As the UK continues on its road to Perdition with the October 31st Brexit deadline, it will be interesting to see how politics will change in the UK, especially if a 'hard' one.

For sure many MP's will lose their seats as 100's of 1000's of jobs disappear in their districts as plants relying on 'just in time' supply systems to/from the UK. Critical and major exports from movies to cars will slow to economically unsustainable trickles. Companies like Tata owned Jaguar-Land Rover could collapse with international affects (I live not far from their USA HQ). As the Pound reaches near 1:1 parity with the US Dollar and worth less than a Euro it will cause severe economic hardship and likely severely damage the insurance, reinsurance, banking and financial services businesses based in the UK. A lot of the equipment for oil production off the Scottish coast comes from the EU, if that equipment is slowed, then the Scots will be really angry as oil revenues decline and likely push to separate from the UK. Then you have the NI mess, fears of economic crash there, deep affects on the ROI as supply lines via the UK are disrupted. It is possible that NI may end up as part of the ROI and maybe that would be better for all but it might lead to unrest.

The Brexit vote came from emotions at the time, in particular the mass migration of millions of persons of the Islamic faith from Syria and elsewhere in the ME and North Africa, the highly played up in mass media of disruptions it caused in mainland EC countries and 1000's seeking and entering the UK. There is the economic issues of a greater divide of the have and have nots, of unaffordable housing in particular in the London area, a feeling that the UK's world centers around the London area and the rest of the country ignored. Some blame must also be put on the EC itself. It grew from a relatively small scale and narrow trade agreement organization to a massive bureaucracy with perhaps too much influence in day to day lives, too much money shifting from 'rich' countries to poor ones also with massive government corruption and challenges to sovereignty.

It may be too late for the UK to reverse direction from Brexit, the UK seems beyond the Queen to be leaderless, emotions have ruled rather than reason. I just hope it doesn't end in a disaster for all.

A101 wrote:

I think we have been conversing long enough to know we will agree to disagree with what you just wrote

you have the right to your own opinion, not your own facts.

ltbewr wrote:

too much money shifting from 'rich' countries to poor ones also with massive government corruption and challenges to sovereignty.

However, much of the money going from "rich" countries to "poor" countries flows back to the same "rich" countries. Many companies have received orders to built something in countries like Poland, Romania and Greece. One good examle is amusementpark Energylandia. It has buiklt a few roller coasters with EU subsidies. However, the main beneficiaries are roller coaster builders from Switzerland, Liechtenstein and The Netherlands. They made most of the profits, even though they hire a few local companies to built those roller coasters. You see the same in many countries. In case of the corrupted politicians one has to ask, which brand of car are they making and where do they invest their money? Hint, it's not in their own country. I don't want to support sorruption, but especially the subsidies for structural improvement tend to return to "the West" at least partially.

BTW another negative thing of Brexit. UK companies will probably loose out on many EU tenders....if they're allowed to participate at all.

So if they have another referendum how do they ensure that the result of the vote is to Remain, so far the push for another vote is on whatever deal is agreed, since they are not going to approve a deal, nothing to vote on, so far most parties are afraid to come out and say the initial vote leave was wrong and a revote is require. Worked for all other countries, the UK should be no different.

par13del wrote:

So if they have another referendum how do they ensure that the result of the vote is to Remain, so far the push for another vote is on whatever deal is agreed, since they are not going to approve a deal, nothing to vote on, so far most parties are afraid to come out and say the initial vote leave was wrong and a revote is require. Worked for all other countries, the UK should be no different.

The problem is not that the original vote was "wrong".

The problem was that people were deceived by politicians (Boris Johnson very prominently among them!) who made promises which have never been achievable, and both the bizarre misrepresentations of what the EU actually is and the actual reality of exiting the EU have turned out to be completely different from what had been presented back then.

There is still a lot of disinformation propaganda around, but people have received a lot of additional information since the 2016 referendum and it would be a travesty to misuse that referendum result to ram through something completely different from what the promises had been back then which people then voted on.

3 years of complete chaos and disillusionment is not an unreasonable distance to give people the opportunity of a re-evaluation of that question.

ltbewr wrote:

too much money shifting from 'rich' countries to poor ones also with massive government corruption and challenges to sovereignty.

Your comment about corruption and sovereignty I think you have to explain a little further. Most eastern EU countries are among the least corrupt countries in the world.

But you are right, a lot of money flows to the "new" EU countries. As a Danish taxpayer I know everything about that.

As an example, Russian gauge railways are being rebuilt into western gauge standard. Money, lots of money, flows west --> east. To the benefit of who? To the benefit of everybody.

It could have been made the other way around, Russian gauge in western Europe. Benefits would have been identical, but cost much higher. So the right decision was made.

The problem is that for uneducated Englishmen things like nationwide railway gauge harmonization does not sell newspapers and web clicks. A roller coaster does.

In Britain there is no "market" for proper information to the public. "News" is treated almost entirely as entertainment. As long as that's the case, then she will continue to be sort of chaotic country, no matter what relations to the EU.

With information so much dictated by economic interests of media moguls, there are many similarities to dictatorships with censored press. Proper information too often takes the backseat to sensations, the more sensation, the better, never mind the quality. Only the most energetic people reach out to become properly informed.

It doesn't help either, that relatively few Englishmen read and understand more than their own language. On the continent at lot of people undertand 3 - 4 languages, most often including English. Even the Frenchmen are catching up these days. It widens the information menu dramatically, and it makes foul play by the media a lot more difficult to go unnoticed.

par13del wrote:

So if they have another referendum how do they ensure that the result of the vote is to Remain, so far the push for another vote is on whatever deal is agreed, since they are not going to approve a deal, nothing to vote on, so far most parties are afraid to come out and say the initial vote leave was wrong and a revote is require. Worked for all other countries, the UK should be no different.

At this point I think a referendum would be a good thing even if leave won again (or after thinking about it : especially if leave won, not so much if remain won). I'm talking from the POV of a Brit. At least that would settle the debate (not totally, but enough). The problem is that if remain won, it would probably not be by a big enough majority. Maybe enough to revoke Article 50, but surely there would be calls for a third referendum. If again the result is close, then what ?

My big fear, down the road, is that if Brexit goes ahead and (even if it isn't no deal) it causes huge economic damage and mass unemployment. It could create an opportunity for political opportunists - such as those in the Brexit Party - to morph into some other political unit, to offer scapegoats ... we've seen it before; this time it would be immigrants, the LGBT community, quite possibly the Irish and Scottish (within England/Wales, of course), too - if the current debacle led to Irish unity and Scottish independence.

I see a hardening of attitudes; I know quite a few English people who are strongly right wing and while fairly decent people on the whole, you do detect attitudes beneath the surface which are very illiberal - strongly anti-EU, immigration, Muslim, LGBT, among others. I don't think their attitudes are uncommon. I think that they are spreading and I see Britain looking inward, more fearful and less self-confident. It's sadly ironic in a country that one ruled a third of the world is regressing so much. The attitudes I see more and more prevelant can be exploited by certain politicians and as an Irish person, the prospect of a very inward looking, angry and hostile England is obviously not very welcome. Combine that with restive "unionism" in NI (even after unification), and you do have the potential for trouble.

The drive for a return to the greater UK could be a cause celebre for extremists. History repeats itself, all the moreso for people who don't particularly understand history or are interested in it, and I think that the same people who fell for the Brexit arguments would be exactly the same people who would fall for the victimisation of other groups. Add the anger that comes from hardship and unemployment and the need for a purpose, and you have a pretty poisonous void which can easily be filled by the unscrupulous. Britain in 2030 could be Germany in 1930.

@Kaitak, hopefully, we aren't on a journey with that destination.

It is kind of hard, though, to see where this leads to. In the end with a hard Brexit, the problems will not go away, economically it will be worse and the EU will not be there anymore to be the scapegoat, so indeed a new scapegoat might be sought and Muslims, other immigrants aren't beyond the whelm of possibilities unfortunately.

kaitak wrote:

It's sadly ironic in a country that one ruled a third of the world is regressing so much.

How can you see that as a contradiction?

The colonial era was already a massive regression to atavistic impulses of greedy conquest, and that many britons still see it as something grand and progressive is exactly part of the problem already!

History repeats itself, all the moreso for people who don't particularly understand history or are interested in it

It doesn't actually repeat itself, but sometimes there are reboots of the same theme. Not just of negative ones, however, and never really actual repeats.

, and I think that the same people who fell for the Brexit arguments would be exactly the same people who would fall for the victimisation of other groups. Add the anger that comes from hardship and unemployment and the need for a purpose, and you have a pretty poisonous void which can easily be filled by the unscrupulous. Britain in 2030 could be Germany in 1930.

Especially with most younger people not on board with Brexit there would be an opposite push for a reckoning as well, though.

In the end when minds have been poisoned that thoroughly over that many decades as particularly english minds have been by their media and politicians in unison, there's not really a coming back from that overall; The only real solution is for the older people dying off over time and the overall population changing through that.

This very forum had an absolute monster thread 16 years ago on Do We Want The Euro In The UK? and besides the fun and banter it already had all the insane misconceptions and mistaken beliefs about the European Union which have led to the Brexit vote, and the propaganda lies had long taken root by that time already.

The poison is in too deep by now.

Aesma wrote:

par13del wrote:

So if they have another referendum how do they ensure that the result of the vote is to Remain, so far the push for another vote is on whatever deal is agreed, since they are not going to approve a deal, nothing to vote on, so far most parties are afraid to come out and say the initial vote leave was wrong and a revote is require. Worked for all other countries, the UK should be no different.

At this point I think a referendum would be a good thing even if leave won again (or after thinking about it : especially if leave won, not so much if remain won). I'm talking from the POV of a Brit. At least that would settle the debate (not totally, but enough). The problem is that if remain won, it would probably not be by a big enough majority. Maybe enough to revoke Article 50, but surely there would be calls for a third referendum. If again the result is close, then what ?

A second referendum would do little. Leave would still interept and misrepresent the result incorrectly as they continue to do so with the first one. Leave did not 'win'.
A second referendum would still hold the advisory status the first one had.
The House of Commons is the democractic voice of the People. It is that house that MUST make a decision. It's that house that is scared of making any sort of decsion (other than No Deal is a no go at the moment), leave alone the correct one for the national interests of the UK.

Klaus wrote:

kaitak wrote:

It's sadly ironic in a country that one ruled a third of the world is regressing so much.

How can you see that as a contradiction?

The colonial era was already a massive regression to atavistic impulses of greedy conquest, and that many britons still see it as something grand and progressive is exactly part of the problem already!

.

I see your point, but I guess the point I was trying to make was that those who created the empire and had the vision to go out into the world (and yes, I know they caused suffering - but I've always seen the legacy of the British empire as positive rather than negative (ironic, too, from an Irishman!). What I was trying to say was just that the people who created that vision looked without fear on the outside world. Now, you have a generation that seems to fear the world, that looks inward and lacks confidence; urged on by an educated minority with their own agenda - probably not at all to the advantage of those they manipulate into hatred of the EU. They don't like globalisation, foreigners or rules. They want Britain to be on its own; they don't get that the world is now a global village and apart from the likes of North Korea, no country really is independent. They don't see the need for interdependence. That, for me, is the contradiction. It is sadly ironic that the country that once ruled a third of the earth's surface now fears globalisation!

Britain today is regressing. There can no longer be any doubt about that; a country that is cutting off the trade links that give it a promising future, that cuts off the potential of millions of its young people, that looks at all of its nearest neighbours as little short of enemies, can't really be seen as progressive. Many of the components for the outcome that I fear are already in place; the divisions are getting deeper by the day and the language that is being used is not helping; the use of terms like "traitor", "surrender" and "treason" is not helping things, but I see it being more and more prevalent; how long before we see rallies of pro-Europeans being broken up by BNP thugs, much like the SA in the 1930s?

Klaus wrote:

The problem was that people were deceived by politicians (Boris Johnson very prominently among them!) who made promises which have never been achievable, and both the bizarre misrepresentations of what the EU actually is and the actual reality of exiting the EU have turned out to be completely different from what had been presented back then.

There is still a lot of disinformation propaganda around, but people have received a lot of additional information since the 2016 referendum and it would be a travesty to misuse that referendum result to ram through something completely different from what the promises had been back then which people then voted on.

3 years of complete chaos and disillusionment is not an unreasonable distance to give people the opportunity of a re-evaluation of that question.

Politicians in the UK have been deceiving the electorate on the EU long before Brexit. In the run up to giving the referendum vote, DC and his cohorts were all over the place on what the EU would / could give and what the UK could / would want, that is how he got trapped into he and the parliament throwing up their hands and telling the electorate you decide. Brexit did not create the problem, it just bought it into the light of day.

The interesting thing for me is why the EU allowed such misinformation to continue unabated for so long, my opinion which I suspect will not be accepted is because it made no difference and had absolutely no effect on the EU's continued operations within the UK. The politicians in the UK held their noses and blamed the EU while implementing the new / modified rules and regulations, as long as the operations continued, who really cared that UK politicians were keeping the electorate "dumb on all things EU"? Add to that all the special exemptions that the UK had and it is not hard to see the difficulty that has arrived when the electorate was given another say on their involvement in the EU.

At present, the whole uproar is about avoiding no deal and forcing an extension. Ok, let's say an extension is asked and given, what then from a Brexit point of view? If the government is toppled the grid lock will remain, if an election is called none of the parties will campaign on revoking the 2016 vote or on having a new vote same question, so the grid lock will remain, if they offer a public vote on whatever the deal is, the gridlock will remain since they will not pass one.
Consider also if a deal is passed by a cobbled up coalition of MP's government and opposition, how do they get the government to not spend all their time and effort agitating against it which will lead to more gridlock. No one in parliament is talking about any deal, can the UK population live under the protection of the EU, its business houses continue to operate under the protection of the EU via extensions every few months while the parliament goes on its merry way?
If we believe the business leaders that they needed to know something so that they could plan and invest, is knowing extensions are available enough?

I guess another interesting topic could be what if Article 50 was somehow revoked, what would be the reaction of the people in general. I suspect the polarization would get worse and more distinct and the divide between the political elite and the electorate even greater. Time will have to heal all.

par13del wrote:

The interesting thing for me is why the EU allowed such misinformation to continue unabated for so long, my opinion which I suspect will not be accepted is because it made no difference and had absolutely no effect on the EU's continued operations within the UK. The politicians in the UK held their noses and blamed the EU while implementing the new / modified rules and regulations, as long as the operations continued, who really cared that UK politicians were keeping the electorate "dumb on all things EU"? Add to that all the special exemptions that the UK had and it is not hard to see the difficulty that has arrived when the electorate was given another say on their involvement in the EU.

As a kid growing up in the seventies and moving out of the UK to Europe in the eighties I can say that British exceptionalism was extremely ingrained in the culture back then - enough so that even I, child of left wing parents - one from mainland Europe - experienced culture shock upon experiencing the rest of Europe for real. And by that I mean in terms of seeing how wrong and stupid all the British misconceptions were about the British military, government and education being "the envy of the world" etc. (Don't get me wrong though, in my experience *every* country has massive ingrained bias against other nations which I also had to fight against - "you're all football hooligans", "there's no such thing as good food in Britain", etc.).

But you're right that British politicians and press were very obviously lying about all things EU from the moment I ended up living there. And ordinary people in the EU know it. I can only assume that it was their polite respect for British sovereignty (irony alert) which meant it never became a major sticking point. Although I suppose it would only have made matters worse if say French or German leaders went around publicly shouting about British EU lies at press conferences...

par13del wrote:

The interesting thing for me is why the EU allowed such misinformation to continue unabated for so long, my opinion which I suspect will not be accepted is because it made no difference and had absolutely no effect on the EU's continued operations within the UK. The politicians in the UK held their noses and blamed the EU while implementing the new / modified rules and regulations, as long as the operations continued, who really cared that UK politicians were keeping the electorate "dumb on all things EU"? Add to that all the special exemptions that the UK had and it is not hard to see the difficulty that has arrived when the electorate was given another say on their involvement in the EU.

The EU could not fight against the massive disinterest the UK populace as a whole had in the EU.

They set up billboards, wrote articles in the press, started a EU myths website aimed squarely at the massive media disinformation campaign and it didn't make an ounce of difference.

The EU was, most of all, foreign. And British politicians and press made sure it stayed that way.

Only in the international stage (again, foreign audience) did the UK politicians follow the established line on what the EU was and did.

It was just too useful a tool. Tabloids sold millions of papers on the back of EU fiddly workings, massive spending and general uselessness while politicians made sure they took credit for the good stuff and deflected all the bad things on it.

The good British politicians held the worst excesses of the EU and protected the British populace from German/French dominance.

But that's a populist tool, and eventually the people not only believed it but really thought they could do better. Politicians who appeal to these kind of feelings usually end up eaten by the monster they themselves created.

And here we are.

ChrisKen wrote:

Aesma wrote:

par13del wrote:

So if they have another referendum how do they ensure that the result of the vote is to Remain, so far the push for another vote is on whatever deal is agreed, since they are not going to approve a deal, nothing to vote on, so far most parties are afraid to come out and say the initial vote leave was wrong and a revote is require. Worked for all other countries, the UK should be no different.

At this point I think a referendum would be a good thing even if leave won again (or after thinking about it : especially if leave won, not so much if remain won). I'm talking from the POV of a Brit. At least that would settle the debate (not totally, but enough). The problem is that if remain won, it would probably not be by a big enough majority. Maybe enough to revoke Article 50, but surely there would be calls for a third referendum. If again the result is close, then what ?

A second referendum would do little. Leave would still interept and misrepresent the result incorrectly as they continue to do so with the first one. Leave did not 'win'.
A second referendum would still hold the advisory status the first one had.
The House of Commons is the democractic voice of the People. It is that house that MUST make a decision. It's that house that is scared of making any sort of decsion (other than No Deal is a no go at the moment), leave alone the correct one for the national interests of the UK.

The status of the referendum is up to parliament. Last time things were done carelessly, but they could do things differently. Have 2 questions, leave/stay, and May deal/no deal. With such a referendum, there is nothing to decide once the vote is up, just apply the result.

Just as a bit of a reality check I recommend this Guardian editorial, which is nothing brutal but just apt to give a little useful perspective adjustment about the current situation:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-behind

Aesma wrote:

The status of the referendum is up to parliament. Last time things were done carelessly, but they could do things differently. Have 2 questions, leave/stay, and May deal/no deal. With such a referendum, there is nothing to decide once the vote is up, just apply the result.

Which result, if the answer to the first is leave the second will be no deal, and I personally do not think that the politicians in parliament will accept the first one (leave) since the majority of them are still against it, therefore the second will never fly, they will fight against either response, they neither support May Deal nor No Deal.
If the answer to the first is Remain, all will be well and we return to the status quo - in the UK that is - the resentment for ignoring the first vote will last for as long as it takes the 17+ million old people to die off, the politicians will return to their blaming the EU for ignoring the people.

The key for going back to the public is whether the majority of the population want to see the break up of the UK, in that NI would have to be left behind, that is the key to Brexit, as long as the UK is not willing to let NI remain in the EU Brexit does not have a shot as the EU will use the GFA to ensure that the UK cannot leave, no way they are going to compromise on the 4 pillars.

Actually no deal has no chance, because the remainers would massively vote for the deal.

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

par13del wrote:

The interesting thing for me is why the EU allowed such misinformation to continue unabated for so long, my opinion which I suspect will not be accepted is because it made no difference and had absolutely no effect on the EU's continued operations within the UK. The politicians in the UK held their noses and blamed the EU while implementing the new / modified rules and regulations, as long as the operations continued, who really cared that UK politicians were keeping the electorate "dumb on all things EU"? Add to that all the special exemptions that the UK had and it is not hard to see the difficulty that has arrived when the electorate was given another say on their involvement in the EU.

As a kid growing up in the seventies and moving out of the UK to Europe in the eighties I can say that British exceptionalism was extremely ingrained in the culture back then - enough so that even I, child of left wing parents - one from mainland Europe - experienced culture shock upon experiencing the rest of Europe for real. And by that I mean in terms of seeing how wrong and stupid all the British misconceptions were about the British military, government and education being "the envy of the world" etc. (Don't get me wrong though, in my experience *every* country has massive ingrained bias against other nations which I also had to fight against - "you're all football hooligans", "there's no such thing as good food in Britain", etc.).

But you're right that British politicians and press were very obviously lying about all things EU from the moment I ended up living there. And ordinary people in the EU know it. I can only assume that it was their polite respect for British sovereignty (irony alert) which meant it never became a major sticking point. Although I suppose it would only have made matters worse if say French or German leaders went around publicly shouting about British EU lies at press conferences...

In the end British politicians made decision that made the experience of the EU very different for the Brits compared to the mainland. They did not join Schengen, they did not join the Euro, so even if they travel aboard it is still a lot like in 1980ies and 1990ies. Passport controls, exchanging money and so on, while for everybody else travelling from Germany to France or Spain for example is more or less equal to travelling inside Germany - well apart from the better food and weather at the destination when travelling to France or Spain.

Klaus wrote:

Just as a bit of a reality check I recommend this Guardian editorial, which is nothing brutal but just apt to give a little useful perspective adjustment about the current situation:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ain-behind

That is indeed the case. The grief period is definitely over, just frustration remains on the EU side.

Now we know all the exemptions the UK still demands even though they are leaving the Union.

The confidential report chronicling the latest negotiations reveals:

The British have been warned that the proposed Stormont veto provides the DUP with an opportunity to block the all-Ireland regulatory zone from ever materialising.
The proposals for a customs border were said to risk a major disruption of the all-Ireland economy. EU negotiators have pointed out that it has been rejected by groups representing Northern Irish business.
The UK is seeking a fallback of no controls, checks and border infrastructure, even if the DUP vetoes Northern Ireland’s alignment with the single market. The bloc’s internal market would be left wide open for abuse, the European commission has said in its rejection of the proposal.
The UK’s proposal leaves it up to a joint EU-UK committee to work out how to avoid customs checks and infrastructure near the Irish border once there are two customs territories and sets of rules on the island of Ireland, without offering a plan B if no such solution is agreed.
The UK has called for an overhaul of the common transit convention so as to avoid the need for new infrastructure in the shape of transit offices on either side of the border for the scanning of goods that have passed through multiple territories. Brussels has refused as it would lead other non-EU countries to seek similar exemptions, endangering the internal market.
The text affords what is seen as an unacceptable wholesale exemption for small and medium-sized businesses from customs duties and processes, but it fails to provide details on how to then combat smuggling.
On VAT, the British negotiators were told that the proposals fail to offer any solutions as to how to avoid payments and checks at the border.
Under the UK’s proposals all the state aid and level-playing-field conditions Theresa May agreed to in order to reassure the EU that Northern Ireland businesses would not enjoy a competitive advantage have been deleted. But Northern Irish firms would still be able to compete in the single market for electricity.
The UK would have access to an unlisted number of EU databases to allow it to police the customs border on the island of Ireland and the regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Whitehall would maintain such access even if the DUP vetoed alignment with the single market.

Link

The compromise was the deal struck between the UK government and the EU. No more exemptions for the UK and rightfully so.

Dutchy wrote:

The compromise was the deal struck between the UK government and the EU. No more exemptions for the UK and rightfully so.

The ECJ has stated that the UK can revoke Article 50, I assume if that is done they can have some other ruling saying that the exemptions that the UK had prior do not have to be re-instated and can be revoked unilaterally by the EU. Nothing the UK can do about that so..............

par13del wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The compromise was the deal struck between the UK government and the EU. No more exemptions for the UK and rightfully so.

The ECJ has stated that the UK can revoke Article 50, I assume if that is done they can have some other ruling saying that the exemptions that the UK had prior do not have to be re-instated and can be revoked unilaterally by the EU. Nothing the UK can do about that so..............

? Revoking Article 50 will result in the article 50 letter never has been written, so all exemptions remain. If Johnson wants a deal, then gambling that the EU will exempt the UK for all kinds of things other 3rd countries do not get, is beyond me. The 4 freedoms are indivisible and the UK is gambling that these will be given up, just to convenience the UK. No, they will not and rightfully so.

UK already up to £66bn poorer because of Brexit vote, study shows

Hit to national income – around £420m a week – greater than Boris Johnson’s discredited claim of a £350m boost to be lavished on the NHS

Link

Ah well, again project fear.

It seems Johnson's deal is as dead as a Monty Python parrot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49970267

A No 10 source says a Brexit deal is "essentially impossible" after a call between the PM and Angela Merkel.

Boris Johnson spoke to the German chancellor earlier about the proposals he put forward to the EU - but the source said she made clear a deal based on them was "overwhelmingly unlikely".

They also claimed she said a deal would never be possible unless Northern Ireland stayed in a customs union.

Mrs Merkel's spokesman said they did not reveal confidential conversations.

So now it comes down to an arm-wrestle between Johnson and Parliament for a no-deal Brexit.

scbriml wrote:

It seems Johnson's deal is as dead as a Monty Python parrot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49970267

A No 10 source says a Brexit deal is "essentially impossible" after a call between the PM and Angela Merkel

This is all still the "stupid blame game" Tusk talks about. The "No. 10 source" is likely Dominic Cummings... Many commentators stating none of the "leak" reads like something Merkel would actually say.

scbriml wrote:

So now it comes down to an arm-wrestle between Johnson and Parliament for a no-deal Brexit.

A bout which Parliament has already won. Just a question of when someone will have the cajones to and how to pick the time to #RevokeA50 now.
It's either revoke or settle on some pointless deal which chucks away all the perks for nothing in return and no future say. Easy choice.

ChrisKen wrote:

scbriml wrote:

So now it comes down to an arm-wrestle between Johnson and Parliament for a no-deal Brexit.

A bout which Parliament has already won. Just a question of when someone will have the cajones to and how to pick the time to #RevokeA50 now.
It's either revoke or settle on some pointless deal which chucks away all the perks for nothing in return and no future say. Easy choice.

That might be the case if Orban would vote against an extention. Than there is a real choice between a no-deal brexit and revoke. What will happen than?

Dutchy wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

scbriml wrote:

So now it comes down to an arm-wrestle between Johnson and Parliament for a no-deal Brexit.

A bout which Parliament has already won. Just a question of when someone will have the cajones to and how to pick the time to #RevokeA50 now.
It's either revoke or settle on some pointless deal which chucks away all the perks for nothing in return and no future say. Easy choice.

That might be the case if Orban would vote against an extention. Than there is a real choice between a no-deal brexit and revoke. What will happen than?

Orban will not vote against it, he's not that stupid and he needs the money (which the UK is certainly not going to provide). To be honest, if the EU will vote it down, it's unlikely we know who and it will probably be "unanimous" (to send the message that the EU is not divided over the issue).

LJ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

A bout which Parliament has already won. Just a question of when someone will have the cajones to and how to pick the time to #RevokeA50 now.
It's either revoke or settle on some pointless deal which chucks away all the perks for nothing in return and no future say. Easy choice.

That might be the case if Orban would vote against an extention. Than there is a real choice between a no-deal brexit and revoke. What will happen than?

Orban will not vote against it, he's not that stupid and he needs the money (which the UK is certainly not going to provide). To be honest, if the EU will vote it down, it's unlikely we know who and it will probably be "unanimous" (to send the message that the EU is not divided over the issue).

I think you are right in that Orban will use his veto is extremely remote, but not unthinkable.

Donald Tusk @eucopresident wrote:

@BorisJohnson, what’s at stake is not winning some stupid blame game. At stake is the future of Europe and the UK as well as the security and interests of our people. You don’t want a deal, you don’t want an extension, you don’t want to revoke, quo vadis?

Auch. Donald Tusk is quite frank with Boris Johnson, but he is right. This is no pissing contest, Brexit will affect real lives of real people.

LJ wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

ChrisKen wrote:

A bout which Parliament has already won. Just a question of when someone will have the cajones to and how to pick the time to #RevokeA50 now.
It's either revoke or settle on some pointless deal which chucks away all the perks for nothing in return and no future say. Easy choice.

That might be the case if Orban would vote against an extention. Than there is a real choice between a no-deal brexit and revoke. What will happen than?

Orban will not vote against it, he's not that stupid and he needs the money (which the UK is certainly not going to provide). To be honest, if the EU will vote it down, it's unlikely we know who and it will probably be "unanimous" (to send the message that the EU is not divided over the issue).

To be honest, given that it would appear that Ireland will bear the brunt of a no deal Brexit, I can't see any of the EU27 not agreeing to an Article 50 extension request for that reason. It's why Varadkar has consistently stated he would agree to an Article 50 extension request. It's from April, but he said that whoever vetoed an extension request "wouldn't be forgiven" and my take is that vetoing any request would go against what's been said about the rest of the EU standing in solidarity with Ireland...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 58026.html

It's why I'm also unconvinced that Macron would veto a request despite his tough talk and taking the 'bad cop' badge as complement.

The only reason why extensions have even become possible is that the UK is far from actually exploiting them but is so massively screwing up itself that it is basically an act of charity.

Is the other alternative not to just move on the NI border issue? If Boris were to "throw the DUP under a bus" and do something that would be accepted enthusiastically in NI, then he could do a deal. If the EU is an immovable force and he has committed to leaving the EU on October 31, (not doing so would result in significant egg on face), then surely a pragmatic approach to NI would result in a result that's acceptable to the EU. He'd take the EU out, as he promised and the only group seriously cheesed off would be the DUP (and let's face it, any outcome favourable to NI's interests will cheese off the DUP).

SomebodyInTLS wrote:

The "No. 10 source" is likely Dominic Cummings... Many commentators stating none of the "leak" reads like something Merkel would actually say.

Indeed, and clearly it's somebody who knows very little about Mrs Merckel, because the language, the tone, as well as the content is something which simply does NOT match her way of doing at all as everybody with a bit of understanding of German politics immediately noticed.

But it's clear why these lines were put in exactly her mouth in the Cummings scenario: they need to put blame for the brakedown on someone in the EU and it's far easier to blame to Germans than it is to blame say the Dutch of the Danish… the Irish would be the most logical 'source' for this fabricated message of course, but sadly that would cause too much problems in NI, so Cummings probably decided not to go for Varadkar, whereas the French would have been an option too, but President Macron is very likely to put the tape out of the discussion and expose the lie, so the choice fell on Mrs Merckel as the Germans never disclose telephone conversations.

Nevertheless, this shows again you what a pathetic advisor and pathological liar this guy is...

Another one is the threat to several of the smaller EU nations (notably in the Baltic) that they will be moved to the back of the line for future collaboration if they approve the extension, and to the front of the line if they veto it? ROTFL...Talking about overestimating yourself!
Besides, since the EU27 is rock solid, that means moving the entire EU to the back of the line then or what? Bodes well for that FTA that BoJo dreams of …
Oh wait, that's the next thing to fall through: after the 'we can have whatever kind of relationship we want after we vote for Brexit because they need us more than we need them', and 'this deal is going to be the easiest deal ever', to 'we don't want a deal, but a FTA'... soon it's also going to be 'we can't conclude a FTA with the EU'...
Let's just throw ourselves into the arms of Trump's USA right away, shall we, because THAT's the obvious end goal, isn't it?
Bye Bye NHS and hello clorinated chicken!

kaitak wrote:

Is the other alternative not to just move on the NI border issue? If Boris were to "throw the DUP under a bus" and do something that would be accepted enthusiastically in NI, then he could do a deal. If the EU is an immovable force and he has committed to leaving the EU on October 31, (not doing so would result in significant egg on face), then surely a pragmatic approach to NI would result in a result that's acceptable to the EU. He'd take the EU out, as he promised and the only group seriously cheesed off would be the DUP (and let's face it, any outcome favourable to NI's interests will cheese off the DUP).

Move how, the second deal talks about putting the border in the Irish Sea, unfortunately, the deal also gives the legislature in NI some say about their future, which seems to be a sticking point. I assume that if they say NI to remain in the EU with no exceptions / exemptions the deal would be acceptable, whether the parliament will agree is another question, so far NYET has been their favored position.

par13del wrote:

the second deal talks about putting the border in the Irish Sea, unfortunately, the deal also gives the legislature in NI some say about their future, which seems to be a sticking point. I assume that if they say NI to remain in the EU with no exceptions / exemptions the deal would be acceptable, whether the parliament will agree is another question, so far NYET has been their favored position.

First of all, there is no second deal, there's only ONE deal which was agreed between the EC and the British Government of TM.

What you are refering to is probably the proposal from BoJo who came up with a mindblowing complex proposal full of loopholes and practical questions in order to somehow keep NI out of the EU, while still being in the SM on certain domains…

The EU has shown great flexibilty in the sense that it is willing to offer 'de facto' full and undivided EU benefits to a part of the UK (i.e. NI) and after negotiations it has even agreed to extend the CU to the whole of the UK to avoid any sort of a border within the UK, so it has put forward both a workable and clean solution allowing both a hard Brexit without troubles with the GFE as well as an elegant compromise solution for British politicians who want to pretend NI is no different from the rest of the UK: the UK simply has to make a choice between either of these 2 off the shelve options.

BoJo on the other hand is claiming to be have a much smarter solution, whereas he just retrying where others have failed before, i.e. to try to split the 4 freedoms and to cherry pick EU benefits... the only difference being that whereas TM had tried -and failed- to do so for the entire UK, he's trying to do it for NI only now.
ROTFL.

Either he's extremely naive to think he'd succeed where others have failed before him, or he does all this just to run down the clock.

Meanwhile, given the complete standstil in negotiations and the fact that the Benn Act requires the PM to ask for another extension of Britain's EU membership if no agreement is reached soon, the EU27 have now started discussing not so much the fact of them granting it (it seems it is a given, much to Cummings anger, because it's another plan of his which seems to have failed then, just like his prorogation), but rather the length of such an extension.

Whereas the Benn Act calls for 3 months of extension, the EU feels this is too short to make any meaningful progress, especially if an electoral campain is going to be fought in that period: the proposal now discussed is to offer an extension till the end of June 2020 instead...

par13del wrote:

kaitak wrote:

Is the other alternative not to just move on the NI border issue? If Boris were to "throw the DUP under a bus" and do something that would be accepted enthusiastically in NI, then he could do a deal. If the EU is an immovable force and he has committed to leaving the EU on October 31, (not doing so would result in significant egg on face), then surely a pragmatic approach to NI would result in a result that's acceptable to the EU. He'd take the EU out, as he promised and the only group seriously cheesed off would be the DUP (and let's face it, any outcome favourable to NI's interests will cheese off the DUP).

Move how, the second deal talks about putting the border in the Irish Sea, unfortunately, the deal also gives the legislature in NI some say about their future, which seems to be a sticking point. I assume that if they say NI to remain in the EU with no exceptions / exemptions the deal would be acceptable, whether the parliament will agree is another question, so far NYET has been their favored position.

No the BoJo proposal (not deal, as nobody has accepted it, not even the UK) puts a regulatory border in the Irish sea, but a customs border in the middle of Ireland (and the people border, who knows ?).

The EU would be fine with a single border in the Irish sea, indeed that's the backstop that was offered all along.

sabenapilot wrote:

Meanwhile, given the complete standstil in negotiations and the fact that the Benn Act requires the PM to ask for another extension of Britain's EU membership if no agreement is reached soon, the EU27 have now started discussing not so much the fact of them granting it (it seems it is a given, much to Cummings anger, because it's another plan of his which seems to have failed then, just like his prorogation), but rather the length of such an extension.

Whereas the Benn Act calls for 3 months of extension, the EU feels this is too short to make any meaningful progress, especially if an electoral campain is going to be fought in that period: the proposal now discussed is to offer an extension till the end of June 2020 instead...

June 2020 must be around the time the 2021-2027 EU budget will be voted on, if the extension is longer, make it until 2027 !

From what I'm reading, the new new new BoJo plan is to get the extension with full blame put on "remoaners", maybe with BoJo resigning the premiership so he doesn't do it himself, then on to the election, with the Tories campaigning on no deal, to cut the grass under the Brexit Party's feet.

sabenapilot wrote:

Whereas the Benn Act calls for 3 months of extension, the EU feels this is too short to make any meaningful progress, especially if an electoral campain is going to be fought in that period: the proposal now discussed is to offer an extension till the end of June 2020 instead...

Which means the UK Parliament has to approve, which means that any no deal Brexit can be blamed on the UK instead of the EU. Moreover, Boris must be glad as he now has a chance to get its no deal Brexit. The only downside is with the UK Parliament, where some, who voted for the Benn Act, may be reluctant to postpone till June 2020. Smart move by the EU.

Why wouldn't the House of Commons adopt such a proposal? It is the only real course of action open to them. The two other options: revoke article 50 and a no-deal, aren't real options right now. Maintaining the status quo is electorial and in the real world the smart move.

sabenapilot wrote:

Nevertheless, this shows again you what a pathetic advisor and pathological liar this guy is...

I watched the Channel 4 drama "Brexit: An Uncivil War" a few months ago. Having seen and heard a lot more about Dominic Cummings since then, I'd say Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal of him was spot on.

Dutchy wrote:

Why wouldn't the House of Commons adopt such a proposal? It is the only real course of action open to them. The two other options: revoke article 50 and a no-deal, aren't real options right now. Maintaining the status quo is electorial and in the real world the smart move.

If the Commons are serious about getting an extension before agreeing to an election, they would need to vote for this. This is easier said than done given that until recently with the Benn Act, they've only been agreeing on what they don't want instead of what they want, so part of me will only believe it when I see it.

As for the rumour of offering an extension until June 2020 (is there a link btw?), this makes sense as Parliament needs to be dissolves 25 working days before an election which is 5 weeks (maybe longer if there are any public holidays in that period), then there may well be a hung parliament so time needed for somebody to command a majority. Christmas is also coming up, so time will inevitably be lost then. As much as I'm against an election, I reluctantly came to the view a few weeks ago it's looking like the only way besides a second referendum that this impasse will be resolved.

The issue, however, is whether Macron will agree to an extension that long given he was the one that kiboshed Tusk's idea of a one year "flextension" last time round. Would it take a general election before Christmas being imposed a condition of an extension?

Boeing74741R wrote:

As for the rumour of offering an extension until June 2020 (is there a link btw?),

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/08/eu-may-offer-to-extend-deadline-for-brexit-deal-to-summer

First 2 and last 3 paragraphs of the article.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lace-world

This 5 minute read discusses the dis-association of capitalism with the Conservative Party. It is also germane to what is happening in the US. Gist is that banking services, manufacturing, and others (IIRC, LHR and RRs are owned by foreigners) hence the interests of these entities are not ultimately tied to the UK. The Tory party is no longer influenced and somewhat controlled by them. A leading Tory even said 'f**k industry.

So can we speculate on what would happen if the parliament forces Bojo to write for the extension and the EU says NYET?
Since the parliament now has some control of the process, what would they do, would the speaker call a session to vote on the TM deal for a 4th time, would the EU rejection motivate an affirmative vote?

Foreign Minister Stef Blok warns the United Kingdom that they cannot just leave the European Union and not pay the final bill. That bill is estimated at 40 billion euros.

Minister Blok makes that statement in an interview with the Financieele Dagblad. The EU and the UK have previously agreed that the British still have to meet the commitments they entered into during EU membership. That amount should be transferred in one go.

Prime Minister Johnson said late this summer that it is not at all certain that the British will pay that bill. If the United Kingdom leaves the European Union without an agreement on 31 October, it will not have to pay the 40 billion that its predecessor May has agreed, Johnson said.

Link in Dutch

So there you have it for the zillions time. A no-deal Brexit will not relieve the UK from its bill. Or the intent is to have no-deal ever with its closest neighbors.

par13del wrote:

So can we speculate on what would happen if the parliament forces Bojo to write for the extension and the EU says NYET?
Since the parliament now has some control of the process, what would they do, would the speaker call a session to vote on the TM deal for a 4th time, would the EU rejection motivate an affirmative vote?

Highly unlikely that the EU says, non, nein, nee or whatever. So if you want to speculate, what to do if Johnson doesn't write his letter, the EU will offer an extention to June on the condition that there will be something changed in the equation like new elections everyone seems to want or whatever.

The question is if the Torry party still cares? Businesses seem to have lost influence with them (aka "f*** the industry") and even the bankers in London do no longer have the power to change the course. If the motivation is purely power using nationalism - no trade deal will not matter to them - they will sell it as a victory.