp up efforts to block any possibility of a no-deal Brexit ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s deal, with a plan to mandate the prime minister to extend or cancel article 50 if the prospect of crashing out looms.
Efforts were kickstarted on Thursday by a cross-party group of prominent MPs led by Yvette Cooper, who tabled a new amendment to the finance bill that would only allow a no-deal exit if MPs voted to proceed with one.

So if this passes (which given parliaments arithmetic it probably will) then that's at least one thing we can all sleep easier on. However, while its appropriate for this to be 'off the table' given the lack of preparation that the Conservatives have given to a 'no deal', it is also an admittance of failure at how negotiations have proceeded, highlighting the governments incompetence, but also giving a signal to the EU that we cannot walk away (and literally we can't). They already knew this of course given how they've negotiated and maintained the upper hand relatively easily, but its not great politics to have it slapped around so openly.

[mongrel]

EDIT EDIT:

@All

A more general thing, but also to Sharpe. It appears that a 'No deal brexit' will not be off the table potentially even if May tries to run the clock down:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ng-brexit-deal



So if this passes (which given parliaments arithmetic it probably will) then that's at least one thing we can all sleep easier on. However, while its appropriate for this to be 'off the table' given the lack of preparation that the Conservatives have given to a 'no deal', it is also an admittance of failure at how negotiations have proceeded, highlighting the governments incompetence, but also giving a signal to the EU that we cannot walk away (and literally we can't). They already knew this of course given how they've negotiated and maintained the upper hand relatively easily, but its not great politics to have it slapped around so openly.

Thanks Dante. Tacking the Article 50 amendment to the Finance Bill is a smart move, May would have to address this, kicking the Bill into the long grass is not an option.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Thanks Dante. Tacking the Article 50 amendment to the Finance Bill is a smart move, May would have to address this, kicking the Bill into the long grass is not an option.

Indeed its rather clever i thought. Apparently it also means if she ignores it (I'll have to look, but apparently there is a way for the government to ignore popular amendments- a lot i feel will depend on Mr Speaker) they can play merry hell with other elements of the Finance Bill and other incoming bills until May gives in.

Of which apparently there will be a lot of brexit related votes coming up in January-Feb (as May has either been forced to give them, or she herself has kicked them back to this point, where they now have all coalesced). So it's going to be a painful period potentially for the Government.

[Muizer]

Back in the real world.
Away from the 6th form common room.
Nothing to fear from a WTO, No Deal Exit.

"Look how well we manage on WTO terms already! sorry that many other businesses will have their business disrupted, but I'm sure even if they go bust, business as such will surely recover."

Sounds more like gloating than comforting to me.

[Heathen Hammer]

Given the ongoing European Spring and its large opposition to EU and globalism, perhaps instead of reviewing Brexit decision, the notion of EU itself should be reviewed? It seems like this is a good time to scrap EU and start again.

[mongrel]

Given the ongoing European Spring and its large opposition to EU and globalism, perhaps instead of reviewing Brexit decision, the notion of EU itself should be reviewed? It seems like this is a good time to scrap EU and start again.

Fair argument, but wrong thread, for obvious reasons.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Given the ongoing European Spring and its large opposition to EU and globalism, perhaps instead of reviewing Brexit decision, the notion of EU itself should be reviewed? It seems like this is a good time to scrap EU and start again.

One of my original arguments waaaaay back- why bother singling the UK out, and as has happened causing economic confidence loss, constitutional crisis, humiliation and a complete mess of domestic policy, particularly regarding the economy- when you could just wait for the EU to potentially reach crisis (As its something that indeed Euroskeptics were talking about)- that way if the EU collapses- we're not attached to the Euro, and even post-brexit, we'll still be connected (as we are to the US and Asia) economically so that if the EU collapses we'll feel the hit. On balance, better to stay as we are in our second tier of membership and watch what happens, relatively insulated and 'safe' as the spot-light falls on the EU (and any economic damage that would happen, will happen even if the UK is totally independent due to how globalized economies are interlinked and the vision of 'global britain' post-brexit does nothing to actually buffer that fact).

It wasn't a popular opinion back then though I'm not sure if it would be now.

A school of thought also points out to the UK's current botched job of brexit actually propping up EU support and deterring other nations from following route (which is what the UK hoped would happen).

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKCN1IO2SP (This year)

Support for European Union membership has hit a 35-year high across the bloc, with a strong majority of citizens saying it has been a force for good in their country, even in Britain which is set to leave next year.The Eurobarometer survey commissioned by the European Parliament showed that 67 percent of EU citizens thought that membership had benefited their country, the highest level since 1983. Just 23 percent took the opposite view.
Italy, where an incoming eurosceptic government is worrying Brussels, was least enthusiastic; just 44 percent of Italians said benefits outweighed disadvantages compared to 41 percent the reverse. Nonetheless, that marked a turnaround from last October when 48 percent were negative and 39 percent positive.

We haven't exactly provided the shining example of how a nation can successfully 'leave and succeed' thus far.

However, i'm very much on board with what you are saying, i'm a big believer in EU reform- and that could go so far as to replace it with an entirely new body that acts more like a trade bloc with mutual defense arrangements and a framework that supports a universal standard of freedoms and rights for citizens. If states like Germany or France want a different form of closer union (federal or whatever) and public support is there- they can do that through a separate entity- essentially take the EU's two-track system and actually split it so there is no fuzzy overlap of elements of 'closer union' spilling out to states on the second tier who have no interest- either in reality or perception- and so that rather extreme ideas such as the Euro (without a common financial policy) does not happen.

In this context, brexit is at best kinda pointless for the UK- as indeed has been mentioned before, brexit means that even if the EU collapses and changes into a new Europe-wide body, or reforms- the UK would have a massive domestic political scuffle on if we should join it or not as membership to such a body would still be 'political football' given the issues surrounding brexit. It could mean the UK misses the chance (again...much as with the early ECC or EEC) to jump on board as a creator and foundation shaper of such an institution.