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

[darrenm]

I stand by what I said after the referendum, it'll never happen. There's too many of these 'ah' realisations to come. It's like trying to separate Siamese twins who share everything but a finger.

[Chindie]

It will happen. There's no party brave enough to risk their election prospects for years by opposing the referendum result. And even then the rescinding of A50 will not be allowed to pass without penance, as this has cost everyone, and of course a few members might fancy their pound of flesh after seeing our exit as an opportunity.

So it'll happen.

And it'll be a **** disaster.

[ml1dch]

14 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

My working out is based on common law in both the EU and UK. Once any partnership separates legally, be that marital or business, the assets or debts of said unit is split between the parties. I'm not claiming we should not pay for anything, because we really should pay for several of the continued relationships we have with the EU on nuclear arms, crime, terror prevention and so on, but were you to take our case in front of a judge he would take all assets that the EU has and split it equally between the member states that paid for said assets.

• EU buildings (amongst others a massive new HQ)
• EU equipment (boats in the med f.ex)
• Intellectual property

It's clearly not realistic to claim for the UK that we shan't pay anything. Neither is it realistic for the EU to demand of a member that wants to leave that they should pay more than half of their members do in a 3 year span because we want to leave. 

First, agree on how to move forward, then when there's some goodwill start talking cash. I'm against Brexit but I also don't fancy being held to ransom because the EU wants to make an example of us. If Davis had any sort of IQ he'd request that negotiations were held with two neutral parties assiting in the international court.

Yes. I get that. What I'm not sure of is what data you are using to do your calculation.

What are you including to start at 90bn (I assume you're using €, but obviously it's not clear) and then what you are using to total the reduction of 70bn to give you your remaining 20bn?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, ml1dch said:

My understanding is that this isn't strictly true.

Let's say that you have a five year, EU funded research programme into a new cancer drug happening at UCL, that started in 2016.

The bill to the EU will arrive in 2021. Would we expect the EU to honour that agreed payment to a non-member country? I would.

It's pretty unlikely that anything new of that sort will be started in the UK (a problem in itself), but there will be EU distributed money coming into the UK post-April 2019.

Again, with the caveat that this isn't my view, just an exploration of what others are saying:

I wonder if that can't be countered by things like the UK Gov't has implied it accepts that EU spending into the UK will stop after Brexit - they've committed a while back to, for example, fund from UK revenue things that the EU previously funded - so replacing farming subsidies, University research stuff etc.

So if on the one hand the UK is accepting that it will have to fund UK projects that were previously funded by the EU prior to Brexit, the other hand must be that the UK will no longer contribute to EU projects in the EU after Brexit.

 

[magnkarl]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

It will happen. There's no party brave enough to risk their election prospects for years by opposing the referendum result. And even then the rescinding of A50 will not be allowed to pass without penance, as this has cost everyone, and of course a few members might fancy their pound of flesh after seeing our exit as an opportunity.

So it'll happen.

And it'll be a **** disaster.

I sort of agree with this point. Sadly no career politician is unselfish enough to actually speak the truth about this.

Though to be fair, you could flip the argument around and say that 48% of the populace would probably support a remain party. That's more than the Tory majority.

Maybe someone should start the UKR party. United Kingdom Remain - we're not Farage. It'd probably get quite a substantial youth and metropolitan vote share.

[chrisp65]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

I wonder if that can't be countered by things like the UK Gov't has implied it accepts that EU spending into the UK will stop after Brexit - they've committed a while back to, for example, fund from UK revenue things that the EU previously funded - so replacing farming subsidies, University research stuff etc.

Yeah, about that...little Alan the Sec of State for Wales assured all the country folks that they wouldn't lose a penny if we left the EU. They had nothing to fear.

More recently, he's 'further clarified' that there won't be a simple cash hand out from UK government to match the EU grants, that was 'obviously' never going to happen. We'll all have to be a bit more imaginative and dynamic in our thinking. But don't worry, this is a great opportunity to really get out there and sell our stuff to the world.

 

I suspect that's what's happened, is I've had some sort of trauma whilst watching something written by Armando Ianucci and I'm now in a coma, living in that docu drama comedy world.

 

 

[Chindie]

Meanwhile Roger Helmer (certainly a typo there) UKIP MEP, amongst others, is whinging about the important stuff, like overpowered vacuums being banned.

...for ****'s sake.

[magnkarl]

9 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Meanwhile Roger Helmer (certainly a typo there) UKIP MEP, amongst others, is whinging about the important stuff, like overpowered vacuums being banned.

...for ****'s sake.

I know where Roger likes to stick his helm, that's for sure.

[snowychap]

6 hours ago, magnkarl said:

My working out is based on common law in both the EU and UK. Once any partnership separates legally, be that marital or business, the assets or debts of said unit is split between the parties.

Membership of the EU is neither a 'marital' nor a (simple partnership) 'business' relationship.

[HanoiVillan]

5 hours ago, magnkarl said:

I sort of agree with this point. Sadly no career politician is unselfish enough to actually speak the truth about this.

Though to be fair, you could flip the argument around and say that 48% of the populace would probably support a remain party. That's more than the Tory majority.

Maybe someone should start the UKR party. United Kingdom Remain - we're not Farage. It'd probably get quite a substantial youth and metropolitan vote share.

There was a party that campaigned on little more than 'Remain', and they got, like, a dozen MP's or something. 

[peterms]

59 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Membership of the EU is neither a 'marital' nor a (simple partnership) 'business' relationship.

The question of what relationship it is, is an interesting one.

Some of the Brexiters are acting as though it was a purely transactional relationship; I pay you this and you give me that.

The feeling among EU states seems to be that it was more of a joint endeavour, where countries were engaged on a deeper level, with shared values and a sense of overall direction.

This is why there is no meeting of minds, with people like Davis and Fox seeing it as deciding to close your account at the builders merchants while still being able to buy the goods you want as and when you want them, while the perception among some EU figures is one of betrayal.

The joint endeavour thing was always more true in rhetoric than reality, and the shockingly disparate reactions to refugees over the last year has illustrated the gulf between EU states' world views, while their treatment of Greece has removed any claim to solidarity and acting for the collective good.  And developing plans for a common EU army suggests that the bureaucrats' vision of a future destination varies quite a bit from that of the populations who they haven't consulted on this.

Many commentaries on the EU and Brexit seem to start from one or another assumed outlook on the nature of the relationship.  I don't see too many pieces which reflect on the different perceptions of what the relationship is, or should be.  Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places.

[snowychap]

21 minutes ago, peterms said:

The question of what relationship it is, is an interesting one...

Isn't your post more of a discussion of what the EU as an entity is rather than what the relationship is between an individual member and the EU?

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Isn't your post more of a discussion of what the EU as an entity is rather than what the relationship is between an individual member and the EU?

Don't states have to have an idea of how they see the EU in order to conceive how they wish to relate to it?

So, both, is the answer to your question, I suppose.

[peterms]

Comments in this thread on possible UK-Japan trade deals, as an antidote against the spin.

 

[Enda]

23 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I think in Ireland's case you'll go from just about neutral to being a clear contributor? That'll change a few people's opinions on the merits of the money go round.

So perhaps there should have been clear rules set out and agreed in advance if it was important?

Ireland has been a net contributor for a few years now. The purely "taxes versus expenditures" component is relatively unimportant compared to the economic (i.e. private, not just government-based) benefits of freer trade. Since Brexit, Ireland has had a reminder of the benefits of the customs union and of the single market and so support for the EU has risen in the last year.

There is wiggle room from year to year, but there are clear rules/boundaries set out on medium-term (i.e. seven year) horizons. That last seven year funding round is what you lot agreed to and are now pulling out from, which is causing the bit of a fuss.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

Don't states have to have an idea of how they see the EU in order to conceive how they wish to relate to it?

Does it really matter (other than for discussing opt-outs and so on) how a state 'wishes' to relate to the EU?

Doesn't the process we have invoked with A50 tell us that you're either a member state of the EU or you're not?

I think my point is a much drier and narrower one than you're getting in to as it's merely a response to the kind of analogies to which I responded originally.

 

[HanoiVillan]

For one example of how this whole situation is being discussed in Germany, see Christian Zaschke in the Suddeutsche Zeitung:

'Great Britain’s Fantastic Four

Prime Minister May and three of her most senior ministers are putting on a bizarre performance. They are making Great Britain ridiculous, but the country will survive.

It is easy to imagine the high spirits that erupted at the offices of the London Evening Standard when Prime Minister Theresa May announced she would be leading the Conservatives into the next parliamentary election, in 2022. The merriment was no doubt significantly heightened by the fact that May gave the impression she actually meant it. The Evening Standard is always in a good mood whenever there’s a chance to attack May: its editor is George Osborne, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer under May’s predecessor, David Cameron, and who was kicked out by May when she came to power last summer. Osborne is nothing if not grudge-bearing.

The reason May’s statement is such good material for mockery is that it is all but out of the question that she will lead the Tories into the next election. Perhaps word hasn’t reached her yet, but the idea that the Conservatives would fight another election with her at the helm is about as realistic as the notion that the England football team could win the next World Cup.

In the surprise election that she herself called earlier this year, the Prime Minister showed herself to be the worst campaigner the island had ever seen. Her party is exceedingly bitter about the fact she lost their absolute majority – and without any need to do so. And so the Evening Standard published an editorial that described May’s premiership as being “like the Living Dead in a second-rate horror film”.

The Prime Minister and her ministers are rapidly becoming jokes

Whatever one may think about the British people’s decision to leave the EU, no one could possibly envy them the team that now has the task of implementing it. At its head is Theresa May, grimly clinging to power. She had promised “strong and stable leadership”, which is all the more bizarre when one sees the way she now keeps changing tack and, with darting eyes, constantly gives the impression of expecting the conspirators to emerge from the wings and put an end to her time in office at any moment.

Several times over the summer she invited groups of Members of Parliament to Chequers, her country residence, for prosecco and canapes. Supportive voices claimed it had been a clever move that would build up a network of support in the party. Most observers, however, put things more clearly: May was pleading to be allowed to stay in office a little longer.

When she announced her plans to remain Prime Minister for the long term, Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson immediately piped up and let it be known he thought it an excellent idea. She had his undivided backing, he claimed. But what one needs to know about Boris Johnson is that he is the biggest opportunist in the whole of Westminster, ever driven by his desire to become Prime Minister in the Prime Minister’s place. If anyone in May’s circle has a dagger concealed inside their cloak, then it is Boris Johnson.

His chances of one day assuming the highest office have not however been improved by his performance as Foreign Secretary, in which he has shown himself to be unsuited to the post of top diplomat. His international counterparts do not take him seriously. His officials do not take him seriously. Even in the White House, itself populated with a number of flamboyant characters, Johnson is considered “a joke”. For a country hoping to cultivate new and old alliances in the wake of Brexit, this is unfortunate, to say the least.

Brexit Minister David Davis was recently described by one of his former advisers as being “lazy as a toad”. There may be nothing wrong with that, in principle: the Roman philosopher Cicero valued otium cum dignitate, leisure with dignity. But when the minister in charge of the United Kingdom’s biggest political venture since the Second World War only works three or four days a week and then claims a weak mobile phone signal means he cannot be contacted at weekends, the situation is hardly ideal.

The British are no novices when it comes to withstanding crises

And finally, there is Liam Fox, who has been given the task of setting up all the new trade deals for the post-Brexit era. This week, in a move described by one Conservative MP as “parking the tanks on the EU’s lawn”, he announced plans to set up an information stand at the Eurostar terminal in Brussels to promote British exports. Of all his unlikely colleagues, Fox is the least credible.

With Brexit looming, this might all seem worrying, but the Brits have weathered many storms over the centuries. They will weather this one, too. For their sake, though, the rest of us can only hope from the bottom of our hearts that May, Johnson, Davis and Fox – the quartet of the clueless - will one day just be a comical footnote in their eventful history.'

[meregreen]

Unfortunately we are not witnessing a comedy, a tragedy would better describe it.

[wazzap24]

 

 

Edited September 4, 2017 by wazzap24

[PompeyVillan]

Written by a true lefty liberal, hates their country, wants something for nothing, doesn't know how lucky they are, millennial, snowflake.