Brexit - The UK referendum on leaving the EU - Reneging, reshmeging!

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

New Zealand got a lengthy transition deal. I'm sure the irony is lost on you since you believe such things are bullshit and beneath the UK.
 
Brexit fantasies are going through a long public implosion, but Leavers at least won themselves a rare moment of schadenfreude last week. It turned out that the Remain movement’s latest hero, the woman who performed an impressive double eye-roll behind Nigel Farage on Channel 4, had in fact voted out.

The woman in question, Harriet Ellis, explained to the i newspaper that she shared none of Farage's racism or xenophobia. According to the article, "she voted to leave the EU as she is pro-immigration and does not want a system that discriminates against people from around the world by prioritising Europeans over others".

And like that, we had a new standard-bearer. Not for Remain, or Leave, but the soul-crushing self-destruction of the pro-immigration Lexit movement - the minority of left-wingers who endorsed Brexit on left-wing grounds.

It is likely that hundreds of thousands of people voted on this reasoning and it is wrong to single Ellis out. She is, of course, entitled to her views. But it is time that we blasted the myth once and for all. There is no pro-immigration case for Brexit in either theory or practice. There never was. There never could be.

This particular Lexit theory is simple and in many ways seductive. The government, through our membership of the EU, currently allows any number of mostly white Europeans to enter Britain freely, where they may exercise the right (with limited conditions) to live and work. Conversely, people from the rest of the world - in mostly white and mostly non-white countries alike - have no such rights. They have no free movement. British people who marry them must earn a minimum salary if they want to live together. Citizens from some of these countries even need visas to visit. And these include Commonwealth countries from whom millions of British people derive their heritage.

Are non-EU citizens treated unfairly? You bet. Is the unfairness helped or resolved in any way with Brexit? Not by any conceivable measure.

When it comes to free movement, we need two basic facts: it doesn't discriminate against the rest of the world, and even if it did, Brexit wouldn't change a single thing.

First, the issue of discrimination. The EU is a club, which includes the rule that you grant its members free movement. Does joining that club constitute discrimination against all other clubs? The idea seems to be that because the whole world does not enjoy certain rights, nobody can. If you want to join one club, you have to join them all. And so if the world cannot be perfect, we must all be equally miserable and participate in no clubs of any kind.

There may be sound or unsound reasons to grant only some countries free movement. The EU's is based on geographic proximity and connects explicitly to trade links and various forms of political integration. Others may wish to grant such rights only to prosperous countries, regardless of their geography. Certain Brexiters, meanwhile, would grant them exclusively to an imagined 'white Commonwealth' of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, in a delirious stupor of post-colonial nativism and nostalgia. Many others want to grant free movement to nobody at all. The important point is, if you value immigration, the question is irrelevant to this debate. That is because it is nothing to do with the EU and everything to do with our own government.

The government has, right now, total freedom over non-EU migration. Outside Schengen, it could block entry to any non-EU citizen, or open up free movement to the entire world. If it does discriminate, that is entirely its choice. For the avoidance of doubt, our current government is led by a prime minister who despises immigrants and immigration and it chooses inveterate racism.

It's not only about free movement either. The EU didn't force the Tories to introduce a minimum income threshold for British spouses of non-EU nationals. Brussels does not require the UK to impose restrictions on Indian or Nigerian citizens. Indeed, it's quite the reverse: a few years ago India demanded more visas as part of its EU trade deal, and when the UK government refused, the deal fell through.

Brexiters know the appeal of ostensible pro-immigration arguments, particularly in minority communities. During the referendum, the 'Save Our Curry' movement, in particular, exploited people's sense of injustice by promising relaxed immigration rules for Bangladeshi curry chefs, presumably at the expense of Polish plumbers. Priti Patel, the movement's figurehead, complained that free movement for EU citizens was literally shutting down Indian restaurants. What she was in fact doing, of course, was blaming the EU for her own government's xenophobic policy-making. The Brexiters' hypocrisy was uniquely cynical.

Pakistanis, Jamaicans and Australians are justified in resenting the UK’s hostile immigration system. It shames us all. But it is a system devised entirely in London. Britain is not full. There is no finite number of possible migrants and migration is not a zero sum game. Fewer EU citizens do not equate to more non-EU citizens. Polish people are not taking up anyone else's space and the government will not permit Indian people to replace them. All Brexit does is take rights away from people, not grant them to anyone else.

Free movement is a beacon of progressive thinking. It preserves the nation state while dismantling its most regressive and arbitrary barriers. It provides a concrete symbol of liberation to people who suffered for decades under fascism, communism and colonialism. It is one of the singular achievements of the European movement. We should fight to expand it to more people, not restrict it to fewer.

If you believe in the intrinsic benefit of migration, you need to vote to guarantee EU free movement, then vote for a pro-immigration party in a general election. The answer is not to arbitrarily devastate our economy or play immigrants off against one another.

Too many left-wing people are prepared to throw Europeans under the bus in the hope that it might somehow benefit non-Europeans. It will not. What we need is solidarity for immigrants everywhere, while singing the benefits of immigration as an unalloyed social, cultural and economic good. People should have the right to travel and change their lives and seek new opportunities in places where they were not born. We must champion it for its own sake.

Brexit stands for none of this. It was and remains a fundamentally anti-immigration movement.
Click to expand...

http://politics.co.uk/comment-analy...there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-pro-immigration-b
 
Bomberboyokay said:
You want hard Brexit. That's evidence. And you may also have a contemptible view of the people of Northern Ireland.
Click to expand...

You fail to provide evidence because you have no idea what I actually think is the best course of action. You have no definition of 'hard Brexit', and nothing to tie me to it. You even assume what my opinion of the people of Northern Ireland is based on absolutely nothing.

How do you manage to survive in the world if you do nothing but assume the worst of people, and fail to pay attention to what they are and are not saying?
 
The Speaker said:
You fail to provide evidence because you have no idea what I actually think is the best course of action. You have no definition of 'hard Brexit', and nothing to tie me to it. You even assume what my opinion of the people of Northern Ireland is based on absolutely nothing.

How do you manage to survive in the world if you do nothing but assume the worst of people, and fail to pay attention to what they are and are not saying?
Click to expand...

Fight every battle everywhere, always, in your mind. Everyone is your enemy, everyone is your friend. Every possible series of events is happening all at once. Live that way and nothing will surprise you. Everything that happens will be something that you’ve seen before.
 
Bomberboyokay said:
Fight every battle everywhere, always, in your mind. Everyone is your enemy, everyone is your friend. Every possible series of events is happening all at once. Live that way and nothing will surprise you. Everything that happens will be something that you’ve seen before.
Click to expand...

Did Martin himself come up with that one? I prefer Ecclesiastes.

Given your non-reply to my request for actual evidence, I'll take that as you saying you don't have any.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bomberboyokay said:
http://politics.co.uk/comment-analy...there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-pro-immigration-b
Click to expand...

"This particular Lexit theory is simple and in many ways seductive. The government, through our membership of the EU, currently allows any number of mostly white Europeans to enter Britain freely, where they may exercise the right (with limited conditions) to live and work. Conversely, people from the rest of the world - in mostly white and mostly non-white countries alike - have no such rights. They have no free movement. British people who marry them must earn a minimum salary if they want to live together. Citizens from some of these countries even need visas to visit. And these include Commonwealth countries from whom millions of British people derive their heritage."e

The * that wrote this falls over on two points:

1 - as a group a Pom, a Frog, a Kraut, and a Wog are apparently not "diverse"
2 - The writer complains about the lack of free movement within the EU and other "rights" that non-EU citizens miss out on by default. For such a fan of the EU this person doesn't seem to grasp what the EU actually is meant to be
 
"lol imagine the UK's closest allies being European neighbours they do most trade with!". No wonder thick campaigners love Brexit and Trump. History ended for them when the first baby boomer was born.
 
AFR write up on the deal -

https://www.afr.com/news/politics/world/brexit-treaty-what-the-eu-and-uk-have-agreed-20181114-h17x0p

Brexit treaty: what the EU and UK have agreed
After March 29, the Brexit withdrawal treaty will be Britain's only legal agreement with the EU. Shutterstock
by Alex Barker

Brussels |After March 29 next year, the Brexit withdrawal treaty will be Britain's only legal agreement with the EU, a union with which it has shared sovereignty since 1973.

Running to more than 500 pages, the provisional text agreed by London and Brusselsunwinds 45 years of deep integration, protecting certain rights, defining outstanding obligations and establishing a transition period in which both sides can adjust.

To come into force, the Brexit deal requires approval by, in sequence, the UK cabinet, an EU summit, the House of Commons and the European Parliament.

Commitments made in the document run to 2030 and beyond. The agreement will not only determine the nature of Britain's exit from the EU, but also influence the country's future relationship with the union.

Financial settlement


Britain will honour all its financial commitments to Brussels so that no EU country pays a euro more to the common budget as a result of Brexit.

Using conservative assumptions, the UK Treasury expects a net British outlay of €40 billion ($62.6b) to €45b. The National Audit Office identified public payments that could reach €60b, along with an additional €14b of contingent liabilities such as outstanding loans.

The UK will pay into EU budgets for 2019 and 2020 as if it were still in the bloc. It will subsequently "contribute its share of the financing" for any outstanding EU liabilities as they fall due.

While most of the contributions will be made by 2025, some payments could continue until 2064, notably towards the pensions of EU officials.

Citizen rights
The exit agreement maintains the existing EU residence and social security rights of more than 3m EU citizens in the UK, and about 1m UK nationals living on the continent.

The settlement allows an EU national to claim permanent residence in the UK, retain most family reunion rights enjoyed today and, if eligible, to claim UK benefits even if they or their children move overseas. Some EU family rights in Britain, however, are restricted to match those of UK citizens who want to marry foreign nationals.

Britain forced the EU to drop its demand that the exit deal fall under the direct jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Britain will, however, indefinitely pay "due regard" to relevant European court rulings on citizens' rights enshrined in the treaty. UK cases can be referred to the Luxembourg-based ECJ for eight years after the end of the UK's transition.
Click to expand...
 
Seeds said:
And there hasnt been any wars since the EU was formed. Brexiters response: lets go back to the system that reslted in wars and mass death.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm sure the EU is the reason and not the sword of Damocles known as nukes and US military hanging over their collective heads.
 
Seeds said:
If nukes were the only reason then you would have cold wars with zero trade and strongly enforced borders. So um wrong answer. Try again.
Click to expand...

The security provided by mutually assured destruction and more importantly the world police allows trade deals to be established. They tried to set up a whole bunch of deals in the 1900-1910s and those trade and defence agreements resulted in something pretty rough for a few million men.

Do you think if France, Germany and the like all had Nuclear weapons they would have declared war on eachother? Or maybe if there was an overwhelming power like say the United States of today that could sway the war one way or the other on a whim they might have looked to diplomacy?
 
How Brexit Broke Up Britain

Fintan O’Toole

So, at long last, it seems that the negotiations on Brexit between the United Kingdom and the European Union have produced a draft agreement. We do not yet know what it contains but it will be a compromise that falls far short of the high expectations of June 2016 when the British voted to leave. It will tie Britain to the EU’s customs union and single market for an indefinite but probably very long time. Instead of making a glorious leap to independence, Britain will become a satellite orbiting the European planet, obliged to follow rules it will have no say in devising.

This is an exercise in damage limitation, not a bold break from the recent past. But the question is whether the British political system is capable of resigning itself to this least bad outcome. Theresa May will put the draft deal to her cabinet Wednesday and thereafter try to cobble together a parliamentary majority for it at Westminster. Can a chaotic political establishment find a way to swallow a complex, ambiguous, and deeply disillusioning necessity? Nothing in this story so far suggests that this will be easy.

Oscar Wilde’s Lady Bracknell did not quite say that when a government loses its mind it may be regarded as a misfortune but when the opposition does so as well, it begins to look like carelessness. But had she been around for Brexit, she might well have done. The British government’s journey toward Brexit is like a ride in Disneyland: every bout of soaring optimism is followed by a vertiginous plummet into despair.

It is easy to blame May and her bitterly divided Conservative Party for creating a situation in which a deal has been done with just four months to go before the UK leaves the EU, and in which nothing is yet certain about its fate. Easy because entirely justified: the Tories have plunged their country into its biggest crisis since World War II and seem utterly incapable of providing a credible or coherent collective leadership.

But what makes that crisis all the more profound is that what we would usually expect in a parliamentary democracy—that the main opposition party provides a distinct alternative to a failing and flailing government—is patently not happening either. The Labour Party’s members are overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit: a poll in September showed that 86 percent of them say they want a second referendum. In a recent large-scale national survey for Channel 4 News, 75 percent of Labour voters said they want the UK to retain a close relationship with the EU. Surveys show that in Labour’s old industrial heartlands, where working-class voters strongly backed Brexit in 2016, opinion is swinging sharply toward a rethink.

Yet Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told the German newspaper Der Spiegel last week that Article 50 (the clause in the European treaty that allows a member state to leave and that May triggered in March 2017) is irrevocable and that his party had to “recognise the reasons why people voted leave.” He was then almost immediately contradicted by both his chief foreign affairs spokeswoman Emily Thornberry and by his senior Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer, both of whom insisted that a second referendum is still possible. The party’s divisions are now as public as the Conservatives’.

Labour, like the Tories, is being held together only by a fantasy. Its official position is that it supports Brexit but will oppose any deal with the EU that does not “deliver the ‘exact same benefits’ as we currently have as members of the Single Market and Customs Union.” This is either utterly delusional or, more probably, deeply dishonest. The EU cannot give the “exact same benefits” to a non-member as its remaining members enjoy. If it did so, it would cease to exist: Who would accept the responsibilities and costs of being in the club if all the club’s facilities were freely available to non-members? The Labour leadership undoubtedly knows this, but it maintains this illusion so it can talk out of both sides of its mouth at the same time: supporting Brexit but condemning May for failing to secure in the negotiations an outcome that was inherently impossible.

So what’s going on here? The most recent evidence from that Channel 4 News survey, the largest of its kind since the 2016 referendum, is that the UK would now vote to remain in the EU by a majority of 54 percent to 46 percent. The very least that might be said is that there is a large political constituency for a coherent opposition to Brexit, based on the demand that whatever deal (or no deal) emerges from the talks be put back to a popular vote. How can it be that the entire British political system seems incapable, at a moment of national crisis, of presenting citizens with a clear set of alternatives?

One can blame poor leadership and there is plenty of that to go around. But there is surely more to it than that. There is a deeper problem of articulation. Two very big things—both of them central to Brexit—are not being addressed at all. They are being ignored because they are the great contradictions of the whole crisis. The EU has repeatedly expressed frustration at the inability of the British to say exactly what it is they want. But this is not just a failure of negotiation. The British government and its technocrats can’t say exactly what they want because the whole Brexit process is fundamentally tongue-tied. It is driven by two things that dare not speak their name.

The energy of Brexit is contained in the brilliant slogan of the Leave campaign in 2016: Take back control. It is brilliant because it slides smoothly over two very awkward questions: What is “control”? And who is to have it?

Another word for “control” is “regulation.” The fundamental appeal of Brexit is that the British have had too much regulation imposed from Brussels and desire in the future to regulate themselves. Thus the British will control their own environmental safeguards, their own food safety, their own labor standards, their own laws on competition and monopolies. The EU does indeed do many of these things and there is a perfectly coherent argument to be made that the British state should do them instead. It is a safe bet that this is what most people who voted for Brexit want and expect.

But that’s not actually what Brexit is about. The real agenda of the Hard Brexiteers is not, in this sense, about taking back control; it is about letting go of control. For people like Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, the dream is not of a change in which regulation happens, but of a completion of the deregulating neoliberal project set in motion by Margaret Thatcher in 1979. The Brexit fantasy is of an “open” and “global” Britain, unshackled from EU regulation, that can lower its environmental, health, and labor standards and unleash a new golden age of buccaneering hyper-capitalism. Again, this is a perfectly coherent (if repellent) agenda. But it is not what most of those who voted for Brexit think it is supposed to be. And this gap makes it impossible to say what “the British” want—they want contradictory things.

The second question is who is supposed to be taking control: Who, in other words, are “the people” to whom power is supposedly being returned? Here we find the other thing that dare not speak its name: English nationalism. Brexit is in part a response to a development that has been underway since the turn of the century. In reaction to the Belfast Agreement of 1998 that created a new political space in Northern Ireland and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 that did the same for another part of the UK, there has been a rapid change in the way English people see their national identity. Increasingly, they are not British, but English. This resurgent identity has not been explicitly articulated by any mainstream party and surveys have shown a growing sense of English alienation from the center of London government in Westminster and Whitehall. Brexit, which is overwhelming an English phenomenon, is in part an expression of this frustration. In Anthony Barnett’s blunt and pithy phrase from his 2017 book The Lure of Greatness: England’s Brexit and America’s Trump, “Unable to exit Britain, the English did the next-best thing and told the EU to * off.”

There is stark and overwhelming evidence that the English people who voted for Brexit do not, on the whole, care about the United Kingdom and in particular do not care about that part of it called Northern Ireland. When asked in the recent “Future of England” survey whether “the unravelling of the peace process in Northern Ireland” is a “price worth paying” for Brexit that allows them to “take back control,” fully 83 percent of Leave voters and 73 percent of Conservative voters in England agree that it is. This is not, surely, mere mindless cruelty; it expresses a deep belief that Northern Ireland is not “us,” that what happens “over there” is not “our” responsibility. Equally, in the Channel 4 survey, asked how they would feel if “Brexit leads to Northern Ireland leaving the United Kingdom and joining the Republic of Ireland,” 61 percent of Leave voters said they would be “not very concerned” or “not at all concerned.”

This may be startling but it is also a pretty clear message. The problem, though, is that no one in either of the two main parties wants to talk about it. In one of history’s little jokes, the English national revolution that is Brexit led to Northern Ireland’s small ultra-unionist Democratic Unionist Party holding the balance of power at Westminster and keeping Theresa May in office. Thus, while the people who voted for Brexit are waving goodbye to the UK, May—with, in this, the support of Labour—has turned up the volume on her declarations of love for the United Kingdom: “I will always fight to strengthen and sustain this precious, precious Union.”

The future of the Union, moreover, has become central to the negotiations with the EU. The emerging deal will be horribly complex, largely because of British insistence that no arrangements must be made to prevent a hard border in Ireland that would in any way differentiate Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. Brexit cannot be properly articulated because it has made a sacred cause of fighting for the very thing that Brexit’s voters don’t care about. As Lady Bracknell remarked, “This shilly-shallying with the question is absurd.”

November 13, 2018, 3:55 pm

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/11/13/how-brexit-broke-up-britain/
Click to expand...
 
Watching UK Parliament right now - it doesn't look good for May and this deal. This isn't like Australian Parliament where every second question is a dixer, either, it seems like basically the entire Parliament is against her.

They all agree there are three options - this deal, no-deal Brexit, or no Brexit. Looks like the former can't get through Parliament, and May is ruling out the latter. A no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic for them.

And that's to say nothing of the 4 and counting resignations including that of the Brexit Secretary.

This is brutal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

rdhopkins2
Venezuela’s Referendum — Invade Guyana?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Baldur
Baldur
Chief
UK Michael Lynch and train dispute in the UK
Replies
23
Views
2K
Over The Post
Over The Post
nut
BRICS and the reduced power of the US dollar.
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
barreness
barreness
R
  • Locked
Poland - Europes new centre of power?
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Malifice
Malifice
Johnny Bananas
UK Liz Truss - Shortest serving UK PM in history
22 23 24 25 26
Replies
632
Views
23K
spinynorman
spinynorman
Seeds
What happens next if Putin drops a nuke on Ukraine?
2 3
Replies
61
Views
5K
O Grobbecker
O
CD Xbow
Saudi Arabia to chair UN forum on women's rights
Replies
5
Views
311
Ballarat Bob
B

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top