UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[Honey Honey]

11 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I find that take surprising. The EU doesn’t have to make anymore moves for a No Deal to happen - they negotiated a deal with us and said those terms are final. Parliament rejected that deal twice. No ideal is the default position if there is no deal in place by the deadline. The deadline is just over a week away. If we have a no deal, it’s from the clumsiness of our leaders over the last 2 years.

They’ve got less than 9 days to sort it out, or to drive us over the edge. In the meantime we’ve got to hope the EU agrees to give us an extension to sort it out. The EU is now saying they’ll only agree to an extension if we agree to the deal that’s failed in parliament twice. So we only get an extension on the deadline if we agree to a Brexit that displeases most in the remain camp and most in the leave camp.

The government couldn’t sort anything out in 2 years, I doubt they get anything done in 8 days and a few hours (assuming there’s no extension that lets us renegotiate terms with the EU).

Theresa May has asked for an extension, proving that in fact no deal can only happen by political choice and not by default. There is no ticking time bomb that they have to sort everything out by. It's not an episode of 24.

This begs the question how does such a choice come about, whom by is it chosen. What's the answer to that which brings about no deal? Then we can assess the actual likelihood of the assertion that it is looking like happening.

 

[God is Haaland]

23 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

Theresa May has asked for an extension, proving that in fact no deal can only happen by political choice and not by default.

A political choice like triggering article 50 or refusing to take her letter back.

[Honey Honey]

8 minutes ago, BartraPique1932 said:

A political choice like triggering article 50 or refusing to take her letter back.

No. Incorrect interpretation of the point.

[The Artful Dodger]

Plenty of Remainers have to take some responsibility, they are willing to risk No Deal because of the chance they may be able to kill Brexit altogether. There are even calls for them to unilaterally revoke Article 50 now, which would be a disgrace.

Edited March 21, 2019 by The Artful Dodger

[Honey Honey]

Maybe the deceptive liars saying they'll leave in public and hoping to stay in private. The one's outright after reversal are so small in number it's hard to see much blame or risk. No deal can only occur by choice and parliament is overwhelmingly against it. Only probably the actions of the EU could perhaps tip enough of the house toward the ERG mindset and cause no deal, though it would still be difficult.

[Dr. Gonzo]

4 hours ago, Harvsky said:

Theresa May has asked for an extension, proving that in fact no deal can only happen by political choice and not by default. There is no ticking time bomb that they have to sort everything out by. It's not an episode of 24.

This begs the question how does such a choice come about, whom by is it chosen. What's the answer to that which brings about no deal? Then we can assess the actual likelihood of the assertion that it is looking like happening.

 

No deal is the default position if there is no deal by the deadline. A deal has been reached with the EU, it’s not a good deal (which plenty of people predicted would happen as the EU has so much more leverage in negotiations). What indications do you have that the EU will sit back down and give us a better deal, extension or no extension.

And right now the EU position is no extension unless we accept their deal. So yes, it is the default position. But also: yes, no deal is a political choice. It’s one we’re making on our own though - the EU’s stance in negotiations has been predictable and expecting them to suddenly have the UK’s best interests at heart over the EUs is blind optimism.

[Kowabunga]

4 hours ago, Harvsky said:

Theresa May has asked for an extension, proving that in fact no deal can only happen by political choice and not by default. There is no ticking time bomb that they have to sort everything out by. It's not an episode of 24.

This begs the question how does such a choice come about, whom by is it chosen. What's the answer to that which brings about no deal? Then we can assess the actual likelihood of the assertion that it is looking like happening.

 

No deal is the default outcome and the most probable one, as EU leaders would not want the UK as temporary EU member using its veto power to keep the EU subject to continuous blackmail vis-à-vis the negotiations of the future UK-EU relationship.

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

No deal is the default position if there is no deal by the deadline. A deal has been reached with the EU, it’s not a good deal (which plenty of people predicted would happen as the EU has so much more leverage in negotiations). What indications do you have that the EU will sit back down and give us a better deal, extension or no extension.

And right now the EU position is no extension unless we accept their deal. So yes, it is the default position. But also: yes, no deal is a political choice. It’s one we’re making on our own though - the EU’s stance in negotiations has been predictable and expecting them to suddenly have the UK’s best interests at heart over the EUs is blind optimism.

I never said they would sit down and give a better deal. I said no deal is a political choice. The commons and government would have to shift to wanting no deal for it to actually happen. What is your evidence for that happening? What is your case that an immovable EU makes no deal more likely than say for example cancelling Brexit? A general election or a 2nd referendum? Do you have the estimates of swayable MPs for how this arithmetic would come about?

 

1 hour ago, Kowabunga said:

No deal is the default outcome and the most probable one, as EU leaders would not want the UK as temporary EU member using its veto power to keep the EU subject to continuous blackmail vis-à-vis the negotiations of the future UK-EU relationship.

Default implies it just happens without choice, yet no deal is a political choice that has to be made. To come about in the current enviornment it requires a significant shift in UK parliamentary arithmetic. Out of interest, do you have the estimates of swayable MPs for how this arithmetic would come about?

[Dr. Gonzo]

3 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

I never said they would sit down and give a better deal. I said no deal is a political choice. The commons and government would have to shift to wanting no deal for it to actually happen. What is your evidence for that happening? What is your case that an immovable EU makes no deal more likely than say for example cancelling Brexit? A general election or a 2nd referendum? Do you have the estimates of swayable MPs for how this arithmetic would come about?

 

Default implies it just happens without choice, yet no deal is a political choice that has to be made. To come about in the current enviornment it requires a significant shift in UK parliamentary arithmetic. Out of interest, do you have the estimates of swayable MPs for how this arithmetic would come about?

I don’t have any estimates despite a lot of them theoretically being swayable for either of those. But what I do have is the fact that right now the EU has not agreed to extend the deadline - EU members haven’t given a clear indication that they will even allow an extension.

What we do have is the Article 50 deadline coming up and no deal in place. Anything else is just theoretical.

And I’m not going to be optimistic about the worst British government in my living memory, that’s done nothing but dither for two years suddenly managing to avert crisis.

[God is Haaland]

21 hours ago, Harvsky said:

I find those takes surprising. No deal can currently only happen by a clumsy move from EU leaders under the advice of Peter Mandelson types whereby they try to collapse the government to reverse the result and it goes to pot.

 

5 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said:

Plenty of Remainers have to take some responsibility, they are willing to risk No Deal because of the chance they may be able to kill Brexit altogether. There are even calls for them to unilaterally revoke Article 50 now, which would be a disgrace.

How can remainers and EU leaders be blamed? I thought the UK had all the leverage in the negotiations. Simply force the EU to do what you want.

Edited March 21, 2019 by BartraPique1932

[The Artful Dodger]

I'm not blaming the EU at all, I'm not a Brexiteer. Remainers and Brexiteers have consistently undermined the idea of a decent deal from the outset, this could have been done well but it deliberately hasn't. Leaving the EU successfully was always going to be a 10+ year process, with initially taking some sort of Norway relationship the best option. May handles most of the blame there, however going forward it's clear that some of the Remain side are just wanting us to get into a catastrophic state where we're on the edge of No Deal so we can scrap it altogether.

Edited March 21, 2019 by The Artful Dodger

[God is Haaland]

22 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said:

I'm not blaming the EU at all, I'm not a Brexiteer. Remainers and Brexiteers have consistently undermined the idea of a decent deal from the outset, this could have been done well but it deliberately hasn't. Leaving the EU successfully was always going to be a 10+ year process, with initially taking some sort of Norway relationship the best option. May handles most of the blame there, however going forward it's clear that some of the Remain side are just wanting us to get into a catastrophic state where we're on the edge of No Deal so we can scrap it altogether.

The EEA member don't want the UK to join, because it would be diametrically opposed to their interests.

[Honey Honey]

30 minutes ago, BartraPique1932 said:

 

How can remainers and EU leaders be blamed? I thought the UK had all the leverage in the negotiations. Simply force the EU to do what you want.

As early as the first months post Brexit the political debate was whether to have a credible no deal threat in negotiations as leverage. It was decided not and is one of the driving forces behind ERG interpretations of how the negotiations have gone.

 

1 minute ago, BartraPique1932 said:

The EEA member don't want the UK to join, because it would be diametrically opposed to their interests.

Do you have any credible evidence for that claim?

[Inverted]

I don't blame Remainers for being obstructive because that's the inherent risk of allowing a single tiny majority to make a huge change. 

The process should not have been allowed to begin without a clear and overwhelming expression of support for it, because it's just too difficult to do otherwise. 

As it happened, it passed on the basis of a cheated vote with a very slim majority, a large proportion of whom were elderly. And then to make things even worse, rather than acknowledging the extremely weak mandate and reaching out, the Tories immediately took us down the path to an extreme approach because of May's xenophobia and hopes of winning over the ERG. 

Edited March 21, 2019 by Inverted

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

As early as the first months post Brexit the political debate was whether to have a credible no deal threat in negotiations as leverage. It was decided not and is one of the driving forces behind ERG interpretations of how the negotiations have gone.

 

Do you have any credible evidence for that claim?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/07/norwegian-mp-britain-eea-norway-eu-brexiters

Granted it’s just 1 Norwegian MP quoted

[Inverted]

Congrats to May on somehow uniting the unions and the business owners against her.

[Honey Honey]

11 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/07/norwegian-mp-britain-eea-norway-eu-brexiters

Granted it’s just 1 Norwegian MP quoted

I'm pretty sure I have already debunked the credibility of that. With the right spread of news sources you'd have seen the debunking at the time as well. But for clarification that MP is campaigning to get Norway into the EU. Here is the actual Norweigan Prime Minister saying they would welcome the UK in EEA - https://euobserver.com/tickers/141798

 

[The Artful Dodger]

29 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Congrats to May on somehow uniting the unions and the business owners against her.

Trade Unions always side with business, in the end. Marx was right about them.

Edited March 21, 2019 by The Artful Dodger

[Dr. Gonzo]

@Harvsky… I did say it was just 1 MP saying that, I think that indicates that it's of questionable credibility & not a true reflection of what a country or a government believes

It's a failing of our Brexit negotiations to not make a harder push for being in the EEA. It's the best option for leaving the EU imo, it's better than the Swiss model with EFTA because that model involves too many domestic referendums for my liking, it's certainly better than May's deal, and is obviously better than a No Deal Brexit.

I disagree with the notion that we should have used the threat of a No Deal earlier on in negotiations as leverage. "I will hurt you, but also hurt myself much harder, unless you concede some favourable terms to me" is not a great negotiation strategy - and No Deal is something the EU has obviously considered very early on in negotiations; I don't think they've been unaware there is a deadline looming and if a deal isn't agreed there will be a hard Brexit that will obviously affect them - a No Deal is bad for both sides and was always a risk of what could happen when we leave the EU. But using the threat of No Deal to try to cherry pick the good aspects of being in the EU and not being in the EU would also just serve as a blueprint for Euroskeptic populists around Europe - threaten self-harm and the EU will cave and the EU will dissolve.

I think in the grand scheme of things, the EU would rather take the short term hit along with the UK (a No Deal will send ripples through global marks as well) and rebuild from that than face a potential existential threat. Using that threat as leverage in negotiations to me just seems belligerent. It's better to start negotiations on areas of common ground - here that common ground is that a No Deal has negative economic effects on the UK and the EU and both parties would benefit from avoiding that.

Unfortunately, the next best option to remaining in the EU is the EEA... which is unacceptable to a huge number of people who were promised a bunch of bullshit about Brexit. In fact, the biggest detriment to our negotiating position in Brexit is the huge amount of bullshit the public was fed and the unrealistic promises that any separation from the EU will never be able to live up to.

The spineless shits in parliament are more concerned about not upsetting the people who voted them in than acting in the best interests of the country. And that's why no deal looks so likely to me. A good number of people want a second referendum, a good number of people don't want a second referendum - that's a hard decision for spineless politicians to make. A lot of people are just saying "Brexit means Brexit, we want out now!" and others are saying "we need to avoid a No Deal!" and while more MPs may agree with wanting to avoid a No Deal, they're still afraid of making any decision that might be polarising or controversial.

It's far easier for them to just do nothing, have us crash out with No Deal, and then do what David Cameron would do upon any of his political failures - use the EU as a scapegoat.

[God is Haaland]

20 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

I'm pretty sure I have already debunked the credibility of that. With the right spread of news sources you'd have seen the debunking at the time as well. But for clarification that MP is campaigning to get Norway into the EU. Here is the actual Norweigan Prime Minister saying they would welcome the UK in EEA - https://euobserver.com/tickers/141798

 

You didn't debunk it, you addressed it.

In the case of Norway the economical benefits might outweigh the economical and legislative drawbacks, because the UK is Norway's biggest trading partner. However, in order to join the EEA all members have to agree.

Btw if you're dependent on Norway, you can forget reclaiming any fishing rights.

[Honey Honey]

34 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

@Harvsky… I did say it was just 1 MP saying that, I think that indicates that it's of questionable credibility & not a true reflection of what a country or a government believes

It's a failing of our Brexit negotiations to not make a harder push for being in the EEA. It's the best option for leaving the EU imo, it's better than the Swiss model with EFTA because that model involves too many domestic referendums for my liking, it's certainly better than May's deal, and is obviously better than a No Deal Brexit.

I disagree with the notion that we should have used the threat of a No Deal earlier on in negotiations as leverage. "I will hurt you, but also hurt myself much harder, unless you concede some favourable terms to me" is not a great negotiation strategy - and No Deal is something the EU has obviously considered very early on in negotiations; I don't think they've been unaware there is a deadline looming and if a deal isn't agreed there will be a hard Brexit that will obviously affect them - a No Deal is bad for both sides and was always a risk of what could happen when we leave the EU. But using the threat of No Deal to try to cherry pick the good aspects of being in the EU and not being in the EU would also just serve as a blueprint for Euroskeptic populists around Europe - threaten self-harm and the EU will cave and the EU will dissolve.

I think in the grand scheme of things, the EU would rather take the short term hit along with the UK (a No Deal will send ripples through global marks as well) and rebuild from that than face a potential existential threat. Using that threat as leverage in negotiations to me just seems belligerent. It's better to start negotiations on areas of common ground - here that common ground is that a No Deal has negative economic effects on the UK and the EU and both parties would benefit from avoiding that.

Unfortunately, the next best option to remaining in the EU is the EEA... which is unacceptable to a huge number of people who were promised a bunch of bullshit about Brexit. In fact, the biggest detriment to our negotiating position in Brexit is the huge amount of bullshit the public was fed and the unrealistic promises that any separation from the EU will never be able to live up to.

The spineless shits in parliament are more concerned about not upsetting the people who voted them in than acting in the best interests of the country. And that's why no deal looks so likely to me. A good number of people want a second referendum, a good number of people don't want a second referendum - that's a hard decision for spineless politicians to make. A lot of people are just saying "Brexit means Brexit, we want out now!" and others are saying "we need to avoid a No Deal!" and while more MPs may agree with wanting to avoid a No Deal, they're still afraid of making any decision that might be polarising or controversial.

It's far easier for them to just do nothing, have us crash out with No Deal, and then do what David Cameron would do upon any of his political failures - use the EU as a scapegoat.

In regards to the threats impact on negotiations it depends on your own guess and assumptions of outcome. Reality is there is no evidence to support our judgments and intuitions on this. Maybe Varoufakis is the closest we have but then he is Varoufakis haha. The only outcome we can be certain of is the one which actually occured and the enviornment it actually occured in, such as one where no deal is not credible on the UK side and a minority government in power.

In regards to spineless politicians. Vast numbers voted remain then said ok we'll Brexit at the election. They'll do what they think they have to in order to maintain their power. For them to back no deal as you say would require a public shift to no deal which doesn't have the polling numbers yet. This is also why I said for no deal to come about the EU has to do something clumsy. Perhaps Macron is the clumsy type. I also mentioned Mandelson types encouraging and advising the EU to make a move that ultimately is clumsy. That's because we know the hierarchy tacticians of the people's vote don't want one right now. I believe some publicly supporting people's vote MPs voted against a 2nd referendum the other day in the commons. They seem to be trying to create the enviornment and timing that they can get the vote and win it. Polling remains within the margin of error at the moment. The EU are made up of politicians, they play the same games and are the same shysters as anywhere else. 

May's deal. Corbyn's deal. No deal. EEA. FTA. Remain. It doesn't matter which one of these it is none of them have sufficient support. What must happen is circumstances shift and rhetoric primes in a certain direction until an outcome is reached. The ticking clock simply allowes politicians to not align. Of that Theresa May is right in her critique of her colleagues behaviour. They've had nothing to lose by being divided. The EU must try and force the issue without being cack handed. 

However the WA itself looks likely to create the same environment and division that prevents a deal ever getting ratified until such day comes that the UK has a sizeable government and not a minority one or one with a Cameron type tiny majority.

I don't agree with the confidence with which some claims of what is most likely are made. When pressed as I have sought to do certain key considerations of what is required seem absent.

 

31 minutes ago, BartraPique1932 said:

You didn't debunk it, you addressed it.

You address a problem, you debunk a falsehood. The notion you put forward was false in terms of the evidence in question. Had it been made prior to the existence of the counter evidence the counter evidence could be considered as addressing the problem that the evidence implies. As the notion came after the evidence existed the notion is a falsehood whether you are aware it was false or not.

[God is Haaland]

Ignoring all but the very first sentence from my post doesn't make you right. And I doubt you even know what my notion is.

[Honey Honey]

9 minutes ago, BartraPique1932 said:

Ignoring all but the very first sentence from my post doesn't make you right. And I doubt you even know what my notion is.

The rest of your post was irrelevant, it had noting to do with what I challenged. Your notion that I challenged is there in writing "The EEA member don't want the UK to join".

As Gonzo said when he saw the counter evidence the prior evidence to that which is in question is "not a true reflection of what a country or a government believes".

The country or government being de facto "The EEA member" you mentioned.

[Dr. Gonzo]

@Harvsky on the one hand I see what you're saying, and perhaps yes the EU is using this clumsy tactic to keep us holding out for a delay that leads to a second referendum or general election that ultimately leads to Article 50 being withdrawn or something. On the other hand, this may be the EU sticking the knife in and believing (or knowing) that they will weather the No Deal recession better than Britain and ultimately dealing with the UK post-Brexit, may be easier once everything settles down and there is more public consensus in the UK as to what the fuck the country's Brexit plans might be.

I have a hard time believing the EU will allow the 9 month extension to the Article 50 that May's cabinet seems to anticipate them getting - because as mentioned on here earlier, the EU doesn't want the UK using it's power to veto to obstruct the EU's 7 year budget as a way to blackmail the EU into better terms for the UK leaving... when the UK is supposed to be out of the EU in a week. That's why most EU leaders are saying they'll agree to a technical extension, but it'll be short term and it requires parliament passing the May deal.

[God is Haaland]

28 minutes ago, Harvsky said:

The rest of your post was irrelevant, it had noting to do with what I challenged. Your notion that I challenged is there in writing "The EEA member don't want the UK to join".

As Gonzo said when he saw the counter evidence the prior evidence to that which is in question is "not a true reflection of what a country or a government believes".

The country or government being de facto "The EEA member" you mentioned.

You challenged a strawman.

"The EEA members don't want the UK to join" is a slightly ambigious statement. You chose to interprete it as "All EEA members don't want the UK to join", but what was actually meant was "The EEA members as a group don't want the UK to join" which should have been clear after my consequetive post, because it's the only interpretation consistent with my consequetive post. But you chose to ignore it. Apparently information becomes "irrelevant" as soon as it contradicts your assumption.

Edited March 21, 2019 by BartraPique1932