Topic: Brexit: "Vultus inanis est et mori in fossa ego sum!"

[Corkboy]

As someone completely outside this (antipodean)I've seen this kind of statement a lot in the articles and commentaries I've read and it makes so little sense to me.  The EU is a democratic organisation no?  Every country & their population have representation no?

How can something - a condition or action - be "forced" on a country when the country openly agreed to the processes that lead to it occuring?

It can't. Saying it can is an effort to malign the institution, in the same way that a player might insist the club he's leaving was always a shithole.

[Ray K]

EU set to end switch between summer and winter time: Juncker

BERLIN (Reuters) - The European Union’s chief executive said on Friday the bloc was set to end the practice of switching between summer and winter time after a survey found most EU citizens against the practice.

More than 80 percent of EU citizens wanted to abolish the EU’s switch and favored keeping the time used in summer for the whole year, Jean-Claude Juncker said on German television, adding he would put the plan to a debate among EU commissioners.
“We will decide that today,” Juncker said. “Millions ... believe that summertime should be all the time.”

Any change would still need approval from national governments and European Parliament to become law.

***
See? Us Europeans will get to experience the sunny uplands of summer time all year around, while you guys still have to move your clocks back in October, like its still wartime or something.

[DJBrenton]

Any change would still need approval from national governments and European Parliament to become law.

Surely not? That's almost democratic!

[Ray K]

Surely not? That's almost democratic!

I guarantee that the Irish government won't go along with it if the UK doesn't. Imagine the fun on cross-border train timetables when going from Belfast (GMT) to Dublin (GMT+1).
Will be a pity, cos Daylight Savings is one of the worst ideas still part of public policy.

[Corkboy]

Faceless Eurocrats messing with our sunlight, is there anything they can't meddle with?

[oldfordie]

Just on the first part there, it is the same argument to the likes of Mogg and Frottage - it's all wrapped up in "taking back control" and riffs on that theme. Mogg's out there publicly saying, "If the ECJ is involved in anything then we haven't really left the EU." You give some of the reasons there how integral the argument will be.

Thinking about this ECJ arbitration and taking back control argument with a independent arbitration court. was wondering how the likes of the USA manage to solve their disputes without having to rely on ECJ, they do abide by ECJ rulings to solve disputes.
It's a take or leave it situation, if we want to trade and operate inside the EU then we have to respect EU laws. May does make a good argument on the face of it but the fact is we have to respect the ECJ or EFTA system of solving disputes or we don't operate inside the EU. every other country in the world agrees to ECJ so were fighting a loosing battle, this taking back control argument gets weaker and weaker when putting it into practice.

Excellent article below explaining why Mays argument on independent arbitration is very unlikely to succeed.

So what does the ECJ do?

    It decides whether the institutions of the EU are acting legally, and it settles disputes between them.
    It ensures that the member states of the EU are complying with their legal obligations as set out in the EU treaties; and it allows member states to challenge EU legislation.
    It interprets EU law at the request of national courts.

Taken all together, this means that the ECJ interprets and enforces the rules of the single market, and pretty much everything else that the EU does.
So what? I thought we could do a trade deal with the EU without direct ECJ involvement.
Yes, we can. That's because trade deals usually have their own inbuilt dispute procedures.

But any company from the US or Japan or anywhere else that wants to sell its product in the European single market has to comply with all EU regulations, and with all ECJ rulings about any of those regulations.

So foreign companies can't escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ?
Not if they want to operate in the single market, no. They are not immune from EU law. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Take Google for example, which was fined a record 2.4bn euro by the European Commission in June for abusing its dominance of the search engine market.
If Google wanted to appeal, it would have to make its case before the European Court of Justice.

But even if UK companies had to do that in the future, it still doesn't mean the ECJ would play a role in the UK, does it?
In that sense, no, not directly, because companies can choose whether they want to trade abroad or not.
But the really difficult issue for any country that wants to "leave" ECJ jurisdiction entirely is that the European Court is the ultimate arbiter for all the rules and regulations that make the EU tick.

So if the UK wants to stay in the European Air Safety Agency, or the European Arrest Warrant, or the European Medicines Agency or any number of other bodies that regulate various aspects of our lives, it will have to accept that the ECJ will have a role to play in UK affairs.

If foreign companies don't comply, they can't operate in the EU. The same applies in reverse, of course, to European companies that want to sell their products elsewhere.


In other words, only a completely clean break gets rid of the ECJ entirely?
Yes, that's right. Every time you dig beneath the surface of Brexit you stumble across the European Court of Justice. To get rid of it entirely would mean cutting all the ties we have, setting up dozens of regulatory bodies of our own, and starting many things from scratch.
Also, don't forget, if the UK wants to negotiate a period of transition, to smooth the path towards full exit from the EU, it will have to accept that the writ of the ECJ will continue to run for quite some time after Brexit.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40630322

[Zeb]

Oh aye, don't disagree with you there, mate. Think we're making different points though. You're looking at what things are in reality. You see a distinction between an EFTA court and the CJEU. You see why some things are necessary. Thing I was raising is that the Brexiter argument being made is that if it isn't British then it's not good enough. And we could even snark about 'British' needing a caveat. Unless that shifts then May's going to continue  to perform contortions around it, and there isn't any Brexit deal possible which won't kick off an almighty shitstorm led by those of this view. How do we get that from a Tubbs and Edward view of sovereignty to one where abiding by treaties and agreements is perfectly fine once more?

[oldfordie]

Oh aye, don't disagree with you there, mate. Think we're making different points though. You're looking at what things are in reality. You see a distinction between an EFTA court and the CJEU. You see why some things are necessary. Thing I was raising is that the Brexiter argument being made is that if it isn't British then it's not good enough. And we could even snark about 'British' needing a caveat. Unless that shifts then May's going to continue  to perform contortions around it, and there isn't any Brexit deal possible which won't kick off an almighty shitstorm led by those of this view. How do we get that from a Tubbs and Edward view of sovereignty to one where abiding by treaties and agreements is perfectly fine once more?

Yeah, You wonder if May and others fully understood the implications of what they  demanded when they argued we will not agree to ECJ type rulings, we are actually saying we want full control of our laws and control of how the EU countries enforce their laws inside the EU.
 We are going to look like right plonkers when this point gets more publicity, every country in the world accepts ECJ+EFTA rulings but we want full control. we can have full control of course, we dont have to actually trade with the EU if we dont want too. am sure Tubbs and Edward and other league of gentleman m8s will be thrilled.
When will crunch time come as it surely will, accept ECJ or were f..., the original project fear predictions are nothing to what this s.. storm will bring if we don't start facing realty quickly.

[So… Howard Philips]

And just as we are looking to WTO rules Trump announces he's considering taking America out of the WTO.

[oldfordie]

We don't have to be in the EU to make this country great again, we can do these things ourselves, right sure, so what have the Tories done to make our lives better over the last 2 yrs.
Here's what the EU have done since we voted leave.

8 good things EU has done since Brexit vote
by Luke Lythgoe | 30.08.2018

Brexiters like to paint a picture of the EU as a sclerotic monolith incapable of change. This is far from the truth. Just look at what the EU has achieved since the referendum in June 2016 – bringing in reforms which we may no longer benefit from if we Brexit.
Global Europe trumps global Britain

Global Europe has been much more of a reality than “Global Britain” since the Brexit vote. The EU has signed new trade deals with Japan and Canada – and started negotiations with Australia and New Zealand. We’ll have to start again with all these – and more than 60 other countries – if we quit.
Fairer migration

The new French president, Emmanuel Macron, has managed to push through EU-wide reforms to the so-called Posted Workers Directive. This means workers from other EU countries must have the same pay and conditions as local workers. This stops unscrupulous employers undercutting the local labour force by paying less to foreigners brought in from elsewhere in the EU – a big concern of working-class voters in the referendum.
Easier digital lives

Living online across the entire 28-country bloc has become much easier in the last couple of years. Mobile phone roaming charges have been abolished. Companies have been banned from “geo-blocking” (refusing to sell to online customers based on their geographical location within the EU). And the digital content on your portable devices – including subscriptions to films, sports events, eBooks, video games and music services – is now accessible across the whole EU, whereas before it was blocked abroad.
Demand a vote on the final Brexit deal
Click here to find out more
Looking out for the little guy

The EU has been standing up to large multinational companies in a way the UK on its own is unlikely to ever do. It is looking out for UK steelworkers, bringing in anti-dumping measures against unfair Chinese competition and protective measures against Donald Trump’s trade war on steel imports. It has also brought in new rules to tackle aggressive tax avoidance and illegal competition practices in the single market.
Crackdown on criminals

There have been new EU-wide rules making sure money laundering is punished across the bloc and that freezes and confiscations of criminal assets are applied properly.
Safety first

Nervous flyer, sailer or parent? There are now new EU safety rules for: airlines (including rules for drones); passenger ships (simultaneously cutting bureaucracy for ship owners); maximum limits for chemicals in children’s toys; and protecting people from carcinogens in the workplace.
Great British grub

Many UK foodstuffs made it onto the latest list of products getting geographical indicator status, meaning other countries can’t produce cheap copycats with the same name. “London Cure Smoked Salmon”, “West Wales Coracle Caught Salmon”, “Traditional Welsh Caerphilly” and “West Wales Coracle Caught Sewin” are now protected.
Cleaning up the planet

The EU’s environmental protections keep getting stronger. In the last two years there has been a new national cap on emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, new recycling rules aiming to increasing the amount of packaging that gets recycled, a recovery plan for bluefin tuna, and measures to boost cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions and low-carbon investments.

All this is just what the EU has done in the past two years.

Sometimes Brexiters say pro-Europeans can only point out the risks of quitting. That’s not true. There’s also a ton of good stuff the EU has done, is doing and will do – and we’ll benefit from it too if only we don’t leave.
https://infacts.org/8-good-things-eu-has-done-since-brexit-vote/

[Zeb]

RTE's Tony Connolly is pretty clear sighted about where things are at. Link to full blog.

Spoiler

So where do things stand?

There are just under seven weeks before the European Council in October.

In that time Theresa May will have to conclude the Withdrawal Agreement, and reach agreement on a political declaration on the future relationship that will sit alongside the divorce treaty.

On the Withdrawal Treaty there are three outstanding issues.

The first is on governance - how the EU and UK will resolve their differences in the future.

The second is on Geographical Indicators - will the UK respect some 3,000 sensitive EU products such as Champagne and Feta cheese and not start producing their own under those names.

The third, and biggest, obstacle is the Irish backstop.

The most recent proposal from London to replace to the European Commission’s draft legal text on the backstop dates back to 7 June.

It suggested a Temporary Customs Arrangement (TCA) and a UK-wide backstop that would expire around the end of 2020, when a new trade arrangement would – presumably – take effect.

London’s subsequent qualification of the TCA was that the Chequers White Paper would definitively rule out the need for the backstop.

That solution is not definitive enough for Dublin or the other member states. A backstop is still needed in the Withdrawal Agreement.

So, the deadlock remains.

According to three well-place sources, the European Commission has grown increasingly frustrated at London’s position on the backstop.

At the last round of talks between Michel Barnier and Dominic Raab on 14 August, sources described a heated discussion on the issue.

Following the negotiations, members of the Task Force briefed the Brexit Working Party, comprised of officials from the EU27 member states.

According to one source present, the Commission expressed concern that the UK was toying with the idea of holding out on Ireland till the last minute, and then trying to convince the EU that, if all the other elements of the backstop were in place, surely they would not opt for a "no-deal", and all the damage that would entail, simply to save Ireland.

"The Commission worries that that might be the fallback plan in London," says the source.

"It would be a case of London saying, ‘we clearly can’t work without anything, so we need a no-deal deal, which will help us bridge and face a no-deal, and that would look like the deal as it currently stands - minus Ireland."

That would also be unacceptable to Dublin.

There has been notable pressure from the Task Force on London in recent weeks, with Michel Barnier repeatedly saying that the backstop must be "de-dramatized".

By this he means getting London down from its position that the backstop violates the UK’s constitutional integrity, because it would require customs and conformity checks at Northern Irish ports on goods coming in from the rest of the UK.

To the Commission, and to other EU capitals, that de-dramatizing could happen if there is more transparency on what checks would be needed in the event of the backstop coming into play.

At yesterday’s news conference, Michel Barnier probed further, saying he had asked London to explore the nature of such controls.

"We have to work on drafting an operational backstop," he said, "and for that I’ve asked Dominic [Raab] and his team to give us a certain amount of data which is necessary for the technical work which we need now on the nature, the place, where and how the necessary controls and checks take place."

Other member states appear to agree with this approach, as there is little hope that the UK will imminently come up with anything on the backstop that is credible.

"We need to explain better what the backstop is not," says one EU source close to the negotiations.

"The island of Ireland is one energy market.  There are SPS [Sanitary and Phytosanitary] checks between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.  They have their own VAT system… What we’re trying to do is, not to violate the UK’s constitutional set up.  What we’re trying to do is work with its specificities.

"Northern Ireland is already devolved and specific, and it can’t be that sovereignty rests on the standards for a light bulb."

But that is unlikely to fly with the DUP.

Diane Dodds MEP has frequently referred to the supermarket giant Asda, and how its chain of supermarkets in Northern Ireland relies on a just-in-time delivery system for food products, the majority of which come from Great Britain.

That system would be severely disrupted if there were customs and EU conformity checks, she argues.

One way out of the deadlock is that the political declaration accompanying the Withdrawal Agreement, will spell out in such generous and positive terms what the future trade relationship will be that it gives Theresa May just about enough political cover to convince the DUP and Brexiteers that the backstop – though conceded – will never be needed.

"That’s what the Commission is thinking," says a senior EU official.

"If we can accommodate presentation-wise the UK a bit more, be it with drafting the declaration in such a manner that May can claim that in the future framework, once agreed, we will end up with quasi-frictionless trade.

"Then she would be in a position to say, ok, I accepted the backstop, but it will never have to be used, because I am confident we will have such a high degree of customs facilitation."

All this is, however, predicated on the Chequers plan – with its convoluted customs facilitation ideas – surviving a further mauling as we get closer to the Tory Party Conference at the end of September.

As I’ve written before in this blog, the EU thinks the Chequers plan is riddled with unworkable demands, but that it is a vehicle – a harbinger – of a proper discussion.

But while the paralysis in Westminster continues, nobody would bet on Chequers – or even Theresa May – surviving the next eight weeks.

In a nutshell, the EU might help Theresa May with a generous political declaration alongside the Withdrawal Agreement; but only if she can keep the Chequers plan afloat.

Even then, there are other pitfalls.  The political declaration is just that: an aspiration, and not a legally binding text.

But it won’t be done overnight.

[close]

[oldfordie]

RTE's Tony Connolly is pretty clear sighted about where things are at. Link to full blog.

Spoiler

[close]

I think they were talking about leaving the crunch time withdrawal agreement time limit till after the October EU summit, talk of a meeting November as well, not that it makes much difference considering they have had 2 yrs to solve NI border and still no solutions.
The Tories aren't dealing with idiots, the EU negotiators are far more experienced than us.
All these plans the Tories have had have fell by the wayside one by one. Brinkmanship now, hoping the EU, Republic, DUP and Parliament all fall for their cunning plan.
It's desperate stuff, Brinkmanship always is, dangerous and irresponsible.

[Zeb]

I think they were talking about leaving the crunch time withdrawal agreement time limit till after the October EU summit, talk of a meeting November as well, not that it makes much difference considering they have had 2 yrs to solve NI border and still no solutions.
The Tories aren't dealing with idiots, the EU negotiators are far more experienced than us.
All these plans the Tories have had have fell by the wayside one by one. Brinkmanship now, hoping the EU, Republic, DUP and Parliament all fall for their cunning plan.
It's desperate stuff, Brinkmanship always is, dangerous and irresponsible.

Yeah, there's been preparations for an emergency summit in mid-November. But kicking even a fudge beyond that seems difficult due to the process things have to go through on the EU side. ie vote in European Parliament and then a vote of the European Council (qualified majority rules). It's difficult to see how it can be resolved unless the entire UK remains within the single market and customs union as part of the backstop, or May accepts a fudge which leads a Prime Minister to that place a couple of years later.

[Zeb]

While Labour seem to be willing to put off coming up with any sort of policy on Brexit beyond "not the Tory one", we're now seeing the Tory party providing its own opposition. To go alongside the "chuck Chequers" headbangers, an approach which has some merit from Nick Boles (and backed by Gove):

Telegraph (paywall)

Better Brexit website.

Spoiler

This autumn Britain faces a terrible choice: between the humiliation of a deal dictated by Brussels; and the chaos of crashing out of the EU next March with no deal. But it is not too late to change course.

Today I am publishing my plan for a Better Brexit.

It is a plan that everyone should be able to support: Leavers and Remainers, young and old, people who live in big cities and people who live in rural areas and small towns.

It is a plan around which the whole country can unite.

In advance of the referendum I backed the Remain campaign - mainly because I didn’t believe that leaving the EU was worth the hassle.

But as soon as the result came in on the morning of 24 June 2016, I knew where my duty lay.

Early that morning I tweeted as follows: “The people I work for have made a momentous decision. I advised against it. But they call the shots and I will now do everything I can to make a success of it.” 

In February 2017 I left hospital in a wheelchair to vote for Article 50 even though I was undergoing chemotherapy at the time.

Since then I have felt that the right course was to support the Prime Minister in her efforts to negotiate a deal and I have supported the government in all the key votes on legislation relating to Brexit.

I pay tribute to Theresa May for her sense of duty and her resilience.

I admire her determination to deliver what a majority of the British people voted for. But I am afraid that her policy has failed and I can no longer support it.

In July of last year I wrote a column for the ConservativeHome website suggesting that we should decouple from the EU gradually, parking temporarily in EFTA and the EEA before negotiating a long term relationship based on a free trade agreement.

In short that we should try to emulate Norway’s relationship with the EU before moving to a position more like Canada’s.

At the time, the government was confident that it could do a better deal than that, that it would be able to secure full access to the Single Market and the Customs Union without being a member of the relevant institutions, or signing up to their rules.

Now we know better - and the government is poised to sign up to a much worse deal than the one I outlined.

A deal which would see us agree a €39 billion divorce settlement without getting anything in the return, accept an Irish backstop arrangement that threatens to separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, and see us move from full membership of the EU to a transition in which we are bound by all the rules but don’t have a vote.

It is not easy to break with my Prime Minister, and the government which I support. I am an instinctive loyalist. I have never voted against my Government before.

But during the summer it has become clear that the EU is not going to accept the terms of the Chequers Agreement, and is intent on treating it as an opening bid.

Meanwhile meetings with key supporters in my constituency have brought home to me the dismay that many voters feel at what the Prime Minister is proposing.

So now, on the biggest question facing Parliament in modern times and on a decision which will have massive implications for the UK’s prosperity and security for decades to come, I have concluded that I must put my country first.

The plan I am setting out today represents our only hope of a better Brexit. After a busy few weeks consulting with lawyers, academics and other experts, I am certain that we still have time to make it happen.

But MPs will need to move quickly and act decisively. If we wait until the New Year it will be too late.

[close]

Problem with it is the idea that we have this time limited period before 'Brexiting properly'. It does not solve the Irish border problem, which needs a clear resolution for perpetuity. But, setting aside cakeism (!), it's a start in addressing reality of all this.

[oldfordie]

Yeah, there's been preparations for an emergency summit in mid-November. But kicking even a fudge beyond that seems difficult due to the process things have to go through on the EU side. ie vote in European Parliament and then a vote of the European Council (qualified majority rules). It's difficult to see how it can be resolved unless the entire UK remains within the single market and customs union as part of the backstop, or May accepts a fudge which leads a Prime Minister to that place a couple of years later.

I want this to come to a head as soon as possible. we do need as much time as possible if the talks fall through, Octobers better but November gives us 4 months to try and avert the worst case scenario Brexit, ive no idea what will happen but something will.

While Labour seem to be willing to put off coming up with any sort of policy on Brexit beyond "not the Tory one", we're now seeing the Tory party providing its own opposition. To go alongside the "chuck Chequers" headbangers, an approach which has some merit from Nick Boles (and backed by Gove):

Telegraph (paywall)

Better Brexit website.

Spoiler

[close]

Problem with it is the idea that we have this time limited period before 'Brexiting properly'. It does not solve the Irish border problem, which needs a clear resolution for perpetuity. But, setting aside cakeism (!), it's a start in addressing reality of all this.

A EU official was saying the trouble with the UKs, Canada ++ deal is it's a Norway type deal while only agreeing to the Canada deal commitment.
If we do start off with a Norway type Brexit then it will mean breaking nearly every red line except the right to negotiate our own trade deals.that means FOM.agreeing to EU regulations.pay into EU budget.accept ECJ type rulings through EFTA. so Mays Sovereignty red lines gone as well. he says this is a deal that will unite the country. both remain and leave voters will go for this deal. he's taking the piss.

[conman]

Faceless Eurocrats messing with our sunlight, is there anything they can't meddle with?

our sunlight? we barely see the fucker

[Zeb]

I want this to come to a head as soon as possible. we do need as much time as possible if the talks fall through, Octobers better but November gives us 4 months to try and avert the worst case scenario Brexit, ive no idea what will happen but something will.A EU official was saying the trouble with the UKs, Canada ++ deal is it's a Norway type deal while only agreeing to the Canada deal commitment.
If we do start off with a Norway type Brexit then it will mean breaking nearly every red line except the right to negotiate our own trade deals.that means FOM.agreeing to EU regulations.pay into EU budget.accept ECJ type rulings through EFTA. so Mays Sovereignty red lines gone as well. he says this is a deal that will unite the country. both remain and leave voters will go for this deal. he's taking the piss.

May saying stuff like "I will not be pushed into compromises that are not in our national interest" is clever phrasing, and points to a retreat from the red lines at some stage. I just don't see how she gets something through Parliament unless it's a cliff edge vote. Really where Labour setting out a clear position would be useful as it would pull the government position along behind it.

The Boles' (Gove) plan is flawed from the start really, but it does at least recognise that there are very few ways to solve the NI backstop issue. Even pretending it was workable (it isn't), like you say there, the issues with a Norway deal is that it's not going to keep anyone happy in the short term or the long. Farcical place we're at though, isn't it? We're taking back control by ceding any control.

[hide5seek]

Brexit continues with it's good new's.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/02/britain-loses-medicines-contracts-as-eu-body-anticipates-brexit

[Gnurglan]

The effects may not be terrible in the long run. The EU is not the norm, it's recent. It is also an organisation that has grown too big, too fast and is full of problems. I just think it's the wrong way to go. The world is moving in a direction of more connections. In my line of work we need to adjust to American regulations and naturally follow EU's and our own as well. There is no choice but to do this. If something happens in America, you have to adapt. That's just the way it is. To then step outside the EU will just add to the complexity.

[Gerry Attrick]

Brexit continues with it's good new's.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/02/britain-loses-medicines-contracts-as-eu-body-anticipates-brexit

I can't keep up with all these excellent developments. Feels like something awesome comes out everyday.

[ShakaHislop]

May saying stuff like "I will not be pushed into compromises that are not in our national interest" is clever phrasing, and points to a retreat from the red lines at some stage. I just don't see how she gets something through Parliament unless it's a cliff edge vote. Really where Labour setting out a clear position would be useful as it would pull the government position along behind it.

The Boles' (Gove) plan is flawed from the start really, but it does at least recognise that there are very few ways to solve the NI backstop issue. Even pretending it was workable (it isn't), like you say there, the issues with a Norway deal is that it's not going to keep anyone happy in the short term or the long. Farcical place we're at though, isn't it? We're taking back control by ceding any control.

Not that clever as David Davis is already kicking and screaming about it.

But David Davis, the former Brexit secretary who resigned over the Chequers agreement, said the caveat - "except in the national interest" - was an "incredible open sesame to all".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45388557

On a different note, it would be very welcome to hear more comments like this from any official opposition MP, frontbench or not.

The Conservative donor and former Rolls-Royce chairman Sir Simon Robertson has also joined calls for a second referendum, saying he is "deeply depressed" at the tone of the Brexit debate.

"I think it is complete balderdash to say the people have spoken, therefore you can't go back. The people can speak again - why can't we have another vote on it?" he asked, in an interview with the the Observer.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45385421

[ShakaHislop]

Barnier ripping apart the Chequers proposals in an interview with a German newspaper.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/02/michel-barnier-strongly-opposes-may-brexit-trade-proposals

[Zeb]

Not that clever as David Davis is already kicking and screaming about it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45388557

I suppose the question to Davis then becomes, "Why do you want to do things which aren't in the national interest?".

[Zeb]

May be of interest, Guardian's running with it on their front page today too, is a report/summary of the impact of a No Deal Brexit by a cross-disciplinary group of academics based at King's College London.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cost-of-No-Deal-Revisited.pdf

The conclusion reads far too much like a plea for comfort.

What the preceding analysis has illustrated is not only that no deal remains a possible – albeit not likely – outcome of the Brexit process, but that it would have a huge
impact across a whole range of both regions and sectors. It is important to be careful in the language used to discuss this outcome. The impact of a chaotic Brexit would
not be uniform, and indeed, as we discuss, it might be that attempts at mitigation could, in the short term, actually boost GDP [example given is Japan's GDP temporarily rising in response to a major earthquake]. That being said, what is all too clear is that it would also generate genuinely catastrophic outcomes in some respects.

Here, it is worth pausing to consider the frequent conflation of ‘no deal’ with ‘trading under WTO rules.’ This conflation is both disingenuous and dangerous. It is, of
course, perfectly viable for the UK to trade as a third country with the EU and the rest of the world under WTO rules (and lots of other international agreements) over
the long term. But let us put that in context. First, the negotiation of schedules would be neither automatic nor straightforward. Second, most economists think that
trading on WTO terms would have significant negative economic impacts – albeit no more than say a 0.5%/year growth hit over the long term.

But third, and perhaps most importantly in this context, this focus on the WTO as a backstop for our ultimate trading arrangements tells us little or nothing about
the short-term disruption, both economic and social, from a chaotic no deal as discussed here. The real impact of a chaotic Brexit relates not to the longer-term
trading arrangements developed for the UK but, rather, to the short-term uncertainties associated with the disappearance without replacement of many of the rules
underpinning the UK’s economic and regulatory structure. The impacts would be felt in industry sectors from agriculture to financial services; to areas which we take
for granted as essential to the UK’s economy and society, such as air transport and drugs; and to our EU national colleagues, friends and family, and to our fellow
citizens living elsewhere in Europe.

Of course, mitigations can and will be put in place. But here we need to distinguish between those under the control of the UK government (building new customs
infrastructure, stockpiling medicines, creating new regulatory institutions) and those that are not (for instance negotiating memoranda of understanding sufficient to
keep flights in the air).

When it comes to the latter, we must consider the potential political context at the time of a no deal Brexit. As we have argued, this is likely to be one characterised by
a degree of bitterness and mutual recrimination as each side blames the other for the breakdown of the talks. In addition, the European Union is highly unlikely to be
willing to negotiate mitigating actions that are far more important for the UK than for the 27 unless and until they receive, at a minimum, credible assurances that the
withdrawal issues can be resolved (which, presumably, will require meaningful concessions from the UK, or a chaotic Brexit would not have occurred in the first place).

So while a chaotic Brexit remains a possibility, either via a breakdown in the negotiations or the inability of British politicians to provide a majority for any conceivable
negotiated outcome, its impacts will be severe and overwhelmingly negative. In the short term at least, considerable uncertainty and disruption will result. In all
likelihood, the chances of negotiating the kinds of mitigating deals that the government seems to assume will be possible in its technical notices on the pact of no deal
seem slim.

It makes sense to plan for, and indeed attempt to mitigate, the worst aspects of a chaotic Brexit. It makes much more sense to avoid such an outcome altogether. This
would be an unprecedented mess, both politically and economically, and we’d be in uncharted territory, even with mitigations. And repeating again we don’t think no
deal is either likely or desirable, but could happen by accident, and at least we should have an objective idea of the consequences.

[Alan_X]

I guarantee that the Irish government won't go along with it if the UK doesn't. Imagine the fun on cross-border train timetables when going from Belfast (GMT) to Dublin (GMT+1).
Will be a pity, cos Daylight Savings is one of the worst ideas still part of public policy.

Imagine the problem flying from the UK (GMT) to Paris (GMT+1)... of all the problems that Brexit might throw up this is not a big deal and something we deal with all the time.

[Alan_X]

May be of interest, Guardian's running with it on their front page today too, is a report/summary of the impact of a No Deal Brexit by a cross-disciplinary group of academics based at King's College London.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cost-of-No-Deal-Revisited.pdf

The conclusion reads far too much like a plea for comfort.

The insanity of ‘no deal’ is that when people say a ‘no deal’ will be fine, the reason it will be fine is that ‘deals’ will be made to mitigate any problems.

[redbyrdz]

May be of interest, Guardian's running with it on their front page today too, is a report/summary of the impact of a No Deal Brexit by a cross-disciplinary group of academics based at King's College London.

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cost-of-No-Deal-Revisited.pdf

The conclusion reads far too much like a plea for comfort.

No deal "could happen by accident". Says it all really. The most important political decision of this country in decades, and it might be an accident.

[leroy]

It can't. Saying it can is an effort to malign the institution, in the same way that a player might insist the club he's leaving was always a shithole.

Right.  I mean the EU is entirely democratic right?

My understanding is that the parliament is directly elected by the population.  The commissioners are nominated by member governments and ratified by the eu parliament.  The bureaucracy is the same as any government has.

Am I missing anything here is it just the same old shite where the "unelected bureaucrats" line is just a straight up lie trotted out in the usual tabloid fashion?

[Zeb]

The insanity of ‘no deal’ is that when people say a ‘no deal’ will be fine, the reason it will be fine is that ‘deals’ will be made to mitigate any problems.

I think that's one of the important points in the conclusion there. There's an assumption in Brexiter circles that things can be botched together at the last moment which is just a world away from the clearly defined process the EU has to follow.

----

Sharing this cos it may be of interest to others. It's a transcript of a July lecture by Prof. Simon Hix on our domestic political situation, with regards to leave vs remain voters, and then a light dip into potential negotiation positions for Brexit discussions.

This is the bargaining game he draws up:



His feeling is that things will arrive at a FTA ('canada style'), for at least the starting point for yet further negotiations. Problem is, as he acknowledges, he's not taking the Irish border into consideration.

The point I really wanted to draw attention to though is that he highlights that being outside of the EU and still needing to follow EU regulations etc. will very possibly just further fuel Leave sentiment.

Even if the UK signs only a basic FTA with the EU, UK goods and services exporters will have to apply EU product as well as process standards to gain access to the single market. Process standards are likely to be more intrusive than produce standards, as they cover things like phytosanitary standards, the use and disposal of chemicals and other health and safety rules. Applying these rules will not feel like ‘taking back control’, and like the Swiss and Norwegian publics, the British public might gradually turn even more against the EU. There have already been headlines in some English tabloids that the EU is a ‘bully’. The EU will feel even more like a bully once the UK is outside the EU; just ask Switzerland and Norway.

I'm not sure the country can go on much longer with Brexit sucking up all the political resources of those engaged in frontline politics.

[ShakaHislop]

I think that's one of the important points in the conclusion there. There's an assumption in Brexiter circles that things can be botched together at the last moment which is just a world away from the clearly defined process the EU has to follow.

----

Sharing this cos it may be of interest to others. It's a transcript of a July lecture by Prof. Simon Hix on our domestic political situation, with regards to leave vs remain voters, and then a light dip into potential negotiation positions for Brexit discussions.

This is the bargaining game he draws up:



His feeling is that things will arrive at a FTA ('canada style'), for at least the starting point for yet further negotiations. Problem is, as he acknowledges, he's not taking the Irish border into consideration.

The point I really wanted to draw attention to though is that he highlights that being outside of the EU and still needing to follow EU regulations etc. will very possibly just further fuel Leave sentiment.

I'm not sure the country can go on much longer with Brexit sucking up all the political resources of those engaged in frontline politics.

Why would the EU agree to negotiate further?

[Red Raw]

Right.  I mean the EU is entirely democratic right?

My understanding is that the parliament is directly elected by the population.  The commissioners are nominated by member governments and ratified by the eu parliament.  The bureaucracy is the same as any government has.

Am I missing anything here is it just the same old shite where the "unelected bureaucrats" line is just a straight up lie trotted out in the usual tabloid fashion?

Members of the Commission are appointed by the Commission President rather than elected which is where I think a lot of the 'unelected bureauocrat' shite comes from.

Presidential elections take place every 5 years.  Candidates for President of the Commission are put forward by governments and then elected by MEPs in the European Parliament.  The President then chooses other members of the Commission, who are subsequently interviewed by Parliament.  EU Parliament must be happy with the whole bunch before the new Commission is officially appointed (can anyone imagine the UK parliament having a say in who the PM chooses to be ministers ?!?)  MEPs also have the power to remove the President and censure the Commission.

The Commission is more than a civil service (although it performs this function too) and it is a powerful body in that it can propose legislation at EU level - this must massively piss off those who are against the EU in principle although the general direction of travel of the EU is decided by the European Council (made up of heads of state from member states) and the Council (appropriate ministers from member states - finance, security, environment etc.)

It should be remembered that Commission proposals do not generally become law until they have been passed by the European Parliament.  In some cases Parliament has an an equal say to Council through what is called the 'ordinary legislative procedure' (covers economic governance, immigration, energy, transport, the environment and consumer protection) while in other cases the 'special legislative procedure' gives Parliament an advisory role only (e.g.taxation).

The EU is pretty good at making this stuff available for anyone interested (https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/institutions-bodies_en) but it still seems like a lack of understanding of EU procedures is part of the reason the UK fails to take it seriously and has repeatedly elected jokers and shysters to the EU parliament (with disappointingly low turnouts) rather than the dedicated and earnest people required for the role.

The irony is of course that few people in the UK even understand the legislative process at home yet are happy to hold it up as some kind of democratic gold standard.  Admittedly it has (some) strong features but it still doesn't stop crazy shit such as a single arsehole like Chistopher Chope blocking legislation to make upskirting illegal.

[Iska]

The EU is still an international organisation, rather than a single country with a government.  It does a lot more than other international organisations, and a lot less than any government, so ideally you’d expect it to be directed primarily by input from the governments of the member states, with a good amount of policy formation from its own bodies, and a bit of direct input from representatives of the people.

That’s pretty much what happens.  It seems silly to criticise it for being undemocratic when no two democratic bodies are the same, they’re all adapted to the conditions in which they operate.  I’ve never heard any anti-EU person say what a democratic EU would look like.

[Libertine]

Imagine the problem flying from the UK (GMT) to Paris (GMT+1)... of all the problems that Brexit might throw up this is not a big deal and something we deal with all the time.

TV is more of an issue than travelling. Already a bit strange watching BBC from here in Amsterdam when everything's an hour out. Given how prominent UK TV/culture/sport is in Ireland. Not an insurmountable issue of course, just one that would need adapting to.

[west_london_red]

Why would the EU agree to negotiate further?

The same reason any two countries (yes, I know the EU isn’t actually a country but you know what I mean) negotiate free trade agreements?

[oldfordie]

Why would the EU agree to negotiate further?

I don't want a Canada type deal, it's nowhere near good enough but I think he means it will at least give us ready made deal to improve upon, Canada is on the other side of the world, they aren't that bothered about Canadian Lorrys in 20 mile tale backs at customs. dont think there too bothered about massive red tape on rules of origin at borders either, the goods will get their in the end, Canada deal only covers a fraction of the goods we have now. so we need a deal that solves these problems so we added a +++ at the end and were hoping the EU fall for our cunning plan
The EU have said the trouble with the UKs Canada +++ type deal is it's a Norway type deal with the Canadian commitments.
Were going to spend years doing what we've done over the last year. ask for as much as we have now in many different ways. 

[ShakaHislop]

The same reason any two countries (yes, I know the EU isn’t actually a country but you know what I mean) negotiate free trade agreements?

If we end up with a Canada type FTA in the first place, it will be because the UK will have refused to compromise on its red lines. Unless that changes, I don't see what of significance there will be to discuss. The EU has better things to do than spend more years entertaining British pisstaking proposals.

[Zeb]

If we end up with a Canada type FTA in the first place, it will be because the UK will have refused to compromise on its red lines. Unless that changes, I don't see what of significance there will be to discuss. The EU has better things to do than spend more years entertaining British pisstaking proposals.

I don't agree with Hix on the FTA*, because of the Irish border issue and also because it's clearly not what the British government want, but we're looking at the next few decades down the line as well as the immediate short term for how stuff works between Britain and the EU. As he says, a lot of things Britain would want in a Canada +++ deal actually only make any kind of sense to the EU after a prolonged period of demonstrating a willingness to work within a framework not of our own outside the EU. The problem, as he identifies, may continue to be more domestic than the EU's willingness to find something which works for both sides.

* - although he's very clear it's a thought experiment ignoring key details.

[WhereAngelsPlay]

Even with a no deal we will still have to abide by EU regulations if we want them to buy our shit.

[Trada]

With the left in total control of the NEC now and also winning 38 out of 42 positions on the Labour national policy forum.

It will be interesting what happens at conference and if there will be any policy changes. Not sure if a people vote will be backed I personally would want to force a GE.

Labour voters turn against Brexit as 1.6m people switch from Leave to Remain.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-supporters-turn-against-brexit-13186920

[Zeb]

With the left in total control of the NEC now and also winning 38 out of 42 positions on the Labour national policy forum.

It will be interesting what happens at conference and if there will be any policy changes. Not sure if a people vote will be backed I personally would want to force a GE.

Labour voters turn against Brexit as 1.6m people switch from Leave to Remain.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-supporters-turn-against-brexit-13186920

Momentum have decided that they're not going to take any position whatsoever on it, haven't they?

Problem with the "force a General Election" idea is that the Tories will not vote for one* until they've got a new leader, and that new leader has had time to bed in and climb up the polls as the new face. It's the one thing which unites the Tory party right now. Labour are in no position to force a general election, but are in one to shape Brexit policy because that's where the Tory splits are.

Let's pretend Labour voting against May's agreement in Parliament would bring down the government though. What if we've not time to negotiate anything else? What if there isn't time to hold a General Election? By automatic operation of law, we leave the EU at 11pm, Friday 29 March, 2019. Is the chaos of no deal worth a general election? Would seem to make anyone proposing such a thing inherently unfit to govern the country. "We burned the house down to save the house."


edit: * - just quick math, but I think it's the better part of 100 Tory MPs needed to vote alongside the entirety of the opposition (excluding DUP and SF) to call an early general election.