Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

What happens now?

by IdiotSavant Tue Jan 15th, 2019 at 09:29:39 PM EST

This morning the UK parliament voted on Theresa may's Brexit deal - and as expected voted it down in the biggest defeat for a UK government in the democratic era. So what happens now? The problem is that no-one can tell. The UK has passed into political singularity, and no-one knows what might come out the other side.

Frontpaged - Frank Schnittger


There will be a formal confidence vote tomorrow, which it seems likely May will win - no-one wants her shit Brexit deal, but her supporters don't want an election either. But MPs are known to lie, and its not inconceivable that a few backbenchers grumpy about the outcome will decide to roll her. Meanwhile, May says her plan is to consult her party and its DUP (fanatic Northern Irish protestant) supporters and take their views back to parliament, but this goes straight back to her core problem: her own party doesn't know what it wants. Or rather, it is divided into two increasingly hostile factions who want incompatible things: a full-on hard Brexit to show Britain's greatness and superiority to Johnny Foreigner (complete with soundtrack of "Rule Britannia" as the clown car hurtles off the White Cliffs of Dover and into the sea), versus cancelling the whole thing and trying to go back to the status quo ante. But she's legally required to come up with something for parliament to vote on, within three days.

Whatever may comes up with, Parliament gets to vote on it, and amend it. But its unclear whether there's a majority there for anything either. It seems there's a majority against hard Brexit, but the UK parliament voting against that doesn't mean its not going to happen: its the default option, and the only way to prevent it is to agree something else with the EU. Who, having painstakingly reached consensus on the deal parliament just voted down, are unlikely to agree anything more generous. Ideas that there is a "better deal" if the UK just Speaks Slowly in A Very Loud Voice (or more likely, whines piteously enough) are simply fantasies. Likewise, the idea that they can join Norway or Lichtenstein in the EFA or Efta are fantasies, because the existing parties to those deals won't agree to it.

As for a "people's vote", that would require someone to decide what the options actually are. So, the same problem, on a different stage. Plus they'd probably fuck it up again by not making the decision legally binding (or as legally binding as they could, given that its a referendum on international relations).

What happens now? Nobody knows. But what has been exposed by this is the utter dysfunction of its political system, and the utter cowardliness of its major political parties in refusing to take a formal position for which they can be held electorally accountable on the most salient political issue in a century. Whatever happens, UK voters should do something about that. sadly, the UK's unfair electoral system is likely to prevent them from doing anything of the sort, and so these dysfunctional political inbreds will remain in power.

Display:
Seems about right

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Jan 15th, 2019 at 11:32:52 PM EST
What I hear from EU leaders ...

Tusk sums it up best:

The position of the member states of the EU will be, there is an escape route: revoke Brexit! We'll welcome you back in the union.

Negotiator Michel Barnier was clearly disappointed in the massive defeat for PM Theresa May. His few words amounted to: "The British will need to tell us what their solution is for the impasse."

This is a repeat of the conclusion reached mid-December with the meeting of the 27 members ...

EU leaders tell May to find Brexit consensus among MPs

UK ally the Dutch stated clearly there is no room for any concession. After two years of negotiation, what's on the table is de best deal: the Withdrawal Agreement. The EU will preserve the interest of its member states. If the MPs of British Parliament think they can put pressure on Brussels in the next few days, they are grossly mistaken! If that's their game plan, they will be disappointed. Clearly the ball is in the UK court.

"The defeat in the House of Commons for the withdrawal agreement was so clear, thus for the British government it's their move, London must now propose how to proceed."

EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker makes it clear in line with words spoken by Michel Barnier ...

Brexit news latest: Europe reacts to Theresa May's crushing defeat, saying 'time is almost up'
Überrascht über das Ausmaß der Schlappe | Frankfurter Allgemeiner |

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Tue Jan 15th, 2019 at 11:51:44 PM EST
sadly, the UK's unfair electoral system is likely to prevent them from doing anything of the sort

Keep your sympathy for the US, whose citizens have no way of doing anything about their voting system. But the UK had a referendum in 2011 to change theirs, and voted strongly to keep it, so they deserve all they get.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 12:12:49 AM EST
Well, the establishment offered them something (preferential voting) that wasn't really reform at all, so its no surprise they voted it down.
by IdiotSavant on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 03:03:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]
People deserve what they voted for?

... That's incredibly harsh.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 09:17:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If May had any sense she'd resign and let the Tories pick a new chump Leader and Prime Minister.  Since she doesn't ...  

She has five days to come up with Plan B.  The only problem with that is there never really was a Plan A only Plan Arglety-Bargle.

I see three possible outcomes:

1.  Revoke the Letter

In order for the Article 50 letter to be revoked that stupid Act saying the UK will leave the EU on March 29, 2019 has to be annulled & good luck with that.

2.  Pass this Deal

After May goes back to the EU and the EU says, basically, pffffffftttttttthhhhhhhhh, A Miracle Happens, and Plan A is accepted by parliament.

And good luck with that

3.  No Deal

And I never expected anything else

 

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 04:16:00 AM EST
She's got three days.

Three days to come up with a radical alternative to the deal she took two years to cobble together.

The only alternative to hard Brexit (in fact hard-brexit-fudge, where the EU takes a rasp to the sharp edges to prevent too many deaths) is to ask the EU27 for a prolongation of, say, a year while "the UK" decides what it really, really wants (what "brexit means brexit" means).

The EU27 would no doubt, magnanimously, agree to this delay, ON CONDITION that the "government of the UK" submit a plan in which they lay out a process for ... starting from scratch in order to reach a national decision.

The only propositions which seem likely to get EU27 approval would be a new referendum, or a general election. Can anyone see any other reasons for kicking the can down the road some more?

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 09:31:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
... Changing Prime Ministers won't cut it, because there isn't an alternative PM in the current parliament who can deliver an outcome other than hard B.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 09:36:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]
A referendum or general election would be the easy justifications for prolongation. Much harder would be time to put together a new proposition (in which May's "red lines" would have to disappear, or it would logically be back to the May-Barnier agreement and therefore a total waste of time).

Why might the EU27 agree to a delay for this? Perhaps because the disruption of a hard Brexit would constitute an external shock to the EU also? Because the EU would want to cover its arse in view of the coming blame game?

The frightening thing is that (given the probable defeat of Corbyn's no confidence motion, the 118 Tories who voted against May yesterday doubtless not relishing the notion of a general election in current circumstances), it's May or another Tory incompetent who'd be in charge of attempting to agree with the EU. Failure and hard Brexit would loom strong.

A second referendum is possible, but dangerous. Resolution would only be obtained if an unquestionably large majority voted one way or the other.

I used to be afew. I'm still not many.

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 10:12:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The European Union's chief Brexit negotiator has opened the door to re-opening talks about the EU and UK's future relationship if Theresa May ditches some of her negotiating red lines.

Speaking the morning after MPs rejected the prime minister's deal, Michel Barnier said that the European Council "unanimously" agreed and had "always said that if the UK chooses to shift its red lines in the future, and if it makes that choice to be more ambitious and to go beyond a simple free trade agreement, then the EU will be immediately ready to go hand in hand with that development and give a favourable response".

Independent

I used to be afew. I'm still not many.

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 10:46:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Why do the worst shows on TV always get renewed for a billion seasons? Can't it just end?
by generic on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 11:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The great thing about TV is the off switch.

I used to be afew. I'm still not many.
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 04:28:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Negotiating UK-EU deal talking with earplugs in
No trust and lack of comprehension
Both the UK and EU living on different planets

EC president Tusk signalled it's time for Great Britain to cancel BrExit
Brussels is NOT ready to renegotiate the WA
EU says clearly to London you need to come up with a plan

Londoners put the blame on Europe for not being flexible
MPs argue it's the EU which failed UK membership

EU negotiator Barnier tells PM May there is room for talks ...
Just scrap some of your "red lines" ...

... the EU and UK's future relationship if Theresa May ditches some of her negotiating red lines.

Speaking the morning after MPs rejected the prime minister's deal, Michel Barnier said that the European Council "unanimously" agreed and had "always said that if the UK chooses to shift its red lines in the future, and if it makes that choice to be more ambitious and to go beyond a simple free trade agreement, then the EU will be immediately ready to go hand in hand with that development and give a favourable response".

Ms May has said she wants to end freedom of movement, leave the single market, customs union, and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice - limiting the scope of her planned future trade deal with the EU and ending frictionless trade.

Mr Barnier suggested that there could be no renegotiation of the actual withdrawal agreement, however - which contains the controversial "backstop" hated by so many Tory MEPs and Ms May's allies in the DUP.

Michel Barnier voices the same view as EC president Donald Tusk: "Stay in the common market and accept leniency on freedom of movement".

THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 12:01:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The Europeans are witnessing a political crisis in London with an open end.

The mood amongst EU leaders is to bite the apple of a hard Brexit and move on into WTO ruled trade. Businesses will fall into a legal jungle on contracts for deals and trade already made. The large corporations will have their contingency plans in place, the smaller businesses will have a costly problem for repairs and expensive advisors.

The world is already in turmoil with the twitter presidency in the White House. Trump, his administration and U.S. Congress will primarily look at sanctioning Western European business due to investments in the Nordstream 2 pipeline. And let's not forget the scrapping of the Iran nuclear deal and Congress looking to sanction any foreign company involved in trade or commercial ties.

US Ambassador Richard Grenell threatens German firms over Russian pipeline
Low-cost airline Norwegian Air has a 737MAX passenger plane grounded in Shiraz for weeks

... U.S. sanctions prevent replacement parts being sent to fix it. Europeans are getting tired of nationalist MeFirst! ideology when the EU is based on multicultural and multilateral policy. In the long-run it's not a manner to handle any international issue. After 9/11 and the George Bush catastrophe, the law of the jungle has been put in place. Flouting International law and treaties, and forcing a strand of pure capitalism even after the banks were rescued with a cost for mainstreet, hard working people.

A no-deal BrExit in the offing ... extension of Art. 50 needs unanimity of the 27 member states of the EU.

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 10:43:27 AM EST
May is the political equivalent of a fatberg.
by Andhakari on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 12:13:21 PM EST
PM May and the Tory party of NO!

After the massive defeat, a leader of government should reach across party lines. Even I sports today, one doesn't defend on his/her own turf but utilizes a forward defending. Not so for a weak leader who is more afraid of her own position. Theresa May likes to pull back where she is comfortable with like-minded persons. ToryFirst! is her slogan as Prime Minister. It will only lead to further defeat and chaos in the meantime.

Theresa May omits Jeremy Corbyn from cross-party Brexit talks | The Guardian |

Theresa May's plans for cross-party co-operation on Brexit were condemned after it emerged that she was not seeking to involve Jeremy Corbyn despite Tuesday's historic defeat of her plan.

Andrea Leadsom admitted Labour's leader had not been invited to cross-party talks and indicated that Corbyn needed to say what he wanted from Brexit before being invited to speak to the prime minister.

[...]

Leadsom told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Corbyn had not been invited because he was primarily interested in forcing a general election instead of striking a Brexit deal.

... Further criticism of the government's plan for cross-party talks came from Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP first minister of Scotland, who said that May would have to review her "red lines" for cross-party talks to be successful.

"If none of PM's red lines change, what progress can she possibly make?" she wrote on Twitter.

No 10 said on Tuesday, after the vote, that the same principles that governed May's Brexit deal would be applied to a future deal.



Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
by Oui on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 01:39:01 PM EST
No 10 said on Tuesday, after the vote, that the same principles that governed May's Brexit deal would be applied to a future deal.

So any further talking is a waste of time.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 05:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
10 Downing Street spokesperson:

The principles that govern us as we go into these talks is that we want to be able to do our own trade deals, and that is incompatible with either the or a customs union.

May is giving nothing away, nothing has changed. Delusional "talks" that will get nowhere.

If there really is a Remain majority in the country, they need to make themselves loudly heard if they want a referendum. It's that or over the cliff.

I used to be afew. I'm still not many.

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 02:19:43 PM EST
What are these "red lines" of which you (pl.) murmur?

Let's have a list.
Column A (EU gov), Column B (UK gov):

(...)

Does anyone here remember any besides

(1) open border between NI-IE, and
(2) no ETA for UK until the withdrawal agreement is in force (Frank's "red line")

with which UK gov is purportedly dissatisfied as stipulated in the withdrawal agreement?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 02:25:37 PM EST
UK:

no free movement of persons

no customs union

no difference of status and treatment between N. Ireland and rest of UK

no prevalence of EU law, past or future

EU:

we refuse to put ham, cheese, tomatoes and olives on your pizza in view of your order: "hold the ham, cheese, tomatoes and olives".

I used to be afew. I'm still not many.

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 04:42:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Clarity EU loses ... can't beat British humor! 😏

Watching the play acts in the Commons, it's the ghost of Shakespeare and great acting. Do miss the dress code of the bob wig of speaker Bercow, a tradition going back three centuries. Today's impression of modern leadership is proven false.

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 05:58:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, now, look:

I count two (2) invisible UK "red lines" which doubtless will not be debated by the odious before the confidence vote.

  • income (loss)
  • commercial credit

BorderIrish ("backstop") is a bit of a spanner, as it has appeared --and disappeared as quickly-- to preclude sovereignty of UK gov and harmonious union of sundry subjects of the one Crown.

Did anyone recall poor BorderIrish in debate of confidence in Mme May today?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 08:26:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Did anyone recall poor BorderIrish in debate of confidence in Mme May today?

British politicians? Caring about Ireland? In which imaginary universe?

by Bernard on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 08:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Is there actually enough time to have another election? Or another referendum?

Looking around at various timeline discussions (AKA "Internet Research"), it seems not. It doesn't even seem like there is time to change the electoral rules so that the election could be held earlier.

by asdf on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 03:02:28 PM EST
There isn't enough time for a referendum before the end of March.

But if I recall correctly, an election can be called with 25 working days' notice.

So if it were called, say, this evening, that would be just about enough time ... it could be held any time after 21 February. Which would give three whole weeks before the EU summit scheduled for 21 / 22 March, during which the winner (if any) would have to form a new government and pass whatever legislation is required to either :

  • submit to the May/Juncker exit agreement;
  • revoke Article 50 and stay in;
  • plead for an extension to organise a new referendum, and/or negotiate a whole new deal.


It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 03:32:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Ah no, the earliest possible date for a general election is apparently 7 March.

So a new government would have about 10 days.

Doable.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 04:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
... this is on the assumption that May loses the confidence vote tonight, and doesn't regain it after the two-week grace period. My timetable above would require a two-thirds majority tonight to dissolve parliament, which isn't doable.


It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 04:11:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It seems as if a lot of the discussion about "going back to the EU for further discussions" are based on the idea of re-negotiating May's deal to get something better.

But aside from the problem of the UK not knowing what "something better" actually means, the EU has so far said that while the frothy political words surrounding the agreement can be changed, the actual terms of the agreement are fixed. The existing terms capture the maximum limits the EU is willing to go as far as giving Britain a special case arrangement.

So if May goes back to the EU asking for an extension of the Article 50 timeline, the EU will say sure, we can extend it IF the reason is to try some more political pressure on your own parliament. But if the extension request is because of an expectation of changing the actual deal, the EU would, according to their position up to now, say no.

Maybe the ball is actually in the EU's court, because they can either play by the rules they have repeatedly described, or they can have a sudden attack of extra flexibility. If they play by their own rules, it will be a no-deal Brexit.

Right?

by asdf on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 03:09:51 PM EST
Really all sides agree to preserve the Union. The contradictio in terminis lies in the fact each is talking about their own union: the British Union Jack and the European Union Four Freedoms. These two are incompatible as all of us have known from the very beginning. I still hear Arlene Foster acclaiming the Irish border backstop has got to go! Foster and her 10 DUP votes kept the Tories in power and the DUP as a force May listens to. A build-in catastrophe jut to keep Theresa May in as PM after her election loss in 2017. An utter failure from the start to the bitter end.

A quick search on my computers got me these not so recent comments here @EuroTrib ...

Steve Baker, the ex-Brexit minister hell-bent on torpedoing May's Chequers plan

After the fiasco of David Cameron, Tory leader and PM Theresa May set red lines which blocked any reasonable deal with Europe.

GFA Implies No Hard Border

Brexit threatens Good Friday agreement, Irish PM warns | The Guardian - March 14, 2018 |

DUP leader Arlene Foster says scrap the backstop, the EU has guaranteed no hard border ...

More utter nonsense from Brexiteer and failed negotiator David Davies ...

'Now the EU HAS TO LISTEN' - David Davis claims Brexit deal is STILL ON

Related reading ...

Brexit: A look back at the journey two years since the vote

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 03:34:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well,

Flexibility from the EU?

You mean unilateral concessions? Can you throw us some ideas on that?

Some have suggested that the EU could throw Ireland to the dogs by abandoning the "backstop", i.e. the commitment to maintaining an open Irish border. I think this highly unlikely, because it would be a betrayal by 26 heads of government of one of their own.

All the alternatives require the UK to move on from May's "red lines", to either staying in a customs union ("common market"), or leaving northern Ireland in the EU customs union.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 04:01:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Or, (other May red line), permitting the free movement of persons.

I used to be afew. I'm still not many.
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 04:27:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"and", not "or".

There is no Brexit that doesn't leave Ireland as a customs union. Bottom line, and fuck the DUP.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 04:47:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It does seem as if May could throw the DUP overboard at this point. They didn't push her agreement over the line, they won't push the confidence vote over the line, they won't push the election over the line.

And an obvious way forward would be a united Ireland anyway. I don't suppose that could be effected in six weeks, but maybe it could.*

What's the point of keeping them on board?

*Note that this option is not included on the various Brexit process flow charts.

by asdf on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 05:01:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The DUP voted with the government this evening and were responsible for the defeat of the no-confidence motion. Without them, the Tories would have fallen short.

I used to be afew. I'm still not many.
by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 08:09:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Welp, with the DUP firmly on board, the backstop issue isn't going away.
by asdf on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 01:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The existing terms capture the maximum limits the EU is willing to go as far as giving Britain a special case arrangement.
Given May's red lines.

If you had a different set of red lines, you might get a different result.

For instance, May is obsessed with curtailing free movement and getting out of under the umbrella of the European Court of Justice.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 06:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The point about those red lines needs to be... underlined in red?

May started out believing she could pull a Margaret Thatcher and impose her will. She could dictate the frame within which the "deal" would be negotiated. And so, red lines on movement of persons, customs union, EU law, etc.

From there, all discussion was set into narrow channels that could logically only end with the crappy "deal" she put before Parliament yesterday. The EU, in any case, had neither interest, obligation, nor other motive to bend over backwards to accommodate her. Barnier courteously held the paint-pot while she painted herself into a corner.

The extent to which this is not understood in British politics is mind-boggling. I just heard the leader of UK Conservatives in Paris say that a new agreement would be put together and applied "whether the EU likes it or not".

Words fail.

I used to be afew. I'm still not many.

by john_evans (john(dot)evans(dot)et(at)gmail(dot)com) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 08:33:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Typical Britain: thinking it can still impose its will on the world, whether they like it or not. The UK really needs to do something about its inbred establishment.
by IdiotSavant on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 08:52:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe reality will appear over the horizon after we've crashed out and the UK disintegrates with no food, no trade and thus no employment.

But I'm quite sure the tabloid press will be busy blaming sneaky Johnny Foreigners ganging up on poor plucky Blighty.

I am so sick of this Empire bullshit, it's so degrading. To listen to my sister tell me in all seriousness that the EU have treated Mrs May terribly. Yet when you ask what they've done that's so terrible it's just vague hand waving along the lines of "they didn't give us everything even tho we didn't know what we wanted, but they should have known"

It's just pathetic

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 09:37:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Brexit: What Next? by the Irish Border.
(And yes, Jane and Peter won't go on an Erasmus scheme, sadly)
by Bernard on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 05:01:56 PM EST
Oh yes they will. They will take Irish passports, like all sensible people living in northern Ireland.

(um. Are EU passport holders enrolled in a non-EU tertiary institution eligible for Erasmus? Dunno)

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 05:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A no brainer!

Listening to the political fools scurriing around Westminster ... it appears as if two other parties are  coming forward ready to negotiate a deal with the EU just about from scratch :(

Persons speaking for the hard Brexiteers saying now it's our chance to bring a proposal to Brussels ... the EU surely wants to negotiate as a no-deal is an option no one wants. The third party is Labour and a very disappointing Jeremy Corbyn we wants to reign and negotiate in that order after his campaign for an election.

All EU states are implementing the preparation for a no-deal Brexit which includes allocation of funds and emergency legislation to by-pass parliament for relief.

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 05:41:22 PM EST
Absolute rule by the Queen would be better than the current mess. At least she has a bunch of personal property within UK borders that she would not, presumably, want to mess up.
by asdf on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 05:44:34 PM EST
way things are going we're gonna crash out with no deal.

And I've got to the point that there's no point worrying about the inevitable. I'm just about done shouting at the telly or furiously reading everything to try to make sense of this whole insanity.

We are fucking doomed. I ould try to leave the country but I am a carer for my Mother and cannot leave.

When the time comes, I shall try to sneak over the border into Ireland, but we could be into a full Mad Max dystopia by then and I don't have access to heavy calibre weaponry. I wish I was joking....

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 07:20:23 PM EST


Schengen is toast!
by epochepoque on Wed Jan 16th, 2019 at 09:29:58 PM EST
It's either no deal, or...
  1. Next Monday May proposes to the Commons to vote on requesting a long Brexit delay (until the end of 2020) from the EU Council
  2. No customs union but the common transit convention which...
    ...is used for the movement of goods between the 28 EU Member States, the EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland), Turkey (since 1 December 2012), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (since 1 July 2015) and Serbia (since 1 February 2016).  The procedure is based on the Convention of 20 May 1987 on a common transit procedure. The rules are effectively identical to those of the Union transit.
    This takes care of the Irish border issue and may even preserve Just-in-Time supply chains.
  3. No free movement of people, so no single market membership but some sort of free trade agreement. Free travel area in the British Isles continues.
Let's call this not Norway-plus but Switzerland-minus.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 09:15:16 AM EST
Scope of the EEA

The EEA goes beyond traditional free trade agreements (FTAs) by extending the full rights and obligations of the EU's internal market to the EFTA countries (with the exception of Switzerland). The EEA incorporates the four freedoms of the internal market (free movement of goods, people, services and capital) and related policies (competition, transport, energy, and economic and monetary cooperation). The agreement includes horizontal policies strictly related to the four freedoms: social policies (including health and safety at work, labour law and the equal treatment of men and women); policies on consumer protection, the environment, statistics and company law; and a number of flanking policies, such as those relating to research and technological development, which are not based on the EU acquis or legally binding acts, but are implemented through cooperation activities.



Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
by Oui on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 10:33:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not the EEA. Switzerland isn't in it. Everywhere you see "the EEA and Switzerland". No freedom of movement.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 01:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No Freedom of movement between the EU and Switzerland? I beg to differ. Whatever the fine print, effective free movement exists. May couldn't sign up to what Switzerland applies.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II
by eurogreen on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 02:23:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
But customs controls do exist - I've seen them several times in the train.
by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 02:39:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I've seen Swiss citizens stop at the motorway customs booth, declare the six bottles of wine they bought in France, and pay 1 franc duty on each bottle.

I'm sure we can rely on the Irish to do the same...

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 04:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
While this remark is funny, until BREXIT, it was customary (ha ha) for gov'ts to establish de minimis value of goods declared exempt from duty collection. Even arriving by passenger plane.


Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
by Cat on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 05:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I mean Switzerland is not in the EEA and thus the EU is forced to use language such as "the EEA and Switzerland" all over the place. For instance, when talking about free movement in the single market.

The UK would have no freedom of movement.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 06:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The title of the publication I linked:

The European Economic Area (EEA), Switzerland and the North

The European Economic Area (EEA) was set up in 1994 to extend the EU's provisions on its internal market to the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) countries. Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are parties to the EEA. Switzerland is a member of EFTA but does not take part in the EEA.  The EU and EEA partners (Norway and Iceland) are also linked by various `northern policies' and forums which focus on the rapidly evolving northern reaches of Europe and the Arctic region as a whole.

Switzerland  

As an EFTA member, Switzerland took part in the negotiations for the EEA Agreement and signed the agreement on 2 May 1992. Immediately after that, the Swiss Government submitted an application for accession to the EU on 22 May 1992. However, following a referendum held on 6 December 1992 that yielded a vote against participating in the EEA, the Swiss Federal Council stopped pursuing the country's EU and EEA membership. Since then, Switzerland has developed its relations with the EU through bilateral agreements in order to safeguard its economic integration with the EU. Bilateral relations were severely strained following the February 2014 anti-immigration initiative [initiative approved by 50.3% to curb immigration - Oui], the outcome of which called into question the principles of free movement and the single market that underpin those relations. On 16 December 2016, the Swiss Parliament adopted the Law on Foreigners implementing the result of the 2014 referendum in a manner that limited its effect, which paved the way for the beginning of the normalisation of EU-Swiss relations. The law gives priority to Swiss residents in job recruitment in the sectors with above-average unemployment rates. The EU saw modifications to the Law on Foreigners as a step in the right direction and considered that this law could now be implemented in a way that would not restrict the rights of EU citizens under the free movement of persons.

Swiss Cabinet Opposes Move to Curb EU Immigration in Referendum | US News - Nov. 30, 2018 |

The Swiss government said it opposed curbing immigration from the European Union as proposed in a planned referendum because a yes vote could harm exports to the country's biggest trade partner. The 28-nation EU now insists its citizens be allowed to live and work freely in non-member Switzerland in exchange for enhanced Swiss access to the bloc's single market.

Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.

by Oui on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 02:55:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
bearing in minds that delaying brexit beyond the next EU elections will cost the UK many billions

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 12:36:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How so?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 12:52:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I understand it, it's because if we haven't formally left then we're still fully fledged members. Which means that the EU parliament sets aside seats for the UK deleration, even if no representatives are sent.

this means that there are cost implications for decisions made for the entirety of that particular parliament which the UK is liable for; in addition to the very same costs we are already liable for.

Even if we walk away with no deal, the first trade deal the UK attempts with europe will come with a "plus £39 billion" attached. And that fgure climbs as we remain

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 08:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Costs and benefits.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 18th, 2019 at 12:17:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A fun thing I came across lately is that the UK government has a perverse incentive on EU funding: grants to the UK are sort of offset against payments, so that if the EU sends money to help develop abandoned Welsh  mining communities or whatever it means the rebate is reduced.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 18th, 2019 at 12:33:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
How does a transit agreement "solve" the Irish border?

The Union transit procedure is used for customs transit operations between the EU Member States (and Andorra and San Marino) and is in general applicable to the movement of non-Union goods for which customs duties and other charges at import are at stake, and of Union goods, which, between their point of departure and point of destination in the EU, have to pass through the territory of a third country.

I don't see how it helps or applies at all, except for goods transiting from Ireland to the Continent through the UK.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 02:25:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Would be a big help for the Irish economy.  Not sure what the UK would get out of it.


She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 06:03:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It helps because customs duties and paperwork are handled at the point of departure or arrival and not at the border.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 06:14:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Global Warming - distance between America and Europe is steadily increasing.
by Oui on Thu Jan 17th, 2019 at 02:36:09 PM EST

Isn't it pretty? Would look super with a dash of red, white, and blue though.

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Jan 18th, 2019 at 12:57:20 AM EST
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Jan 18th, 2019 at 12:15:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, what a pity to see walls within walls day after day.

Mao's penultimate solution appears more reasonable and expeditious over time, but not more socially acceptable, or economically useful as the "positivists" might say were it still socially acceptable to "self-identify" as such.

Having foreclosed that option, given Tory opposition to acknowledging tangible and intangible barriers to peace and reconciliation, What happens next?

IF peace and reconciliation for the inhabitants of UK ("NI") and IE is the goal of some people

AND

prohibition of any physical barrier between the territories is agreed to facilitate peace and reconciliation for all inhabitants

THEN

some people might necessarily mobilize government resources to enforce UK gov obligations and facilitate free movement of inhabitants, attested in the GFA; OR

all people might necessarily ignore illegal barriers to movement between the territories.

IF the first condition is not satisfied, THEN what happens?

Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.

by Cat on Fri Jan 18th, 2019 at 02:55:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]