[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Elegiac]

Honestly, three years ago I reacted with horror at Brexit (and this was before Trump was elected). I wasn't surprised, given how then PM David Cameron was capable of little more than stunning ineptitude, and the British people dived head first into "pulling back" bullshit since the Iraq War and Financial Crisis.

But at this point, I'm in pure cynicism mode. There is no "win condition" here for anybody. I want to see them out of the EU, which is more important to the future of the US than they and their delusions of grandeur about "Global Britain" are by far.

I don't think it would be fair to blame you, me, or anyone for feeling as such. There's a lot of sunk cost fallacy colouring our views on the situation and our previously expressed desire for the UK to remain in the EU at any cost, simply because of the positive relations the UK has enjoyed with the rest of the Western world until relatively recently as well as aforementioned prestige from the weight of empire and all that jazz.

But.

We are now reaching a point where there is eminent need analyse the fundamental nature of the United Kingdom as an entity. There were reasons why many saw the breakup of the greater British Empire as a good thing both politically and economically in the long term since it ended what was an inherently exploitative relationship and allowed for the development of a somewhat more equitable world order as engendered under American prospects.

The same might be said if Brexit precipitates a second and ultimately final round of breakup in what amounts to an English colonial empire, finally humbled after more than a millennium by the weight of its own anachronistic political system, and then rejoined to the EU as a mid-sized peripheral entity (assuming the EU even exists at that point).

That doesn't, however, absolve the need to be mindful of all the hardship and suffering caused in the meantime, especially given that it was the ultimately needless consequence of the actions of selfish and wicked men and women.

[Slant]

Ah, there is the call for a constitution that I've waited for. Now we're talking.

[Elegiac]

Ah, there is the call for a constitution that I've waited for. Now we're talking.

Wake me up when there's any serious questioning of retaining the monarchy past Elizabeth.

[Slant]

Wake me up when there's any serious questioning of retaining the monarchy past Elizabeth.

The monarchy has nothing to do with this topic at all. What we're witnessing here is the executive about to disable the legislative body in a time when it should be at the most busiest. I'm sure it's not too long before I'm being shat on by the usual suspects for commentary on British matters, but I am shocked that a western democracy can be disabled like that.

[Elegiac]

The monarchy has nothing to do with this topic at all. What we're witnessing here is the executive about to disable the legislative body in a time when it should be at the most busiest. I'm sure it's not too long before I'm being shat on by the usual suspects for commentary on British matters, but I am shocked that a western democracy can be disabled like that.

It has plenty to do with this topic.

BoJo isn't actually the person proroguing parliament.

[Deja Thoris]

Honestly, three years ago I reacted with horror at Brexit (and this was before Trump was elected). I wasn't surprised, given how then PM David Cameron was capable of little more than stunning ineptitude, and the British people dived head first into "pulling back" bullshit since the Iraq War and Financial Crisis.

But at this point, I'm in pure cynicism mode. There is no "win condition" here for anybody. I want to see them out of the EU, which is more important to the future of the US than they and their delusions of grandeur about "Global Britain" are by far.

Don't judge us by the "slightly more than half" of the people that voted to leave please.

[Slant]

It has plenty to do with this topic.

BoJo isn't actually the person proroguing parliament.

From how I understand it, in all practicality of the matter, the Queen has little choice. So questioning the monarchy is really just sidetracking and avoiding the real discussion that the UK is probably about to have sooner or later.

[Skroe]

I don't think it would be fair to blame you, me, or anyone for feeling as such. There's a lot of sunk cost fallacy colouring our views on the situation and our previously expressed desire for the UK to remain in the EU at any cost, simply because of the positive relations the UK has enjoyed with the rest of the Western world until relatively recently as well as aforementioned prestige from the weight of empire and all that jazz.

But.

We are now reaching a point where there is eminent need analyse the fundamental nature of the United Kingdom as an entity. There were reasons why many saw the breakup of the greater British Empire as a good thing both politically and economically in the long term since it ended what was an inherently exploitative relationship and allowed for the development of a somewhat more equitable world order as engendered under American prospects.

The same might be said if Brexit precipitates a second and ultimately final round of breakup in what amounts to an English colonial empire, finally humbled after more than a millennium by the weight of its own anachronistic political system, and then rejoined to the EU as a mid-sized peripheral entity (assuming the EU even exists at that point).

That doesn't, however, absolve the need to be mindful of all the hardship and suffering caused in the meantime, especially given that it was the ultimately needless consequence of the actions of selfish and wicked men and women.

I largely agree (I was going to say as much but I cut the second bit of my post to get food, which is why it was uncharacteristically short lol).

The thing is though, as I've written before, Brexit is the latest of a series of questionable behaviors by the UK that go back to the early 2000s. It arguably may not even be the most damaging in the long term.

That would be austerity. Recall the environment Austerity arose in. Financial crisis hits. A massive Keynesian response is called for. The US under Bush in late 2008 does the $800 billion TARP. In Early 2009, under Obama it does the $900 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Over the next few years, it engages in 3 rounds of quantitative easing. The result? The longest stretch of economic growth in US history and largely a completely recovery from the financial crisis. Unemployment gets slashed from about 9% to 3.5%. But Europe creates its own myth... one that conservative parties in Europe adopt and the Republican Party tried to adopt (this is where my personal fissure with the Republican Party began in 2008, when they voted against TARP). The Mythic defies logic and reason, and the response has no fundamental basis in economics. That it was government spending and public sector profligacy in general that brought about the financial crisis (or at least, contributed to it in some great way), and the way out of the financial crisis is to cut public sector spending and "starve the beast".

In other words an anti-Keynesian response. Despite something like 70 years of study and active applications of Keynesian economics having a manifestly positive effect to mitigate recessions and downturns in general.

Nobody bought into the myth of austerity longer and more severely than the UK. Not even the Germans who exported Austerity to Southern Europe. And the results speak for themselves: the UK is an economic hot mess. Austerity didn't even accomplish its task. US Sovereign debt in 2007 was a healthy 41.7% of GDP. In 2018 it was 86.8% of GDP. Austerity..... more than doubled the debt? How does that even work? The US's for its part grew from 82% to 106% of GDP in that time, with austerity and epic borrowing.

The attachment to austerity until last weektells you everything you need to know about where British political culture is.

[Slant]

The trick to austerity is to know when to employ it and when to stop it.

[Kallisto]

It has plenty to do with this topic.

BoJo isn't actually the person proroguing parliament.

He actually is technically. While he has to ask the queen the Queen in reality has absolutely no power to say no. Monarch basically is a slave to the government.

[Skroe]

From how I understand it, in all practicality of the matter, the Queen has little choice. So questioning the monarchy is really just sidetracking and avoiding the real discussion that the UK is probably about to have sooner or later.

She could in theory refuse to give Royal assent. It hasn't happened since 1707 or 1708, but it's still theoretically possible.

But just to reiterate what I wrote earlier today, this entire orderal has demolished any kind of romanticism about the British Monarchy. It isn't Queen Elizabeth's fault of course. It's a system that has a head of state who in theory has moderating power, but in practice cannot not use that power by convention (and use of that power is considered unthinkable). So it's not a power at all in effect, and the Queen is not a true head of state or moderating force. And of course, neither should an unelected monarch even have a functional government role to begin with, where she to be able to actually exercise that power. The only reason Queen Elizabeth could get away with it - maybe - would be due to her extraordinary life and moral authority, and the gravity of the situation. But could we imagine "King Charles" doing the same one day?

Brexit's done wonders to expose the UK's deep rot, and the necessity in which the long delayed formal constitutional writing needs to happen. And from my perspective, illustrates the need to transition to a full republican form of government with an actual elected Head of State who has moderating powers in practice.

The word bandied about a lot the last while has been "convention". There are all these powers and practices by convention. We've seen in the US how an extraordinary set of circumstances (Hurricane Trump) can demolish convention and threaten democracy. Fortunately the US has far more rules and structures in place that don't operate by convention than the UK. But on both sides of the Atlantic, there is a true lesson here in how convention falls far short in times of certain crises and malicious action, and must be replaced with formal structures in the future.

So bring on the British Republic.

- - - Updated - - -

The trick to austerity is to know when to employ it and when to stop it.

Of course. Austerity is a thing. But 2007/2008/2009 where simply the complete wrong time to employ it.

Austerity would make sense to do in a time of economic plenty and growth... not only to cool the economy from overheating but to rebuild the toolkit that countries can use in the next downturn. One of the problems the US has now is that despite its solid and consistent economic growth since 2009, it has interest rates that are far, far too low, taxes far too low, and public sector spending that is far, far too high. Which means the next down turn will see government with little room to cut taxes, little room to grow expenditures, and little room to cut interest rates.

[zealo]

Wake me up when there's any serious questioning of retaining the monarchy past Elizabeth.

Whether the UK has a monarchy or not is entirely secondary to whether the system can be reformed sufficiently after this.

You don't need to remove the monarchy outright so much as formally strip her of even theoretical powers so the executive can't use it to send the legislative on a break like this.

[Acidbaron]

The trick to austerity is to know when to employ it and when to stop it.

Portugal dus better when it went in against the EU wishes of austerity and how much I understand as a conservative the need to use it. I do believe our friends on the left calling for more investments is the way forward and also the way to combat political extremism often born from discontent due to poor future prospects.

[Slant]

Portugal dus better when it went in against the EU wishes of austerity and how much I understand as a conservative the need to use it. I do believe our friends on the left calling for more investments is the way forward and also the way to combat political extremism often born from discontent due to poor future prospects.

I'm not against spending per se. But I am against actionism. The left often treats spending as the be all end all solution to anything. It often isn't. Raiding the coffers in a spending spree is decidedly not the answer for poor performance in the polls. And the left in Europe has been notoriously bad at spending, not just in Germany, where I can report it first hand. I believe the same is true in other countries as well.

If the left wants to push its agenda, it will have to make a better case than "Oh, just throw money at it!"

[Skroe]

Don't judge us by the "slightly more than half" of the people that voted to leave please.

It goes back far more than that.

It's somewhat an act of historic irony that as Brexit approaches what seems to be some sort of climax, that Hong Kong is roiling. The road to Brexit and what it represents, I believe, began on July 1st 1997, the day the United Kingdom ended its rule over Hong Kong, a moment seen by historians as the emphatic end of the Empire. To put it plainly, the UK never recovered.

For nearly 350 years the UK was a world power (in whatever sense the "world" was defined as in those points of time, which changed over the course of it). And then it wasn't. It was a country in Europe. Within 50 years the UK transitioned from the world's de facto third superpower - something the American elite referred to quite simply as "the Empire", without a adjective in front of it, to it's pre-17th century role as a kind of backwater in Europe that existed out of step with the continental consensus as a whole.

Those of us who were a bit older in the early 2000s and paid attention to foreign politics recall the British obsession with the "Special Relationship". Got that was weird. The UK political establishment used to obsess over it. Being the US's wing man was the psychological soft landing from the End of Empire. Indeed, if the UK could no longer be an empire itself, why not be the consigliere of the leader of the greatest de facto empire the world's ever seen - the American led international order since World War II. After all, they thought, the British played a key role in building all of it. It was maintaining the special relationship that chiefly motivated the UK to get involved in the Iraq War. Blair was concerned that if the UK sided with the French and Germans, it would alienate the US from Europe entirely.

But Americans are not romantic. Underneath our flowery words hides an extremely transactional culture. And the fact is, post-Imperial Britain had little to offer the US, especially as the ongoing German unification process in the 1990s gave way to the German behemoth under Merkel that was ascendant as the center of power in Europe. Thatcher's 1980s suspicions were largely correct. No one lost more when it came to German unification than the United Kingdom. Because she understood what Americans would see in Germany - a people in many ways more like them than the British, when it came to economics, industry, technology, business, policy making and finance, and a country that would act as a more effective crossroads of business from Eurasia as a whole than the UK could ever hope to be.

And then the financial crisis hit. And the first contact point was Merkel and Germany, who mustered the whole of the European response. The British played a major role, but the EU the largest in conjunction with the US. And that cemented it: the US had a new special relation: with Germany. And it superseded the romantic one that had little practical foundation out of the Resolute desk in the oval office, and mutual adoration of Winston Churchill. The dollars and cents and Euros of the US-German partnership was simply greater.

So for the UK, so much for their soft landing. So now does the UK role in the world hinge upon Atlanticizing or Anglicizing the EU? Does it attempt to wrest primacy in the EU from Germany by creating an alternative diumverate with France? Does the UK just seek an alternative suitor - maybe China or Russia? There were many alternatives. But the UK chose to follow up their imperial decline with a kind of national decline as well. Because they brought about austerity, which savaged once world leading British institutions, not in the least of which was the organs of British foreign and economic policy, which were at one time among the world's leaders. They cut them to the bone, then kept cutting. And when called upon to try and assume and reinvigorate it's role as America's man in Europe during the Syrian chemical weapons crisis of 2013, they botched it and single handedly broke NATO unanimity. If you wanted to see the formal end of the special relationship it was that day. The US knew it couldn't count on the UK anymore.

And then they followed it up with the narrowly averted Scottish Independence referendum (which never should have been allowed) and the disastrous Brexit referendum (which never should have happened).

Oh yeah and Austerity keeps going and going, and turns the UK into a shell of its former self. As I said, I've been going to the UK for years. And you know what I notice now that I didn't even a few years ago? The trash piling up and the poverty. It's everywhere.

Brexit is symptomatic of a larger national crisis of the future of the British state and the role of its constitutient people in the world. Post-Imperial Britain is definitionally a Great Power, but it seems that there isn't even a consensus that maintaining that status is worthwhile to the world or to British interests in it, and that becoming another Ireland or Netherlands is all well enough an ambition. The irony is though that both Ireland and the Netherlands recognized they needed the EU.

The world is not prepared for this century. The past 20 years have done less to prepare us than the first 20 years of the 20th century did people living then. America and China are circling around each other and positionins are hardening. Right now, both allow countries to engage with both. But the time is coming - and quickly - in which division is declared and allegiance is demanded by one party or another. From other angles, the global geopolitical situation is looking a lot like the lead up to World War I and the end of the first wave of globalization (1870 to 1914). The UK, with its navel gazing, harebrained schemes for relevance and obsolete world view is less prepared than any of the other Great Powers by far.

The thing is, this shouldn't have been hard. This is entirely built upon bad choices. The most logical UK is one that is part of a EU triumvirate with Germany and France, and plays the two off each other to advance its own national interests. It is one that never engaged in austerity, and acts as a gateway for US interests on certain specialized matters, to Europe. The UK was ideally positioned, and it declared "to hell with it".

In short, who voted for Brexit on referendum day is entirely besides the point. Even having that vote is symbolic of a national existential crisis that crossed political divisions and singular events, and stretches back to 20 or more years before the vote for Brexit was held. The Empire died, and the imperial remnant didn't decide what it wanted to be. And unfortunately for it, the world is not sitting around and allowing it to wait.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not against spending per se. But I am against actionism. The left often treats spending as the be all end all solution to anything. It often isn't. Raiding the coffers in a spending spree is decidedly not the answer for poor performance in the polls. And the left in Europe has been notoriously bad at spending, not just in Germany, where I can report it first hand. I believe the same is true in other countries as well.

If the left wants to push its agenda, it will have to make a better case than "Oh, just throw money at it!"

This is basically my position. If you want to see an example of how throwing money at things fails, look at education in America. Combined Federal-State-Local we spend a combined $1.1 trillion on Education.

[Xarkan]

You people make me sick. Trillions were handed over to the banks for failure and you want to pinch pennies when it comes to subsistence benefits the working poor need to survive.

If the banks had not had bail outs the main victims would not have been the banks (well some might have gone bankrupt) or the stockholders

The main/real victims would have been average people who lost everything due to inept or corrupt banks

Granted there was an alternative but a bit (or quite a bit) more expensive probably, bailing out the customers and letting the banks fail. [i may be left but i would not favor that one]

The EU banks have however been forced to accept certain regulations to make them less likely to fall / need help

[Kallisto]

293 voted for the election. That is 5 less than last time.

46 voted against.

Quite honestly the LD others should have turn around and gone "Yes we might vote for the election, on two conditions. Firstly the prime minister follows the law that was passed in last few days and secondly it is done under a full proportional system in which the will of the people isn't a split vote among the left which allows the Conservatives to get roughly sixty percent of parliament with between thirty to fourty percent of the vote."

Knowing that Boris wouldn't agree but showing it's not running either.

- - - Updated - - -

If the banks had not had bail outs the main victims would not have been the banks (well some might have gone bankrupt) or the stockholders

The main/real victims would have been average people who lost everything due to inept or corrupt banks

Granted there was an alternative but a bit (or quite a bit) more expensive probably, bailing out the customers and letting the banks fail. [i may be left but i would not favor that one]

The EU banks have however been forced to accept certain regulations to make them less likely to fall / need help

Exactly. Not bailing out would have been worse. Though many seem to fall in the whole fallacy of it's bad but can't be worse. Even if they have roof over their head.

[Elegiac]

She could in theory refuse to give Royal assent. It hasn't happened since 1707 or 1708, but it's still theoretically possible.

But just to reiterate what I wrote earlier today, this entire orderal has demolished any kind of romanticism about the British Monarchy. It isn't Queen Elizabeth's fault of course. It's a system that has a head of state who in theory has moderating power, but in practice cannot not use that power by convention (and use of that power is considered unthinkable). So it's not a power at all in effect, and the Queen is not a true head of state or moderating force. And of course, neither should an unelected monarch even have a functional government role to begin with, where she to be able to actually exercise that power. The only reason Queen Elizabeth could get away with it - maybe - would be due to her extraordinary life and moral authority, and the gravity of the situation. But could we imagine "King Charles" doing the same one day?

Brexit's done wonders to expose the UK's deep rot, and the necessity in which the long delayed formal constitutional writing needs to happen. And from my perspective, illustrates the need to transition to a full republican form of government with an actual elected Head of State who has moderating powers in practice.

The word bandied about a lot the last while has been "convention". There are all these powers and practices by convention. We've seen in the US how an extraordinary set of circumstances (Hurricane Trump) can demolish convention and threaten democracy. Fortunately the US has far more rules and structures in place that don't operate by convention than the UK. But on both sides of the Atlantic, there is a true lesson here in how convention falls far short in times of certain crises and malicious action, and must be replaced with formal structures in the future.

So bring on the British Republic.

Very much this.

For all the bitching certain Presidential candidates and their supporters (i.e. folks like me) do about the need for deep structural change, there is nothing about said change that cannot be accomplished within the bounds of the American legal and constitutional structure while leaving it intact in terms of how we understand "the American system". At the end of the day it will remain a constitutional federal republic of pretty similar structure regardless.

The same cannot be said of the United Kingdom. Its structure is fundamentally tied up almost entirely in convention, tradition, and legal precedent; all things which any sufficiently unscrupulous man or woman are more than happy to dispose of in pursuit of their goals and, by the nature of those things, can do so relatively easily and without consequences.

Like, the idea that the executive can unilaterally prorogue a noncompliant legislature. Does anyone honestly think that we would still have a sitting Congress at this point of Trump had such an ability? The potential for abuse is considerable, especially when you take into account the damage done by a succession of British prime ministers who are manifestly incompetent .

So far Britain has been relying on luck to produce leaders that are either benevolent and competent, benevolent and incompetent, or malicious but incompetent. One shudders to think of what will happen in the present system if someone malicious and competent actually manages to attain power.

[Moe Szyslak]

...Exactly. Not bailing out would have been worse. Though many seem to fall in the whole fallacy of it's bad but can't be worse. Even if they have roof over their head.

Not necessarily. Iceland, for example, has done just that and they are doing well with it.
Besides, it would have been enough to tie this money to conditions or shares. So the banks would have had to stand straight for their mistakes.

[Pann]

Macron was pushing for a long extension if he had to agree to one the last time and he was overruled. I for one thing it is genius. The UK can leave at any moment it wants in the next two years if a two year extension is given just by signing the WA. Heck I think they could even declare they no longer wish to negotiate a deal and shorten the extension. But no PM can reasonably hide behind No Deal by default and pretend they are negotiating. They are pulling the rug from under BoJo's feet.

I might be misremembering but didn't the French, once they removed their opposition to an extension, want a one year extension the last time before it was agreed that six months would be offered?

- - - Updated - - -

This wonderful parody piece (at least I hope it's a parody) appeared on the Conservative Home website this morning.

https://www.conservativehome.com/pla...t-a-shame.html

Genius!

... and just when we thought things couldn't get any more farcical Tommy Robinson weighs in on the matter

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a9097256.html


How do we stop this thing? I want to get off!