5 ms·

> and is currently run by people who don’t really know what they want but are fairly sure that whatever it is involves getting on well with the USA Bit offtopi

by mrec 8y ago

> and is currently run by people who don’t really know what they want but are fairly sure that whatever it is involves getting on well with the USA Bit offtopic for this thread, but I'd call that a very peculiar read of the situation. The Withdrawal Agreement that May is pushing involves a permanent de facto customs union with the EU, ongoing regulatory alignment with the EU, and military integration with the EU. That doesn't leave a whole lot of room for the US.

ChrisSD 8y ago
Very off topic, but the backstop is only meant to take effect if no other agreement can be made by the end of the transition period. If it does take effect, it's meant to be temporary until such time as a more permanent deal is agreed (although it's true it could last indefinitely if no such agreement is ever made).
- mrec 8y ago
  Yes, but the EU has both the ability and every economic incentive to refuse any permanent agreement that doesn't give them at least the same level of UK lock-in. The "temporary" is a figleaf to try to sell the WA to domestic voters and MPs; I don't think anyone takes it seriously.
  - pergadad 8y ago
    You're reading too much bad/biased reporting. Anyone who ever worked in international relations or trade knows that the worst case is uncertainty. It's neither in the UK's not in the EU's interest. It's quite weird to see how much the news and information cycle in the UK is based on rumours and quotes of random MPs. Like, seriously, try to think for a second from the EU's perspective and it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with and that has no clear legal standing. Everything gets more costly and complex - think just of external trade negotiations, import taxes, quality standards and norms, etc which all fall into a place of uncertain "could change at any minute" state in such a situation. The EU is not some weird evil creature.thstsboutnto get you. The EU is the set of countries that for decades have been your closest allies. No one is trying to rip you off. Except, it seems, for the Tories that prefer to divide the UK and insult all their allies over internal power struggles, rather than actually try and act in the country's interest.
    - mrec 8y ago
      > it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with It's very much in the EU's economic interest to keep the UK as a captive market for their exporters. It's very much in the EU's financial interest to put the UK on the hook for any liabilities it cares to dream up. It's very much in the EU's institutional interest to inflict a humiliating defeat so as to dissuade other members from leaving. And I don't see that if the WA goes through there'd be much "uncertainty"; the UK would be screwed, no two ways about it, unless it throws Northern Ireland under the bus. It'd be nice to imagine that broader, fluffier, more forward-thinking interests were being considered as well, but I haven't seen any sign of that so far. I do think a lot of people in Europe and elsewhere are misinterpreting the anger in the UK at the moment. No, the EU isn't evil or malicious; it's acting perfectly rationally according to its interests as it sees them, and those interests make perfect sense in a realist view of IR. It found itself pushing on an open door with Theresa May and it'd be wholly unrealistic to expect it to stop pushing out of some weird sense of fair play. The anger is about the EU, but it's mostly not directed at the EU; it's directed at the UK political establishment.
      - imtringued 8y ago
        The choice of words matters. Any type of self preservation by the EU is demonized as evil self interest. positive wording -> negative wording Keep 4 core principles of the single market as written in the "constitution"? -> EU is strong arming the UK and trying to punish it in negotiations and is not willing to even give small concessions. UK is part of the EU until Brexit negotiations have been concluded -> EU has the upper hand in negotiations. EU wants to avoid a hard border and the potential societal unrest at all costs with the backstop -> EU is trying to tie the UK into the customs union indefinitely with the backstop. / The EU is trying to impose a border between northern Ireland and the mainland. I mean seriously what did you expect? Negotiating the constitution of a country or political union isn't realistic at all. It was never going to happen unless the other party wants to voluntarily self destruct itself. Do you think Russia could renegotiate the abolishment of human rights in the US to arrest political enemies abroad? Because that's just as silly. Heck I've also read this gem recently (paraphrased): Copyright directive passed with significantly more than 70% of the countries voting in favor -> The EU is threatening the sovereignty of member states by passing laws to countries that have voted against them. The problem with the EU in this case isn't the democratic process. It's the fact that countries voted in favor of it at all.
- rezeroed 8y ago
  "it could last indefinitely if no such agreement is ever made" -- almost sounds like control is entirely in the EU's hands.
  - scottie_m 8y ago
    It’s not about control, it’s just that they don’t have to extend anything beneficial to the UK at the EU’s expense. Basically the UK wants a divorce, and they’re pissed that they’re not getting what think they deserve. Whatever control issues exist are due to a treaty the UK freely entered into, and choices (like getting married) have predictable consequences. If you decide freely to marry me, then unilaterally decide to divorce me, you wouldn’t be shocked if the result was a compromise between what you wanted in terms of property and rights, and what I wanted right? Of course the EU is going to push for every inch, and since they don’t even want Brexit that gives them a lot of power. That was (or should have been) obvious from the get-go.
    - ineedasername 8y ago
      Yes, it all should have been obvious. But the Brexiters campaigned for it on the promise that they would secure every benefit of EU membership without having to put up with the perceived downsides, and they did this quite vocally. So now much of the opposition to May's plan come from within her own party which does not want to be seen as having failed to deliver on promises that were never realistic to begin with.
    - pergadad 8y ago
      Not at all. You're thinking in antagonistic terms. The EU wants the closest possible link and alliance - this is not furthered by forcing the other party in a position where they are unhappy. What the EU is concerned with is that the 27 other countries don't suffer excessively due to the UK's bad internal political process. The EU wants legal certainty and had committed to protect the good Friday agreement. That's why there is a backstop. Talk to anyone in Ireland and they are convinced that violence will break out the moment the border is back up. That's why there is a backstop. Look at what UK politicians publicly say about how they will act - that's why it's enshrined in the withdrawal agreement - to make clear that the UK doesn't hold the rest of the EU hostage.
ineedasername 8y ago
May's plan absolutely does not call for a permanent customs union. That's rather been one the larger sticking points. It's what the opposition party, Labour, wants but can't get.
- mrec 8y ago
  And if you leave your shiny new car in the wrong part of town with the door open and the keys in the ignition, you're not calling for it to be stolen, but you know damn well it's going to be. May doesn't want to call it a customs union, because her 2017 manifesto committed to leaving the Customs Union, but that's absolutely what it amounts to. I don't know whether Labour really want it, or even understand what it entails; I suspect they mostly wanted a point of disagreement with the government.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    What May actually believes I suppose I don't really know. But a large portion of the hard-line Tory Brexiters are adamant that it isn't a permanent customs union and absolutely will not allow the backstop option to become such. It's that very sticking point that has lead to her lack of support for the plan within her own party. The apparent contradiction vis-a-vis leaving your car in a bad place is largely due to that same hard brexit wing wanting both to eat their cake, have it too, and maybe steal all the cake from the rest of the EU (that last part is probably an exaggeration. cake is delicious and no one in their right mind would let it be taken away or even deprive another person of it.)
    - mrec 8y ago
      I think you're deeply confused about who believes what. 1. May is not and has never been a Brexiter. I honestly can't understand how anyone still thinks she is. 2. If by "hard-line Tory Brexiters" you mean the ERG, they absolutely hate the WA, largely because it ends in a customs union. If you know of an exception, I'd be interested to hear who it is. 3. The "cakeism"/"cherry-picking" thing is almost entirely May. The voting public was told before the referendum that Leave meant leaving the Single Market and Customs Union completely. May's manifesto at the 2017 election said the same. Insofar as there was a mandate, that was it. She had absolutely NO mandate for suddenly pulling out that weird Chequers monstrosity; nobody ever wanted it except her and Olly Robbins. Your "hard-line Tory Brexiters" (and a lot of the softer ones) almost universally want a WTO exit at this point, with no special treatment, because May has wrecked any chance of getting anything better.
imtringued 8y ago
The policy itself doesn't matter. The entire point is that your government has elected a prime minister that is in disagreement with almost the entire parliament which does not want the withdrawal agreement you are talking about. So the only options remaining are delaying brexit again (wouldn't surprise me if they keep delaying it until 2025+) or a hard brexit which makes relations with the US just as likely as relations with the EU.
- mrec 8y ago
  > the only options remaining are delaying brexit again (wouldn't surprise me if they keep delaying it until 2025+) or a hard brexit The other option is revoking Article 50, either openly or disguised as a second referendum with no Leave option. Neither would particularly surprise me at this point. ETA: I still wouldn't rule out some form of the WA passing, though. Everyone in Westminster is in blind reactive panic mode now; it's not exactly conducive to good decisions.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    A second referendum with no Leave option would I suspect be political suicide for whoever organized it. Instead, the referendum should have a Leave option - a specific Leave option. Not an amorphous, everyone-can-think-it's-whatever-they-want option, but a concrete, well-defined, specific option. That option would almost certainly lose, since all the Remain people would vote against it, and so would many of the people who want some other flavor of Leave. The problem is that there are several different flavors of Leave: There's hard Brexit, and the customs union, and May's deal, and maybe one or two others. None of them has a majority, either in Parliament or among the voters. But I'm not sure that Remain has a majority, either (it didn't in the referendum, and at least in Parliament, there's a feeling that remaining in the end will be regarded as a betrayal of the referendum). Then there's the problem that May seems to feel that the most urgent task at the moment is not cleaning up this mess, but rather keeping Corbyn out of the PM position. All this makes it almost impossible to find a way forward. However, I would say that May's deal is dead, no matter how many times she keeps trying to bring it up for a vote in Parliament. And Parliament seems to be indicating that it will take the reins out of May's hands rather than permitting her to run them (willingly or not) into a hard Brexit. The EU seems to be against the idea of perpetual delay (though it remains to be seen if they will blink when push comes to shove). That leaves revoking Article 50 or a customs union as the only options available (unless the EU blinks and keeps blinking, or unless Parliament is willing to let May do a hard Brexit). Or so it seems to me. In this mess of a situation, who knows whether I'm right...
dragonwriter 8y ago
> The Withdrawal Agreement that May is pushing Is irrelevant, even if you had described it accurately, because it's clearly never going to pass Parliament.

by mrec 8y ago

ChrisSD 8y ago

Very off topic, but the backstop is only meant to take effect if no other agreement can be made by the end of the transition period. If it does take effect, it's meant to be temporary until such time as a more permanent deal is agreed (although it's true it could last indefinitely if no such agreement is ever made).

mrec 8y ago
Yes, but the EU has both the ability and every economic incentive to refuse any permanent agreement that doesn't give them at least the same level of UK lock-in. The "temporary" is a figleaf to try to sell the WA to domestic voters and MPs; I don't think anyone takes it seriously.
- pergadad 8y ago
  You're reading too much bad/biased reporting. Anyone who ever worked in international relations or trade knows that the worst case is uncertainty. It's neither in the UK's not in the EU's interest. It's quite weird to see how much the news and information cycle in the UK is based on rumours and quotes of random MPs. Like, seriously, try to think for a second from the EU's perspective and it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with and that has no clear legal standing. Everything gets more costly and complex - think just of external trade negotiations, import taxes, quality standards and norms, etc which all fall into a place of uncertain "could change at any minute" state in such a situation. The EU is not some weird evil creature.thstsboutnto get you. The EU is the set of countries that for decades have been your closest allies. No one is trying to rip you off. Except, it seems, for the Tories that prefer to divide the UK and insult all their allies over internal power struggles, rather than actually try and act in the country's interest.
  - mrec 8y ago
    > it's just plain obvious how it's not in the EU's interest to keep the UK in an arrangement that it's uncomfortable with It's very much in the EU's economic interest to keep the UK as a captive market for their exporters. It's very much in the EU's financial interest to put the UK on the hook for any liabilities it cares to dream up. It's very much in the EU's institutional interest to inflict a humiliating defeat so as to dissuade other members from leaving. And I don't see that if the WA goes through there'd be much "uncertainty"; the UK would be screwed, no two ways about it, unless it throws Northern Ireland under the bus. It'd be nice to imagine that broader, fluffier, more forward-thinking interests were being considered as well, but I haven't seen any sign of that so far. I do think a lot of people in Europe and elsewhere are misinterpreting the anger in the UK at the moment. No, the EU isn't evil or malicious; it's acting perfectly rationally according to its interests as it sees them, and those interests make perfect sense in a realist view of IR. It found itself pushing on an open door with Theresa May and it'd be wholly unrealistic to expect it to stop pushing out of some weird sense of fair play. The anger is about the EU, but it's mostly not directed at the EU; it's directed at the UK political establishment.
    - imtringued 8y ago
      The choice of words matters. Any type of self preservation by the EU is demonized as evil self interest. positive wording -> negative wording Keep 4 core principles of the single market as written in the "constitution"? -> EU is strong arming the UK and trying to punish it in negotiations and is not willing to even give small concessions. UK is part of the EU until Brexit negotiations have been concluded -> EU has the upper hand in negotiations. EU wants to avoid a hard border and the potential societal unrest at all costs with the backstop -> EU is trying to tie the UK into the customs union indefinitely with the backstop. / The EU is trying to impose a border between northern Ireland and the mainland. I mean seriously what did you expect? Negotiating the constitution of a country or political union isn't realistic at all. It was never going to happen unless the other party wants to voluntarily self destruct itself. Do you think Russia could renegotiate the abolishment of human rights in the US to arrest political enemies abroad? Because that's just as silly. Heck I've also read this gem recently (paraphrased): Copyright directive passed with significantly more than 70% of the countries voting in favor -> The EU is threatening the sovereignty of member states by passing laws to countries that have voted against them. The problem with the EU in this case isn't the democratic process. It's the fact that countries voted in favor of it at all.
rezeroed 8y ago
"it could last indefinitely if no such agreement is ever made" -- almost sounds like control is entirely in the EU's hands.
- scottie_m 8y ago
  It’s not about control, it’s just that they don’t have to extend anything beneficial to the UK at the EU’s expense. Basically the UK wants a divorce, and they’re pissed that they’re not getting what think they deserve. Whatever control issues exist are due to a treaty the UK freely entered into, and choices (like getting married) have predictable consequences. If you decide freely to marry me, then unilaterally decide to divorce me, you wouldn’t be shocked if the result was a compromise between what you wanted in terms of property and rights, and what I wanted right? Of course the EU is going to push for every inch, and since they don’t even want Brexit that gives them a lot of power. That was (or should have been) obvious from the get-go.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    Yes, it all should have been obvious. But the Brexiters campaigned for it on the promise that they would secure every benefit of EU membership without having to put up with the perceived downsides, and they did this quite vocally. So now much of the opposition to May's plan come from within her own party which does not want to be seen as having failed to deliver on promises that were never realistic to begin with.
  - pergadad 8y ago
    Not at all. You're thinking in antagonistic terms. The EU wants the closest possible link and alliance - this is not furthered by forcing the other party in a position where they are unhappy. What the EU is concerned with is that the 27 other countries don't suffer excessively due to the UK's bad internal political process. The EU wants legal certainty and had committed to protect the good Friday agreement. That's why there is a backstop. Talk to anyone in Ireland and they are convinced that violence will break out the moment the border is back up. That's why there is a backstop. Look at what UK politicians publicly say about how they will act - that's why it's enshrined in the withdrawal agreement - to make clear that the UK doesn't hold the rest of the EU hostage.

ineedasername 8y ago

May's plan absolutely does not call for a permanent customs union. That's rather been one the larger sticking points. It's what the opposition party, Labour, wants but can't get.

mrec 8y ago
And if you leave your shiny new car in the wrong part of town with the door open and the keys in the ignition, you're not calling for it to be stolen, but you know damn well it's going to be. May doesn't want to call it a customs union, because her 2017 manifesto committed to leaving the Customs Union, but that's absolutely what it amounts to. I don't know whether Labour really want it, or even understand what it entails; I suspect they mostly wanted a point of disagreement with the government.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  What May actually believes I suppose I don't really know. But a large portion of the hard-line Tory Brexiters are adamant that it isn't a permanent customs union and absolutely will not allow the backstop option to become such. It's that very sticking point that has lead to her lack of support for the plan within her own party. The apparent contradiction vis-a-vis leaving your car in a bad place is largely due to that same hard brexit wing wanting both to eat their cake, have it too, and maybe steal all the cake from the rest of the EU (that last part is probably an exaggeration. cake is delicious and no one in their right mind would let it be taken away or even deprive another person of it.)
  - mrec 8y ago
    I think you're deeply confused about who believes what. 1. May is not and has never been a Brexiter. I honestly can't understand how anyone still thinks she is. 2. If by "hard-line Tory Brexiters" you mean the ERG, they absolutely hate the WA, largely because it ends in a customs union. If you know of an exception, I'd be interested to hear who it is. 3. The "cakeism"/"cherry-picking" thing is almost entirely May. The voting public was told before the referendum that Leave meant leaving the Single Market and Customs Union completely. May's manifesto at the 2017 election said the same. Insofar as there was a mandate, that was it. She had absolutely NO mandate for suddenly pulling out that weird Chequers monstrosity; nobody ever wanted it except her and Olly Robbins. Your "hard-line Tory Brexiters" (and a lot of the softer ones) almost universally want a WTO exit at this point, with no special treatment, because May has wrecked any chance of getting anything better.

imtringued 8y ago

The policy itself doesn't matter. The entire point is that your government has elected a prime minister that is in disagreement with almost the entire parliament which does not want the withdrawal agreement you are talking about. So the only options remaining are delaying brexit again (wouldn't surprise me if they keep delaying it until 2025+) or a hard brexit which makes relations with the US just as likely as relations with the EU.

mrec 8y ago
> the only options remaining are delaying brexit again (wouldn't surprise me if they keep delaying it until 2025+) or a hard brexit The other option is revoking Article 50, either openly or disguised as a second referendum with no Leave option. Neither would particularly surprise me at this point. ETA: I still wouldn't rule out some form of the WA passing, though. Everyone in Westminster is in blind reactive panic mode now; it's not exactly conducive to good decisions.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  A second referendum with no Leave option would I suspect be political suicide for whoever organized it. Instead, the referendum should have a Leave option - a specific Leave option. Not an amorphous, everyone-can-think-it's-whatever-they-want option, but a concrete, well-defined, specific option. That option would almost certainly lose, since all the Remain people would vote against it, and so would many of the people who want some other flavor of Leave. The problem is that there are several different flavors of Leave: There's hard Brexit, and the customs union, and May's deal, and maybe one or two others. None of them has a majority, either in Parliament or among the voters. But I'm not sure that Remain has a majority, either (it didn't in the referendum, and at least in Parliament, there's a feeling that remaining in the end will be regarded as a betrayal of the referendum). Then there's the problem that May seems to feel that the most urgent task at the moment is not cleaning up this mess, but rather keeping Corbyn out of the PM position. All this makes it almost impossible to find a way forward. However, I would say that May's deal is dead, no matter how many times she keeps trying to bring it up for a vote in Parliament. And Parliament seems to be indicating that it will take the reins out of May's hands rather than permitting her to run them (willingly or not) into a hard Brexit. The EU seems to be against the idea of perpetual delay (though it remains to be seen if they will blink when push comes to shove). That leaves revoking Article 50 or a customs union as the only options available (unless the EU blinks and keeps blinking, or unless Parliament is willing to let May do a hard Brexit). Or so it seems to me. In this mess of a situation, who knows whether I'm right...

dragonwriter 8y ago

> The Withdrawal Agreement that May is pushing Is irrelevant, even if you had described it accurately, because it's clearly never going to pass Parliament.