Brexit Encore

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Lady Britain is now one capricious lady, or dare I say, a petulant brat, who simply doesn't know what she wants, and says "no" to whatever is in front of her. No to hard Brexit, no to agreed Brexit, no to soft border, no to hard border, no to leaving, no to staying, no to early election, no to yet another extension. It is painfully obvious to even a casual observer that another three-month extension is not going to solve anything, just prolong the agony.  A sovereign state can not have a "soft" border with another sovereign state, when not in the same union. So, hard border with Ireland it is then, whatever the consequences.

But let's imagine the ideal scenario: after three months, an agreement is achieved. What exactly should be in such and ideal agreement, from a British perspective, of course. What do members of the parliament hope to achieve in January? Seems like a hopeless stalemate.

[Chris Kern]

. . . the consequences of no deal, which everybody knows will render the UK a lost soul, kissing the Trump ass. As so many have pointed out, Mr T will do his best to screw that position to his trading advantage . . .

It pains me to admit it, but you may have a point.  It's certainly true that President Trump has been following the politics of Brexit unusually closely.  Just yesterday, he explained that the Irish backstop was where Vice President Mike Pence might have been forced to stay if there hadn't been enough rooms for his entourage at the Trump golf resort in Doonbeg.

[Robert Roaldi]

For a change of pace, a lighter Brexit moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwslRDTyzU.

[Alan Klein]

"I've got a baby."  That line and image were pretty funny.

[Rob C]

For a change of pace, a lighter Brexit moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svwslRDTyzU.

Excellent, and why cartoons and similar can say things that words take too long to deliver and, that being the case, many who should be reading and learning cannot be bothered to finish reading, and thus miss the information.

Rob

[Rob C]

Lady Britain is now one capricious lady, or dare I say, a petulant brat, who simply doesn't know what she wants, and says "no" to whatever is in front of her. No to hard Brexit, no to agreed Brexit, no to soft border, no to hard border, no to leaving, no to staying, no to early election, no to yet another extension. It is painfully obvious to even a casual observer that another three-month extension is not going to solve anything, just prolong the agony.  A sovereign state can not have a "soft" border with another sovereign state, when not in the same union. So, hard border with Ireland it is then, whatever the consequences.

But let's imagine the ideal scenario: after three months, an agreement is achieved. What exactly should be in such and ideal agreement, from a British perspective, of course. What do members of the parliament hope to achieve in January? Seems like a hopeless stalemate.

On the face of it, you're right. But of course, it's far more complex, and well you know it.

You are again perfectly correct: "A sovereign state can not have a "soft" border with another sovereign state, when not in the same union. So, hard border with Ireland it is then, whatever the consequences."

That is why Europe cannot grant the removal of the Back-stop. And of course, Boris et al. know that as well as you do, and it's their aim to achieve just that pair of absolute divisions: first, with the rest of the Europeans and then, importantly, with Northern Ireland. I believe they hate the Irish - all Irish - just as much as they do the Scots. The ultimate break-up of the UK would give them the perfect Little England their hearts really crave.

On the face of it, one coud think that ruining the English economy would hurt them. Not a bit of it: when the pound falls the stock market figures rise. Why? because so much of the income to it comes from abroad, paid in dollars. The lower the value of the pound, the higher the figure coming in when converted from high dollar to low value pound.

So is there a catch? Yes. You have to have investments of your own abroad, not in your little grocery store or tobacconist/newspaper shop. How many in the UK hold those? And no, pension funds do not apply. Personal investment is what counts in this scenario. Your pension fund, that may provide a pension when you are old and worn out, if it doesn't fail first, does nothing for you when you have no job and are of working age.

[jeremyrh]

But let's imagine the ideal scenario: after three months, an agreement is achieved. What exactly should be in such and ideal agreement, from a British perspective, of course. What do members of the parliament hope to achieve in January? Seems like a hopeless stalemate.

There was actually a series of "indicative" votes where MPs were given the opportunity to vote for a big range of options on what they would accept. None gained a majority. So what will happen? Heaven knows.

My guess - for what it's worth - is that there will be an election, Johnson will win, and he will then ram through a No Deal Brexit. What happens THEN? Don't want to think about it.

[kers]

After three years of political debat, i think it is now time for the people to decide in a new referendum.
All in all, a lot of wasted time and energy.

[Rob C]

There was actually a series of "indicative" votes where MPs were given the opportunity to vote for a big range of options on what they would accept. None gained a majority. So what will happen? Heaven knows.

My guess - for what it's worth - is that there will be an election, Johnson will win, and he will then ram through a No Deal Brexit. What happens THEN? Don't want to think about it.

The hope is that if they currently manage to make a no-deal brexit illegal, which I believe is the objective, then even a Boris victory at the next election would make it very hard for him to overturn that new law. I doubt that any party will win a massive overall majority again, at least not in the near future. That leaves room for inter-party agreements to stop the guy. Welcome, Britain, to the new Italy.

[Rob C]

After three years of political debat, i think it is now time for the people to decide in a new referendum.
All in all, a lot of wasted time and energy.

As is a new referendum: what has the public learned? Nothing. Prejudices are cast in stone and nurtured at the family heath, just like football loyalties which, of course, are regarded as far more vital.

That's why a referendum is never a good idea. It places responsibility on the shoulders of people who, by and large, do not understand the politics and what drives the economy. How could they? That's why I claim that nobody who has not tried self-employment for at least a year understands the reality of any business, and how an economy functions in real life; it is not an academic exercise defined in learned books.

That's also why Parliament is having the trouble it is having: it is exposed to the realities of making a country tick every working day. It has the double problem of appealing to its base voters as well as, at the same time, keeping the country working and out of bankruptcy. The majority of those in Parliament realise the truth, and that's why they can't allow themselves to become implicit in a mass suicide. They just can't vote for it. They know that it would be easy to satisfy the 52% that voted leave, but they also know that putting their names to that, when the shit hits the fan and people go out of work, then those same people will turn on them and blame them, forgetting that those politicos just did what the people had asked them to do. The voter will never blame himself: it is always somebody else's fault. That's the nature of humanity.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The hope is that if they currently manage to make a no-deal brexit illegal...

That seems silly to me. How can you make something that happens by default illegal? Shouldn’t there be a vision of a deal before an absence of it is proclaimed “illegal”? In any negotiation, a no-deal is a perfectly valid option. In some textbooks on negotiations, it even has it own acronym: BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). Now, I understand that a good half of Britons consider Hard Brexit a WATNA, but still...

[jeremyrh]

That seems silly to me. How can you make something that happens by default illegal? Shouldn’t there be a vision of a deal before an absence of it is proclaimed “illegal”? In any negotiation, a no-deal is a perfectly valid option. In some textbooks on negotiations, it even has it own acronym: BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). Now, I understand that a good half of Britons consider Hard Brexit a WATNA, but still...

That's kind of the problem. As you say, a good negotiator has a good BATNA. Johnson's idea is "give me what I want or I'll punch myself in the head".

[Alan Klein]

As is a new referendum: what has the public learned? Nothing. Prejudices are cast in stone and nurtured at the family heath, just like football loyalties which, of course, are regarded as far more vital.

That's why a referendum is never a good idea. It places responsibility on the shoulders of people who, by and large, do not understand the politics and what drives the economy. How could they? That's why I claim that nobody who has not tried self-employment for at least a year understands the reality of any business, and how an economy functions in real life; it is not an academic exercise defined in learned books.

That's also why Parliament is having the trouble it is having: it is exposed to the realities of making a country tick every working day. It has the double problem of appealing to its base voters as well as, at the same time, keeping the country working and out of bankruptcy. The majority of those in Parliament realise the truth, and that's why they can't allow themselves to become implicit in a mass suicide. They just can't vote for it. They know that it would be easy to satisfy the 52% that voted leave, but they also know that putting their names to that, when the shit hits the fan and people go out of work, then those same people will turn on them and blame them, forgetting that those politicos just did what the people had asked them to do. The voter will never blame himself: it is always somebody else's fault. That's the nature of humanity.

I think a lot of the problem is the way this all happened.  My understanding is that only parliament could decide to pull out of the EU.  So how did a referendum happen?  What law supported it?  Aren;t there constitutional rules, in writing, that prevented it?  If not, Britain needs a written constitution the government and the people have to abide by.  Doing things on the fly only leads to confusion and gridlock. 

[Robert Roaldi]

I've probably written this before but the very idea that such a future-changing decision should be based on a one-time "50% + 1" referendum is ludicrous beyond belief. If you don't design the process well, nobody will respect it.

The situation seems so effed-up that it's hard not to be suspicious of anyone who still claims that a no-deal exit will be better for the UK, especially considering that the youth vote was overwhelmingly skewed to "remain".

In another universe, someone with some gravitas in government (not many of them left) could just hold up his hands in a "time-out" and say to everyone, 'Now hold on, this is messed up, let's just forget the whole thing ever happened, give ourselves another 5 years to come up with a better process and try again. I mean, if the long-term future of the country is at stake, what's another 5 years?'

It's pretty obvious to everyone by now that they are not ready to leave. I mean, how else can you interpret the recent insane shenanigans?

[Alan Klein]

I've probably written this before but the very idea that such a future-changing decision should be based on a one-time "50% + 1" referendum is ludicrous beyond belief. If you don't design the process well, nobody will respect it.

The situation seems so effed-up that it's hard not to be suspicious of anyone who still claims that a no-deal exit will be better for the UK, especially considering that the youth vote was overwhelmingly skewed to "remain".

In another universe, someone with some gravitas in government (not many of them left) could just hold up his hands in a "time-out" and say to everyone, 'Now hold on, this is messed up, let's just forget the whole thing ever happened, give ourselves another 5 years to come up with a better process and try again. I mean, if the long-term future of the country is at stake, what's another 5 years?'

It's pretty obvious to everyone by now that they are not ready to leave. I mean, how else can you interpret the recent insane shenanigans?

Power politics???

[Robert Roaldi]

Pence strikes out in Ireland https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/mike-pence-irish-media_n_5d70bee2e4b0cdfe057aeee9.

Maybe he should have stayed home.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Another conundrum in the theater of absurd: we outlaw a no-deal Brexit, but, at the same time, we do not want an early election, which would be as close a proxy for a second referendum as possible.

In other words, for those clamoring for a second referendum, wouldn’t an early election be a good substitute?

By the way, how many times Britain can postpone the leave date? How many time would Europe agree?

[Alan Klein]

Another conundrum in the theater of absurd: we outlaw a no-deal Brexit, but, at the same time, we do not want an early election, which would be as close a proxy for a second referendum as possible.

In other words, for those clamoring for a second referendum, wouldn’t an early election be a good substitute?

By the way, how many times Britain can postpone the leave date? How many time would Europe agree?

The EU already said that nothing much is going to change from their end if this things is delayed again.  Maybe they'll sweeten the deal just a little to get the damn thing done already.  I think they had it with those pesky Brits. This things never ends like US elections.

[jeremyrh]

In other words, for those clamoring for a second referendum, wouldn’t an early election be a good substitute?

It woukd maybe, but the problem is that trust in BJ is so low that nobody believes he won't take the opportunity to change the election date till after Nov 1 and thus leave with no deal.

Or as the Sun puts it - no doubt offensively...

[Alan Klein]

So extend the leave date until after the election.