Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Werthead

UK Politics: Winter of Discontent

278 posts in this topic

57 minutes ago, williamjm said:

I can't believe the EU would be willing to accept the UK being able to veto things after leaving the EU. The UK probably doesn't want the veto to work the other way either, but may not have much choice in the matter, which was always one of the arguments against Brexit that EU rules would still have an impact on the UK but the UK wouldn't be able to influence them.

Yes, that's what bothers me. Why would the EU agree to that. But on a second thought, It doesn't look like Britain actually has the power to pull the trigger. Follow my train of thoughts.

I think this practically leaves the UK with the choice, either to do some Norwegian sort of deal, where the UK has to play by the EU's rules. Or practically cease control over NI. I'll explain the idea. The Norwegian solution, guarantees the no-divergence on the Irish Island (as any change made by the EU has to be adopted by the UK (just as it is now, just without the UK having a vote). The other solution has the UK more or less at the mercy of the EU, as the UK can't do free trade agreements for the UK in its entirety, which would violate the no-divergence on the Irish Island. So they can either only negotiate deals that mimick the EU deals (which would make the entire excercise kinda pointless), or they have to exclude NI from their deals. And the UK is the one needing those fancy new trade deals. So it might not be as unattractive as it looks for the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think this is quite a hillarious comment.

Note that, at this stage bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dominic Raab, one of the ones who makes Jacob and Gove look quite bright by comparison, went on to C4 news and got absolutely torn to shreds over this deal. He denied it means that the UK is essentially staying in the customs union and single market just not officially and with no control over it, and he then had a bizarre on-air meltdown because the presenter said that the UK was staying under the authority of the European court for ten years after they voted (which is correct, 8 years from the Brexit date, which will be almost 2 years after the vote). For some reason he got hung up on that and then denied anything was a problem.

I think it's only just dawning on a lot of people that this deal means that effectively we're staying in the EU system for the forseeable future but we won't have any control over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Werthead said:

I think it's only just dawning on a lot of people that this deal means that effectively we're staying in the EU system for the forseeable future but we won't have any control over it.

Is it bad that I don't consider this to be a bad thing.  Well yes I'd prefer we had some control.

 

Is it also bad that I'm really hoping that this doesn't dawn on the rabid brexitiers until its all done, signed and agreed.  unless of course by realizing this it means we can just forget the whole silly brexit thing as a bad idea.

 

And is it even worse that I know part of me is still clinging to unrealistic optomisum, and that everything really will be all right in the end if I just can keep believing.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can't make sense of this announcement. It seems to imply that the UK now pursues a Norwegian semi-membership rather than a hard Brexit. That would be quite a U-turn. Shouldn't that cause major upheaval in her party and the public? Can May even stay in office after such a concession?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, whether it's a u-turn or May has just bought some time with that deal remains to be seen. She hasn't revoked article 50, so no u-turn just yet. I am not sure, but I don't think the Norwegian Model includes passporting rights for financial products, so she should be aiming for Norway+.

She still has to get her deal through parliament, which is apparently far from certain, because of the Brexiteers sharpening their knives.

Anyway, I guess there are reasons, why the EU does not want to start negotiations about a future trade deal right away, as they rumoredly told May to first sort out the British position (remember Hammond saying, that the cabinet has not discussed what the endgame should look like) and come back. And as with the divorce settlement, it won't be the pie in the sky cherry picked deal the Brexiteers promised. So this should be interesting (I am trying to use a neutral term here).

On 9.12.2017 at 1:41 AM, Werthead said:

I think it's only just dawning on a lot of people that this deal means that effectively we're staying in the EU system for the forseeable future but we won't have any control over it.

That remains to be seen, as mentioned above, May has just effectively bought some time. And personally, I don't see this gonna end well for the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The full alignment clause people are assuming means the UK has committed to a quasi-Norwegian style deal applies only if a satisfactory trade deal is not reached, and may well be a sop to all sides to get the negotiations moving. In the event there is actually no deal we may just find UK and EU interpretations of 'full alignment' and which rules support 'North-South cooperation' differ quite considerably. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davis suggests we could renege on any deal we sign and just tell the EU to fuck off at any time.
 

The EU is told by Japan/USA/Canada/et al that the UK cannot be given a special deal by the EU that they don't benefit from as well.

Davis also says that he wants a "Canada+++" deal that includes services, just after he also said that the UK may just lie in the negotiations and is untrustworthy.

Insane.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Werthead said:

Davis also says that he wants a "Canada+++" deal that includes services, just after he also said that the UK may just lie in the negotiations and is untrustworthy.

Why do you think he was (rumoredly) cut out of the loop at some point and the EU negotiated with No. 10 directly? Anyway, but that's basically some Brexiteer with some pie in the sky stuff. Well, at least he doesn't speak about frictionless access to the single market while being able to negotiate free trade agreements elsewhere. And besides, isn't that again Brexiteer grandstanding?

Now a question for our resident Tories, why would the EU bend over and give the UK their special deal, and thus risk open pandora's box and having other trading partners showing up, to get a UK deal, too? Let's hope this time it doesn't take a snap election, and over a year of grandstanding before reality starts to sink in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192

The government has been narrowly defeated in a key vote on its Brexit bill after a rebellion by 12 Tory MPs.


In a blow to Prime Minister Theresa May, MPs voted to give Parliament a legal guarantee of a vote on the final Brexit deal struck with Brussels.


...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile in Cardiff Bay:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-42343250

UKIP AM Gareth Bennett has been barred from speaking in Senedd debates in 2018 following a speech about transgender rights.

Mr Bennett refused to apologise for saying society could implode if there was too much "deviation from the norm".

Presiding Officer Elin Jones said on Wednesday some of the comments were "particularly hateful".

Ms Jones wants the AM to say sorry before he can contribute again, but he said he had no intention of doing so.

...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Which Tyler said:

Why bother having a National Assembly if you're not allowed to debate important issues? Pathetic. 

 

On 10/12/2017 at 10:41 PM, Notone said:

Why do you think he was (rumoredly) cut out of the loop at some point and the EU negotiated with No. 10 directly? Anyway, but that's basically some Brexiteer with some pie in the sky stuff. Well, at least he doesn't speak about frictionless access to the single market while being able to negotiate free trade agreements elsewhere. And besides, isn't that again Brexiteer grandstanding?

Now a question for our resident Tories, why would the EU bend over and give the UK their special deal, and thus risk open pandora's box and having other trading partners showing up, to get a UK deal, too? Let's hope this time it doesn't take a snap election, and over a year of grandstanding before reality starts to sink in.

The Brexiteer argument was that the UK, because it has been an EU member for 40 years, is more closely aligned to the EU in regulatory terms than Canada or any other EU trade partners so a more comprehensive deal would be easier to reach. So it's not special status, just a reflection of the preexisting harmony between the EU and UK legal/regulatory systems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Why bother having a National Assembly if you're not allowed to debate important issues? Pathetic. 

He's allowed to debate important issues: he's not allowed to engage in hate speech while doing so. To hide behind the idea that the latter is the same as the former would, indeed, be 'pathetic', involving as it would the implication that calling people 'nutty' and 'deviant' would be part of a legitimate discussion. 

It's also worth bearing in mind that the gentleman in question has form, having previously made racist comments as part of an immigration debate. I'd suggest that the problem here is that the AM in question is a dickhead who likes attention. But then, he's in UKIP, so that should be obvious anyway. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it worth pointing out that, from that same article - UKIP have gone the #MeToo route; and claimed that UKIP is also a minority and deserves protection from this sort of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Why bother having a National Assembly if you're not allowed to debate important issues? Pathetic. 

Its not really a debate if you are banned from speaking for having a differing opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he wasn't banned for having a differing opinion. He was banned for using derogatory language. Big difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

But he wasn't banned for having a differing opinion. He was banned for using derogatory language. Big difference. 

That was the argument used to stop him speaking. Its debatable as to whether what he said was hateful or derogatory, or just a different opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

That was the argument used to stop him speaking. Its debatable as to whether what he said was hateful or derogatory, or just a different opinion.

It really isn't.

You can express an opinion without being insulting and politicians do so all the time. The language used in this case was deliberately, unquestionably, and not in any way debatably derogatory.

Insults are not opinions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mormont said:

It really isn't.

You can express an opinion without being insulting and politicians do so all the time. The language used in this case was deliberately, unquestionably, and not in any way debatably derogatory.

Insults are not opinions.  

I'm not sure who he is being derogatory to. His remarks were basically about curbing some of what he considered the more extreme demands of some campaigners. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Eggegg said:

I'm not sure who he is being derogatory to.

I can only assume you haven't read his remarks, then, because it is literally there in black and white. It's absolutely plain and unambiguous. It wouldn't challenge the reading comprehension of an eight-year-old. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0