Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TD1]

Mainly because she never wanted to leave, I'd guess, and her 'leave' was as close to 'remain' as she could make it.
So it's not leave. And it's not remain. And it's not liked.

[MorleyDev]

The problem is you've got a bunch of fundamentally incompatible red lines from the various parties involved.

Just to name two big ones:
- Can't have a border at Ireland (NI, RoI), can't have a border at the Irish Sea (DUP, Scotland*), but have to have a border between EU and UK (UK Gov).
- Can't have freedom of movement of people (UK Gov), but can't have freedom of movement of goods and services without freedom of movement of people (EU), but can't damage any of the many current businesses in the UK that rely on freedom of movement of goods and services (NI, Scotland, Parliament).

The former is an impossible paradox, hence the Brexiteers citing non-existing "technological solutions". They may as well be saying "magic pixies" will solve that one.

The latter is because there's no majority in parliament to harm business**, since they're all well aware that any party that does that much damage to our economy isn't going to last the next election cycle.

May was basically the one left holding the hot potato after the last Tory leadership contest, and none of the Brexiteers in Parliament have the balls to 'take charge' and admit that they want to essentially cripple a good chunk of current British businesses (and there's no way they could win any leadership contest if they did). At it's core, this agreement is just stalling for time so that May can hope that the paradoxes resolve themselves before the transition period it runs out.

* Scotland won't accept that NI can be treated specially and given a competitive advantage over Scotland in terms of Single-Market Access, especially since both voted to remain.

** And we're not talking Banks in London either, my Midlands based office is paid a good percentage of it's monthly income in euros, we are part of a larger europe-wide set of offices that are then owned by a global business, and we fly our people out to Europe regularly and work with European businesses a lot. Like many businesses in the UK, as a service industry, our entire role is as middlemen who don't create any physical good or sell any product except the services we provide. That's an office and livelihood of about 100 people right there, which a no deal would screw over.

[Loud Whispers]

Soooooo, how's that Brexit business going on, Loud Whispers?

Whole lot of nothing's really happening, Theresa May's plan didn't survive contact with the House of Commons.

Last time I checked here, you were quite sure that Britain, led by the glorious May, was about to get ALL the bilateral deals in the world through its tea-powered meme magic and get into a much better position that it was in before, buuuuut recently I've been hearing that British parliament sees "no-deal-Brexit" as being actually preferable to the deal that is currently on the table by May, and it made me quite curious as to how did she fuck it up THAT bad.

You must have me confused with someone else, I have zero optimism for the future of the United Kingdom, while it is useless to speak of bilateral trade deals whilst we are a member of the European Union. It is not a case of whether we can make good or bad trade deals, it is simply the case that we can make 0 trade deals at all whilst we are a member of the EU. No-deal Brexit is my preferred option, Theresa May buggered it by finding a solution which united Remain & Leave in united opposal, which is an astounding achievement.

The UK paid £19B to the EU last year, Theresa May managed to somehow negotiate the UK's contribution to the EU for leaving up to £39B. Altogether an impressive feat of incompetence. Her plan also sees the entirety of the British Isles remain in the customs union & the single market, which obviously does not sit well with Leave voters as we'd continue to be economically integrated into the EU, and still would be unable to represent our own nation in the world. De facto integration would continue, whilst Brexit will have been done in name only. Yet this also does not appease Remain voters, primarily for two reasons: The first and lesser, is that it constitutes the obligations of EU membership without any influence over Europe, the second and most important is that it does not settle anything about Brexit. It'd just be another temporary measure to kick the can down the road and buy Theresa May more time (the deal would expire in 21 months after signing) to salvage her career, instead of delivering on her promise as well as the promise of the previous conservative government to leave the EU's institutions, including the single market & customs union. Such is life on prison shitpost island, when everyone you elect supports Remain. This is made all the more confusing by the clusterfuck of shifting loyalties within the House of Commons. The Labour MPs support pro-Remain measures, but they are led by Corbyn, who wants Brexit to be done with so the British can move on to actually saving the institutions we're playing political football with. The Conservative MPs support pro-Leave measures, but they are led by Theresa May, who wants the Brexit process to be dragged on indefinitely to delay and water down the actual significance of leaving at all. Besides the blessedly consistent DUP, there is little but uncertainty amongst the political class at a time where both factions crave the certainty of a firm decision.

The problem is you've got a bunch of fundamentally incompatible red lines from the various parties involved.
Just to name two big ones:
- Can't have a border at Ireland (NI, RoI), can't have a border at the Irish Sea (DUP, Scotland*), but have to have a border between EU and UK (UK Gov).
- Can't have freedom of movement of people (UK Gov), but can't have freedom of movement of goods and services without freedom of movement of people (EU), but can't damage any of the many current businesses in the UK that rely on freedom of movement of goods and services (NI, Scotland, Parliament).
The former is an impossible paradox, hence the Brexiteers citing non-existing "technological solutions". They may as well be saying "magic pixies" will solve that one.

Spoiler: obligatory (click to show/hide)

The Ireland-Northern Ireland situation is pretty simple* for the immediate future, the Republic of Ireland is not a member of the schengen area nor is Northern Ireland or the UK. The UK and Ireland have had de facto free movement for the past century of peace time in their own bilateral agreements and cooperation, whilst both have maintained the same hesitance towards entangling one's nation with EU institutions. Ireland does not have land connections to the EU through Northern Ireland, its major connection is to Northern Ireland & the UK itself (which is something I would be intrigued to see change, if the EU built a tunnel connecting Ireland to the UK, Ireland would have a direct land connection to Europe through overland railway and the channel tunnel).

Regarding this, in an unusual display of unanimous sanity, Irish, British and EU leaders have all agreed to maintain the status quo in order to not provoke new troubles.

Green = Common Travel Area
Blue = Schengen Area
Grey = Dudes who use borders when their governments exist
*Thus it is simple for the purposes of travel arrangements. Everything stays the same in that regard

The reason why Theresa May says it can't work is because she supports Remain and has very little faith in the mental capabilities of the British people. Give her technical solutions a dose of salt, it's a complete lie. The paradox is one Theresa May intends to use in order to keep negotiations going in perpetuity, an extension to the transition to an extension of the transition ad infinitum.

May was basically the one left holding the hot potato after the last Tory leadership contest, and none of the Brexiteers in Parliament have the balls to 'take charge' and admit that they want to essentially cripple a good chunk of current British businesses (and there's no way they could win any leadership contest if they did). At it's core, this agreement is just stalling for time so that May can hope that the paradoxes resolve themselves before the transition period it runs out.

Do you believe in this cartoonish fantasy of ball grabbing?

[MorleyDev]

Do you believe in this cartoonish fantasy of ball grabbing?

You mean the Hot Potato or the "not having the balls to admit to wanting to cripple some of our current businesses in pursuit of future business that will slow down growth due to the time needed to build the new contacts and infrastructure at the local and business level"?

Because the former is more or less how the last leadership contest went down as far as I can tell, the latter is that no pro-Leave politicians seem to be willing to say that reduced growth is an inevitable consequence of throwing away the current status quo.

None of the brexiteers in the Tory party seem to like to say that yes, leaving the EU will obviously make us poorer in the short term of the next decade and will obviously be damaging to current businesses that benefit from the services and goods arrangements we currently have, but they think the opportunities after the dust is settled outweigh that.

[Loud Whispers]

You mean the Hot Potato or the "not having the balls to admit to wanting to cripple some of our current businesses in pursuit of future business that will slow down growth due to the time needed to build the new contacts and infrastructure at the local and business level"?

Because the former is more or less how the last leadership contest went down as far as I can tell, the latter is that throwing away the current status quo. None of the brexiteers in the Tory party seem to like to say that yes, leaving the EU will obviously make us poorer in the short term of the next decade and will obviously be damaging to current businesses that benefit from the services and goods arrangements we currently have, but they think the opportunities after the dust is settled outweigh that.

Bit of both really, but I mostly wanted to continue your metaphor of ball grabbing for puerile reasons. I apologise as the deed is done.
In the Tory leadership contest, it was taken as a given that Boris Johnson was going to become Prime Minister. He was a high-profile public figure, he was popular amongst MPs and voters, most importantly he had led a significant portion of the Leave campaign and supported (lukewarmly) the call for a referendum from 2015. That is until Michael Gove, who had been his second in command during the Leave campaign & was the man charged with leading Boris's leadership bid... Withdrew his support and announced his own leadership bid. This split Boris's support between them and forced Boris to withdraw, crippling his leadership bid and leaving Theresa May as the frontrunner. Theresa May then had to beat Andrea Leadsom, but given that she was Home Secretary and Leadsom was not, that was a foregone conclusion. Afterwards, Gove is reported as going on holiday with George Osborne, David Cameron's right hand man and Boris's rival. Gove then returns under May's government in 2017 as the cabinet minister for environmental affairs. We will continue to pick up the pieces of Cameron's machinations for generations to come

[MorleyDev]

Well yeah, Boris Johnson and Gove basically mutually stabbed each other in the back. I do think the British people dodged one hell of a bullet there. BoJo as PM. Brrr.

I was half expecting the Rains of Castamere to start playing the middle of Parliament when all of that was going on xD

[Loud Whispers]

Well yeah, Boris Johnson and Gove basically mutually stabbed each other in the back. I do think the British people dodged one hell of a bullet there. BoJo as PM. Brrr.

I was half expecting the Rains of Castamere to start playing the middle of Parliament when all of that was going on xD

Boris for all his flaws, sins and failures, cannot be accused of stabbing Gove in the back; perhaps Cameron could make the case that Boris betrayed him. It came rather as a surprise when Gove sent the Lannister's regards.

*Fake edit
Looking over it, it seems my inference was correct:

Former Prime Minister David Cameron texted Boris Johnson to gloat after the now-Foreign Secretary was betrayed in his Tory leadership bid by Leave Campaign ally Michael Gove, a new book has claimed.
Mr Gove managed Mr Johnson’s campaign to be Mr Cameron's successor, before changing his mind the night before nominations were announced and running himself, forcing Mr Johnson to withdraw from the contest.
Mr Cameron, who campaigned to remain in the EU and resigned over the referendum result, texted Mr Johnson and said "you should have stuck with me, mate," following the debacle, author Tim Shipman has said.

Cameron & Osborne got Gove to destroy the Boris bid

*Real edit
My god substantial retroactive edits are hard to follow

As for NI: It's the business and regulation side of the CTE that causes the issue with the border, separate from the border of people. Note I listed free movement of people as the second issue, and referenced the 'technical solutions' aspect for the first. Should have been clearer about that though, I'll admit.
You either allow goods and services to flow freely between NI and RoI but have border checks of those goods at the Irish Sea, or don't allow them to flow freely and introduce a barrier at NI, or rely on the "magic technology that doesn't exist yet pixie" to fix it.

Option 3: Allow goods & services to flow freely between ROI, NI & UK

Because the former is more or less how the last leadership contest went down as far as I can tell, the latter is that no pro-Leave politicians seem to be willing to say that reduced growth is an inevitable consequence of throwing away the current status quo.

Why would they say something they don't believe in?

None of the brexiteers in the Tory party seem to like to say that yes, leaving the EU will obviously make us poorer in the short term of the next decade and will obviously be damaging to current businesses that benefit from the services and goods arrangements we currently have, but they think the opportunities after the dust is settled outweigh that.

Might as well let project fear run the show

[MorleyDev]

I'm definitely of the opinion that the main motivator for Boris Johnson throughout the entire referendum was to position himself as the next leader of the Tory party. So seeing that go down in flames was rather satisfying.

Also you keep replying whilst I try and edit in some more comments, so I keep editing them down to the next post xD

They're going into this one now:

As for NI: As I understand it, it is the business and regulation side of the CTE that causes the issue with the border, separate from the border of just people. Note I listed free movement of people as the second issue, and referenced the 'technical solutions' aspect for the first. Should have been clearer about that though, I'll admit.

You either allow goods and services to flow freely between NI and RoI but have border checks of those goods at the Irish Sea (and a pissed of Scotland*), or don't allow them to flow freely and introduce a barrier at NI, or rely on the "magic technology that doesn't exist yet pixie" to fix it.

As an aside, the argument from many politicians that "nobody voted to be poorer" seems daft since I don't know how anyone could vote Leave and not expect the country to be poorer in the short-to-medium-term whilst the time is taken to build up the new infrastructure, business connections and whatnot. But none of the pro-Leave politicians seem to turn around and point this out, which tells me they're afraid of the political consequences of doing so.

* Since they voted to Remain, so wouldn't like Ireland getting that advantage.**
** Admittedly is can be hard to tell the difference between an 'actually pissed-off Scotland' and a 'normal amount of pissed-off Scotland'.

[smjjames]

Soooooo, how's that Brexit business going on, Loud Whispers?

Whole lot of nothing's really happening, Theresa May's plan didn't survive contact with the House of Commons.

More like didn't survive contact with reality. Like those irreconcilable red lines mentioned last page, all of that is going to happen in a hard no-deal Brexit regardless.

The Good Friday Deal (I think that's what it was called? The treaty between NI and the UK) being a third rail in UK politics doesn't help in this situation here either as a Brexit is going to screw with it.

* Since they voted to Remain, so wouldn't like Ireland getting that advantage.

I also remember something like 80% of Scotland voting Remain. Edit: Didn't actually read the first part of your post and assumed you meant NI, but I guess you were referring to Scotland?

[Loud Whispers]

I'm definitely of the opinion that the main motivator for Boris Johnson throughout the entire referendum was to position himself as the next leader of the Tory party. So seeing that go down in flames was rather satisfying.

I would say your opinion is founded in truth

Also you keep replying whilst I try and edit in some more comments, so I keep editing them down to the next post xD

My god, same here xD

You either allow goods and services to flow freely between NI and RoI but have border checks of those goods at the Irish Sea, or don't allow them to flow freely and introduce a barrier at NI, or rely on the "magic technology that doesn't exist yet pixie" to fix it.

Or option 3: Stop trying to fix what isn't broke. We have zero obligation to defend the integrity of the single market, there is no need for the UK to set up a customs border and pay for it, it's a Trumpian accord for the benefit of the EU's authority - which if we cared for, we would never intend to leave.

As an aside, the argument from many politicians that "nobody voted to be poorer" seems daft since I don't know how anyone could vote Leave and not expect the country to be poorer in the short-to-medium-term whilst the time is taken to build up the new infrastructure, business connections and whatnot. But none of the pro-Leave politicians seem to turn around and point this out, which tells me they're afraid of the political consequences of doing so.

This makes the assumption that no pro-Leave MPs actually believe in Brexit, they have merely adopted the pro-Leave stance out of personal ambition. This isn't true of the backbencher rebels who first put Cameron's feet to the fire. Otherwise yes, the rest are most likely political mercenaries who don't sincerely believe in Brexit. I don't expect they believe in Remain either. I don't expect they believe in much at all :d

More like didn't survive contact with reality. Like those irreconcilable red lines mentioned last page, all of that is going to happen in a hard no-deal Brexit regardless.

Read the "obligatory" response to those red lines. Before you get all smug with the reality has a Remain bias slogan, do please recall that from David Cameron to Theresa May, the entire process has been managed by politicians who support Remain, with the former intentionally sabotaging the negotiation process in order to make it seem unappealing prior to the referendum vote. I should very much have preferred to see what could have been achieved 2 years ago had we had a Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees-Mogg in the cabinet, instead of Theresa May or Boris Johnson.

I also remember something like 80% of Scotland voting Remain.

62%

[MorleyDev]

This makes the assumption that no pro-Leave MPs actually believe in Brexit, they have merely adopted the pro-Leave stance out of personal ambition. This isn't true of the backbencher rebels who first put Cameron's feet to the fire. Otherwise yes, the rest are most likely political mercenaries who don't sincerely believe in Brexit. I don't expect they believe in Remain either. I don't expect they believe in much at all :d

Not necessarily, I'm strictly talking about the short-to-medium term. You can genuinely believe that in the long term the country can be better off, but to expect that to happen immediately or even in a matter of a few years even seems...naive? Daft? Willingly ignorant of reality? Hence why I'm calling them out on not saying "of course we'll be worse off in the short-term, it's the long term benefits that I believe in". I could respect that stance a lot more, for one. But that they aren't just coming out and saying that seems underhanded and disingenuous at best.

Or option 3: Stop trying to fix what isn't broke. We have zero obligation to defend the integrity of the single market, there is no need for the UK to set up a customs border and pay for it, it's a Trumpian accord for the benefit of the EU's authority - which if we cared for, we would never intend to leave.

So...your stance is that we allow a goods border to be brought back to Northern Ireland? Problem is that this wouldn't get through Parliament, would damage businesses in NI, and the majority of NI parties would oppose it so that's going to stoke some more political trouble. Which goes back to the second of the red lines I listed.

[smjjames]

More like didn't survive contact with reality. Like those irreconcilable red lines mentioned last page, all of that is going to happen in a hard no-deal Brexit regardless.

Read the "obligatory" response to those red lines. Before you get all smug with the reality has a Remain bias slogan, do please recall that from David Cameron to Theresa May, the entire process has been managed by politicians who support Remain, with the former intentionally sabotaging the negotiation process in order to make it seem unappealing prior to the referendum vote. I should very much have preferred to see what could have been achieved 2 years ago had we had a Nigel Farage or Jacob Rees-Mogg in the cabinet, instead of Theresa May or Boris Johnson.

The same red lines would still have come up though regardless of who is managing things. I imagine that the Good Friday Deal is a third rail even to the hardest Leave politicians.

I also remember something like 80% of Scotland voting Remain.

62%

I may have exaggerated it somewhat from my memory of the map of where voted what and most of Scotland voted Remain. I knew it was a significant majority though.

[Loud Whispers]

Not necessarily, I'm strictly talking about the short-to-medium term. You can genuinely believe that in the long term the country can be better off, but to expect that to happen immediately or even in a matter of a few years even seems...naive? Daft? Willingly ignorant of reality? Hence why I'm calling them out on not saying "of course we'll be worse off in the short-term, it's the long term benefits that I believe in". I could respect that stance a lot more, for one.

If worse-off, how much so? If better-off, how much so? Knowing what you consider obvious reality may very well be different to mine, or smjjames', or Greatorder's, or Serrgarr's, it would be daft to to concede that your opponents can predict the future and you cannot. What happens in the short-medium-long term entirely rests upon how the British respond first, and how the British government responds second, and how the world responds third. The economic basis for the leave vote is that we shall pursue opportunities with our historical partners & developing economies with ardent vigour; it is entirely possible this would amount to nothing, or amount to a great bounty. Not being able to say for certain, the rhetoric falls the principle pursuing the opportunity, versus the rhetoric of the principle pursuing stability. There must be some overlap between a willingness to take risks, naiveness and daftness, I'm sure. To put it another way, when Cameron promised me that the UK would be plunged into darkness, I pursued this possibility. I do not think it is likely, but I considered his possibility worth the risk versus the certainty of the UK being quietly dissolved.

So...your stance is that we allow a goods border to be brought back to Northern Ireland? Problem is that this wouldn't get through Parliament and the majority of NI parties oppose it so that's going to stoke some more political trouble.

No, my stance is do nothing to upset the status quo, put the ball in the EU's court. Force the EU to make the decision; do they put a border up between the ROI & NI, or inspect ROI goods arriving to the mainland. If they tried to set a border up between the ROI & NI, the ROI would not let them. If they set up inspections of ROI exports to the continent, it would not cost them much - not even that much more from the cost of setting up custom inspections with the UK. 80% of Irish freight passes from Europe through the UK, so the EU would only be paying to inspect the additional 20% from Ireland. We're about as obligated to pay for the EU's customs checks as Mexico is obligated to pay for the USA's border checks.

The same red lines would still have come up though regardless of who is managing things. I imagine that the Good Friday Deal is a third rail even to the hardest Leave politicians.

The key difference is the negotiations would have been conducted by someone who believed in attaining the objectives of the Leave campaign; not led by someone who believed the objectives needed to be blunted in so far as possible as damage control. Negotiations cannot be successfully conducted if the negotiator is repulsed by what they are supposed to seek.

I may have exaggerated it somewhat from my memory of the map of where voted what and most of Scotland voted Remain. I knew it was a significant majority though.

Indeed

[MorleyDev]

Worse-off in the sense that current businesses that utilise the freedom of movement of goods and services within Britain with the rest of the EU will not be able to do that to the same extent, and therefore experience at best reduced profits whilst they also have to expend the time and money needed to establish the closer connections with other parts of the world and build those connections up to levels even comparable with what they currently have within the EU.

If that's even possible, since a lot of British service businesses enjoy not needing to compete with American businesses as much within the EU, since in the rest of the world America and Britain's service industries fill very similar niches, so are able to take a bigger chunk of the market share there than they would outside the EU.

So it seems to be inherent to the process that those businesses, which then fuel Britain's current economy, will slow down growth and have reduced profits whilst things adjust. And that's not something that can happen quickly, it'll be an inevitably slow and expensive process for those businesses to shift into new markets they may only have as much as a toe in at the moment.

And with Ireland, it's not just about EU mainland goods. It's also about UK -> Ireland and Ireland -> UK goods. What if their goods fall outside of a new regulation we introduce? What if they introduce a new regulation incompatible with one we introduce? How do you handle that?

That needs both sides to agree on the process and limitations before-hand. And then they need to do it without giving an unfair competitive advantage or disadvantage over other EU countries to Ireland, just as the UK needs to somehow do it without letting NI have a competitive advantage or disadvantage over the rest of the UK.

The whole thing is a clusterfuck for a reason.

[Loud Whispers]

Worse-off in the sense that current businesses that utilise the freedom of movement of goods and services within Britain with the rest of the EU will not be able to do that to the same extend, and therefore experience at best reduced profits whilst they also have to expend the time and money needed to establish the closer connections with other parts of the world.

Firms that work exclusively with the EU do not represent the entirety of the British economy, the majority of our trades & services already takes place with the rest of the world with that share increasing & often with countries with whom we shamefully have no trade deals with. Regarding exclusively Europeward businesses, we can make educated guesses but it's difficult to say for certain. It remains to be seen what the EU will decide, or what inconveniences might exist even if the UK remained on the EU's visa exemption list. These are technical details, which I am sure most of our politicians are ignorant about, and are likely to leave to the civil service to concern themselves with. Whatever the case, what disruptions exist and to what scale can be plausibly ascertained, but not conclusively until Brexit has at last actually occurred.

If that`s even possible, since a lot of British service businesses enjoy not needing to compete with American businesses as much within the EU, since in the rest of the world America and Britain`s service industries fill very similar niches, so are able to take a bigger chunk of the market share there than they would outside the EU.

There is always a need to compete, putting up protectionist barriers doesn't remove the need, it just delays the day of reckoning whilst forcing consumers to put up with monopolistic shitehocs like the Royal Mail, who treat their workers like shit and their customers like shit.

So it seems to be inherent to the process that those businesses, and the people they employ (myself included), which then fuel Britain`s current economy, will slow down growth and have reduced profits.

Depending on the extent of the disruption, the dynamism of EU-focused British firms, and the extent to which the UK relies upon them, and lastly the extent to which the EU's growth itself doesn't slow from the Eurozone crisis, Brexit, Trump's procyclical fiscal spending, the Italian-EU budget risks e.t.c.
It would be stunning if the UK buckled under far better conditions than Napoleon Bonaparte's continental blockade.

And with Ireland, it's not just about EU mainland goods. It's also about UK -> Ireland and Ireland -> UK goods. What if their goods fall outside of a new regulation we introduce? What if they introduce a new regulation incompatible with one we introduce? How do you handle that?

We're not going to stop drinking Irish whisky and eating Irish beef, I can't really think of a case where the UK & Ireland's regulatory standards would differ in a manner which would disadvantage the UK. The UK seems to be the nation applying the most deregulationary pressure upon the EU, rather unfortunately I might add.

That needs both sides to agree on the process and limitations before-hand. And then they need to do it without giving an unfair competitive advantage or disadvantage over other EU countries to Ireland, just as the UK needs to somehow do it without letting NI have a competitive advantage or disadvantage over the rest of the UK.

I really don't see how it disadvantages the UK if the ROI is given a privileged position over the 26 other European nations, sounds like a great laff honestly. It is a pity that we don't have a PM willing to pursue this option