Brexit Discussion Thread number 3

[Twit 2]

It's worth maybe acknowledging people's history with biggy; these responses are not coming out of the blue, however it may appear.  Almost every other post in these political threads is one from biggy, and usually they contain misinformation or lies that need correcting before the thread can meaningfully continue.  It's not easy to ignore a poster who is that frequent - ideally people wouldn't lose their patience and turn snipy, but on the other hand people who engage with biggy are also showing the patience of saints.  It's just that every now and then someone snaps.

biggy will dominate these threads in one way or another, either unchallenged or challanged.  I'd personally prefer for him to be challenged.

+ 1

To change it up a bit, I thought this article was a pretty good counter to biggy's "Brexit will be great, a bit o'suffering is just an unfortunate side effect" narrative:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/britain-has-led-a-charmed-political-life-but-there-is-a-price-to-pay-for-complacency?CMP=share_btn_linkThe

[katzenjammer]

That's a good article

The whole Brexit project has been, in Gookin's terms, easy work. Make up lies about the European Union, throw patriotic shapes, get a smugly overconfident prime minister to call a referendum whose dynamics he does not understand, tell more lies, make promises you don't believe in yourself, use stolen Facebook data to target voters with xenophobic images, tell everybody that they will have all the benefits of membership with none of the costs. Easy work, all of it: no plans, no complexities, no responsibilities.

Succinctly describes the leave campaign and why Brexit will be a tragedy.

[Jamaican clothes golem]

European Commission and the British Government are both cunts. Brexit = one less layer of cunts.

[katzenjammer]

Fewer. And no.

[George Oscar Bluth II]

European Commission and the British Government are both cunts. Brexit = one less layer of cunts.

Anarchist Brexit, hell yeah

[George Oscar Bluth II]

+ 1

To change it up a bit, I thought this article was a pretty good counter to biggy's "Brexit will be great, a bit o'suffering is just an unfortunate side effect" narrative:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/britain-has-led-a-charmed-political-life-but-there-is-a-price-to-pay-for-complacency?CMP=share_btn_linkThe

This is good, not least this:

What is so striking about the political chaos at Westminster is the sheer wilfulness of it all. It is not a response to a plague or a famine, a war or an invasion. Britain's crisis has deep causes, of course, though most of them (the effects of austerity, the loosening of the union) are self-generated. But at the political level most of it seems to be happening purely for its own sake. It is all gestures and poses.

Imagine if we do get no deal and food and medicine shortages...there will be no-one to blame but ourselves and more specifically those who sold us this nonsense.

I'm sure biggy and the rest of the Brexiteer pricks will find some people to blame who aren't them though.

[katzenjammer]

https://mobile.twitter.com/PhilipHammondUK/status/1070284956260331520

A responsible government must prepare for all scenarios, which is why I have made more than £4.2bn available for EU exit planning since 2016. In the coming days,
@hmtreasury
will allocate a further £2bn of that money to government departments to bolster #Brexit preparations.

Wasn't leaving the EU supposed to save money?

[Howj Begg]

Have we had Sir Ivan Rogers' speech here, yet?

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

Necessary reading for anyone who gives a shit about the truth of Brexit and its consequences, and the degree of self-harm the UK is wilfully perpetrating because of irresponsible fantasists. The Guardian referenced it today, because Jeremy Hunt seems to be following Rogers' script about fake "mini-deals" up to a no deal:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2018/dec/17/brexit-latest-theresa-may-commons-statement-greg-clark-backs-cabinet-calls-for-mps-to-be-asked-to-vote-on-options-if-mays-deal-defeated-politics-live?page=with:block-5c179d80e4b025637fe97387#block-5c179d80e4b025637fe97387

Insane people like biggy and the ERG simply want us to wait and see the catastrophe play itself out. The rest of us need to be responsible enough to stand up and say this is and will continue to be a horror show. There will always be nutters like them in society; we can't allow them to dominate the debate.

[oooft]

we can't allow them to dominate the debate.

Yeah, fuck democracy - Facism under the name of anti-facism is best. Zuckers' lovechildren - Oooofft!

[SpiderChrist]

Yeah, fuck democracy - Facism under the name of anti-facism is best. Zuckers' lovechildren - Oooofft!

What in the name of all that is righteous is "facism"? Is it something to do with faces? Or faeces?

How come none of these trolls have a basic grasp of spelling?

[Howj Begg]

I urge everyone not to bother with trolls or biggy and just read the text:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

[Theremin]

I urge everyone not to bother with trolls or biggy and just read the text:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

This is genuinely very clear-eyed and well-put.

[Paulie Walnuts]

Wasn't leaving the EU supposed to save money?

No, but handily we are about to save £39bn

[Replies From View]

I urge everyone not to bother with trolls or biggy and just read the text:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

Excellent.  This in particular strikes a familiar chord:

Fourth lesson: it is not possible or democratic to argue that only one Brexit destination is true, legitimate and represents the revealed "Will of the People" and that all other potential destinations outside the EU are "Brexit in Name Only".

The public voted – in huge numbers – and the majority voted to "leave" and not to "remain". That much is clear. But people were not asked to give their reasons for voting "leave" or "remain", and they were multifarious on both sides.

For decades, some of the staunchest standard bearers of the case for leaving the post Maastricht Treaty EU have made the case for staying in the so-called Single Market, remaining a signatory to the EEA Agreement but leaving the institutions of political and juridical integration of the Union.

I have spent years reading eurosceptic tomes – plenty of them very well argued, whether you agree with them or not – arguing that Maastricht, amplified by subsequent Treaties, represented the wrong turn in European integration, and that what we needed to do was to return to the essential mercantile ideas behind the internal market project and jettison U.K. adherence to the rest.

For many people I have talked to, especially outside the metropolitan elite circles who obsess about post Brexit models, that sense of "we only ever joined a Common Market, but it's turned into something very different and no-one in authority down in London ever asked us whether that is what we wanted" is actually probably the closest to capturing their reasons for voting "leave".

One can't now suddenly start denouncing such people as Quisling closet remainers who do not subscribe to the "only true path" Brexit. Let alone insist on public self-criticism from several senior politicians on the Right who themselves, within the last few years, have publicly espoused these views, and praised the Norwegian and Swiss models, the health of their democracies and their prosperity.

In an earlier lecture, I described Brexitism as a revolutionary phenomenon, which radicalised as time went on and was now devouring its own children. This current phase feels ever more like Maoists seeking to crush Rightist deviationists than it does British Conservatism.

To be clear, this is not an argument for an EEA model as opposed to the current proposed deal. I have no time here to rehearse the arguments either for or against this version of Brexit. I have plenty of reservations about the merits for the U.K. of an EEA destination, dating from my Treasury days. It's no doubt more appealing if you run agriculture and fisheries policy.

Though I have just as many reservations with the proposal on the table. I also deplore the way in which the substance of all the models is constantly distorted by those who do not understand them – opponents and proponents – and then have given them a few days' thought – in a panic.

My real objection is to the style of argument espoused both by the pro "no deal" Right and by Downing Street which says that no other model but their own is a potentially legitimate interpretation of the Will of the People – which evidently only they can properly discern.

Both fervent leavers and fervent remainers as well as No 10 seem to me now to seek to delegitimise a priori every version of the world they don't support.

As for the Prime Minister's proposed model, the entire EU knows that where we have now reached derives from her putting the ending of free movement of people well above all other objectives, and privileging as near frictionless trade in goods as she can get over the interests of UK services sectors.

They are unsurprised by the former but surprised – sometimes gleefully by the latter, as it seems to point precisely to a deal skewed in their favour.

We have essentially sacrificed all ambition on services sectors in return for ending free movement, sold the latter as a boon (when amongst other things, it clearly diminishes the value of a UK passport), and presented the former as a regaining of sovereignty, when it guarantees a major loss of market access in much our largest export market.

Well, by all means argue for it. I fully accept that control of borders – albeit with much confusion about the bit we already have control over, but year after year fail, under this Government, to achieve any control of – was a central referendum issue.

But don't argue it's the only feasible Brexit. Or that it's an economically rational one.

Of course the EU side will now back the Prime Minister in saying it is. They have done a great deal for themselves and they want it to stick. Who can blame them?

[Fambo Number Mive]

The cabinet is discussing whether to ramp up preparations for a no-deal Brexit amid uncertainty over the fate of Theresa May's proposed EU exit deal.

Ministers will set out how much money each department is being given to prepare, should the UK leave the EU on 29 March without a formal agreement.

MPs will not vote on the PM's deal until the third week in January.

Labour, which has tabled a motion of no confidence in the PM, has accused Mrs May of trying to "run down the clock".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46600850

I think No Deal is looking very likely to be honest, especially with May delaying the vote.

[Mrs Wogans lemon drizzle]

can't see no deal happening.  Article 50 will be extended and the can kicked down the road.

[Fambo Number Mive]

Grocer Tells James O'Brien Of Fresh Food Disaster In No Deal Brexit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWD39s-yhpE

[Phil_A]

Apparently Gavin Williamson just said that armed forces are standing ready "to do whatever is necessary" in the event of No Deal.

Fucking hell.

[Howj Begg]

can't see no deal happening.  Article 50 will be extended and the can kicked down the road.

I mean, I think that is probably what will happen as well, because Parliament will find a way to "take control" of the situation, as it is that desperate. But May and her various ghouls in the cabinet and back benches essentially taunting everyone with "You think I'm bluffing mister? Didn't I tell you I'm loco?" *spins finger to right of head* is extremely unseemly to watch.

[Replies From View]

Apparently Gavin Williamson just said that armed forces are standing ready "to do whatever is necessary" in the event of No Deal.

Fucking hell.

Cocks out?

[mothman]

This is genuinely a thing. I thought it was maybe a SNL sketch or something. Probably not news to all, but certainly to me.

https://youtu.be/E5S1EMmCWAE

[manticore]

Sir Ivan Rogers doesn't adequately explain the reasons for his dismissal of Norway+, and indeed I haven't seen anyone do that.

[Twit 2]

The excluded first console themselves by deciding they must form a class of radical, then by perfecting a form of radical behaviour that guarantees that they will never risk the shame of being thrown out again.

[BlodwynPig]

This is genuinely a thing. I thought it was maybe a SNL sketch or something. Probably not news to all, but certainly to me.

https://youtu.be/E5S1EMmCWAE

Christ. AT LEAST WAIT UNTIL THE DUST HAS SETTLED.

[katzenjammer]

Sir Ivan Rogers doesn't adequately explain the reasons for his dismissal of Norway+, and indeed I haven't seen anyone do that.

Norway have dismissed Norway+ for us.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=344146403081167&id=6622931938&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.es%2F&_rdr

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Fourth lesson: it is not possible or democratic to argue that only one Brexit destination is true, legitimate and represents the revealed "Will of the People" and that all other potential destinations outside the EU are "Brexit in Name Only"

Yep

Spread far and wide

[græskar]

An immaterial foreign aside:

I was absolutely gutted in 2016 when the vote happened, I'd followed British politics for years and still do, and I do really believe in the EU* with Britain in it. Having followed Britain's internal politics for all this time though as well as the discussions on this forum, I have ultimately reached a point of exhaustion. At this point I just wish the UK would ratify the deal as it stands and let everyone get on with it. I'm not going to be all like "well if you don't like Europe, then why don't you just piss off" etc because, as I say, I do follow British politics and I am well aware of this problem's immense complexity and nuance. But I am feeling exhausted, a feeling echoed by many people on the continent and certainly among my compatriots, and I do wish we could just get this over with now. I will always love Britain, the British culture and people, but I am no longer gutted about Britain leaving and it is time to move on.
(end of immaterial aside, sorry for interrupting)

_{*mandatory disclaimer: despite its many faults}

[Johnny Yesno]

We're all sick to the back teeth of it too but unfortunately, even though it's in extreme slow motion, it's still a car crash and it's going to hurt.

[manticore]

Norway have dismissed Norway+ for us.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=344146403081167&id=6622931938&refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.es%2F&_rdr

That's not a definitive rebuff though. Smaller parties in Norway are not so sceptical as she is:

the only political support for Britain joining EFTA seems to be from two small parties, the Socialist Left and the Centre Party, which want to renegotiate Norway's entire relations with the EU. They think British membership of EFTA would give Oslo better bargaining power with Brussels.

"Northern European countries would have a stronger negotiating position and could assess together what kind of relationship we would want to have with the EU," Torgeir Knag Fylkesnes, a Socialist Left lawmaker told Reuters.

"We could ... have a better deal for democracy and Norwegian business."

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-norway/norwegians-nonplussed-at-norway-plus-brexit-idea-idUKKBN1OC23I

And Yaroufakis has said that it's not the case that Britain would have to become a rule-taker:

When I say Norway + – what is the plus? Well, people including some of my comrades in this country and in this party, say to me that the problem with the Norway solution and the difficulty the Labour Party has in supporting it, is because it turns Britain into an EU rules-taker.

This of course is correct  – this is the price you have to pay for being inside a transnational market. But it doesn't have to be that way. Britain does not have to be an EU rule-taker if it strikes a Norway-style agreement.

Allow me to be very specific in three areas here. One is labour market standards and protections for wage labour. Secondly, environmental standards and the protection of the environment. Thirdly, financial regulation. Nothing stops Britain in a Norway-style agreement from setting for itself and for any company working within the United Kingdom, higher regulatory standards for the City of London, higher environmental standards, higher minimum wages and higher standards for defending wage labour.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europe-make-it/yanis-varoufakis/magnificent-oomph-securing-progressive-brexit-0

[Zetetic]

No, he first agrees that it would mean the Britain would be a 'rule-taker'. Which I don't give much of a shit about in this context, but sufficient swathes of parliament - including a vocal faction of the party that currently forms our government.

He then goes on to point out that this doesn't mean that you lose all your policy levers and you can set domestic standards higher than those provided for by the EU. Which is ball-achingly obvious, and just as true for EU members, isn't it?

Norway+ continues to allow free movement of labour. (which Varoufakis emphasises). Again, I don't give a shit (quite the opposite, also not being a fan of serfdom) but our current government is fairly set on the idea that when people voted for Brexit, they were voting to send the buggers back and that's what they're going to do. (They can't even send the right buggers back, but some Slavic-types will do in the meantime and besides it upsets the metrosexuals which is better than nothing.)

What political obstacles does it remove at this point? What it's appeal to our current government and a parliament still largely continuing to shit itself over the result of the prank referendum? That it just about counts as 'Leaving the EU'?