Brexit Deal

[MarkMas]

The way I see (from what we know) is that the Brexit deal is as close to staying in the EU as possible under the heading of "We're leaving".

The current 'leave' proposal is absurd. It does take a very special kind of negotiation to take us from 'Being a member of the EU with some influence and the option to unilaterally leave.' to 'Being a member of the EU with no influence or rights and no option to unilaterally leave.' And to propose that as a 'good deal'.

 

[MarkMas]

BREXIT SOLVED:

What 'might' fix things (for a while) would be for the Conservatives to quickly elect an extreme Brexiteer as PM, who could then credibly say to both the EU and the British people, "We ask the EU to agree (by December 31) to postponing our exit for a further two years while we sort things out, and if we don't get that we will just leave with no general deal but the best tactical arrangements that we can cobble together between 1 January and 29 March". Such a postponement would give time (following this past period of brinkmanship and silliness), for negotiations, preparations, referendums, elections, etc. Alternatively, if we got a three-month 'hard-Brexit' window, that would at least let people know where they stand. Anything else is, variously, 'betrayal', 'chaos', 'vassalage' or 'fudge'. But it could only be done by a 'hard-Brexit headbanger' because otherwise the EU wouldn't believe it, and just over half the UK population would howl 'betrayal'.

 

[MarkMas]

A handy cut-out-and-keep summary, for when you are told the EU is unelected.

Nobody is suggesting that the EU MEPs are un-elected. What people complain about when they talk of 'democratic deficit' is that:
(a) MEP candidates tend inevitably to be pro-further European integration
(b) MEP candidates are little known and represent huge constituencies
(c) MEPs have very little power over the bureaucracy, the executive and the treaties(they have voted twice to stop going to Strasbourg every month, but have been ignored)
(d) the Executive is made up of part-time national heads of government, so they rely on bureaucrats
(e) the senior posts are given to people based on bureaucratic scheming or on nationalist turn-taking

Also, by the way, UK Department Civil Service Heads are not appointed by the Government, they are appointed by a selection panel (supervised by the fiercely-independent Civil Service Commission) that makes a recommendation to the Minister; if this recommendation is rejected (which is rare) a new selection panel is convened.

 

[whereskeith]

I’m enjoying this thread, good respectful discussion.
The people of politics “never waste a good crisis “ as we have seen many times before.
I find it hilarious and ironic that the thorn in the side of EU federal state progression which then voted to leave will be fully stuck in the project without any influence... The EU has played it’s hand extremely well compared to us.

 

[TridentTested]

Nobody is suggesting that the EU MEPs are un-elected. What people complain about when they talk of 'democratic deficit' is that:

I never claimed people are saying MEPs are unelected but you do constantly hear moaning about "unelected bureaucrats". The structure is not perfect but certainly no worse than unelected Nick Timothy making up the UK's policy.

All your detailed points are good. It is a tragedy that the European Parliament and our MEPs are not covered more in the UK; this undoubtedly contributed to the Leave vote. Chicken or egg, I don't know which came first: the UK media doesn't cover it because it thinks the public aren't interested, or the public don't know about it because the UK media doesn't cover it. This is not the case in other countries; I know Ireland and France well and both take their participation in the EP seriously.

 

[Lozzer]

As a mere taxpayer (you know that "temporary" measure) of this country (quite a wedge at that) , the eec was never about laws or suchlike, it was about trade, the EU has morphed into something far more sinister, leave with no deal and rebuild. Its all turned into a bit of a pantomime, you can't run a country on consumerism and debt if there's no manufacturing to pay for it. Same way you can't run a country playing with numbers on the indexes, show me the money? The city boys may aswell just back horses....

 

[MarkMas]

..... I know Ireland and France well and both take their participation in the EP seriously.

Yes, that's very true. Soon after the referendum an Italian friend said, "Well, I'm not surprised; the UK was never really in the EU in the first place." Partly it feels like a 'failure to communicate' (and yes, I'm un-ironically quoting from Cool Hand Luke here) but also the UK has a bit of an 'exceptionalism' thing going on (rightly or wrongly, as an island nation and a former world power, that causes the UK to be a bit standoffish.

 

[TridentTested]

the eec was never about laws or suchlike, it was about trade,

The first line of The Treaty of Rome, 25th March 1957.



https://ec.europa.eu/romania/sites/romania/files/tratatul_de_la_roma.pdf

 

[Lozzer]

Hi

The first line of The Treaty of Rome, 25th March 1957.

View attachment 52622

https://ec.europa.eu/romania/sites/romania/files/tratatul_de_la_roma.pdf

His Majesty the King of Belgians? Say no more...

 

[MarkMas]

....the eec was never about laws or suchlike, it was about trade, the EU has morphed into something far more sinister, ....

That's very true, I have had a lot of Brexit discussions with people where the issue of disagreement is not Leave or Remain, but whether the EU is a trade and standards-setting agency, a bit like a cross between the BSI and the Milk Marketing Board, or it is an imperial project that aims to relentlessly turn Europe into a single State. For many people, that is the question that determined their vote.

Also, I am talking to more and more people who voted Remain, but who would now vote Leave, given another chance, because they have now begun to see the EU for what it really is.

 

[Phil H]

The first line of The Treaty of Rome, 25th March 1957.

View attachment 52622

https://ec.europa.eu/romania/sites/romania/files/tratatul_de_la_roma.pdf

That's fine, except for the fact that the UK was not a signatory to the ToR.

As I understand it (happy to be corrected if I'm wrong), the UK was a founding member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) and with the backing of the electorate subsequently left that to join the European Economic Community (EEC), both of those organisations being about trade, not political union. It may be that UK politicians of the day gave a nod and a wink to unspoken intent of political union, but iirc the argument for EEC membership was put to the electorate purely on economic grounds.

PH

 

[rivarama]

Ok... just as I am bored with brexit, I am now also bored with this thread

getting too technical for me... that’s why the decision to leave/remain should have never been left to the commoner - his/her attention span, and aptitude to stay focused on things so serious and complex to even begin to understand what’s what, make him/her the absolute worst people to decide the fate of this nation for generations to come.

 

[lifes2short]

getting too technical for me... that’s why the decision to leave/remain should have never been left to the commoner

 

[TridentTested]

That's fine, except for the fact that the UK was not a signatory to the ToR.

Correct, the UK was not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome; which is all the more reason it is wrong for some people to deploy "we were cheated, we only wanted to join a business club" arguments. It was there in black and white on the first line of the thing.

 

[TimR]

....the decision to leave/remain should have never been left to the commoner.

I have not heard an argument from a leaver yet ( this thread excepted) that wasnt based on phallacy, prejudice or ignorance.
We have , IMO, all been sold a puppy ! It wasnt big or clever. It was bald faced BS for my money.
Tha doesnt mean there arent arguments for leaving the EU. Over-reaching governance may be one of them. It is out weighed by the advantages though somehow. We are headlong into a situation whereby we have fewer choices & less freedom. We will be turning our backs on any hope of influencing our European neighbours and yet electing to live under their shadow !
As an Arboriculturalist ( trees for you leavers !! JOKE) I can tell you that the conservation, habitat and wildlife regs we deploy here ; even the treework standards. All would be in the dark ages today, and our landscape a very different place without the adoption of the european directives... What gets me is that these are things most normal people can surely see are desirable..clean rivers, beaches ? Food safety standards and hygiene..? No we dont have to throw out the baby with the bathwater- but as this was presented as the "over reaching" politics of a superstate, I find I have no reason to object except on an idealogical level...

Someone needs to sell me the positives- because I cant see any.
I always knew we wouldnt get a second bite at this particular apple. We have "Broke-it"...just dont expect me to buy into the narrative of why we did it. And that means I have to summon my best tolerance, or switch off from the debate too...
Its like God- I dont ! Move along please, nothing to see here....

 

[TridentTested]

To close the border now would be an inconvenience, and might raise temperatures a little, but it is not the big deal that the EU (and the Republic) finds it convenient to claim that it is.

I think the nature of the border needs to be understood first.

Most borders follow natural boundaries: Mont Blanc easily defines the France/Italy border, the whole of the Pyrenees makes a logical line between France and Spain. The Northern Irish border is an old county line which was pressed into being an international border in 1922.

It is not a natural border. It not only passes through villages and farms but in many cases it actually passes through people's homes. It has 208 recognised crossing points. The EU's eastern border only has 137 crossing points on its 6000 km entirety from the Arctic to the Black Sea.

If both countries have different customs arrangements the only possible way to deal with cross border traffic would be to return to the way it was during the Troubles: ie dig up most of the roads, decree they are 'unapproved' and reduce the crossings to a few dozen 'approved'. If that happened to your home would you take it lying down? I think temperatures might indeed be raised. My neighbourhood is already up in arms because we are going to have a few road closures during the HS2 works. If we were told these closures would be permanent there would be rioting.

Boris Johnson made a comment about it being no more of an issue than the border between the borough of Camden and the borough of Westminster. He has made many fatuous comments in his time but there is a grain of truth to this observation. At the moment the border between the six counties and the twenty-six counties is no more of a problem than the one between Camden and Westminster. But imagine the complexity if Camden (where I live) left the United Kingdom, and its customs sphere? Would my child still be able to go to school in Westminster? If I buy a TV from John Lewis on Oxford Street, would I have to queue up and pay customs at Euston Road?

The inconvenience is unimaginable.

 

[Phil H]

"It was there in black and white on the first line of the thing" to which we were not party!

UK discussions reported to the public during the 1960's/70's centred on trade arrangements and associations not political ones, so the business arguments are perfectly valid are they not?

PH

 

[lifes2short]

not sure what the weather is like elsewhere, but it's wonderful here, fresh and sunny, so all take a chill pill and go for a blast in your motors

 

[MarkMas]

I think the nature of the border needs to be understood first. .......The inconvenience is unimaginable.

It is undoubtedly a complex border with many crossings; take this very silly bit of Co. Monaghan here:



But there was a moderately effective controlled border during the 'troubles', which was vigorously enforced mainly to combat terrorism, and partly to combat smuggling due to very different tariffs and regulations between the UK and Ireland in the 1970s. So it is not just imaginable but possible. And if after Brexit the EU and the UK have a sensible trade agreement and fairly common standards there should not be many things that are worth smuggling in small quantities across the border and it should be possible to monitor large commercially-valuable quantities, even with a complex border. And who cares if motorists cross the border freely to buy cheaper petrol or a packet of ciggies? And people crossing between the UK and the EU could be effectively monitored at the sea barrier between NI and the rest of the UK, leaving NI a bit vulnerable to illegal immigrants, but only from people who have already somehow got themselves to Ireland. Yes, it is tricky, but entirely possible, if there is some willingness on all sides to make it work. If the choices are (a) stay in the EU, (b) give up NI to the EU, or (c) manage the border, then I know which I pick.

 

[philw696]

For me who only has the benefit of a Secondary Modern education gaming a few CSE and one O level grade D so not having had a University education I just wish that the Clever people on both sides had told the Truth rather than play the games they did.
I'm now back in Europe and want to stay here for the rest of my days working, living a Peaceful life.
To be honest I'm scared of the future with the way these politicians are behaving.
Just my thoughts.