Brexit THread

[Tirnam]

He is talking about Britain's future relationship with the EU once they will have left the EU. So he is not talking about the EU, but about the different economic relationships that a third country can have with the EU.

The single market is one of the aspects of the EU, not the only one.

Earlier in the interview he said that it would be unacceptable that during the transition the only change would be on citizens rights while the rules for goods, services, trade continue to apply with no change. Another example on how Eurocrats only care about the good of industry, not citizens.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

He is talking about Britain's future relationship with the EU once they will have left the EU. So he is not talking about the EU, but about the different economic relationships that a third country can have with the EU.

The single market is one of the aspects of the EU, not the only one.

Earlier in the interview he said that it would be unacceptable that during the transition the only change would be on citizens rights while the rules for goods, services, trade continue to apply with no change. Another example on how Eurocrats only care about the good of industry, not citizens.

Since the context is "we want the single labor market to continue for the benefit of industry", your comment isn't nearly as snarky as you intended.

[parochial boy]

Here's a Eurocrat being honest.  The EU isn't about what's best for people, it's about what's best for industry.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-43104378/single-market-is-best-solution-for-uk-guy-verhofstadt

Well seeing as the Brexit supporting right wing have been quite enthusiastic about how they will abandon EU regulations on things like consumer protection laws or workers rights, I think we can safely say that the EU has the interests of people far more at it's heart than the British (or American) right.

The EU is also the only organisation that has both the clout and willingness to stand up for "people" over business. For example in passing the working hours directive or supporting higher standards of consumer protection than exist in the US for instance. So while it may be a liberal institution interested in enriching the rich at it's heart, it is still the best organisation in terms of being able to stand up for the average person against the excess of bug business and US style deregualtion that we have got.

[Zinneke]

Here's a Eurocrat being honest.  The EU isn't about what's best for people, it's about what's best for industry.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-43104378/single-market-is-best-solution-for-uk-guy-verhofstadt

Well seeing as the Brexit supporting right wing have been quite enthusiastic about how they will abandon EU regulations on things like consumer protection laws or workers rights, I think we can safely say that the EU has the interests of people far more at it's heart than the British (or American) right.

The EU is also the only organisation that has both the clout and willingness to stand up for "people" over business. For example in passing the working hours directive or supporting higher standards of consumer protection than exist in the US for instance. So while it may be a liberal institution interested in enriching the rich at it's heart, it is still the best organisation in terms of being able to stand up for the average person against the excess of bug business and US style deregualtion that we have got.

I agree with the clout, but the actual willingness is another matter entirely. Let's be honest, the way politics has evolved a lot of our political class have a ten year lifespan in the bigger countries and a slightly longer one in smaller countries with political stability. When some of them get shifted to Brussels, they use the extensive industry networks here their to build their contact books more than anything else. I'm not sure its as cynical as what i hear from the US, because people here I meet from the Eurocrat zone seem to genuinely care about people, while not going into the pure theatricality the US Congress engages in to keep certain electorates on side (mainly because no European electorate cares about the EP other than us)

but once they are overwhelmed with the complexity of the legal systems they are dealing with, they tend to let "industry representatives" (the Eurospeak word for lobbyists) take them out for a nice lunch and present them with a false dilemma.

They're starting to clean up their act, the lunches are significantly cheaper, but a lot of MEPs can be swindled around here, and they're the ones who are supposed to protect the people. In the end corporations hire the very same people who legislated "against" them for "consultancy", the biggest example being José Manuel Baroso (who was a complete tosser too; but that's  Commission is naive-liberal (look at how they dealt with the Ukraine Association Agreement), and the Council generally disolves into just states protecting their big industry interests.

I think the right-wing UK version of the EU was always the idea that mutual recognition of standards would triumph over a common regulatory framework. And if ever there was a conflict (say, a non-tarriff barrier) we could sort it out via a diplomatic roundtable; Council style...or Swiss style .  That, and the fact that the Eurozone and common foreign policy always meant some degree of political union, meant that the UK under the Conservatives was always going to distance itself, with or without the referendum they created. But they're not wrong in certain criticisms of the EU's regulatory methodology.

[Tirnam]

He is talking about Britain's future relationship with the EU once they will have left the EU. So he is not talking about the EU, but about the different economic relationships that a third country can have with the EU.

The single market is one of the aspects of the EU, not the only one.

Earlier in the interview he said that it would be unacceptable that during the transition the only change would be on citizens rights while the rules for goods, services, trade continue to apply with no change. Another example on how Eurocrats only care about the good of industry, not citizens.

Since the context is "we want the single labor market to continue for the benefit of industry", your comment isn't nearly as snarky as you intended.

The context is the future relationship between the UK and the EU so I really don't understand your point, why the EU should be blamed for putting its economic interests first, before the interest of British people who will be no longer EU citizens?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I see nothing wrong with the EU placing its interests first. Indeed, I'd be shocked if it didn't try to do what it thought would be best for it.

But what's clear is that the EU and the UK don't agree on what is most important. In my opinion, the EU has come to the conclusion that economics trumps all, and everything else is of at best secondary concern. Whether that is industrial, consumer, or worker economics is but minor difference to the EU. Yet, the fact that Brexit is happening shows that for a significant part of the British electorate, economics is at best a secondary concern. The Eurocrats remain baffled by that, which no doubt explains why they think pointing out economic problems caused by Brexit will somehow cause the UK to reverse course.

[parochial boy]

Here's a Eurocrat being honest.  The EU isn't about what's best for people, it's about what's best for industry.

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-43104378/single-market-is-best-solution-for-uk-guy-verhofstadt

Well seeing as the Brexit supporting right wing have been quite enthusiastic about how they will abandon EU regulations on things like consumer protection laws or workers rights, I think we can safely say that the EU has the interests of people far more at it's heart than the British (or American) right.

The EU is also the only organisation that has both the clout and willingness to stand up for "people" over business. For example in passing the working hours directive or supporting higher standards of consumer protection than exist in the US for instance. So while it may be a liberal institution interested in enriching the rich at it's heart, it is still the best organisation in terms of being able to stand up for the average person against the excess of bug business and US style deregualtion that we have got.

I agree with the clout, but the actual willingness is another matter entirely. Let's be honest, the way politics has evolved a lot of our political class have a ten year lifespan in the bigger countries and a slightly longer one in smaller countries with political stability. When some of them get shifted to Brussels, they use the extensive industry networks here their to build their contact books more than anything else. I'm not sure its as cynical as what i hear from the US, because people here I meet from the Eurocrat zone seem to genuinely care about people, while not going into the pure theatricality the US Congress engages in to keep certain electorates on side (mainly because no European electorate cares about the EP other than us)

but once they are overwhelmed with the complexity of the legal systems they are dealing with, they tend to let "industry representatives" (the Eurospeak word for lobbyists) take them out for a nice lunch and present them with a false dilemma.

They're starting to clean up their act, the lunches are significantly cheaper, but a lot of MEPs can be swindled around here, and they're the ones who are supposed to protect the people. In the end corporations hire the very same people who legislated "against" them for "consultancy", the biggest example being José Manuel Baroso (who was a complete tosser too; but that's  Commission is naive-liberal (look at how they dealt with the Ukraine Association Agreement), and the Council generally disolves into just states protecting their big industry interests.

I think the right-wing UK version of the EU was always the idea that mutual recognition of standards would triumph over a common regulatory framework. And if ever there was a conflict (say, a non-tarriff barrier) we could sort it out via a diplomatic roundtable; Council style...or Swiss style .  That, and the fact that the Eurozone and common foreign policy always meant some degree of political union, meant that the UK under the Conservatives was always going to distance itself, with or without the referendum they created. But they're not wrong in certain criticisms of the EU's regulatory methodology.

Yeah, fair enough, but I guess the point of comparison being the two state actors that have the clout to do something about the excesses of business, are the EU and the USA. And the EU, despite its many, many flaws (I mean, Juncker getting on his high horse about anything just seems to be in bad taste, given, you know, Luxembourg...) does do a lot more to stand up for people than the US does (which is not saying much of course).

[Tintrlvr]

I see nothing wrong with the EU placing its interests first. Indeed, I'd be shocked if it didn't try to do what it thought would be best for it.

But what's clear is that the EU and the UK don't agree on what is most important. In my opinion, the EU has come to the conclusion that economics trumps all, and everything else is of at best secondary concern. Whether that is industrial, consumer, or worker economics is but minor difference to the EU. Yet, the fact that Brexit is happening shows that for a significant part of the British electorate, economics is at best a secondary concern. The Eurocrats remain baffled by that, which no doubt explains why they think pointing out economic problems caused by Brexit will somehow cause the UK to reverse course.

A significant part but not, actually, a majority. A substantial portion of the Brexit voters were genuinely voting for Brexit for economic reasons; they believed it would be economically to their or to Britain's benefit (which could be from a left, anti-globalist perspective, an old-right imperial perspective or just general economic fuzziness). That they may have been wrong is irrelevant, except in the sense that economic arguments, both by Remainers in Britain and by the EU, may actually win some of those people back over. There are some signs now that, if a new referendum were held (not that this is likely to happen), Remain would win, after all. (Then again, that might just be demographic turnover rather than people changing their minds, given the enormous age gap in Leave/Remain voting.)

[swl]

I am quite confident about Brexit, I think it will go well however it will be such a long and unclear process with so many steps that the most hard-core brexiters will be disappointed.

In around one year the UK will officially leave the EU, losing his representation. Nothing else will change, maybe some cosmetic changes related to immigration from EU citizens. Then we will enter the official transition period where everything will be the same during a few years. Then when the official transition is over, we will have many smaller transitions topic by topic with different timelines. So I am sure the final shape UK-EU relationship will not be reached before 10 years.

To me the most difficult issue during all this.process will be Northern Ireland. Some politicians in the UK are trying to show us that they will find a solution such that you can have A=B, B=C but A different from C ! This single issue will be the one impossible to solve and will frustrate brexiters goals. At the end we will either keep such a strong link between UK and EU that the Northern Ireland border remains will remain invisible, or we will put borders and controls between the 2 while allowing NI to be giant loophole in the system

[Leftbehind]

To me the most difficult issue during all this.process will be Northern Ireland. Some politicians in the UK are trying to show us that they will find a solution such that you can have A=B, B=C but A different from C ! This single issue will be the one impossible to solve and will frustrate brexiters goals. At the end we will either keep such a strong link between UK and EU that the Northern Ireland border remains will remain invisible, or we will put borders and controls between the 2 while allowing NI to be giant loophole in the system

So I've presumed the government's plan was to commit to NI always being regulatorily aligned with the EU, and whilst they have to, to assure DUP that there'll be no border between GB and NI (which there needn't be, whilst we remain regulatorily aligned ourselves) - except there will be eventually. Once they're no longer reliant on DUP's votes - and that way she can keep all sets of hardliners onboard until we've left the EU and can then safely collapse the government knowing even if a fervently pro-EU party got elected they'd need to rejoin on terms the British public are unlikely to sanction.

Only today Barnier/the EU have thrown an enormous spanner in the works on that: by enshrining the sea border into law there is no way the DUP position that there is to be no divergence between the NI & GB can now be satisfied. I have no idea why the EU have done this, when it's probably the only workable solution going - unless they're hoping for a softer Brexit and doing this to try to collapse the government?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

unless they're hoping for a softer Brexit and doing this to try to collapse the government?

It's either that or they're deliberately trying for as hard a Brexit as possible to discourage anyone else from leaving the EU.  But that makes no sense.  Even a soft Brexit should be enough to discourage other countries from leaving and I doubt that even if Brexit had been as easy as the Leave campaign had claimed it would be that anyone else would have tried leaving.

[Izzyeviel]

To me the most difficult issue during all this.process will be Northern Ireland. Some politicians in the UK are trying to show us that they will find a solution such that you can have A=B, B=C but A different from C ! This single issue will be the one impossible to solve and will frustrate brexiters goals. At the end we will either keep such a strong link between UK and EU that the Northern Ireland border remains will remain invisible, or we will put borders and controls between the 2 while allowing NI to be giant loophole in the system

So I've presumed the government's plan was to commit to NI always being regulatorily aligned with the EU, and whilst they have to, to assure DUP that there'll be no border between GB and NI (which there needn't be, whilst we remain regulatorily aligned ourselves) - except there will be eventually. Once they're no longer reliant on DUP's votes - and that way she can keep all sets of hardliners onboard until we've left the EU and can then safely collapse the government knowing even if a fervently pro-EU party got elected they'd need to rejoin on terms the British public are unlikely to sanction.

Only today Barnier/the EU have thrown an enormous spanner in the works on that: by enshrining the sea border into law there is no way the DUP position that there is to be no divergence between the NI & GB can now be satisfied. I have no idea why the EU have done this, when it's probably the only workable solution going - unless they're hoping for a softer Brexit and doing this to try to collapse the government?

The EU has only proposed what Theresa May offered it in December.

[cp]

So I've presumed the government's plan was to commit to NI always being regulatorily aligned with the EU, and whilst they have to, to assure DUP that there'll be no border between GB and NI (which there needn't be, whilst we remain regulatorily aligned ourselves) - except there will be eventually.

This is, essentially, what the first draft of the Phase 1 agreement said, which was enough to prompt the DUP to threaten to pull their support for the government.

I'm finding it it more and more difficult to envision any possibility of this government continuing without a major revolt or capitulation to the EU (which would prompt a major revolt).