Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Zanza]

Does anybody expect anything from the Chequers Meeting today? Or just more fudge and kicking the can down the road?

[Tamas]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/06/theresa-may-secures-approval-from-cabinet-to-negotiate-soft-brexit


I am sorry but I am not seeing this soft Brexit there.

She is proposing a "UK-EU free trade area" for manufacturing and agriculture. Which I guess means not for services, which means the EU will say no

BTW why are they trying to keep services out? Is having London as the financial centre of the EU really that bad?

[Zanza]

She is leaving services out so that she can leave free movement of persons out as well. She wants to cherry pick half the single market (goods, capital). The EU will not accept this.

[The Minsky Moment]

We are now more than 2 years since the vote, and this asinine excuse for a Government keeps feebly trying the square the same circle over and over.

There are only two real options here, there have always been two real options.  Either some variant on EEA, or Britain is treated like any other (hopefully friendly) foreign country - i.e hard exit. The EU is not going to allow EEA-level benefits without freedom of movement.  This was made abundantly clear even before the referendum, and certainly many times afterwards.  It is just silly to keep making the same rejected proposal over and over again.

If the government had any sense, they would suck it up and accept freedom of movement as a principle and negotiate the best they can on it. The fact is that the British people did not reject freedom of movement.  That was not a question presented by the referendum.  It could have been, but wasn't, so Parliament is free to do whatever it wants without being subject to the accusation of ignoring the vote. It's likely true that a majority of Leave voters opposed freedom of movement, but Leave only got 53%, even a very substantial majority of 53% is still less than half.

The alternative is hard Brexit, business losses, and an unsolvable problem on the Irish border. That is an option, though a suboptimal one.  But what isn't an option is pretending the hard exit result can be avoided while adopting a negotiating stance and red lines that ensures that it will happen.

[crazy canuck]

If the government had any sense, they would suck it up and accept freedom of movement as a principle and negotiate the best they can on it. The fact is that the British people did not reject freedom of movement.  That was not a question presented by the referendum.  It could have been, but wasn't, so Parliament is free to do whatever it wants without being subject to the accusation of ignoring the vote. It's likely true that a majority of Leave voters opposed freedom of movement, but Leave only got 53%, even a very substantial majority of 53% is still less than half.

Point of clarification.  Parliament is free to do whatever it wants in any event.  It's just that the Labour and Conservative parties like to act as if they were bound by the vote because it allows them to pander to their various leave constituencies while reducing their culpability for the inevitable disaster.

[Richard Hakluyt]

She is leaving services out so that she can leave free movement of persons out as well. She wants to cherry pick half the single market (goods, capital). The EU will not accept this.

I think that what she really wants is to remain y'know 

This business will go to extra time and penalties; I'm still more than hopeful that the end result will be acceptable.

[garbon]

I'm still more than hopeful that the end result will be acceptable.

Little as of late suggests there's much hope in reason prevailing.

Of course, I'm now pro-Scottish independence for my own personal gain.

[Zanza]

The main details of the "Chequers statement" are as follows:

- The UK would accept continuing "harmonisation" with EU rules on the trade in goods, covering only those necessary to ensure frictionless trade

- Parliament would have the final say over how these rules are incorporated into UK law, retaining the right to refuse to do so

- There will be different arrangements for trade in services, including financial products, with greater "regulatory flexibility" and "strong reciprocal arrangements"

- Freedom of movement as it stands will come to an end but a "mobility framework" will ensure UK and EU citizens can continue to travel to each other's territories and apply for study and work

- A new customs arrangement will be phased in, with the goal of "a combined customs territory"

- The UK will be able to control its own tariffs and develop an independent trade policy

- The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will end but the UK will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force.

This is still mostly "cake and eat it" as it is EEA and CU membership in all but name, built on trust, not on hard legal obligations.

If the EU would trust the UK, this might even be feasible, as it is similar to the Swiss deal. But the Brexiteers have already stated that they want to diverge further in the future once the UK is out of the legal system of the EU, there is no way to ensure continued application of these rules.

The red line of the EU will be governance and jurisdiction and because it is a very law-bound institution it can't really accept a construct like this that is built on mutual trust.

[Richard Hakluyt]

@ Zanza -

The brexiteers are about a quarter of the UK parliament.

[mongers]

I've not seen or heard the news today, so did anyone flounce out or did they bottle it?

[Richard Hakluyt]

I've not seen or heard the news today, so did anyone flounce out or did they bottle it?

May has moved towards a significantly softer Brexit stance and the brexiteers have not resigned.

[Tamas]

The main details of the "Chequers statement" are as follows:

- The UK would accept continuing "harmonisation" with EU rules on the trade in goods, covering only those necessary to ensure frictionless trade

- Parliament would have the final say over how these rules are incorporated into UK law, retaining the right to refuse to do so

- There will be different arrangements for trade in services, including financial products, with greater "regulatory flexibility" and "strong reciprocal arrangements"

- Freedom of movement as it stands will come to an end but a "mobility framework" will ensure UK and EU citizens can continue to travel to each other's territories and apply for study and work

- A new customs arrangement will be phased in, with the goal of "a combined customs territory"

- The UK will be able to control its own tariffs and develop an independent trade policy

- The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will end but the UK will pay regard to its decisions in areas where common rules were in force.

This is still mostly "cake and eat it" as it is EEA and CU membership in all but name, built on trust, not on hard legal obligations.

If the EU would trust the UK, this might even be feasible, as it is similar to the Swiss deal. But the Brexiteers have already stated that they want to diverge further in the future once the UK is out of the legal system of the EU, there is no way to ensure continued application of these rules.

The red line of the EU will be governance and jurisdiction and because it is a very law-bound institution it can't really accept a construct like this that is built on mutual trust.

Wow.

- There will be rule harmonisation
- Except when the UK doesn't want it
-Services will be rearranged to make it better for the UK
-There won't be freedom of movement but there will be, under UK rulings
-There will be a customs union
-But still the UK will be able to make new third party trade deals in whichever ways
-ECJ jurisdiction will end, but don't worry, they'll still listen to them, honest


in what fucking way is this any different from the cake and eat it bullshit May and her government have been parroting since she took power? This is fucking mental.

[Tamas]

I've not seen or heard the news today, so did anyone flounce out or did they bottle it?

May has moved towards a significantly softer Brexit stance

I can't see that.

[Zanza]

@ Zanza -

The brexiteers are about a quarter of the UK parliament.

So? They are obviously powerful enough to get majorities in parliament for the referendum and Brexit bill. Why would that change in the future?

[Josquius]

I was expecting a big announcement yesterday

@ Zanza -

The brexiteers are about a quarter of the UK parliament.

So? They are obviously powerful enough to get majorities in parliament for the referendum and Brexit bill. Why would that change in the future?

Not at all.
Just remember, quarter of the parliament=half of the Tories.
The entire reason we have this brexit nonsense is that UKIP was rising in power and Cameron, a centre-right Tory, was scared of the hard right of the Tories going over to UKIP.
It's all due to internal Tory party politics, nothing democratic at all.

Alas post-referendum both sides of the house have started putting their jobs before the wellbeing of the country and are latching onto the will of the people nonsense.