The Brexit aftermath thread

[Kronik85]

I want David Davis and his ilk out of politics, I want the Conservatives to collapse, implode and never see office again. Kalis won't ever vote for Labour because in the 1970's his bins weren't collected, well this debacle tops that.

I'm not sure whether that means I need a No Deal or a shit deal to leave them with no cover. With No Deal and a loss of Passport's for The City the economy collapses but they get to blame the EU, whereas a shit deal like is on the table softens the economic blow and makes the whole affair pointless. I'm not sure how the public will see that situation tbh but I feel it could be spun in such a way that we blame the EU rather than hanging BoJo and the rest from the nearest lamp post.

[Rockyreg]

Yes, either EEA or CETA. Why would you ask if Canada got the same style conditions that Norway had if you didn't want to make the implication that those were similar? They're not. Not even remotely similar.

I was being facetious, of course I know the difference between the two models. I was responding to somebody that said 'As soon as you don't have free movement of people a manned fence is needed'

Vetos aren't going to be a thing of the past very soon. The core principles and fundamental rules of the EU can still be vetoed.

Vetos have been diluted a lot and I see this continuing.

[Crispin]

If we're going with 'shoulds', the referendum never should have happened. Cameron took a stupid gamble to try and discredit the crazies in his camp and ended up shooting himself and the country in the foot.

Cameron himself have always used an aggressive rhetoric in regards to the EU, he always painted the picture as "them vs us", and whenever he spoke about negotiations with the EU, it was always in that tone, he surely have convinced alot of brits himself, that the EU was a monster, he'll go down in history as one of the worst PM's in the UK imho.

[Rockyreg]

Actually the way you put it completely accurate - that IS how it is, those things go hand in hand.

And I agree 100%, which is why in the first place I was querying the compatibility of a CETA type deal (which Barnier has said is one of the the two options available to the UK) with the fact there is to be no border in Ireland.

[Deleted]

The entire situation has been a complete mess. It's a real shame - since both sides have valid concerns and the focus really should have revolved around compromising and discussing the problems that exist. The European Union has been changing over time and it was originally painted as being solely related to mutually beneficial trade based arrangements. The tipping point for a lot of people losing faith in the EU has been the somewhat overbearing and biased political stances pushed on other countries. The refugee crisis certainly did not help either.

No, categorically no.
From the treaty of Rome:
“Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"

No matter how it turns out it's going to leave a lot of people with a sour taste in their mouths. Sadly it's obvious from some of the replies within this very thread that some people really only care about seeing one side fall even though both bring valid concerns to the table. It's a little more baffling given that some of the posters involved aren't even intimately familiar with either European or British politics but it is what it is I suppose.

I dispute that - The UK does not bring 'reasonable' concerns - They bring imaginary concerns.

[Rockyreg]

No, categorically no.
From the treaty of Rome:
“Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe"

To be fair back then it was not like everybody had access to the internet to read what the Treaty of Rome actually was, the papers and the Politicians were basically useless in conveying this to the people and actively conspired to hide this from them.

[Slant]

To be fair back then it was not like everybody had access to the internet to read what the Treaty of Rome actually was, the papers and the Politicians were basically useless in conveying this to the people and actively conspired to hide this from them.

To be fair, the EU used to be quite shite at PR. This has changed in the last decade, but I remember people not having the faintest idea how the EU works or how deep they are into our lives. If nothing else, Brexit forced the papers to print explanations after explanations. I'd say the average European citizen is much, much better informed about the EU now than he was just 10 years ago.

So... thanks Cameron? I guess?

[caervek]

If we're going with 'shoulds', the referendum never should have happened. Cameron took a stupid gamble to try and discredit the crazies in his camp and ended up shooting himself and the country in the foot.

The referendum was a good idea as it had been wanted by the public for decades.

The mistake was putting so little effort into it that the Leave campaign were able to fluke a win by lying to increase their votes while at the same time the Remain campaign achieved nothing apart from convincing millions of voters that it was such a sure thing there was no need to even bother voting.

[Noradin]

Wouldn't a Norway model mean compromising heavily on the sovereignty argument (since access to the single market requires adopting all its rules), and the cost argument (since Norway pays almost as much as the UK does to the EU) so you get almost all the "down sides" of being in the EU but you have no say on EU laws?

Surely that wouldn't satisfy anyone.

Of course it would, but lets be real: The only thing the UK can afford to give up is sovereignty (to the EU, China would be another matter), because that won't cause people to starve due to the way the EU is set up.
Anything else will first cause huge problems for the population and then result in loss of sovereignty anyway.

In the end they cannot seem to decide what they want and all things they came up with so far are mutually exclusive in the real world.

[caervek]

The European Union has been changing over time and it was originally painted as being solely related to mutually beneficial trade based arrangements. The tipping point for a lot of people losing faith in the EU has been the somewhat overbearing and biased political stances pushed on other countries. The refugee crisis certainly did not help either.

This is a big issue too, if the EU was still the trading union that the UK signed up for and then voted to remain a part of in 1975 then there wouldn't have been a 2016 referendum and there would be no brexit. By forcing through greater and greater political union the EU sort of shot itself in the foot really as many were opposed to that and many who weren't were annoyed about being forced/tricked into it.

[Noradin]

I was being facetious, of course I know the difference between the two models. I was responding to somebody that said 'As soon as you don't have free movement of people a manned fence is needed'

You disagree with this part?
Then why didn't you say so?

How do you propose they ensure no border crossings when there is no fence?
This is a highly populated area (compared to say the US border to Canada), and the population on both is inclined to violate the border out of principle (there was a civil war around it not too far back that only ended when the guarantee of no border was made).
How do you propose thy enforce "no free movement of people" without a manned fence? With a manned wall? A trench?

[Deleted]

To be fair back then it was not like everybody had access to the internet to read what the Treaty of Rome actually was, the papers and the Politicians were basically useless in conveying this to the people and actively conspired to hide this from them.

Did they have newspapers?

In 1972 the then Prime Minster Edward Heath said:

“The community which we are joining is far more than a common market. It is a community in the true sense of that term. It is concerned not only with the establishment of free trade, economic and monetary union and other major economic issues, important though these are — but also as the Paris Summit Meeting has demonstrated, with social issues which affect us all — environmental questions, working conditions in industry, consumer protection, aid to development areas and vocational training.” Source: Illustrated London News. Prime Minister Edward Heath, December 1972

- - - Updated - - -

This is a big issue too, if the EU was still the trading union.

Just no.

that the UK signed up for and then voted to remain a part of in 1975 then there wouldn't have been a 2016 referendum and there would be no brexit. By forcing through greater and greater political union the EU sort of shot itself in the foot really as many were opposed to that and many who weren't were annoyed about being forced/tricked into it

You are right, we shouldn't have listened to the UK who desperately wanted to invite the ex-soviet bloc -

[caervek]

Did they have newspapers?

In 1972 the then Prime Minster Edward Heath said:

“The community which we are joining is far more than a common market. It is a community in the true sense of that term. It is concerned not only with the establishment of free trade, economic and monetary union and other major economic issues, important though these are — but also as the Paris Summit Meeting has demonstrated, with social issues which affect us all — environmental questions, working conditions in industry, consumer protection, aid to development areas and vocational training.” Source: Illustrated London News. Prime Minister Edward Heath, December 1972

It's quite a shame that things started out with such promise, the ideals of the ECC were great and I would totally support something like that today, sadly they had to try and convert it into a political union /sigh.

[Noradin]

And I agree 100%, which is why in the first place I was querying the compatibility of a CETA type deal (which Barnier has said is one of the the two options available to the UK) with the fact there is to be no border in Ireland.

Ah ok, well the answer is: They call it a CETA type deal, but it will require additional terms that de facto turn it into an EEA type of deal just with less influence. (Must include free movement of people, and some allowances for cross-border businesses (farms for example) to move services and goods unimpeded (those can be declared afterwards, like taxes, but since it is international there must be some form of oversight authority (= basically the ECJ or a clone of it).
Setting up all these redundant institutions just to accommodate the image British politicians get to project to their electorate will, of course, have to be paid for. By the UK that is.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair back then it was not like everybody had access to the internet to read what the Treaty of Rome actually was, the papers and the Politicians were basically useless in conveying this to the people and actively conspired to hide this from them.

They were bestowed these powers and the authority to do so by their electorate.

[telygroar]

im waiting for meme brexit battle.

[Slant]

This is a big issue too, if the EU was still the trading union that the UK signed up for and then voted to remain a part of in 1975 then there wouldn't have been a 2016 referendum and there would be no brexit. By forcing through greater and greater political union the EU sort of shot itself in the foot really as many were opposed to that and many who weren't were annoyed about being forced/tricked into it.

Nobody was actually tricked into it. That's part of the myth that is sold to people. That national Governments are equally shite at explaining what they're doing in Brussels or (which is equally responsible) that viewers tend to doze off whenever "Brussels" is mentioned on the telly, isn't exactly forcing anyone into anything. You don't get to blame the EU for you being bored by the topic until you realise they have actually done a lot. And a lot more than you thought.

[Rockyreg]

You disagree with this part?
Then why didn't you say so?

How do you propose they ensure no border crossings when there is no fence?
This is a highly populated area (compared to say the US border to Canada), and the population on both is inclined to violate the border out of principle (there was a civil war around it not too far back that only ended when the guarantee of no border was made).
How do you propose thy enforce "no free movement of people" without a manned fence? With a manned wall? A trench?

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree. What I'm saying is the contradiction in the EU saying that the UK can either have an EEA or CETA type agreement when this would violate the GFA agreement by requiring a border.

So its not a matter of how I propose they enforce 'no free movement of people', what matters is how when the joint agreement becomes a legal document that meets the requirements that there will be no border in Ireland when the UK and Northern Ireland leaves both the single market and customs union.

Other than that who is even attempting to enforce 'no free movement of people' on the Island of Ireland? As far as I'm aware the CTA will still exist after the UK leaves.

[Slant]

It's quite a shame that things started out with such promise, the ideals of the ECC were great and I would totally support something like that today, sadly they had to try and convert it into a political union /sigh.

It's a natural development. A sole economic union reaches its limits really, really quickly after the first few things are decided. At some poing you start thinking "Wouldn't we save money on everyone doing the same safety checks if we all just agreed to do the same safety check? Then Italians could rely on something from the Netherlands complying with their standards, because they are the same..."

And from there, it's really just consequential to include other aspects and somehow you've made the switch into a political union out of necessity. And now we're at the point were it's a valid discussion if it's not just easier to go the full way and be done with what seems to be a good idea to begin with. Except to nationalists, of course.

[Deleted]

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree. What I'm saying is the contradiction in the EU saying that the UK can either have an EEA or CETA type agreement when this would violate the GFA agreement by requiring a border.

No, it's not a contradiction - its the EU telling the UK that they have to choose, either honor the GFA or brexit (or create an internal NI-UK border).
Of course accepting that some things are mutually incompatible is hard for brexiteers.

[caervek]

Nobody was actually tricked into it. That's part of the myth that is sold to people.

Nonsense the EU (or ECC as it originally was) was formed as a cultural/trade union, that's what it was when it was planned, that's what it was when it was formed, that's what it was when the UK joined, that's what it was when the UK voted to remain in it, and it was great for years. Then in the early nineties it was replaced by the EU, a new political union nobody wanted.

The shame of it all is that if countries/citizens had been given a vote in the early nineties maybe the people of Europe could have voted down the idea and saved the ECC/EU. And if not at least if the people of the UK had been given a vote on joining the EU we could have shot it down there and then and saved a great deal of trouble for both sides >.>