Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Genie said:

It seems like the fruits of all the discussions were to leave 31/01 but actually follow all of the rules we were whilst were in until the end of 2020 by which point we'll have a FTA in place, or no-deal? I know its not that simple, but I'm wondering what was so difficult as nothing about the long term of the country or its relationship with the EU has actually been agreed yet.

It was a very important stage, despite nothing being visibly different yet.

Firstly, for those who didn't want to leave at all, the previous stage was their final chance to prevent Brexit happening at all. Now we have left, 'rejoining' is immeasurably more unlikely than 'not leaving' would have been.

Secondly, and equally importantly, the different agreements reached by May and Johnson created or would have created different dynamics in the forthcoming trade negotiations. May's agreement involved the famous 'backstop', which was essentially a guarantee that the whole of the UK would maintain the same trading relationship with the EU for as long as it took to hammer out an agreement (it's more complicated than that, but I think that's a fair gloss of the practical effect). Because of this arrangement, May could have reduced time pressure in securing a trade deal with the EU. Johnson's agreement doesn't contain the 'backstop' for anywhere other than Northern Ireland, so he either has to a] negotiate a 'future relationship' deal with the EU by the end of the year, b] lead us into a 'No Deal' exit scenario, or c] ask for an extension to the negotiations (by some time in the summer). The other difference is that May's agreement would naturally have led to more alignment with the EU in terms of standards, regulations, certifications etc whereas Johnson's is certain to lead to less alignment. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, colhint said:

I guess so, but would that mean they have no state.  They would be EU citizens only. I think, they would have no passport without a state, so could only ever travel within the EU, never outside.

Wouldn’t we be talking about some sort of special EU visa arrangement? Giving UK citizens who apply their freedom of movement rights (and ability to transfer pensions, driver’s license etc etc) without having to formally apply to each EU nation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The year is 2024 and already the trade in EU associate membership cards is brisk as the impact of the second fish war with France begins to bight.

Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, both now living in Paris, have urged their supporters in northern england, Jersey and Merthyr to fight on. Farage offering membership of a new party he’s going to launch about something or other to do with fish fingers or beer batter.

Nobody realised the second fish war would be so catastrophic. What with the first one, on February 3rd 2020 ending so swiftly. Jersey fisherman blocked their port stopping the french fishing fleet docking and declaring absolute victory for new brexit Britain. Later that same day, they realised all the processing plants were in France and the French told them to **** right off. So they called off their own blockade. Absolute spazz monkeys.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

I watched Johnson’s tawdry little video about the UK leaving the EU this morning: I had not the slightest inclination to do so last night. What surprised me most about the video was not how hollow it was (although it certainly achieved that objective) but just how much it said about his true objectives for Brexit.

He said, and I’ll share the video just so you can check this, that the first two priorities for post-Brexit Britain (and that is the right word, because it’s not clear by how much Northern Ireland will ever be post-Brexit) are to control migration and to create freeports.

 

Do read on... 

Richard Murphy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I think Brexit is a stupid idea I can understand why this government would want to diverge from EU regulations, thus requiring border checks. 

What would be the point of leaving the EU but keeping everything the same (i.e. paying in and following all the rules but no longer having any say in them)?

If the UK government has ambitions of their own free trade agreements with third party countries (the US, Australia etc) then it is inevitable that the relationship with the EU would have to change and thus protections required at the border.

Edited by LondonLax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There must be some polling that shows very positive associations with the word 'Australia', as in 'Australian-style points-based immigration system' and now 'Australia Deal'.

I guess for a lot of Brits it's a far off place full of white people where the Sun always shines. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

There must be some polling that shows very positive associations with the word 'Australia', as in 'Australian-style points-based immigration system' and now 'Australia Deal'.

I guess for a lot of Brits it's a far off place full of white people where the Sun always shines. 

It's like Tory heaven. Sunny, warm, not too many people, nicely right wing, a good collection of black people to stomp on legally.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LondonLax said:

Whilst I think Brexit is a stupid idea I can understand why this government would want to diverge from EU regulations, thus requiring border checks. 

What would be the point of leaving the EU but keeping everything the same (i.e. paying in and following all the rules but no longer having any say in them)?

If the UK government has ambitions of their own free trade agreements with third party countries (the US, Australia etc) then it is inevitable that the relationship with the EU would have to change and thus protections required at the border.

Because we were told for literally years Brexit would reduce red tape and there would be no border checks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Because we were told for literally years Brexit would reduce red tape and there would be no border checks.

Are you actually surprised at any of that?

What I’m now talking about is the ‘realpolitik’ decisions the current government are making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, LondonLax said:

Are you actually surprised at any of that?

What I’m now talking about is the ‘realpolitik’ decisions the current government are making.

Not at all. I don't trust these rocket polishers as far as I can throw them. But it's just another damaging decision made based on lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Not at all. I don't trust these rocket polishers as far as I can throw them. But it's just another damaging decision made based on lies.

But the point I was making is that this development makes sense and was discussed at length on here for the last few years. 

If the government wants to diverge from EU regulations to pursue its own objectives it needs to have border checks. The only way checks would not have been required is if the UK had chosen a path that maintained all EU regulations (a possible option available) but what would be the point of going through a Brexit to then change nothing? 

I can see why they have decided to go down this route, and indeed expected it once this government was returned with such a majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

But the point I was making is that this development makes sense and was discussed at length on here for the last few years.

It was discussed but it was also written off as rubbish by those same people who are now announcing it.

This is really the message from the last few years (not just from Brexit):

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â