BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

That analysis entirely misses the point that a soft Brexit was taken off the table very early on after the referendum, by May's red lines. If a soft Brexit with cross party involvement had been an option ever considered, then I agree it could have been a different result. But we still don't know what we're going to end up with now.

I still think that we were never going to be outside the EU but obeying all the rules of the EU with no input into them, so that kind of soft Brexit was never going to fly, if that was your second-best option. It would be better economically than leaving, but madness.

This analysis misses the point that all forms of Brexit start with a withdrawal agreement, so a softer Brexit would have been possible now, if parliament had accepted the need for a withdrawal agreement.

You may recall I said before the election that Labour's only option was to vote for the withdrawal agreement and campaign for a better Brexit. I stand by that.

rjsterry

I think more than a few wish they had done just this.

tailwindhome

https://twitter.com/Dadsaysjokes/status/1222967489862291458

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

That analysis entirely misses the point that a soft Brexit was taken off the table very early on after the referendum, by May's red lines. If a soft Brexit with cross party involvement had been an option ever considered, then I agree it could have been a different result. But we still don't know what we're going to end up with now.

I still think that we were never going to be outside the EU but obeying all the rules of the EU with no input into them, so that kind of soft Brexit was never going to fly, if that was your second-best option. It would be better economically than leaving, but madness.

The argument that EEA membership is not leaving the EU is bowlox, tomorrow night we will move into a transition period and the same people will celebrate leaving the EU.

tailwindhome

1377 pages in and we've a new term throw into the mix.

Article 217 is the new Article 50 apparently

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

That analysis entirely misses the point that a soft Brexit was taken off the table very early on after the referendum, by May's red lines. If a soft Brexit with cross party involvement had been an option ever considered, then I agree it could have been a different result. But we still don't know what we're going to end up with now.

I still think that we were never going to be outside the EU but obeying all the rules of the EU with no input into them, so that kind of soft Brexit was never going to fly, if that was your second-best option. It would be better economically than leaving, but madness.

I think many do still miss the point that a soft Brexit was not necessarily the answer. This would not have solved the issues that caused many to vote leave - those related to independence, sovereignty, self determination etc.

This article expressesnit pretty well from the point of view of a 'reluctant remainer' which I think summarised myclassification within the types of voters in the referendum:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/01/29/leaving-eu-horrible-way-preserve-democratic-liberal-nation-state/

Stevo_666

Here's some of the text in case its behind the Torygraph paywall:

"Sadness, foreboding, and dismay that it ever came to such a point: these are the emotions that this reluctant Brexiteer feels as we finally leave the European Union on Friday.

I feel no satisfaction in the traumatic moment. Yet I stick to my view that this dysfunctional marriage had to end. Such is the Brexit paradox.

There has been much commentary over recent days dividing us (again) into opposed camps: Remainers still angry or in mourning, set against triumphant foes of Brussels. But what about the rest of us with more subtle feelings and in many cases a deep affection for l’Europe des patries?

Of course we recognise the advantages (for some) of being able to live and work anywhere in the EU. We know Brussels did a good job breaking down the cartels, opening up cheap air travel and (belatedly) ending the racket of roaming fees.

We can see that if you are dealing with a Chinese Communist Party that sees itself in “existential struggle” with the West, or with a pathological predator like Vladimir Putin, it is better to club together in self-protection. Mark these down on the good side of the ledger. But they are not the heart of the matter.


It has been a particularly irritating habit of the British establishment, aligned with a nexus of vested interests, and their army of academic and media auxiliaries, to reduce Brexit to a matter of trade above all else. If that were the case, then one would wish to stay in the EU.

But Brexit is not about trade, and nor are the details of customs clearance or rules of origin as important as we keep being told. They are not trivial but they are second order issues.

The elemental question is who runs this country. Do we wish to be a self-governing democracy under our own courts, or a canton of a higher supra-national regime that keeps acquiring more powers – beyond its ability to exercise them competently – through the Monnet Method of treaty creep?"

Stevo_666

A bit more: I missed some of the stuff in the middle.

"Nor can the EU retreat as long as the euro exists. The logic of monetary union is fiscal union, and that path leads to a unitary superstate. The euro cannot be made to work successfully any other way, as the German professoriate warned a quarter century ago.

Either the eurozone moves towards an EU treasury with shared debts, fiscal transfers, and federal tax powers, or it will stumble from crisis to crisis with each cyclical downturn until it blows apart. But to assume those powers is to strip the Bundestag and its peers of their core tax and spending prerogatives, without which democracy is a sham.

It is why the alluring cakeism of the City of London – in the EU but not in the euro – could never be a stable equilibrium and could not last. The notion that we could have it "both ways" and cling forever to a frozen status quo has been the great illusion of City Remainers. The EU is reorganising its constitutional structure around the viability of the euro and there is no place in this scheme for a sterling hold-out. We had to join them totally, or leave them.


My fond hope is that by saving our democratic nation state from slow asphyxiation we will head off a drift into anomie and dangerous political waters. The dust will settle and the world will wake up to find the same tolerant free-thinking UK, under the rule of law, that it has mostly been for 300 years, and wonder how it misread Brexit so badly.


It is Europe that the liberal intelligentsia should worry about. The EU has choked off the political breathing space of its members. It risks succumbing gradually to the Salvinis, the Orbans, and the neo-Falangist syndicalism of the AfD and the Rassemblement, as voters rebel against globalist cultural nihilism.

A liberal-minded Briton does not have to apologise for Brexit and the restoration of democratic self-rule, but that does not make it a pleasant exercise. The sadness is that Europe’s hard-driving ideological elites have led us to this regrettable juncture.

I will drink my toast on Friday to fellow souverainistes across the Channel. Join us soon."

Pross

Stevo_666 said:

Here's some of the text in case its behind the Torygraph paywall:

"Sadness, foreboding, and dismay that it ever came to such a point: these are the emotions that this reluctant Brexiteer feels as we finally leave the European Union on Friday.

I feel no satisfaction in the traumatic moment. Yet I stick to my view that this dysfunctional marriage had to end. Such is the Brexit paradox.

There has been much commentary over recent days dividing us (again) into opposed camps: Remainers still angry or in mourning, set against triumphant foes of Brussels. But what about the rest of us with more subtle feelings and in many cases a deep affection for l’Europe des patries?

Of course we recognise the advantages (for some) of being able to live and work anywhere in the EU. We know Brussels did a good job breaking down the cartels, opening up cheap air travel and (belatedly) ending the racket of roaming fees.

We can see that if you are dealing with a Chinese Communist Party that sees itself in “existential struggle” with the West, or with a pathological predator like Vladimir Putin, it is better to club together in self-protection. Mark these down on the good side of the ledger. But they are not the heart of the matter.


It has been a particularly irritating habit of the British establishment, aligned with a nexus of vested interests, and their army of academic and media auxiliaries, to reduce Brexit to a matter of trade above all else. If that were the case, then one would wish to stay in the EU.

But Brexit is not about trade, and nor are the details of customs clearance or rules of origin as important as we keep being told. They are not trivial but they are second order issues.

The elemental question is who runs this country. Do we wish to be a self-governing democracy under our own courts, or a canton of a higher supra-national regime that keeps acquiring more powers – beyond its ability to exercise them competently – through the Monnet Method of treaty creep?"

The problem with all that is that last paragraph really wasn't the case and we had veto rights. What laws did the EU force on us that our own Parliament opposed?

Stevo_666

Pross said:

Stevo_666 said:

Here's some of the text in case its behind the Torygraph paywall:

"Sadness, foreboding, and dismay that it ever came to such a point: these are the emotions that this reluctant Brexiteer feels as we finally leave the European Union on Friday.

I feel no satisfaction in the traumatic moment. Yet I stick to my view that this dysfunctional marriage had to end. Such is the Brexit paradox.

There has been much commentary over recent days dividing us (again) into opposed camps: Remainers still angry or in mourning, set against triumphant foes of Brussels. But what about the rest of us with more subtle feelings and in many cases a deep affection for l’Europe des patries?

Of course we recognise the advantages (for some) of being able to live and work anywhere in the EU. We know Brussels did a good job breaking down the cartels, opening up cheap air travel and (belatedly) ending the racket of roaming fees.

We can see that if you are dealing with a Chinese Communist Party that sees itself in “existential struggle” with the West, or with a pathological predator like Vladimir Putin, it is better to club together in self-protection. Mark these down on the good side of the ledger. But they are not the heart of the matter.


It has been a particularly irritating habit of the British establishment, aligned with a nexus of vested interests, and their army of academic and media auxiliaries, to reduce Brexit to a matter of trade above all else. If that were the case, then one would wish to stay in the EU.

But Brexit is not about trade, and nor are the details of customs clearance or rules of origin as important as we keep being told. They are not trivial but they are second order issues.

The elemental question is who runs this country. Do we wish to be a self-governing democracy under our own courts, or a canton of a higher supra-national regime that keeps acquiring more powers – beyond its ability to exercise them competently – through the Monnet Method of treaty creep?"

The problem with all that is that last paragraph really wasn't the case and we had veto rights. What laws did the EU force on us that our own Parliament opposed?

The statement is as much future looking as anything else, but as I've said before its death by a thousand cuts given the sheer volume of EU legislation, some of which just seems to be unnecessary.

It's also the principle - decisions related to the UK should be taken in the UK. That would only have diminished if we had stayed.

rick_chasey

I thought you voted Remain, Stevo.

Why all the justification for Brexit?

Admit it, you voted leave and you f@cling love it.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

I thought you voted Remain, Stevo.

Why all the justification for Brexit?

Admit it, you voted leave and you f@cling love it.

Those are some of the reasons why I was a reluctant remainer. You've seen for a while that I have looked at the possible upsides of the leaving and my misgivings about the EU, so nothing new here.

Admittedly, my OH (who is a second generation immigrant of Indian and Portuguese origin) voted leave.

rick_chasey

Hah ok. You'd have fooled me. You don't post like someone who voted remain at all. I mean, you spout off more Brexit/EU nonsense than actual brexiters I know in person.

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

That analysis entirely misses the point that a soft Brexit was taken off the table very early on after the referendum, by May's red lines. If a soft Brexit with cross party involvement had been an option ever considered, then I agree it could have been a different result. But we still don't know what we're going to end up with now.

I still think that we were never going to be outside the EU but obeying all the rules of the EU with no input into them, so that kind of soft Brexit was never going to fly, if that was your second-best option. It would be better economically than leaving, but madness.

I think many do still miss the point that a soft Brexit was not necessarily the answer. This would not have solved the issues that caused many to vote leave - those related to independence, sovereignty, self determination etc.

This article expressesnit pretty well from the point of view of a 'reluctant remainer' which I think summarised myclassification within the types of voters in the referendum:
https://telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/01/29/leaving-eu-horrible-way-preserve-democratic-liberal-nation-state/

Are you sure reluctant Remainer is the best description?

ballysmate

Come on Stevo, get with the programme. Don't want to be sent for re education do you?

I too have identified on here as a reluctant remainder.
Lot of us about.

TheBigBean

There are probably quite a few status quo voters in any referendum.

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

That analysis entirely misses the point that a soft Brexit was taken off the table very early on after the referendum, by May's red lines. If a soft Brexit with cross party involvement had been an option ever considered, then I agree it could have been a different result. But we still don't know what we're going to end up with now.

I still think that we were never going to be outside the EU but obeying all the rules of the EU with no input into them, so that kind of soft Brexit was never going to fly, if that was your second-best option. It would be better economically than leaving, but madness.

The argument that EEA membership is not leaving the EU is bowlox, tomorrow night we will move into a transition period and the same people will celebrate leaving the EU.

I agree that joining the eea is leaving the EU. But it isn't sustainable for the UK (as one of the larger economies of the world) to accept all the rules with no influence over them.

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

That analysis entirely misses the point that a soft Brexit was taken off the table very early on after the referendum, by May's red lines. If a soft Brexit with cross party involvement had been an option ever considered, then I agree it could have been a different result. But we still don't know what we're going to end up with now.

I still think that we were never going to be outside the EU but obeying all the rules of the EU with no input into them, so that kind of soft Brexit was never going to fly, if that was your second-best option. It would be better economically than leaving, but madness.

The argument that EEA membership is not leaving the EU is bowlox, tomorrow night we will move into a transition period and the same people will celebrate leaving the EU.

I agree that joining the eea is leaving the EU. But it isn't sustainable for the UK (as one of the larger economies of the world) to accept all the rules with no influence over them.

Boris is dancing on a pinhead, he knows he will have to accept all the rules but it will be his decision to do so

surrey_commuter

ballysmate said:

Come on Stevo, get with the programme. Don't want to be sent for re education do you?

I too have identified on here as a reluctant remainder.
Lot of us about.

Steve identified with the author of the article he extensively reproduced.
If nothing else it proves that nobody on here reads anything including stuff they link to and cut and paste.

Literally in the first paragraph the writer sets the background to the piece by describing himself as a reluctant Brexiteer.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

Here's some of the text in case its behind the Torygraph paywall:

"Sadness, foreboding, and dismay that it ever came to such a point: these are the emotions that this reluctant Brexiteer feels as we finally leave the European Union on Friday.

I feel no satisfaction in the traumatic moment. Yet I stick to my view that this dysfunctional marriage had to end. Such is the Brexit paradox.

There has been much commentary over recent days dividing us (again) into opposed camps: Remainers still angry or in mourning, set against triumphant foes of Brussels. But what about the rest of us with more subtle feelings and in many cases a deep affection for l’Europe des patries?

Of course we recognise the advantages (for some) of being able to live and work anywhere in the EU. We know Brussels did a good job breaking down the cartels, opening up cheap air travel and (belatedly) ending the racket of roaming fees.

We can see that if you are dealing with a Chinese Communist Party that sees itself in “existential struggle” with the West, or with a pathological predator like Vladimir Putin, it is better to club together in self-protection. Mark these down on the good side of the ledger. But they are not the heart of the matter.


It has been a particularly irritating habit of the British establishment, aligned with a nexus of vested interests, and their army of academic and media auxiliaries, to reduce Brexit to a matter of trade above all else. If that were the case, then one would wish to stay in the EU.

But Brexit is not about trade, and nor are the details of customs clearance or rules of origin as important as we keep being told. They are not trivial but they are second order issues.

The elemental question is who runs this country. Do we wish to be a self-governing democracy under our own courts, or a canton of a higher supra-national regime that keeps acquiring more powers – beyond its ability to exercise them competently – through the Monnet Method of treaty creep?"

Ah, SC beat me to i

tailwindhome

TheBigBean said:

There are probably quite a few status quo voters in any referendum.

David Allen Green is an interesting proponent of the 'not worth the trouble' position.

ballysmate

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

Come on Stevo, get with the programme. Don't want to be sent for re education do you?

I too have identified on here as a reluctant remainder.
Lot of us about.

Steve identified with the author of the article he extensively reproduced.
If nothing else it proves that nobody on here reads anything including stuff they link to and cut and paste.

Literally in the first paragraph the writer sets the background to the piece by describing himself as a reluctant Brexiteer.

Guilty of it myself.
I still voted Remain reluctantly.

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

That analysis entirely misses the point that a soft Brexit was taken off the table very early on after the referendum, by May's red lines. If a soft Brexit with cross party involvement had been an option ever considered, then I agree it could have been a different result. But we still don't know what we're going to end up with now.

I still think that we were never going to be outside the EU but obeying all the rules of the EU with no input into them, so that kind of soft Brexit was never going to fly, if that was your second-best option. It would be better economically than leaving, but madness.

The argument that EEA membership is not leaving the EU is bowlox, tomorrow night we will move into a transition period and the same people will celebrate leaving the EU.

I agree that joining the eea is leaving the EU. But it isn't sustainable for the UK (as one of the larger economies of the world) to accept all the rules with no influence over them.

Boris is dancing on a pinhead, he knows he will have to accept all the rules but it will be his decision to do so

Still clinging to that shred? Just let go.

TheBigBean

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

kingstongraham said:

That analysis entirely misses the point that a soft Brexit was taken off the table very early on after the referendum, by May's red lines. If a soft Brexit with cross party involvement had been an option ever considered, then I agree it could have been a different result. But we still don't know what we're going to end up with now.

I still think that we were never going to be outside the EU but obeying all the rules of the EU with no input into them, so that kind of soft Brexit was never going to fly, if that was your second-best option. It would be better economically than leaving, but madness.

The argument that EEA membership is not leaving the EU is bowlox, tomorrow night we will move into a transition period and the same people will celebrate leaving the EU.

I agree that joining the eea is leaving the EU. But it isn't sustainable for the UK (as one of the larger economies of the world) to accept all the rules with no influence over them.

Boris is dancing on a pinhead, he knows he will have to accept all the rules but it will be his decision to do so

Still clinging to that shred? Just let go.

He is not alone. Plenty in the EU think the same.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Hah ok. You'd have fooled me. You don't post like someone who voted remain at all. I mean, you spout off more Brexit/EU nonsense than actual brexiters I know in person.

IYHO.

This place does need a bit of balance as I and others including TBB have said before.

Stevo_666

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

Come on Stevo, get with the programme. Don't want to be sent for re education do you?

I too have identified on here as a reluctant remainder.
Lot of us about.

Steve identified with the author of the article he extensively reproduced.
If nothing else it proves that nobody on here reads anything including stuff they link to and cut and paste.

Literally in the first paragraph the writer sets the background to the piece by describing himself as a reluctant Brexiteer.

Reluctant remainer/reluctant Brexiteer are fairly close on the Brexit spectrum (as opposed to many on here who are far over into remain and a few who are far over into leave. Just depends which side of the fence at the 50/50 mark you fall.

Part of me definitely says it was something that was going to happen at some point. At the risk of incurring the wrath of the majority on here, I agree with Daniel Hannan who was reported on the Beeb website as follows:
On the other side, though, Conservative MEP and prominent Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan said opinion in Britain turned against the bloc when it became clear "the aspiration was to have the EU as a quasi-state".

"If at any stage Britain had been able to have a trade-only relationship that would have been enough," he went on, but added: "You are losing a bad tenant and gaining a good neighbour."

Stevo_666

ballysmate said:

Come on Stevo, get with the programme. Don't want to be sent for re education do you?

I too have identified on here as a reluctant remainder.
Lot of us about.

I wouldn't want the centre-lefties to get in a tizz about education cuts, given the number that would have to be re-educated.

surrey_commuter

The Times is reporting that Coco is going to accept an off the shelf Canada trade deal, does this mark the end of cakeism?

Emotionally it just does not seem worth all the aggro of the WA to be granted a bare bones deal designed for a different economy that does not reflect the fact that 80% of our economy will be excluded.
On the other side of the coin I guess it would be even worse without and we have bent ourselves over the barrel

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Hah ok. You'd have fooled me. You don't post like someone who voted remain at all. I mean, you spout off more Brexit/EU nonsense than actual brexiters I know in person.

IYHO.

This place does need a bit of balance as I and others including TBB have said before.

pretty impressive arguing against your beliefs for 3.5 years

surrey_commuter

Stevo_666 said:

surrey_commuter said:

ballysmate said:

Come on Stevo, get with the programme. Don't want to be sent for re education do you?

I too have identified on here as a reluctant remainder.
Lot of us about.

Steve identified with the author of the article he extensively reproduced.
If nothing else it proves that nobody on here reads anything including stuff they link to and cut and paste.

Literally in the first paragraph the writer sets the background to the piece by describing himself as a reluctant Brexiteer.

Reluctant remainer/reluctant Brexiteer are fairly close on the Brexit spectrum (as opposed to many on here who are far over into remain and a few who are far over into leave. Just depends which side of the fence at the 50/50 mark you fall.

Part of me definitely says it was something that was going to happen at some point. At the risk of incurring the wrath of the majority on here, I agree with Daniel Hannan who was reported on the Beeb website as follows:
On the other side, though, Conservative MEP and prominent Eurosceptic Daniel Hannan said opinion in Britain turned against the bloc when it became clear "the aspiration was to have the EU as a quasi-state".

"If at any stage Britain had been able to have a trade-only relationship that would have been enough," he went on, but added: "You are losing a bad tenant and gaining a good neighbour."

I really don't see how a reluctant leaver is anything like a reluctant remainer