The Brexit aftermath thread

[Pann]

OK, well, how about NI?

That's, basically, the crux of it.

What about NI? May's deal at least makes some attempt to deal with problem (by essentially kicking the can down the road) whereas the alternative, softer-Brexit suggestions like remaining in the CU do not solve the border issues.

[Crispin]

Yes. It’s ridiculous, isn’t it.





Hold on a sec, chaps, though. What about:

“Kick them out!”
“Disrupting investment!”
“Behaving like children!”

All of which has been heard in this thread. Which one is it?

I mean, rationally, I can’t believe I’m arguing this position. But there we have it.

I'm not of fan of kicking the UK out; I sincerely hope that they'll revoke A50, for the UK and EU. Behaving like children is correct, it's fun and all with the old style of "debating", but it clearly isn't very productive; I really wouldn't be inclined to have a serious conversation with a member of the opposition, who were screaming 3 hours later while trying to hold a speech. It's disrespectful towards political colleagues and is taking the piss on the population they're supposed to represent, soccer players are expected to behave better than the house of commons.

[LeGin Tufnel]

What about NI? May's deal at least makes some attempt to deal with problem (by essentially kicking the can down the road) whereas the alternative, softer-Brexit suggestions like remaining in the CU do not solve the border issues.

Sorry - double negatives possibly aren't helpful in this thread.

Look, Pann, the general consensus is that remaining in a permanent CU with the EU goes someway to mitigating the need for a hard border between RoI and NI (something that will bring huge misery both to some in NI and possibly some on mainland UK), to the detriment of the UK's ability to negotiate it's own trade deals. No?

If you can explain, succinctly, in one sentence why that isn't the case, please do so.

[Gibblewink]

My guess is that barring a total meltdown in the HoC the EU tactic would be to offer a series of long extensions with ever increasing conditions until the UK either figures out what it wants on its own or refuses the extension resulting in either the Hard option or cancellation of Art 50.

That is assuming the uncertainty of the situation doesn't become so costly that they choose to put a gun to the UK's head and say "Make up your damn minds or you're out". Which would be damaging as hell to the EU's reputation, but still..

[Demolitia]

What about NI? May's deal at least makes some attempt to deal with problem (by essentially kicking the can down the road) whereas the alternative, softer-Brexit suggestions like remaining in the CU do not solve the border issues.

Can't you ferry off the Irish unionists to the Shettland islands so we can unite Ireland and be done with it?

- - - Updated - - -

Que? How does not remaining in a permanent customs union with the EU not solve the border issue?

Basically it abolishes tariffs, but it doesn't remove the need for checks unless you are completely aligned with EU regulations.

[Pann]

What i initially wrote was



Which is still all there is to it.

Matthews Vs UK is an example that EU citizens can't be refused to vote for EU elections.


Not sure what you're getting so upset about tbh.

You also keep complaining about moving goal posts? what? My argument was never who wanted a long extension, but May's inability to realise that EP elections were a requirement for a late June extension. The fact that the UK now has to hold elections to get past May clearly proves that elections are indeed required.


But as I mentioned, I think (hope) this debate is based on a misunderstanding.

It is a completely different and unrelated case.

I am not in the least bit upset. Nor was I the one who needed to resort to insults when having my point challenged.

You have linked an EU document which very clearly states that an extension past 1st July cannot be granted without the UK taking part in the EU elections, this was the UK's initial position. The EU rejected this on the basis that the withdrawal bill might not be ratified before this date and in such a situation it would be impossible to avoid no-deal. Therefore, as reported in the article you linked, the EU stated '“If the UK is still a Member of the EU on 23-26 May 2019 and if it has not ratified the Withdrawal Agreement by 22 May 2019, it must hold the elections to the European Parliament in accordance with Union law. If the United Kingdom fails to live up to this obligation, the withdrawal will take place on 1 June 2019,” the draft said.' which is why May has agreed to make contingency plans to hold the elections. Note this abomination of sham election is at the EU's request not the UK's.

It has nothing to do with anyone not realising that UK had to take part in EP elections and as you can see from this article written before May's first letter (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47568283) May makes it clear that a long extension would require hold EP elections.

The elections are required if the WA has not been ratified by 22nd May, if it has been ratified then the elections are not required. This is a relatively simple thing to understand.

[LeGin Tufnel]

Basically it abolishes tariffs, but it doesn't remove the need for checks unless you are completely aligned with EU regulations.

/sigh

Ok... and regulations go hand in hand with membership of the single market?

Fuck's sake. I'll get my hat.

Y'know. I'm not entirely thick, but this is beyond me. It should never have been put to a vote.

Now there's an admission you won't find often in this thread.

Off to watch Our Planet... cheery, cheery.

[Pann]

Sorry - double negatives possibly aren't helpful in this thread.

Look, Pann, the general consensus is that remaining in a permanent CU with the EU goes someway to mitigating the need for a hard border between RoI and NI (something that will bring huge misery both to some in NI and possibly some on mainland UK), to the detriment of the UK's ability to negotiate it's own trade deals. No?

If you can explain, succinctly, in one sentence why that isn't the case, please do so.

It might be the general consensus but it is incorrect and also extremely worrying that after everything that has happened in the last three years MPs do not realise this.

Turkey is in a CU with the EU and this is the Turkish border



as you can see it is far from friction less.

[ranzino]

Commons gave way to ask for "end of june" extension. but EU will offer more time, says Tusk.
EU27 leaders will discuss the real date tomorrow.

[Crispin]

It is a completely different and unrelated case.

I am not in the least bit upset. Nor was I the one who needed to resort to insults when having my point challenged.

You have linked an EU document which very clearly states that an extension past 1st July cannot be granted without the UK taking part in the EU elections, this was the UK's initial position. The EU rejected this on the basis that the withdrawal bill might not be ratified before this date and in such a situation it would be impossible to avoid no-deal. Therefore, as reported in the article you linked, the EU stated '“If the UK is still a Member of the EU on 23-26 May 2019 and if it has not ratified the Withdrawal Agreement by 22 May 2019, it must hold the elections to the European Parliament in accordance with Union law. If the United Kingdom fails to live up to this obligation, the withdrawal will take place on 1 June 2019,” the draft said.' which is why May has agreed to make contingency plans to hold the elections. Note this abomination of sham election is at the EU's request not the UK's.

It has nothing to do with anyone not realising that UK had to take part in EP elections and as you can see from this article written before May's first letter (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47568283) May makes it clear that a long extension would require hold EP elections.

The elections are required if the WA has not been ratified by 22nd May, if it has been ratified then the elections are not required. This is a relatively simple thing to understand.

I'm pretty sure we're misunderstanding eachother at some point, because I agree with what you're writing.

To avoid this election being an absolute joke, May ought to seek a long extension, as in 1+ year. Having the election with a plan to leave by´end of June, will by all means make the election in the UK an absolute joke (more than usual if what you implied earlier about the UK not caring to much about them being true).


The fact that May only recently came to the conclusion that the election is required, only after being told by the EU, is what surprises me; this should have been obvious when she first mentioned the 30th june extension.

As seen in her letter here, there's no mention of holding the EP election when she asks for the 30th of June extension the first time

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-until-30-june

[LeGin Tufnel]

It might be the general consensus but it is incorrect and also extremely worrying that after everything that has happened in the last three years MPs do not realise this.

Yes! But, in fairness to the poor buggers, it was the public who was asked to vote on this initially.

[Demolitia]

It might be the general consensus but it is incorrect and also extremely worrying that after everything that has happened in the last three years MPs do not realise this.

Turkey is in a CU with the EU and this is the Turkish border



as you can see it is far from friction less.

Same with Switzerland. They are part of Shenghen, and we trust them alot more than Turkey but there is still the occasional customs officer looking at you suspiciously.

[Crispin]

Yes! But, in fairness to the poor buggers, it was the public who was asked to vote on this initially.

Reminds me of this short bit of Brexit 3

[Kronik85]

On the topic of trust; I can't remember where I read it but it was said that the EU trust May to stand by her word but they are extremely worried that someone like Johnson or Raab would replace her and they would tear up everything she had agreed.

Hey, if you need someone to stick to that one course of action they decided on, no matter how little sense it might make anymore, May is your woman/android/robot/human simulacra thing.

[Pann]

I'm pretty sure we're misunderstanding eachother at some point, because I agree with what you're writing.

To avoid this election being an absolute joke, May ought to seek a long extension, as in 1+ year. Having the election with a plan to leave by´end of June, will by all means make the election in the UK an absolute joke (more than usual if what you implied earlier about the UK not caring to much about them being true).


The fact that May only recently came to the conclusion that the election is required, only after being told by the EU, is what surprises me; this should have been obvious when she first mentioned the 30th june extension.

May doesn't want a long extension as the longer the extension, the lower the chance of MPs backing the WA is.

She did not come to the conclusion that elections were required, her acknowledgement that they may be required is at the EU's insistence. She has always know that the UK could not legally remain in the EU after 1st June without holding EP elections and by not partaking in the elections it would provide a deadline that MPs could do nothing to change which she would then use to force the WA through Parliament.

[Kronik85]

Basically it abolishes tariffs, but it doesn't remove the need for checks unless you are completely aligned with EU regulations.

But we are (at least currently) completely aligned with EU regulation so it would remove the need for a border, at least in the short term. I'd say it's safe to say we will maintain this and there would be language expressing this desire in the PD but hell, it's Brexit and we haven't even got that far yet.

[Pann]

Yes! But, in fairness to the poor buggers, it was the public who was asked to vote on this initially.

And just think, some of them reckon that the solution to this mess caused by allowing the public to vote on an extremely complex subject is to let us loose at the polls again!

[Fenzha]

The longer this goes on the more i think that taking the no deal hit and recovering would be less damaging than this incompetence in the long run...

[Demolitia]

Yes! But, in fairness to the poor buggers, it was the public who was asked to vote on this initially.

In fairness to them, the poor buggers expressed their discontent with Brussels because they were given the opportunity, but most of the blame could have been directed to Westminster.
What could have been a wake up call for the UK government and kick in the butt to address serious domestic issues turned into a shitshow that is affecting us all, and blocking the political agenda of the 28 when there are clearly more important things to deal with.

- - - Updated - - -

The longer this goes on the more i think that taking the no deal hit and recovering would be less damaging than this incompetence in the long run...

For the UK maybe. I don't see why businesses and people in the EU should suffer for sheer british political madness.

[LeGin Tufnel]

And just think, some of them reckon that the solution to this mess caused by allowing the public to vote on an extremely complex subject is to let us loose at the polls again!

So, your solution is?

!!!! Happy sarcastic exclamation marks!!!!