Disaster Brexit: "Technical terms" agreed - Chequers minus, as feared, or Brexit in name only.

  • I've reconfigured the webserver to better deal with the attack. If you experience 429 errors post in the tech support thread and very clearly describe what you were doing and what page you tried to access. Errors starting with 500 mean the server is down, error 429 means my net caught you. If you experience weird issues with images loading or uploading files, you should also report that. I've changed a ton of settings but the server is face-tanking 500 requests a second now.

Ginger Piglet

Fictional Manhunt Survivor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46188790

Agreement is finally in Number 10's grasp.

The text that's taken months of officials' blood, sweat and tears has been agreed, at least at a technical level.

Now a paper's being drafted to present to the Cabinet tomorrow ready for the government's hoped-for next step - political approval from Theresa May's team, even though many of them have deep reservations.

Remember in the last 24 hours some of them have been warning privately that what's on the table is just not acceptable, and will never get through Parliament. Some even believe the prime minister ought to walk away.

But the government machine is now cranking into action. With a text ready, their long-planned rollout can begin.
The BBC's chief political correspondent Vicki Young said some ministers had "deep concerns" about the shape of the likely agreement, which critics say could leave the UK trapped in a customs agreement with the EU.

She said they would have to decide whether they could support it, and if not, whether to resign from cabinet.

Leading Brexiteers have already condemned the draft agreement, Boris Johnson saying it would see the UK remain in the customs union and "large parts" of the single market.

He told the BBC it was "utterly unacceptable to anyone who believes in democracy". "Am I going to vote against it. The answer is yes," he added.

And Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said "given the shambolic nature of the negotiations, this is unlikely to be the good deal for the country".

'Failure to deliver'
Both the UK and EU want to schedule a special summit of European leaders at the end of November to sign off the reportedly 500 page withdrawal deal and the much shorter outline declaration of their future relationship.

Brussels has insisted it would only agree to put the wheels in motion for the summit if agreement can be reached on the issue of the Irish border.

Ambassadors from the remaining 27 EU states will meet in Brussels on Wednesday.

If a deal is agreed with the EU, Mrs May then needs to persuade her party - and the rest of Parliament - to support it in a key Commons vote.

Conservative Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg said if details of the text reported by Irish broadcaster RTE were true, the UK would become a "vassal state" with Northern Ireland "being ruled from Dublin".

Such an agreement "failed to deliver on Brexit" and the cabinet should reject it, he told the BBC.

"I think what we know of this deal is deeply unsatisfactory," he said. "There seems to be growing opposition to these very poor proposals."

Meanwhile, following pressure from all sides of the Commons, ministers have agreed to provide MPs with a legal assessment of the implications for the UK of the Irish backstop and other controversial aspects of any deal.

Cabinet Office minister David Lidington said Attorney General Geoffrey Cox would make a statement to MPs and take questions ahead of the final vote on any Brexit deal.

MPs, he said, would get to see "a full reasoned position statement laying out the government's both political and also legal position on the proposed withdrawal agreement".

The Democratic Unionists' Westminster leader Nigel Dodds said he was pleased Parliament had "asserted its will" as it was imperative that all parties to the deal were clear in what way and for how long it would "legally bind" the UK.
Chequers minus it is. Whatever happened to no deal being better than a bad deal.

We should have been far more aggressive in negotiations with Brussels. They all but stated immediately after the referendum that they were going to bumrape us for having the temerity to leave, so we should have told them that unless and until they got serious, we'd basically go full on tax haven mode and steal all their big companies - and funnel money and support to Eurosceptics in Italy, Spain, Greece, Poland, and Hungary.
 

neural

MovieBahb ォ運ム
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I read an article on Prospect Magazine the other day, and I honestly think it's right on the money, the way Brexit has been executed was awful front-to-back. The insistence on doing Brexit ASAP with no real plan, then the weird inability to take the negotiations beyond the EU's paradigm. The whole thing has honestly been a shitshow.

The Brexit endgame
There's still time to do Brexit right. This is how
by David Allen Green / November 9, 2018 / Leave a comment
The United Kingdom is facing a departure from the European Union on terms that few if anybody in the UK seems to positively want. Is this bound to happen? Or is it not too late for Brexit to be done another way?

At the time of the referendum no UK politician, campaigner or pundit—and presumably no voter—wanted a departure based on the current draft withdrawal agreement, especially with its Irish backstop arrangements and its long transition period in which the UK will continue to have legal and hefty financial obligations without any representation. Few wanted the UK to leave with no withdrawal agreement at all. But unless something unforeseen happens, the current draft withdrawal agreement or no agreement are the two most likely outcomes.

How this predicament has come about will one day be of interest to historians. Perhaps they will say that these two available forms of Brexit were inevitable, and no better method of departure would ever have been possible. They may conclude there was a direct line from the referendum result, or perhaps from the Article 50 notification, which led to what is currently set to happen on 29th March 2019.

But historians do not always find such neat lines of causation. The historian Conrad Russell set out how the English Civil War was not inevitable. The conflict instead was the result of various contingent events, and non-events—some of them much earlier, some late in the day—any one of which could have led to different consequences.

If we apply the same logic to Brexit it would mean that even now, as 2018 draws to a close, a different approach to the UK’s departure could be adopted which would avoid both a Brexit on unwanted terms and a Brexit on no terms at all. This may be politically unlikely, as senior politicians are invested in the current process. But, legally at least, they are not prisoners of process. An alternative route is, even now, still possible.


Three part predicament

There are three aspects to the current predicament. The first has been the UK’s lack of clarity and resolve about what it actually wants after Brexit. London has, for instance, no real idea about how it wants the crucial Irish border issue addressed. It has proved politically incapable of committing consistently to any model for future relations with the EU, whether that be something resembling Canada’s trade deal, Norway’s status in the single market, or something in between such as Theresa May’s unloved Chequers plan.

This lack of clear thought is the ultimate cause of the UK’s problems. But it is exacerbated by a second aspect: the provisions of Article 50, and how it structures the exit process. A departing member state has the choice of if and when it notifies the EU of its intention to leave, but once that notification is made the advantage swings to the EU. The EU has control over the timetable, and no extension can be made without the EU’s consent. (There is also the other possibility that the process is revoked, either by agreement or unilaterally, though the UK insists that is not an option.) Article 50 enables the EU to insist on its own interests being dealt with fully in the exit agreement, which includes settling the financial obligations before any discussions about the long-term trade relationship.

Once the Article 50 notification was made the UK lost control of Brexit. No departure of a member state under Article 50 is likely to be on terms that suit the departing country. And the two-year time limit in Article 50 means that the departing member state is against the clock. We’re fast ticking down towards a mere 100 days to go until Brexit. In view of the need to ratify any agreement, or to put in place urgent arrangements to minimise the disruption of “no deal,” there is no time for anything else meaningful to be done if the exit date is to be kept.

“Article 50 is an ornament, not an instrument. It was not intended to be used”

Then there is the third aspect, which is the impressive extent of the EU’s use of process so as to protect its interests. Such is its collective prowess at process, which has knocked aside the UK’s antics (they can hardly be called tactics), the story to date could almost be called “Brexit by timetable” from the EU’s perspective. If the withdrawal agreement is signed, the UK will be leaving on terms which, insofar as any exit could do so, will suit the EU.

So how could the situation be improved so that the UK could achieve Brexit on different terms than those offered?

The first thing to tackle is that ticking clock—indeed, even the government admits that Britain needs more time before the exit takes real effect. The recklessness of the decision of the UK to make the notification as early as March 2017 is demonstrated by the ever-lengthening “transition period,” which is in fact a standstill period. But lengthening it makes little sense, when the UK and EU can, as is expressly allowed, instead extend the Article 50 period. By extending this, the UK would retain its voting rights and formal representation for longer, and also avoid much of the need for the elaborate Heath-Robinson legal mechanics of the withdrawal agreement. If London’s concern were strengthening its negotiating hand, this would be an unambiguous improvement.

If possible, the UK government should also abandon Article 50 as the route of exit. The provision was never fit for purpose. It was in the EU treaty as an ornament not an instrument, and it was not intended to be used. It was there in 2009 to placate Europe’s nationalists, so that they could say their nations were not locked in, without an exit door.

And while it is true that both the UK and EU chose Article 50 as the process for effecting Brexit, there is no legal reason why it has to be the sole means of departure. Before Article 50 existed, any departure of a member state would have been done by treaty. Such a departure would still be possible. If, as Timothy Garton Ash argues on p20, there is the makings of a new alliance for institutional reform to achieve a more flexible Europe, a creative British leader could seek to settle the UK’s future relationships with Europe as part of the broader negotiations about that. One approach would be to group together the negotiations for exit with the future arrangement, rather than accept the somewhat artificial distinction forced by Article 50, which so disadvantages the leaver.

The objection to “Brexit by treaty” is that the EU insisted on notification before negotiation. Perhaps so, but the reason for that is that the UK itself had not thought through the mechanics of any departure before calling and staging the referendum. David Cameron threatened (and thereby promised) to trigger Article 50 immediately after a Leave vote, since when everyone has been operating under the assumption there was no alternative than to abide by Article 50 once the result of the vote came through. But it is still not too late to switch to a more balanced and timely approach to negotiating the terms of departure and the future relationship.


Knowing what we want

Of course, the EU will be reluctant to abandon the Article 50 process which, as long as some sort of a withdrawal agreement is ultimately signed, will seem to have served their interest well. But Europe wants an orderly Brexit more than a speedy one. Even if an exit deal is agreed, with the need for makeshift and improvised transitional arrangements a lot of uncertainty is merely delayed. If the UK could only muster a cogent and credible account of what it wanted, and explain how a different process might allow this to be achieved with less of the disruption and uncertainty that will otherwise dog both sides of the Channel, then the EU27 might still be persuaded to listen.

But what if a treaty-based approach is asking too much at this late stage? Even if the EU flatly rejects moving from the Article 50 process, then we come back to an extension of time within its parameters. This is not such a demanding ask. Europe as well as Britain should be able to understand that the negotiations will ultimately be more fruitful if they are allowed to continue until there is agreement on all aspects, with no artificial time limit of two years, a period which has no objective justification.

As for the EU’s mastery of process, there is little that the UK can do other than to learn from it. At each step of the Brexit process the UK has been outplayed. Part of this was self-inflicted. The UK carelessly lost skilled officials like Ivan Rogers.

The prime minister created two “pop-up” departments to deal with Brexit and international trade, when the experience and weight of the Foreign Office and Treasury were required. And at the very time when ministers and officials needed to get ready for negotiations, she closed Whitehall and Westminster for weeks to have a gratuitous (and as it turned out self-harming) general election. If a UK government had sought to deliberately self-sabotage a successful Brexit it would have done very little different.

“At each step of the Brexit process the UK has been outplayed”

The UK ministers tasked with Brexit have preferred bluster and bravado, aimed at the Westminster lobby and their own backbenchers, to the slog and attention to detail required to match their EU27 counterparts. This amateurism does not bode well for the negotiations for any trade deals and international agreements after Brexit. Fortunately, senior officials such as Oliver Robbins have to an extent filled the void created by ministerial incompetence. A generation of UK civil servants has learned the hard way how to deal with the EU as an opponent. With a fresh approach to negotiations, that experience could still be put to good use.

None of the above, however, will be of any avail unless the ultimate problem of what the UK wants from Brexit is solved. There could be more time, more professionalism, and a leisurely negotiation of several years: and still the UK would be rudderless and confused because it had no settled view on the objectives of Brexit.

This is the real reason why historians may one day say there was an inevitability to the UK either leaving based on the current withdrawal agreement or without an agreement. These outcomes have one thing in common: neither required the UK to offer much in the way of proposals. These are the two paths of least resistance for a country incapable of settling on what it wants: one laid by the EU, and the other straight to a cliff edge.

There is now little prospect of the UK government adopting a sustainable and widely supported vision of what will happen after Brexit. But that is a failure of political leadership, not the result of us being caught in some inescapable legal or procedural bind. If, following the referendum result, the UK had not resorted to haste and secrecy, but had instead opened up Brexit to consultation and negotiation, with the full participation of parliament and of the devolved governments as well as of the public, then we might have addressed the root problem—that of not settling or spelling out what Britain wants. Many of the difficulties of Brexit could have been identified and considered as Brexit policy was formulated. The 50-odd so-called sector impact reports could have been useful and detailed, rather than barely existing. Such an “open-source” and collaborative Brexit would have taken the load off an over-stretched civil service.

And once the UK had grasped the extent of the problems and knew what it wanted to achieve from Brexit then either the Article 50 notification could have been sent or general negotiations could have been opened. And if such an overall policy could not be reached then the UK would have been able to revisit the question of whether the time was yet right for Brexit.


Open question

The referendum result does not preclude any of this. The referendum question was simple: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” There is nothing in that question about timing or the method of departure. There is no mention of either the single market or the customs union. The question does not refer to any particular alternative to membership or to what the UK’s future general -relationship should be with the EU. The question refers only to the narrow question of membership.

In the weeks and months after the referendum, the UK government made a sequence of foolish mistakes. It asserted there would be red lines, which were neither viable nor advantageous. This has set the Brexit train running off on the current tracks hurtling towards no deal, with the only branch off being the agreement that the EU wants to give.

If there was, suddenly, a sense of direction and some evidence of a willingness to grasp and grapple with the real problems then it would still be worth slamming on the brakes—or, shifting metaphors, pulling out of the dive—before March 2019. But unless London can get a grip, the dive is likely to continue. For until it knows it is capable of settling what it wants, there will be no alternative. And there are some in UK politics who will settle for that. Because any delay after March 2019 opens up the possibility of what many of those who support Brexit fear more than anything else: the mandate of the June 2016 referendum no longer existing.

The referendum result was a surprise: an unexpected contingent event which, as a future Conrad Russell would put it, then triggered other contingent events and non-events, any number of which could have gone differently. Those supporting Brexit did not believe their luck, and they have single-mindedly forced through the notification which means that, unless anything currently unforeseen happens, the UK leaves the EU by automatic operation of law on 29th March next year.

But the future historian will have to do more than identify the opportunities which were missed and the choices which were not made. She or he needs to understand why so many politicians and officials who could have ensured that the UK take various different approaches did not do so. Explaining the referendum result will be simple compared with explaining why UK ended up departing the EU in March 2019 either on terms which virtually nobody in the UK wanted, or on no terms at all.
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/we-didnt-have-to-do-brexit-in-this-damn-silly-way
http://archive.fo/5z8NA
 

Jerry_ smith56

The man in black
kiwifarms.net
I read an article on Prospect Magazine the other day, and I honestly think it's right on the money, the way Brexit has been executed was awful front-to-back. The insistence on doing Brexit ASAP with no real plan, then the weird inability to take the negotiations beyond the EU's paradigm. The whole thing has honestly been a shitshow.



https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/we-didnt-have-to-do-brexit-in-this-damn-silly-way
http://archive.fo/5z8NA
The problem is that the current prime and several other politicians in the conservative party never wanted brexit and were thrust into the position of taking charge of brexit. Brexit would have gone over more smoothly if the prime minister was someone that truly wanted brexit like Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg.
 

Ginger Piglet

Fictional Manhunt Survivor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Technical terms for a technical Brexit.

It's immaterial anyway. The British are projected to become a minority in their own country no later than 2060. It won't belong to them for much longer.
That's not the point. One of the arguments for Brexit was to regain control of our own border policy, i.e. not being constrained to uncontrolled immigration because Frau Merkel says so.

I read an article on Prospect Magazine the other day, and I honestly think it's right on the money, the way Brexit has been executed was awful front-to-back. The insistence on doing Brexit ASAP with no real plan,
Yep. We should have been putting in place preparations for no deal from the outset and chatting up third party nations before Article 50 was triggered, so we'd have more of a stick to deal with things. We also should not have simply caved to the EU insisting on the process as the article says; A50 doesn't set out any actual process for leaving so we should have gone at it by trying to insist that they dance to our tune. The EU had a vested interest in fucking us because they don't want others to leave as well.

The EU needs to reform urgently as well otherwise it'll lose members hand over fist and be reduced to just France, Germany, and Benelux who will be astounded that nobody wants to be their pay pigs.
 

MediocreMilt

Trigger the libs. Own the libs.
kiwifarms.net
Can someone from the UK explain what the point of even holding the Brexit referendum was in a political climate where pretty much any party with a voting bloc in your Parliament was anti-Brexit?

It seems like most of the problems you're having root from the fact that the Conservatives aren't actually Brexit-supporters anyway. If you couldn't get a party like UKIP into power to handle negotiations first, what exactly were you guys expecting would happen afterward?
 
Can someone from the UK explain what the point of even holding the Brexit referendum was in a political climate where pretty much any party with a voting bloc in your Parliament was anti-Brexit?

It seems like most of the problems you're having root from the fact that the Conservatives aren't actually Brexit-supporters anyway. If you couldn't get a party like UKIP into power to handle negotiations first, what exactly were you guys expecting would happen afterward?
Because it's been a major issue for years, UKIP had steadily been draining votes from both parties they figured it wouldn't succeed so they could carry on for decades say "the British people voted to stay".
 

kcbbq

No controlling legal authority
kiwifarms.net
That's not the point. One of the arguments for Brexit was to regain control of our own border policy, i.e. not being constrained to uncontrolled immigration because Frau Merkel says so.



Yep. We should have been putting in place preparations for no deal from the outset and chatting up third party nations before Article 50 was triggered, so we'd have more of a stick to deal with things. We also should not have simply caved to the EU insisting on the process as the article says; A50 doesn't set out any actual process for leaving so we should have gone at it by trying to insist that they dance to our tune. The EU had a vested interest in fucking us because they don't want others to leave as well.

The EU needs to reform urgently as well otherwise it'll lose members hand over fist and be reduced to just France, Germany, and Benelux who will be astounded that nobody wants to be their pay pigs.
Junker and the eurocrats were never going to do anything other than punish the UK for exercising the rights they had in EU law, which was to leave if they want. Once Germany and France have decided you are historically part of their Empire your say doesn't matter much. Look at Macron's recent comments about wanting to complete Napoleon and Hitler's dreams of a unified European Empire.

The threat from Westminster should have been deal or we wall off Northern Ireland and kick out all of the EU workers, and gone hard on that point. You wouldn't have gotten played so bad that way. America and the Commonwealth would be enough trading partners until the EU came into line.
 

neural

MovieBahb ォ運ム
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The problem is that the current prime and several other politicians in the conservative party never wanted brexit and were thrust into the position of taking charge of brexit. Brexit would have gone over more smoothly if the prime minister was someone that truly wanted brexit like Boris Johnson or Jacob Rees Mogg.
This makes Brexit look like an even more worthless idea IMO.

How could anyone be so irresponsible as to actively push for something as huge as that without 1st ensuring he's in power to guide that process? It tells you that Boris, Nigel, Cameron..etc had no real vision of what they wanted from Brexit in the 1st place, hence this weird way of throwing responsibility around, like a hot potato.

It would be the equivalent of Trump pushing congress to implement a referendum on the Mexico Wall without becoming president. That would just bring divisiveness and economic chaos without any real light at the end of the tunnel.

Yep. We should have been putting in place preparations for no deal from the outset and chatting up third party nations before Article 50 was triggered, so we'd have more of a stick to deal with things. We also should not have simply caved to the EU insisting on the process as the article says; A50 doesn't set out any actual process for leaving so we should have gone at it by trying to insist that they dance to our tune. The EU had a vested interest in fucking us because they don't want others to leave as well.

The EU needs to reform urgently as well otherwise it'll lose members hand over fist and be reduced to just France, Germany, and Benelux who will be astounded that nobody wants to be their pay pigs.
I still have no idea why A50 is even a thing in those negotiations, like, the UK is trying to leave the EU and the entirety of it's regulations behind, but it's this particular article which must somehow be respected at all costs..?

Even if there's some circumstance that dictates that it must be, why was it triggered with no real understanding of the scope of changes that must happen? It still feels to me like Britons are waking up everyday to a new surprise issue that just got discovered.

The only reason this shitshow is happening is because power and direction weren't voted on at once, meaning that people voted leave without any information on exactly who would be accountable for guiding the nation as it actually leaves, which left the actual legislation and negotiations involved with leaving the EU with no compulsory caretakers who are required by law to see it through with actual competence. Theresa May could quit tomorrow with no legal repercussions on her part, and that is just crazy!
 

Ginger Piglet

Fictional Manhunt Survivor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Theresa May could quit tomorrow with no legal repercussions on her part, and that is just crazy!
I know, right? David Cameron actually did, though. After throwing huge amounts of Government money towards trying to campaign for a Remain vote, and plastering every last address with leaflets about why we should stay in, none of which was official campaign spending, his reaction to losing was to throw his toys out the pram.
 

RadicalCentrist

kiwifarms.net
The only reason this shitshow is happening is because power and direction weren't voted on at once, meaning that people voted leave without any information on exactly who would be accountable for guiding the nation as it actually leaves, which left the actual legislation and negotiations involved with leaving the EU with no compulsory caretakers who are required by law to see it through with actual competence. Theresa May could quit tomorrow with no legal repercussions on her part, and that is just crazy!
No you dingaling. This is happening because the people failed the faux loyalty test. Restoring power to the people was never on the table. Now they will be punished for their insolence while the necessary parts of the EU will be kept for the pleasure of the elite.

This is the entirety of why America revolted against these vile people.
 

neural

MovieBahb ォ運ム
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I know, right? David Cameron actually did, though. After throwing huge amounts of Government money towards trying to campaign for a Remain vote, and plastering every last address with leaflets about why we should stay in, none of which was official campaign spending, his reaction to losing was to throw his toys out the pram.
I still have no idea why he even did it in the 1st place, he should have just said: "If you want Brexit so much, then make it your campaign promise when you run in the next elections and we'll see how much people want to see your plan come to fruition" (emphasis on plan).
No you dingaling. This is happening because the people failed the faux loyalty test. Restoring power to the people was never on the table. Now they will be punished for their insolence while the necessary parts of the EU will be kept for the pleasure of the elite.

This is the entirety of why America revolted against these vile people.
ok.
 

BigRuler

lmao bottom text
kiwifarms.net
Can someone from the UK explain what the point of even holding the Brexit referendum was in a political climate where pretty much any party with a voting bloc in your Parliament was anti-Brexit?
it was a gamble by cameron because he was butthurt about constant anti EU bickering by some elements in his party.
he was counting on a strong REMAIN outcome in the referendum (which all polls consistently predicted for a vey long time) so he could use it to shut up eurosceptics in the tories. but instead of that, the whole thing backfired hardcore and ended his political career.

It tells you that Boris, Nigel, Cameron..etc had no real vision of what they wanted from Brexit in the 1st place, hence this weird way of throwing responsibility around, like a hot potato.
cameron didnt want anything from brexit, he campaigned for remain the whole time.
nigel never held any meaningful position of power, his influence was always restricted to delivering funny speeches in the EU parliament and make brussels bureaucrats mad.
and boris is just some dude with funny hair, and quickly got pushed far away from the levers of power by europhiles like may and her friends.
 
Last edited:
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino