Brexit THread

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Surprised we don't have a thread on this really. It has been pretty surreal.

[thumb21]

Wow. How the hell was one not created before and how did I not notice this?

[cp]

Mostly because it's been covered in the UK general discussion thread. Also, as this week's events seem to demonstrate, there's been an air of phony war about the whole endeavour, up until now.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

the Northern Ireland question is the new Schleswig Holstein Question.

[Tintrlvr]

So, how long until someone in the Brexit camp suggests solving the NI problem by expelling them from the UK? Seems about as tone-deaf as May's interactions with the DUP lately.

[darklordoftech]

DUP LOVES the UK so much and will not accept ANY regulatory divergence with the rest of the UK. Except on same-sex marriage, abortion and anything else they like.

What a bunch of stone-aged, homophobic, bigoted hypocrites....

I'd be very happy if Ireland is reunited ;-)

Why did the Irish Catholics and the Ulster Protestants continue to hate each other until 1998 when they have so much more in common with each other than either does with the Church of England?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Strong and stable.

[IceAgeComing]

To explain the latest fiasco for our non-Brit audience.

We're in the preliminary stage of the talks at the moment - as we have been since Article 50 (the section of the EU treaties which provide a process for people leaving the Union).  The timescale for this is tight - the treaties say that any agreement has to be ratified within two years which is all but impossible for a comprehensive trade deal (CETA took over ten years) so by now everyone has agreed that there'll likely be some kind of transitional arrangement (possibly some kind of EEA membership) while a longer team agreement is fleshed out.

The EU want three areas dealt with first - firstly any payments from the UK government to cover the costs of spending that the UK has already committed to as a member (originally the UK government said it'd pay nothing, then £20 billion,  now £50 billion); secondly the situation of EU citizens currently living in the UK and vice versa (the UK seems to have completely backed down on allowing the ECJ competency on issues affecting EU citizens in a post-Brexit UK) and thirdly, the Irish border and any special situation for Northern Ireland.

The latter is a very complex issue for a variety of reasons - firstly, the fact is that the current situation (an entirely open border with not even any official sign that you've gone into another country bar the road signs changing; no barriers between the North and the Republic in terms of business either) is the ideal situation for everyone.  It also is that the Good Friday Agreement (the treaty between the UK and the Republic on Northern Ireland backed by all of the credible Unionist and Republic parties in Northern Ireland) was reliant on always being a thing; and the creation of a hard border with significant regulatory divisions would always be an issue.  NI voted Remain in the referendum but the largest party in terms of Westminster seats and votes is the Democratic Unionist Party who supported Leaving.  This is also a huge issue for the Republic and they, like every EU member state (plus the Parliaments of Flanders, Wallonia and the Brussels Capital Region thanks to Belgian law) have a veto on any Brexit deal because it required unanimous consent so they'll veto anything that screws then over.

This is where there seemed to be an apparent breakthrough yesterday; with the UK government conceding that there would be no regulatory differences on the Island of Ireland on a litany of areas.  This seemed to be the best compromise for the Tories between getting a sensible deal for all of Ireland without angering the hardcore Brexiteers in the party.  Slight issue: the DUP,  who provide the government with their majority after the needless election in June, heard about the deal and vetoed it because for them the idea that on a large number of issues you'd have regulatory differences between Great Britain (our own crap) and Northern Ireland (EU rules) smelled a little toouch like a step towards a United Ireland.  This scuppered the deal since its exactly the sort of thing which would cause them to vote the government down and fresh elections aren't what anyone really wants right now - especially Labour who are fine doing the typical opposition thing of criticising the government continually without a... solid policy on Brexit.  It also led to lots of other people getting annoyed - the Scottish Government, the Mayoral Office in London and the government of Anguilla (a British overseas territory in the Carribean which does most of its trade and has strong links with surrounding Islands which are mostly either overseas territories of EU member states or otherwise which follow EU rules, the biggest partner being Saint Martin/Sint-Maarten, an Island split between France and the Netherlands) who want the NI deal for themselves and the hardcore unionists who care more about the UK leaving together rather than the content of the deal; this being most of the Scottish Tories.  So she's successfully managed to anger both a chunk of her own party, the party supporting her in Parliament and lower administrations that like the EU with this.

This meant that like an hour before they were going to announce this deal they had to ditch it and they're talking again about something else.  The fact is though that this is the best deal for her - no deal on the border means a no deal Brexit which would be a disaster for the UK economy and also would split the Tories with those that care more about the market and liberal economics being angry and so May would be challenged; and a deal like this one buy for the whole UK would anger the Brexit nuts in the Tory party and so she'd be rolled.  If they hadn't called the election they might have gotten the Ireland thing through Parliament but they through that away when they arrogantly called an early election so they can only blame themselves.  I see no way in which May lasts very long in this; its the perfect storm.  Also if you're going to follow EU rules anyway what's the point in leaving?  All you do is lose any UK representation in the Commission, Parliament and Council in drawing the things up...

You'll also note that the UK has done all of the conceding.  That's because of two facts:  first the UK went in with an incredibly unrealistic position which was basically "we want everything good about the EU with none of the duties oh and we aren't paying you for this" while the EU were a lot more clear and secondly the power is very much with the EU in this.  I fear that this is only going to get more clear as we go on, especially when it comes to dealing with other countries and my fears are basically that they make things significantly worse than EU membership.  I read somewhere that generally everyone knew already that the EU team were very determined and very skilled at getting their own way, and that you'd rather they be on your side rather than against you.

[swl]

Thanks for the great post. I guess there is a good opportunity for Northern Ireland. They could end up with  a special status that makes it the best place for future EU-UK trade.

[America Needs R'hllor]

Thanks for the great post.

[cp]

Wow. Outstanding post, IceAgeComing! Respect for having the patience to summarize all the nonsense of the past 8 months so succinctly.

One point of contention: I'm not quite sure this is the end of May, nor the catalyst for a fatal split between Tory Remainers and lunatic leavers. If they can find some way to explain 'regulatory alignment/divergence' (the diplomatic language that led to the breakdown in negotiations yesterday) in a way that appeases the DUP and the hardliners in the Cabinet, I think the Tory impulse for self-preservation will keep them, or at least May, in power.

Granted, I don't think there is any explanation that would not be utter bullsh**t, but that's never stopped politicians from proceeding with their policies before.

[Leftbehind]

This scuppered the deal since its exactly the sort of thing which would cause them to vote the government down and fresh elections aren't what anyone really wants right now - especially Labour who are fine doing the typical opposition thing of criticising the government continually without a... solid policy on Brexit.

Whilst their position is not fixed, and there was certainly a relief in Labour that they wouldn't be landed with delivering the impossible promises of Leave, I disagree with the above. Every day the Tories are showing themselves unable to live up to the promises - accepting tens of billions and internal borders. There's also signs that public opinion may be changing that (EU allowing) a 2nd referendum could call the whole thing off, so whether you're a EFTA Corbynite or a diehard Remainer I don't think there'd be any hesitation from Labour in bringing down this government if the option was there.

If they hadn't called the election they might have gotten the Ireland thing through Parliament but they through that away when they arrogantly called an early election so they can only blame themselves.  I see no way in which May lasts very long in this; its the perfect storm. 

Funnily enough I reckon she wanted a supermajority so she wasn't beholden to satisfying the lunatics throughout Brexit and instead got another set to appease.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

So David Davis has just admitted the government has not conducted a single economic impact assessment  about the influence of Brexit on the economy.

[cp]

... and yet he gets away with it *sigh* Link

On potentially more substantial developments, the EU and Ireland have, in effect, announced Friday as the deadline for producing new language on the Irish border question that could get Phase II talks underway. Whether or not this is really as hard a deadline as they say (I've seen reports to indicate it is not), it's somewhat moot. The real choke point is the UK Cabinet.

It's been announced that the Cabinet has not yet had a full discussion about what the government would like its post-exit relationship with the EU to look like, but that they will have this discussion before the end of the year.

Putting these two together, it seems like May will have to decide either to accept there will be no progression to Phase II talks before March, or will pull the trigger and hold the Cabinet meeting that could very well lead to the end of her government and possibly a new election (or, less likely but still possible, a gobsmacking capitulation by either the soft brexit/remain ministers or the lunatic leavers).

[Tirnam]

So the lack of reflexion of the UK government on the basics of Brexit led to months and months of stalemate in the Phase I of the negotiations and yet the UK government is also unprepared for Phase II?

And they still hope that a deal is possible by the end of 2018?

[cp]

Yes, however one could argue that this has less to do with a lack of adequate preparation by the UK government and more to do with a lack of political maneuverability. They had all kinds of time and resources to plan out an exit from the EU either along brexiteer or moderate lines, but doing so would have meant creating a paper trail, and with it political momentum for one side or the other. This was politically unfeasible, as the Tories have been too irreconcilably divided over the issue to avoid the kind of rebellion that would have brought their government down (as may now transpire).

[Leftbehind]

So the lack of reflexion of the UK government on the basics of Brexit led to months and months of stalemate in the Phase I of the negotiations and yet the UK government is also unprepared for Phase II?

And they still hope that a deal is possible by the end of 2018?

As cp explained - the lack of preparation is because the Tories are hopelessly split on what to do (a deal with the EU at all cost or a Hard Brexit at all cost). There's no uniform agreement for either, and there needs to be otherwise the government and it's slender majority collapses.

[Ebsy]

shambles

[IceAgeComing]

So the government lost a vote in the House of Commons today on the EU Withdrawal Bill.  An amendment introduced by Tory MP (and former Attorney General) Dominic Grieve was supported by all of the opposition parties bar the DUP, who naturally backed the government and the thing was passed 309-305.  Basically what the amendment means is that after any Brexit deal is agreed by the UK government and the EU it will need to be passed as an Act of Parliament through both Houses of Parliament before it is enacted - which is very different from the symbolic vote on the deal that had been offered by the government.  Basically what the amendment is all about is basically implementing what Ministers had claimed to offer into the statute books, with the current version of the bill allegedly allowing Ministers to bypass parliament and implement any deal even if Parliament opposed it.  I don't see Parliament electing to veto any Brexit deal unless its legit a poison pill somehow so this is more symbolic, but symbolism sometimes matters.

Eleven Tory MPs voted for the amendment - eight of them being former Ministers in the Cameron government - and its a list of people that you'd generally expect to back this sort of thing: either Tory MPs who are committed remainers (or in the case of Clarke a proper Europhile) or people who represent places that voted heavily for Remain in the referendum.  Another voted both for and against the amendment; which is basically the only way that MPs can officially register an abstention if they want to be shown as having voted in the division (the other way is to not vote at all which some people did: although generally there are always a couple of those in every division: sometimes government ministers who're off on official business and can't be in London for a division or MPs who've got other commitments - especially if pairing is a thing which guarantees that if an MP can't vote in a division for good reasons an opposing MP will also not vote to balance things out).  What's especially remarkable, and the real reason why this amendment passed, is that Labour did a very good job whipping their MPs with most of the Labour MPs who've tended to back the government on Brexit bill amendments (Dennis Skinner is the one that everyone will probably know) voting with the party whip for the amendment this time.  The only Labour two MPs who voted with the government were Frank Field and Kate Hoey, both very committed Brexit people, the latter especially so.  Every other opposition MP (from the SNP, Liberals and the smaller parties) all also voted for the amendment

It doesn't scupper the government at all - this was a vote on an amendment in the Committee of the Whole House: there's still two more stages left and in the next one (the Report Stage) they can effectively vote again to try and remove the Amendment and hope that their whips do a better job or that the Labour ones don't.  They also could try and get the House of Lords to take it out but considering that the Lords has been very hostile to the government on lots of things especially Brexit and that they, well, its an unelected House with membership for life so the government will find it a lot harder to whip Tory peers on things.  It does show one key thing though: an overall majority of eight which is what the government has even with the DUP and Sinn Féin not voting isn't really a working majority (meaning a majority in which the government can confidently rely on being able to get virtually all of their policies through parliament), especially with the divisions in the Tory party on Europe.  That's the risk that the government has to deal with: its a very narrow line that they have to follow and even if they roll May tomorrow and bring another leader in it doesn't get any better - indeed, if an ardent Brexiteer won then it might even get harder for the government.

[The Free North]

Would I be correct in stating that a handful of DUP MPs are effectively holding all of Great Britain and Europe hostage?

[Tirnam]

The 27 EU countries have adopted the guidelines for Phase II of the negotiations. The idea of a transition period has been accepted.
- It will last until the end of 2020
- The United Kingdom will have full access to the single market
- The four freedoms will continue to apply (including the free movement of EU citizens)
- The UK will apply any EU law, even the law adopted during the transition, the UK will have no say on these laws.
- The ECJ will still be the ultimate jurisdiction.
- The UK will be able to negotiate trade deals.

And yet, yesterday, T. May said that during the transition, European citizens coming in the UK would be treated differently.

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

[mileslunn]

The 27 EU countries have adopted the guidelines for Phase II of the negotiations. The idea of a transition period has been accepted.
- It will last until the end of 2020
- The United Kingdom will have full access to the single market
- The four freedoms will continue to apply (including the free movement of EU citizens)
- The UK will apply any EU law, even the law adopted during the transition, the UK will have no say on these laws.
- The ECJ will still be the ultimate jurisdiction.
- The UK will be able to negotiate trade deals.

And yet, yesterday, T. May said that during the transition, European citizens coming in the UK would be treated differently.

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

So perhaps that means free mobility of labour which is the main reason people voted to leave will remain in place after all?  Or is it just during transition and then the free mobility ends starting in 2021?

My guess is that while the UK will leave outright, in about a decade or so it will rejoin the single market and will be like Norway is today.

Also what is the status on passporting rights for the financial sector as this is huge for the city of London.  My understanding is the UK could only keep this if they remained in the single market thus allowing free mobility of labour.

[Leftbehind]

And yet, yesterday, T. May said that during the transition, European citizens coming in the UK would be treated differently.

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

Because many of the people behind her (who she relies on for support, and who value a clean Brexit over single market access or lack of disruption) are supposedly mutinous and ready for deposing her.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

One could also ask why the EU is choosing to act in a manner that essentially guarantees the UK never returns and that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland never enter? At a minimum, I can't see the UK agreeing to ever rejoin the EU unless there is in place an agreement on exactly what happens if the UK decides to leave again so that it doesn't have to go through this a second time.

[EPG]

Why is she still fighting battles she is sure to lose...

One could also ask why the EU is choosing to act in a manner that essentially guarantees the UK never returns and that Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland never enter? At a minimum, I can't see the UK agreeing to ever rejoin the EU unless there is in place an agreement on exactly what happens if the UK decides to leave again so that it doesn't have to go through this a second time.

The EU's goal is not sheer size or numbers of member states, but a single economic policy and the four freedoms.