Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Sheilbh]

I find the SNP's posture as more caring and inclusive than the English political parties as completely risible, quite a con on Scotland's poor they have going there.

Same - and a con on English lefties - I've yet to see an SNP policy which actually helps the poor as opposed to just being a bung for the middle class.

"OMG teh poor might move in and my 300% gain in property value might be reduced to 280%!"

This is so fucking disgusting.

NIMBYs

It's probably the easiest way to win votes, especially at local elections. Probably because of that everyone is guilty - in my experience with local elections the Lib Dems are particularly egregious. But it's absolutely infuriating.

We're just so anti-building-anything. It's like expanding the rail networks - I swear to God we're the only country where the Green Party opposes investment in public transport because it will require building.

[Duque de Bragança]

NIMBYs

We're just so anti-building-anything. It's like expanding the rail networks - I swear to God we're the only country where the Green Party opposes investment in public transport because it will require building.

NIMBYsm and nutty Greens are not a British privilege, sorry.

[Sheilbh]

Weirdly a fan of the new Brexit lorry park (won't be finished in time due to flooding):


V modern England

[Zanza]

The reason it's not finished in time is of course not flooding, but them starting too late. The flooding is just gaslighting to hide incompetence. That new border infrastructure is needed was clear at least since the Lancaster House Speech in January 2017. The British government neglected to prepare for its policy choices.

[Sheilbh]

I disagree on the importance of that speech. She was a Prime Minister who lost a majority who failed to pass any of her deals or advance her policy agenda. The second the 2017 election results started rolling in, Theresa May stopped being a sort of active figure politically. The key date was the 2019 election.

But you're right in my opinion we should have started preparing for the absolute worst case scenario the day after the referendum and not triggered article 50 until that was in place. Even if the UK government went in with goals of EEA and full alignment there was no guarantee over what could happen and it seems reckless to start a process if you're not at least able to be prepared.

[Zanza]

The relevant decision was leaving the Single Market. That was communicated by the UK PM in January 2017. By the time of the 2019 general election that decision had long been made. Both Tories and Labour campaigned on leaving the Single Market in that election. 

[Sheilbh]

The relevant decision was leaving the Single Market. That was communicated by the UK PM in January 2017. By the time of the 2019 general election that decision had long been made. Both Tories and Labour campaigned on leaving the Single Market in that election.

Agreed. But she basically lost an election 4 months later and there was a hung parliament after which I think we effectively stopped having a executive in the traditional sense. It was always an issue with the negotiations under May that treaties and agreements like the WA are negotiated by executives, but I don't think it was clear (especially to the EU negotiators) until the first meaningful vote the extent to which May's executive could not carry the legislature. In normal Westminster tradition (pre fixed terms act) it's not clear that May's government ever actually had the confidence of the Commons. But it's impossible to negotiate with or through a legislature. I think that between May 2017 and the May 2019 European elections everything is in flux and more or less every possibility could have happened from no deal to revocation. There is a route for all of those options.

For example in the 2017 election Labour were still talking about the single market, the shift on that only really crystallised after the European Parliament elections which also basically brought May down and was accompanied by far stronger support for a second referendum.

I think there's an inevitable logic about hard Brexit/leaving the single market and it's where we would have got to eventually, but it possibly would have happened in slow motion over years.

[Tamas]

Also: you cant publicly prepare for something you claim you will not need because the cucks on the other side of the Channel will just submit.

[Sheilbh]

Also: you cant publicly prepare for something you claim you will not need because the cucks on the other side of the Channel will just submit.

But this goes both ways, right?

The Brexiteer line (which I think is true) was if you're not making credible plans for worst case scenario/no deal then you can't expect the EU to believe you when you say "no deal is better than a bad deal".

[The Minsky Moment]

While true that misses the bigger point that the UK's challenge in negotiating Brexit terms is not convincing the EU of the credibility of its negotiating stance, but the failure to grasp the obvious point that the other EU nations may have objectives and priorities of their own, priorities that may be more important to them then the rewards of reaching accommodation with the UK.

The original sin of the Brexiteers is solipsism. They can't (or didn't want to) imagine themselves in the minds of the other EU nations and leaders except to extent of thinking about what those leaders are thinking about Britain.

[Sheilbh]

While true that misses the bigger point that the UK's challenge in negotiating Brexit terms is not convincing the EU of the credibility of its negotiating stance, but the failure to grasp the obvious point that the other EU nations may have objectives and priorities of their own, priorities that may be more important to them then the rewards of reaching accommodation with the UK.

The original sin of the Brexiteers is solipsism. They can't (or didn't want to) imagine themselves in the minds of the other EU nations and leaders except to extent of thinking about what those leaders are thinking about Britain.

I think the big sin of Brexiteers is not understanding the power dynamics and not really thinking through the consequences of being a smaller, less powerful party in negotiations. And frankly I still don't think they grasp the weakness of Britain - not in a global perspective because the UK is still a big economy with some real deep strengths (the City, culture, professional services, tech, intelligence) - but actually the weakness of the British state. I think we're not a million miles awy from, say, Ukraine but with a strong and vibrant private sector. I think we need less global Britain and more about actually building up Britain to the level of a functioning Western European state.

I think the solipsism goes a bit both ways and is almost more important now than during the negotiations. It's bigger than Brexit. Because I think the day to day interactions between bits of European governments through the EU will have stopped and I just worry we'll stop knowing what each other are thinking or going to do on security issues. French think tanks have apparently noticed that all their British speakers were from either New Labour or the coalition which doesn't give a great insight into what the UK government is thinking. I think there's a need to make almost more effort after Brexit to make sure we know what each other are thinking on security issues especially so there's no surprises. I think the French comments came after the French government/official circles were shocked at the lack of British support in their dispute with Turkey. I think we need a lot more active diplomacy on both sides now.

[Josquius]

Also: you cant publicly prepare for something you claim you will not need because the cucks on the other side of the Channel will just submit.

Yes. There was so much of this from the brexiters. I boasting of how everything would be OK as they had some sly tricks that would let the Uk run rings around Europe.... Completely expecting Europe to just sit there on stagnation and do nothing.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sheilbh: the Franco-British security relationship is distinct from the EU-British relationship, because of the unique status of the 2 nuclear neighbors that still have pretensions to traditional Great Power status with some (but not quite sufficient) resources to back it up.  French national interests in security cooperation with the UK are material, but they are not EU interests - it would be more accurate to say those interests are in tension with EU interests, or at least the goal of some in the union to for a more integrated security policy.

I would not be surprised if Commission grandees and EU country chancelleries are not au courant as to the precise thinking of the current Tory government (it's not clear such knowledge is deeply held among all even inside that government) but  as you point out the crude reality is that they don't need to be.  A UK outside the EU is important - because of proximity and the role of London, it is more important than say Canada or Australia - but not THAT much more important.  It is less important than the US or China, perhaps in certain senses of less weight than Russia.  Policy towards the UK matters, but probably less than internal headaches like Poland or Hungary.

The same is not true of the UK which cannot ignore a great economic superpower on its doorstep.  It is a sign of the times that the Tory party, once a bastion of foreign policy realism, has fallen into the hands of people seemingly unable (or unwilling) to grasp the clear disparities in power.

[The Brain]

"I am become Canada, not very important to neighbors."

[garbon]

"I am become Canada, not very important to neighbors."