Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[africanspur]

I wonder if public opinion on Brexit in the UK might’ve shifted a year from now, when people experience its reality.

People still think Brits are going to be lining up to pick fruit for minimum wage once workers from Eastern Europe stop coming to Britain. A year from now I suspect that there will be a struggle to find people to do that job.

Then you’ve got the NHS which looks like it’ll be scraped to get a trade deal with the US. A hard border in Ireland seems like a certainty and that lorry park in Kent looks like fun.

I’m feeling relieved that I moved to Canada.

Anyone feeling optimistic about the immediate future in the UK?

It's an interesting question. I'm not sure self reflection is particularly high up on the list of attributes for most people, let alone people with a strong political view. I imagine covid will provide a buffer for the economic impact and anything else can just be blamed on EU 'obstruction' by these people.

A hard border in Ireland, rightly or wrongly, is something very few people in the UK outside of Northern Ireland really care about I'd imagine.

The fruit picking is an interesting one. If you mean that Eastern Europeans won't want to come here anymore, they clearly will. If you mean that immigration will be hostile to them, again I don't see this. The argument is that the immigration will suit the needs of the country and seasonal fruit pickers will be one of those needs. Pretty much every other country outside of the EU manages it without free movement. I think this area brings about a certain snobbery though. As a lefty, I don't believe the economy should have jobs that can't sustain the local population. If these jobs are not compatible with someone being able to live a dignified life in their country, that for me is a big problem with how the economic system works. One of the (few) brexit arguments I have some sympathy with is that the free movement has allowed some workers to come and undercut pay in some areas due to being able to work in a way local British workers would not.

I doubt the NHS will go and, if it does, I doubt it will go down the American route as so many think it will. It will probably be more like... Almost every other single advanced economy in the world, in Asia, Europe and Oceania. Whether British people will be happy with that is another issue, as some of them have quite an entitled attitude to what they can expect from the NHS.

Lorry Park will be a shambles.

I'm feeling really quite pessimistic and, as I believe I've already said, I am considering moving back to Australia. Being a doctor there was infinitely better than the UK, even pre covid. But we'll see I guess. Its a big move. So bloody isolated.

If I could speak Dutch, I'd probably look to move there but alas I don't and the effort to be able to speak it to an acceptable standard for my job would be overly difficult.

 

[Maticmaker]

Majority voting has nothing to do with a potential federation, that type of things are out of the scope of the EU, the council, commission or any supra national organizations.

Why? Because it's a constitutional matter which is above international treaties(for example the EU), you would be changing the statutes of a country. The way a country modifies its constitution depends on the constitution of said country it has nothing to do with the EU, some questions are to be dealt with referendums while others are dealt by members of parliament/Senate/or both(In France we call that the Congress).

As for your second question it exposes a massive misunderstanding on what the EU and a country are, if 26 countries decided to form a federation and the 27th decided not to, you would have a EU with two countries, a federation with 26 states and the former 27th, unless if there is a decision to abrogate EU treaties.

And that type of things will never be done due to climate change or Covid-19, it would take an absolute eternity for every countries involved to agree on a constitution, even if the EU evolved into something that was very close to a federation. It's not going to be some sort of surprise, you will need at least one new treaty and since the current one isn't close to it, you would most likely need a lot of new structural treaties and since every treaties have opt outs, no one is going to be in the situation that you describe.

So, am I to understand that the EU as it is now constituted could never become a single state, the powers that individual countries cede to the Council through budgetary commitments underpinning and adherence to single market requirements etc. can never be usurped by a sovereign state called e.g. United States of Europe, even in federal form?
That is surprising! So those existing treaty objectives going back to the Treaty of Rome identifying 'ever closer union' actually cannot achieve full Union by the EU in its present form neither can it be formulated by treaty

I of course understood that constitutional changes in each country would be necessary before any new entity could be formed, maybe because the UK has not got a written constitution (as such, all laws primarily based on precedent) is one of the reasons that the sovereignty issue became such a thing in the Brexit campaign. It seems strange and somewhat remiss of the Remainer camp that this fact was not made public in the UK. I know a number of people who, economics apart, voted for Brexit because they believed that ultimately the EU could through future treaties be 'graduated' into a federal state, just like the EEC morphed into the EU via Maastricht. Wonder how much difference this would have made to the Brexit vote if what you say had been widely publicized in the UK.

Probably the fact that unlike other EU states, the UK public were never given an opportunity to vote on previous treaties (like Maastricht), so when they were at last given a vote, the dam broke under the weight of resentment and denied entitlement. Of such things is history made!

Surely this would result in at least a two speed EU entity, presumably there would have to be an accommodation on currency, if the single state was not in the Euro-zone? If treaties were abrogated wouldn't that amount to a sort of 'second division' status ?

 

[JPRouve]

So, am I to understand that the EU as it is now constituted could never become a single state, the powers that individual countries cede to the Council through budgetary commitments underpinning and adherence to single market requirements etc. can never be usurped by a sovereign state called e.g. United States of Europe, even in federal form?
That is surprising! So those existing treaty objectives going back to the Treaty of Rome identifying 'ever closer union' actually cannot achieve full Union by the EU in its present form neither can it be formulated by treaty

I of course understood that constitutional changes in each country would be necessary before any new entity could be formed, maybe because the UK has not got a written constitution (as such, all laws primarily based on precedent) is one of the reasons that the sovereignty issue became such a thing in the Brexit campaign. It seems strange and somewhat remiss of the Remainer camp that this fact was not made public in the UK. I know a number of people who, economics apart, voted for Brexit because they believed that ultimately the EU could through future treaties be 'graduated' into a federal state, just like the EEC morphed into the EU via Maastricht. Wonder how much difference this would have made to the Brexit vote if what you say had been widely publicized in the UK.

Probably the fact that unlike other EU states, the UK public were never given an opportunity to vote on previous treaties (like Maastricht), so when they were at last given a vote, the dam broke under the weight of resentment and denied entitlement. Of such things is history made!

Surely this would result in at least a two speed EU entity, presumably there would have to be an accommodation on currency, if the single state was not in the Euro-zone? If treaties were abrogated wouldn't that amount to a sort of 'second division' status ?

First the "ever closer" idea isn't to be mixed with a federation, it has nothing to do with that. It was simply the expression of the goal of the Treaty of Rome which was that Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherland and Luxembourg never find themselves in a situation where they are at war for economic, social or political reasons, the goal for these 6 countries is to be as close as possible and maintain peace.

The EEC didn't morph into the EU, From former treaties standpoint the EU is essentially a consolidated version of several communities and treaties, the EEC was only one of them. It adds other mechanisms and important structural changes but it's not a morphing of the EEC.

And yes it would create a two speed EU but that's the choice of the countries involved, in particular the ones that don't want to be included.

 

[sun_tzu]

Barnier was pretty scathing in his assessment of the talks just now

No commitment to a level playing field
and the UK fishing plans are unacceptable to the EU

Therefore a free trade deal is unlikely

 

[Maticmaker]

First the "ever closer" idea isn't to be mixed with a federation, it has nothing to do with that. It was simply the expression of the goal of the Treaty of Rome which was that Italy, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherland and Luxembourg never find themselves in a situation where they are at war for economic, social or political reasons, the goal for these 6 countries is to be as close as possible and maintain peace.

The EEC didn't morph into the EU, From former treaties standpoint the EU is essentially a consolidated version of several communities and treaties, the EEC was only one of them. It adds other mechanisms and important structural changes but it's not a morphing of the EEC.

And yes it would create a two speed EU but that's the choice of the countries involved, in particular the ones that don't want to be included.

Thank you for your clear response, I would suggest the following is a possible viewpoint;

For the original six that objective of 'ever closer union' may have been and still is the case for them, but for many others within the existing EU, especially many EU Parliament MEP's as well as some 'appointed' EU Czars a Federation of sorts is seen as the ultimate goal . For many it does make sense, especially for the Baltic states, they know they have to belong to a power block of some kind to survive as recognizable entities and rather than be drawn back into Russia's sphere of influence they would probably see an USE as a good thing. They would then worry less about NATO protection if the USE had its own military.

The EEC did in fact morph/develop into the EU by growing, by adding members and subsuming other similar organs of trade, but mostly via major treaties, of which Maastricht was probably the most significant. The EEC ( initially a Trading block) was the start point and then through its mechanism it became initially a form of catalyst and also then a generator of the political European Union, which now exists.

What would be the point for a country of not accepting a treaty and trying to remain in the second tier of a two speed EU, opt outs do apply but not from major treaties?

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

Barnier was pretty scathing in his assessment of the talks just now

No commitment to a level playing field
and the UK fishing plans are unacceptable to the EU

Therefore a free trade deal is unlikely

Which is odd because without a deal the EU has no say on fishing rights in UK waters or any level playing field further to GATT.

 

[JPRouve]

Thank you for your clear response, I would suggest the following is a possible viewpoint;

For the original six that objective of 'ever closer union' may have been and still is the case for them, but for many others within the existing EU, especially many EU Parliament MEP's as well as some 'appointed' EU Czars a Federation of sorts is seen as the ultimate goal . For many it does make sense, especially for the Baltic states, they know they have to belong to a power block of some kind to survive as recognizable entities and rather than be drawn back into Russia's sphere of influence they would probably see an USE as a good thing. They would then worry less about NATO protection if the USE had its own military.

The EEC did in fact morph/develop into the EU by growing, by adding members and subsuming other similar organs of trade, but mostly via major treaties, of which Maastricht was probably the most significant. The EEC ( initially a Trading block) was the start point and then through its mechanism it became initially a form of catalyst and also then a generator of the political European Union, which now exists.

What would be the point for a country of not accepting a treaty and trying to remain in the second tier of a two speed EU, opt outs do apply but not from major treaties?

On your second paragraph no the EEC didn't morph into the EU and the EEC wasn't the starting point. The starting point is the ECSC with the treaty of Paris in 1951, the EEC and EAEC were created on the same day, March 27th 1957, one was established by the Treaty of Rome and the other by the Euratom treaty, those were merged in 1967 to form the European communities(EC). The EEC was a custom union not a trading block, the trading bloc(single market) was actually established in 1993 by the Single European Act who was signed in 1986. To that you can add TREVI(1975), Schengen(1985) and the EPC(1970), all of that was either merged or consolidated by Maastricht and divided into pillars which together form the EU.

 

[Abizzz]

Which is odd because without a deal the EU has no say on fishing rights in UK waters or any level playing field further to GATT.

Yeah but the EU doesn't need those if UK fish and goods can't make it onto the EU market at competitive prices.

 

[Maticmaker]

On your second paragraph no the EEC didn't morph into the EU and the EEC wasn't the starting point. The starting point is the ECSC with the treaty of Paris in 1951, the EEC and EAEC were created on the same day, March 27th 1957, one was established by the Treaty of Rome and the other by the Euratom treaty, those were merged in 1967 to form the European communities(EC). The EEC was a custom union not a trading block, the trading bloc(single market) was actually established in 1993 by the Single European Act who was signed in 1986. To that you can add TREVI(1975), Schengen(1985) and the EPC(1970), all of that was either merged or consolidated by Maastricht and divided into pillars which together form the EU.

Thank you, I did mention sub or merging with others, but I accept my shorthand description of the establishment of the EU was too 'short handed' and incomplete, I now know better!

 

[JPRouve]

Thank you, I did mention sub or merging with others, but I accept my shorthand description of the establishment of the EU was too 'short handed' and incomplete, I now know better!

It wasn't incomplete but simply wrong and it's also one of the reasons why Brexit happened, that narrative has been used for decades with people even claiming that the UK only joined the EEC which is not the case.

 

[Adisa]

Always thought Brexit is a massive plot to make us subservient to the US. Each passing episode in this shambles has me more convinced.

 

[Maticmaker]

It wasn't incomplete but simply wrong and it's also one of the reasons why Brexit happened, that narrative has been used for decades with people even claiming that the UK only joined the EEC which is not the case.

No not from the UK stand point, you refer to origins, which I accept I did not convey correctly, however when the UK joined in the 1970's the customs union existed and the aim of striving towards achieving a single market was well known and talked about, even in the UK. I do not dispute that certain features were not adequately explained or made plain to the UK public at the time of the first UK vote on Europe and Tony Benn and some other UK politicians did offer warnings; also there is no doubt that lingering aspects of that played a role in the Brexit referendum.
The UK has never been a fully committed member of the EU, opts outs, rebates etc. mainly because of political nuances rather than trade issues, of which both sides (now portrayed as Leavers and Remainers) played a role. Jacques Delor did as much as any one to stoke the fires of misconception in the UK about the progress required and sought. This week for the first time the EU will be able to raise money directly from the banks for post Covid issues, amongst other things, this presents another step towards fully fledged Union. These signals mean different things in the UK and no one either in the UK or in the EU has ever sought to honestly clarify what that phrase ever closer union means now, or for the future, not in the 1950's.

 

[TheGame]

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Always thought Brexit is a massive plot to make us subservient to the US. Each passing episode in this shambles has me more convinced.

Problem is that the UK think the USA is their best friend and will fall over backwards for them. The USA have always used the UK to their advantage and always will do.
If the UK ever sign a deal with the US, not convinced, it will be heavily weighted in the USA's favour. Any agreement always costs the UK a hell of a lot.

 

[TheGame]

 

[TheGame]

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Sounds as if the US talks are going as well at the EU talks. And by the way, you countries that border the Pacific will henceforth be told what to do by a country that doesn't border the Pacific.

Brexit fantasy world still not completely dead ... yet.

 

[T00lsh3d]

There’s a tonne of posturing on both sides at the moment. I’d put my money on a deal being struck.

Actually, can you bet on this? Anyone offering odds?

 

[Wibble]

Since no deal is idiotic I'd say it is extremely likely given that team Bojo is in charge.

 

[sun_tzu]

There’s a tonne of posturing on both sides at the moment. I’d put my money on a deal being struck.

Actually, can you bet on this? Anyone offering odds?

odds of a deal before 1st jan 2021
https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/brexit/uk-and-eu-to-sign-a-trade-deal-in-2020

1/14 odds on that no deal is done
23/5 that a deal is done

odds of an extension
https://www.oddschecker.com/politic...brexit-transition-period-after-1-january-2021
Yes 1/5 odds on we do it
No 13/5

Gut feel they dont make a deal but find a way of doing an extension without calling it an extension - initial trading relationship for example (basically an extension as they try to sort a deal both can spin positivly)

 

[horsechoker]

Brexit will deliver double shock to UK economy, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...e-shock-to-uk-economy-study-finds-coronavirus

 

[Jippy]

Brexit is saved!

 

[FireballXL5]

Or, to put it another way, Japan is shitting all over a desperate UK.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...son-eu-transition-market-access-a9580731.html

 

[devilish]

The entire world must change to accommodate to the UK's wishes from members of the TTIP right to the EU

 

[Buster15]

Brexit will deliver double shock to UK economy, study finds

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...e-shock-to-uk-economy-study-finds-coronavirus

Going into a no deal WTO trade rules Brexit would, in normal times be an economic disaster.

Going into it in the middle of a global pandemic with our economy in serious recession is going to be a catastrophe.
Be very careful what you wish for brexiteers.
Hope you have a good sense of humour.

 

[JPRouve]

Brexit is saved!

The last comment will always amaze me. Around 50% of english fishing companies are owned by foreigners mainly Dutch, Icelanders and Spanish. Unless Brexit also includes nationalizing these companies it's the same people who are going to sell those fishes and they will sell them to whoever they want, my guess will be the largest food market in the world, Rungis.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

I wonder if public opinion on Brexit in the UK might’ve shifted a year from now, when people experience its reality.

People still think Brits are going to be lining up to pick fruit for minimum wage once workers from Eastern Europe stop coming to Britain. A year from now I suspect that there will be a struggle to find people to do that job.

Then you’ve got the NHS which looks like it’ll be scraped to get a trade deal with the US. A hard border in Ireland seems like a certainty and that lorry park in Kent looks like fun.

I’m feeling relieved that I moved to Canada.

Anyone feeling optimistic about the immediate future in the UK?

I think the trend now is for people to double down on their opinion.

I foresee lots of excuses being made, blaming of external factors, probably blaming the EU, or even immigrants, for the inevitable reduction in UK living standards and much inconvenience in the immediate aftermath of Brexit.

I cannot think of a more incompetent government to be in charge of such a significant shift in the UK landscape. If we had a progressive, intelligent, reflective and forward thinking government I may have felt optimistic about Brexit in the long term. Unfortunately, as it stands, it will just be a pay day for disaster capitalists while everyone else pays the price.

 

[Jippy]

The last tweet will always amaze me. Around 50% of english fishing companies are owned by foreigners mainly Dutch, Icelanders and Spanish. Unless Brexit also includes nationalizing these companies it's the same people who are going to sell those fishes and they will sell them to whoever they want, my guess will be the largest food market in the world, Rungis.

Britannia will always rule the waves in Little Englanders' eyes.

 

[4bars]

The last comment will always amaze me. Around 50% of english fishing companies are owned by foreigners mainly Dutch, Icelanders and Spanish. Unless Brexit also includes nationalizing these companies it's the same people who are going to sell those fishes and they will sell them to whoever they want, my guess will be the largest food market in the world, Rungis.

I suspect the last comment is sarcasm...prettyplease? or I expect too much?

 

[JPRouve]

I suspect the last comment is sarcasm...prettyplease? or I expect too much?

The one on the right is probably not sarcasm because it has been a brexiteer focus for a very long time.

 

[Buster15]

Britannia will always rule the waves in Little Englanders' eyes.

And of course, Britannia is taking back control.
All I can say is that if the catastrophic way this government has handled the Corona Virus plays out after the stupidity of a no deal, we are going to go through one of the hardest and longest recessions in our history.
But. But. It will be worth it because we are taking back control.
Well good luck with that.

 

[Wibble]

Isn't fishing a very small part of the UK economyI So if 50% of that small percentage is foreign owned brexiteers will be very disappointed in the results no matter what.

 

[JPRouve]

Isn't fishing a very small part of the UK economyI So if 50% of that small percentage is foreign owned brexiteers will be very disappointed in the results no matter what.

This article explains the situation well and you can understand why they are going to be very disappointed. Essentially the UK would have to change their own laws and philosophies that created that situation, especially when it comes to inciting the trade of fishing licenses and quotas.

 

[africanspur]

Isn't fishing a very small part of the UK economyI So if 50% of that small percentage is foreign owned brexiteers will be very disappointed in the results no matter what.

I really don't understand why fishing became such a point of contention for so many Brexit voters. Or for that matter, why the EU particularly cares about it even now. It is such a tiny proportion of our economies and has taken such a disproportionate focus.

Had to laugh at the idea of the Japanese being so keen to buy our fish though . And I have to ask, even if they do want to buy our fish, who the hell cares? Is the Yen suddenly more valuable than the Euro to British fishermen? Is 127 million suddenly a bigger market than 445 million?

 

[JPRouve]

I really don't understand why fishing became such a point of contention for so many Brexit voters. Or for that matter, why the EU particularly cares about it even now. It is such a tiny proportion of our economies and has taken such a disproportionate focus.

Had to laugh at the idea of the Japanese being so keen to buy our fish though . And I have to ask, even if they do want to buy our fish, who the hell cares? Is the Yen suddenly more valuable than the Euro to British fishermen? Is 127 million suddenly a bigger market than 445 million?

The EU cares because while it is not the largest industry it still has a massive impact on environment and the economy of certain areas. Not everyone lives in London or Paris.

 

[Wibble]

This article explains the situation well and you can understand why they are going to be very disappointed. Essentially the UK would have to change their own laws and philosophies that created that situation, especially when it comes to inciting the trade of fishing licenses and quotas.

The point is that fishing is small fry (pun intended) to the point of irrelevance when discussing being in or out of the EU.

 

[JPRouve]

The point is that fishing is small fry (pun intended) to the point of irrelevance when discussing being in or out of the EU.

I understand but my point was that even if it was a larger industry the problem were caused by british politicians and the larger fishermen which would still make the discussion of being in or out of the EU highly questionable when it comes to fishing.

 

[sun_tzu]

I really don't understand why fishing became such a point of contention for so many Brexit voters. Or for that matter, why the EU particularly cares about it even now. It is such a tiny proportion of our economies and has taken such a disproportionate focus.

I think its because for the French particularly the prospect of fishermen blockading harbours and generally fecking about in the channel for the next year isnt one that helps macron electorally in France as it will help push the nationalist / anti eu agenda

I believe the uk sees this as a way to get other potential concessions... in truth not the worst negotiating tactic but I think the uk has probably overplayed its hand and is bricking it incase macron calls rather than folds as I believe cv19 will probably at least in the short term help pro eu sentiment more than a hard brexit will hurt it

 

[Wibble]

I understand but my point was that even if it was a larger industry the problem were caused by british politicians and the larger fishermen which would still make the discussion of being in or out of the EU highly questionable when it comes to fishing.

Fair enough.

 

[JPRouve]

I think its because for the French particularly the prospect of fishermen blockading harbours and generally fecking about in the channel for the next year isnt one that helps macron electorally in France as it will help push the nationalist / anti eu agenda

I believe the uk sees this as a way to get other potential concessions... in truth not the worst negotiating tactic but I think the uk has probably overplayed its hand and is bricking it incase macron calls rather than folds as I believe cv19 will probably at least in the short term help pro eu sentiment more than a hard brexit will hurt it

Brexit doesn't make the news around here and has no weight in future elections. France is also not the country that has the most to lose, I get that the press in the UK loves to mention France but in that particular case the UK should focus on Spain, Netherland, Belgium and Denmark, in particular Netherlands and in general the European Fisheries Alliance.