The Brexit aftermath thread

[Acidbaron]

[Corbyn] says the changes to the political declaration must include:
A “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union”, including a say in future trade deals.
Close alignment with the single market, underpinned by “shared institutions”.
“Dynamic alignment on rights and protections”, so that UK standards do not fall behind those of the EU.
Clear commitments on future UK participation in EU agencies and funding programmes.
Unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements, such as use of the European arrest warrant.

“Close alignment with the single market, underpinned by ‘shared’ institutions”? WTF does that mean? Doesn’t mean anything. He has no intention of doing anything other than end freedom of movement.

With respect to the CU, he’s asking the impossible because he knows that May won’t agree to it. Membership of a CU would be unacceptable to the DUP and the ERG. He’s taunting her to split her own party, which of course she won’t.

Corbyn is killing off the prospect of a second referendum. He doesn’t want it. He wants to leave the EU. He would be perfectly content with a hard Brexit. Tusk’s ‘special place in hell’ comment was as much directed at him as it was the Brexiteers in the Tories.

C’mon commie burner, where are you. I feel an infraction coming on.

That's why the EU doesn't want to renegotiate they all keep using vague terms. Talks would be possible if there was a actual realstic wish list in place. There isn't.

[Huehuecoyotl]

[Corbyn] says the changes to the political declaration must include:
A “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union”, including a say in future trade deals.
Close alignment with the single market, underpinned by “shared institutions”.
“Dynamic alignment on rights and protections”, so that UK standards do not fall behind those of the EU.
Clear commitments on future UK participation in EU agencies and funding programmes.
Unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements, such as use of the European arrest warrant.

“Close alignment with the single market, underpinned by ‘shared’ institutions”? WTF does that mean? Doesn’t mean anything. He has no intention of doing anything other than end freedom of movement.

With respect to the CU, he’s asking the impossible because he knows that May won’t agree to it. Membership of a CU would be unacceptable to the DUP and the ERG. He’s taunting her to split her own party, which of course she won’t.

Corbyn is killing off the prospect of a second referendum. He doesn’t want it. He wants to leave the EU. He would be perfectly content with a hard Brexit. Tusk’s ‘special place in hell’ comment was as much directed at him as it was the Brexiteers in the Tories.

C’mon commie burner, where are you. I feel an infraction coming on.

Why is that killing off the chance of a second referendum? Corbyn has already made it clear he is against no-deal, and has asked May repeatedly to rule it out. If she declines his offer, then at that stage Corbyn can say "well, we tried our best, we have to support a second referendum now because there isn't enough support for any deal". All the opposition parties fall in behind Labour, and as long as enough Tories realise it's that or no-deal, it passes Parliament.

It's still all political posturing, with both parties trying to do what's best for their parties instead of the country, but if it ends up with a second referendum, that's fine with me.

[Slant]

It's still all political posturing, with both parties trying to do what's best for their parties instead of the country, but if it ends up with a second referendum, that's fine with me.

I think we're past the point where a second referendum would even be possible, aren't we? This is all pointless.

Edit: In totally super exciting news, surprising exactly zero people outside of Britain:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/07/u...Most+Recent%29

The EU rejects renegotiations. What the hell? Didn't they hear the pundits and second-rate politicians from the House of Commons claiming they would renegotiate? Someone from Westminster didn't send the memo to Brussels to cave, did they? What an oversight, the world is shocked as the unreality unfolds... what are we coming to? The Empire is ignored! This is unpossible!

Words cannot justify the contempt British politicians deserve. Tusk was too moderate in his statement, really.

[kaid]

[Corbyn] says the changes to the political declaration must include:
A “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union”, including a say in future trade deals.
Close alignment with the single market, underpinned by “shared institutions”.
“Dynamic alignment on rights and protections”, so that UK standards do not fall behind those of the EU.
Clear commitments on future UK participation in EU agencies and funding programmes.
Unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements, such as use of the European arrest warrant.

“Close alignment with the single market, underpinned by ‘shared’ institutions”? WTF does that mean? Doesn’t mean anything. He has no intention of doing anything other than end freedom of movement.

With respect to the CU, he’s asking the impossible because he knows that May won’t agree to it. Membership of a CU would be unacceptable to the DUP and the ERG. He’s taunting her to split her own party, which of course she won’t.

Corbyn is killing off the prospect of a second referendum. He doesn’t want it. He wants to leave the EU. He would be perfectly content with a hard Brexit. Tusk’s ‘special place in hell’ comment was as much directed at him as it was the Brexiteers in the Tories.

C’mon commie burner, where are you. I feel an infraction coming on.

I am pretty sure Corbyn's list boils down to I would like unicorns and maybe a few pixies and a faerie or two and if I can't get them well then we shall just have to hard brexit.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we're past the point where a second referendum would even be possible, aren't we? This is all pointless.

Edit: In totally super exciting news, surprising exactly zero people outside of Britain:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/07/u...Most+Recent%29

The EU rejects renegotiations. What the hell? Didn't they hear the pundits and second-rate politicians from the House of Commons claiming they would renegotiate? Someone from Westminster didn't send the memo to Brussels to cave, did they? What an oversight, the world is shocked as the unreality unfolds... what are we coming to? The Empire is ignored! This is unpossible!

Words cannot justify the contempt British politicians deserve. Tusk was too moderate in his statement, really.

Unfortunately this appears to be the case. It is going to be a hard no deal brexit because to do anything else would require some coherent action and none of the parties are interested in such.

[Huehuecoyotl]

I think we're past the point where a second referendum would even be possible, aren't we? This is all pointless.

Edit: In totally super exciting news, surprising exactly zero people outside of Britain:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/07/u...Most+Recent%29

The EU rejects renegotiations. What the hell? Didn't they hear the pundits and second-rate politicians from the House of Commons claiming they would renegotiate? Someone from Westminster didn't send the memo to Brussels to cave, did they? What an oversight, the world is shocked as the unreality unfolds... what are we coming to? The Empire is ignored! This is unpossible!

Words cannot justify the contempt British politicians deserve. Tusk was too moderate in his statement, really.

Any vote for a second referendum would have to go hand in hand with either a) a vote to extend Article 50 (assuming the EU agree) or b) a vote to cancel Article 50 (if the EU don't). Because without either of those, voting for a referendum would be pointless. So I'm assuming that the MPs would be intelligent enough to realise that, which given what we've seen recently is in no way certain.

[Demolitia]

Any vote for a second referendum would have to go hand in hand with either a) a vote to extend Article 50 (assuming the EU agree) or b) a vote to cancel Article 50 (if the EU don't). Because without either of those, voting for a referendum would be pointless. So I'm assuming that the MPs would be intelligent enough to realise that, which given what we've seen recently is in no way certain.

Extending article 50 isn't up to the UK so that's a bit pointless. The EU said they would agree to an extension up to July if there was a referendum or GE but that's it.
The EU can't repel article 50.
You can have a referendum to repel article 50. you can have one to see if Theresa's deal has support from the general public. You can have one to see if no deal has support. I can see 2 working as options for a referendum but not all 3.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Why is that killing off the chance of a second referendum? Corbyn has already made it clear he is against no-deal, and has asked May repeatedly to rule it out. If she declines his offer, then at that stage Corbyn can say "well, we tried our best, we have to support a second referendum now because there isn't enough support for any deal". All the opposition parties fall in behind Labour, and as long as enough Tories realise it's that or no-deal, it passes Parliament.

It's still all political posturing, with both parties trying to do what's best for their parties instead of the country, but if it ends up with a second referendum, that's fine with me.

It's lip service. He couldn't care less about Europe. All he's concerned about is gaining power.

A “permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union”, including a say in future trade deals.

Won’t happen. a) EU won’t agree to it. Commission conducts negotiations. UK will be outside and unable to influence. b) Unacceptable to Brexiteers. Trade deals would only apply to EU. E.g., country A signs agreement with EU, enjoys access to UK. No automatic reciprocal rights. c) By remaining in a customs union state aid rules are unavoidable. He’s not being serious. It’s a ploy to make life harder for May.

Close alignment with the single market, underpinned by “shared institutions”.

This literally means nothing. Manifesto says Labour will end freedom of movement. It’s literally a meaningless statement.

“Dynamic alignment on rights and protections”, so that UK standards do not fall behind those of the EU.

While outside of the jurisdiction of the ECJ? Again, means absolutely nothing.

Clear commitments on future UK participation in EU agencies and funding programmes.
Unambiguous agreements on future security arrangements, such as use of the European arrest warrant.

Blah, blah, blah.

It’s all utter drivel.

So - what’s the end game?

He’s offered Labour’s support to May in full knowledge that she can never agree to it. He doesn’t want a second referendum. He wants to see the Tories crash and burn (who can blame him) while at the same time relishing the prospect of no deal.

Special place in hell.

[Pann]

So - what’s the end game?

You know what the end game is - he wants to get into power but he has spent so long sitting on the fence that, if the polling data is be believed, voters have gotten fed up with him so now his only chance is to hope that the Tories fuck it all up.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Extending article 50 isn't up to the UK so that's a bit pointless. The EU said they would agree to an extension up to July if there was a referendum or GE but that's it.
The EU can't repel article 50.
You can have a referendum to repel article 50. you can have one to see if Theresa's deal has support from the general public. You can have one to see if no deal has support. I can see 2 working as options for a referendum but not all 3.

Cancelling Article 50 is nothing to do with the EU. The UK can do it unilaterally. Which they would only have to do as a fallback, if the EU didn't give them time to organise a second referendum. But the chances are strong that the EU would agree to extend anyway, since they don't want a no-deal any more than we do.

As for the second referendum, you could have it on May's deal. "Do you want to accept May's deal?". If no wins, Brexit gets cancelled and we carry on with our lives. It effectively becomes a choice between two well defined options, which is what the original referendum should have been if Cameron hadn't been such a moron.

[ranzino]

T.May is in Dublin tomorrow and Leo Varadkar will have to talk with her.... poor lad

The Brexit negotiations are being pushed to the brink by Theresa May and the EU, with any last-minute offer by Brussels on the Irish backstop expected to be put to MPs just days before the UK is due to leave.

yay, Commons will like that ... "take it or leave it" in perfection.

[Demolitia]

Cancelling Article 50 is nothing to do with the EU. The UK can do it unilaterally. Which they would only have to do as a fallback, if the EU didn't give them time to organise a second referendum. But the chances are strong that the EU would agree to extend anyway, since they don't want a no-deal any more than we do.

As for the second referendum, you could have it on May's deal. "Do you want to accept May's deal?". If no wins, Brexit gets cancelled and we carry on with our lives. It effectively becomes a choice between two well defined options, which is what the original referendum should have been if Cameron hadn't been such a moron.

That's what I was saying. But your original post said a new referendum should offer a) extend A50, b) repel A50. that doesn't make sense. Again what I said, as a reply to your post is that:
a) yes, but the EU won't agree to an extension unless they believe it will lead to something constructive (like the Uk having a GE or referendum on the original result), and
b)yes we agree,that it has to be a simple question. But people saying we don't agree to May's deal doesn't mean they want to stay in the EU. I think the government has to start looking at the remain side, and find a compromise between them and the leave voters that voted this way but did so because they were unhappy with things not really EU related.

[Slant]

T.May is in Dublin tomorrow and Leo Varadkar will have to talk with her.... poor lad

The Brexit negotiations are being pushed to the brink by Theresa May and the EU, with any last-minute offer by Brussels on the Irish backstop expected to be put to MPs just days before the UK is due to leave.

yay, Commons will like that ... "take it or leave it" in perfection.

Not sure what it is that stops British press from understanding the words of non-British people. There won't be a last-minute offer. This is it. Wtf are they smoking? Do they even have just one semi-intelligent person in their offices? What would the "last-minute" offer be? Cancel GFA? If people had an alternative to the backstop, they would have brought it up... as if the EU is sitting on the magic solution only to present it days before the crashout... why would they do that? What's the point?

God, this utter lack of common sense is so aggravating at times.

[Demolitia]

Not sure what it is that stops British press from understanding the words of non-British people. There won't be a last-minute offer. This is it. Wtf are they smoking? Do they even have just one semi-intelligent person in their offices? What would the "last-minute" offer be? Cancel GFA? If people had an alternative to the backstop, they would have brought it up... as if the EU is sitting on the magic solution only to present it days before the crashout... why would they do that? What's the point?

God, this utter lack of common sense is so aggravating at times.

I was reading an opinion piece today, can't remember if it was on the guardian or somewhere else. Basically the writer's point was that there wouldn't be major disruption short term. The EU will accommodate short term arrangements to keep things running, but on the long run (10-15 years), the EU will make sure that regulatory changes and uncertainty around the UK's position are such that slowly but surely most important manufacture and banking services would move to the EU.
There won't be major disruptions at first, but the EU can put a deadline in 2025 allowing airbus to move its plants to the EU, ESMA can sign a deal with the UK central bank to allow equivalence for the time being (and it is doing just that) but stir such regulatory changes in the coming years that banks will slowly move assets towards the EU.
The UK might get fucked in ways it never even imagined, not immediately, but slowly. Under the circumstances I can very well see other member states to be into the long game.
edit: bi by bit, Eu member states will chip off UK financial, traditional services, and what's left of its industry.

[Slant]

Seems clear that May had nothing new to propose beyond a demand that the UK can unilaterally leave the backstop AND that there is a time limit in the backstop.

I say give it to them. With clear wording that the moment they leave the backstop, all OTHER terms of the withdrawal agreement are immediately null and void.

They would simply never dare to go forward with it while still being able to say they can.

I'm not sure why they won't just give her the limit... "Once a solution is found that doesn't violate the GFA, the UK can unilaterally leave the backstop".

I mean, it'll still be forever, because they're in a paradox, but I'm fairly certain they won't notice, given the attention span these political hamsters demonstrate on a daily basis.

[Huehuecoyotl]

That's what I was saying. But your original post said a new referendum should offer a) extend A50, b) repel A50. that doesn't make sense. Again what I said, as a reply to your post is that:
a) yes, but the EU won't agree to an extension unless they believe it will lead to something constructive (like the Uk having a GE or referendum on the original result), and
b)yes we agree,that it has to be a simple question. But people saying we don't agree to May's deal doesn't mean they want to stay in the EU. I think the government has to start looking at the remain side, and find a compromise between them and the leave voters that voted this way but did so because they were unhappy with things not really EU related.

Read my post again. I didn't say anything about the referendum being about Article 50; I said that in order to be able to do the referendum, you would have to either cancel or extend Article 50. Otherwise there simply isn't time left to do it.

[Mayhem]

Eh, who judges if a solution does not violate the GFA? By your statement, the UK can unilaterally decide that no deal does not violate the GFA if they don't enforce their own borders and leave the backstop. Dribbles style.

That's not a solution, now is it?

[Twdft]

Harriet Jones would have sorted this mess out two years ago.

I read a bit of youtube comments (which I normally ignore because life is too short for so much negativity) and holy shit a lot of people sounding like Dribbles on steroids. They can't be all trolls, maybe our friend Dribbles isn't either. Makes me a little sad.

[Slant]

Eh, who judges if a solution does not violate the GFA? By your statement, the UK can unilaterally decide that no deal does not violate the GFA if they don't enforce their own borders and leave the backstop. Dribbles style.

It wasn't a serious idea, the backstop is kinda working like that already. The key point I was making is to rephrase it and throw in a few meaningless vagueisms to dupe the limited intelligence of the common British MP.

- - - Updated - - -

Read my post again. I didn't say anything about the referendum being about Article 50; I said that in order to be able to do the referendum, you would have to either cancel or extend Article 50. Otherwise there simply isn't time left to do it.

The EU has repeatedly stated they would extend the period to allow for another referendum. Is anyone listening to what Brussels is actually saying before making statements about what Brussels will or will not do or thinks?

[Huehuecoyotl]

The EU has repeatedly stated they would extend the period to allow for another referendum. Is anyone listening to what Brussels is actually saying before making statements about what Brussels will or will not do or thinks?

I am well aware of that. I'm also well aware of how certain posters in this thread work. I was trying to make it clear that there was a path to having a second referendum regardless of what the EU do. We aren't reliant on them. I think you know the people I'm talking about.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I am well aware of that. I'm also well aware of how certain posters in this thread work. I was trying to make it clear that there was a path to having a second referendum regardless of what the EU do. We aren't reliant on them. I think you know the people I'm talking about.

Is that directed at me, lol?

Huehue, you are ever the optimist.

I want a second referendum. I agree that a second referendum is still theoretically possible. I think the chances of there being a second referendum are receding. One of the reasons being that Labour's leadership is fundamentally opposed to it. I am angry about this.

Here is the state of play:



May will delay the second meaningful vote until the end of February. Playing down the clock, as has always been the case. Either we a) crash out (most likely according to author), b) revisit Cooper/Boles and delay (which also depends on the EU agreeing and France has already indicated no delay which exceeds EP election date - therefore, second ref an impossibility) or c) rescind (zero chance of happening).

This is a shambolic farce.

----

Separately.

@ Leavers

Here's What US Lobbyists Want Donald Trump To Get From A Post-Brexit Trade Deal

1) Scrap the safety-first approach to food quality and standards
2) Weaken data protection for consumers
3) Allow the sale of hormone-riddled beef
4) Slash British cattle farming subsidies
5) Allow new genetically-modified foods to be sold with minimal regulation
6) Stop people knowing what they’re eating is genetically-modified food
7) Get rid of Britain’s safety-first approach to chemicals
8) Bin protections for traditional British products
9) Change how the NHS buys drugs
10) Ignore the presence hormones and pus in dairy products
11) Ensure Brits’ data can be transferred to foreign countries ...
12) Allow politicians, not courts, to handle legal disputes
13) Allow foreign businesses to sue the British state
14) Stop Britain holding big social media companies to account
15) End rules that let British shoppers know what colourings are in their food
16) Lift the UK ban on a growth hormone in pork
17) More antibiotics in livestock
18) Eliminate UK testing for a parasitic worm in pork
19) Dump law against chlorine-bleached chicken
20) Legalise dangerous pesticides
21) Let fruit and veg be sold with pesticide residue on
22) Allow more carcinogens in pistachios
23) Loosen regulation on direct selling
24) A big shift on the definition of standards
25) Scrap the ‘Amazon Tax’
26) More toxic substances in glass that will be near food
27) Allow untested medical devices into the UK
28) Change how the NHS prices US drugs
29) Make the NHS pay as much as possible for new equipment
30) Bin rules to stop electrical waste ending up in landfill

Free trade! Yay!

Outside of the EU the UK will be weak and we will be screwed.