BREXIT Mega Thread (The Saga Begins?)

[Neu Leonstein]

A joint technical note (ugh, finally!) on citizens' rights, after this second round of negotiations that concluded today: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... rights.pdf

Not much love for what I care about, it seems, namely the notion that this 'Settled Status', once acquired, would be lost after two years of absence unless one has 'strong ties' here. That gets a green box, so apparently no push-back from the Commission. Disappointing.

As for the other things, disagreements can be divided between technical points that can probably be sorted out, and the more fundamental stuff. The latter is the overarching question of how these rights will be guaranteed. The UK's position is 'by UK law, of course', and the European Commission's position, in so many words, is 'why the hell would anyone trust domestic bodies in the UK to protect obviously unloved foreigners for many decades to come'.

One interesting note (novel at least because for once it's not about the UK looking to take away rights, but the other way around and will therefore sponsor a modified version of hysterics from the tabloids) is that the UK wants British citizens living in the EU to effectively retain their freedom of movement rights within the EU. So your cliche British pensioner in Spain could move to Italy if they so pleased. EU's position is that the rights the British pensioner retains would be relevant to Spain, not to the EU as a whole.

[Minoa]

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britai ... KKBN1A50PS

Minoa feels like: Hold CHF or JPY, Sell GBP.

[Souseiseki]

http://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brexi ... diplomacy/

Meanwhile, the U.K. side is cross that the EU proposes British expats in Europe will only be allowed to seek residence rights in the country they live in — not throughout the EU — so stripping them of the freedom of movement rights they currently enjoy.

oh my god the UK is angry about freedom of movement ending

[Hurdergaryp]

http://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brexit-files/politico-brexit-files-fundamental-divergence-the-nuclear-waste-option-lamb-and-strawberry-diplomacy/

Meanwhile, the U.K. side is cross that the EU proposes British expats in Europe will only be allowed to seek residence rights in the country they live in — not throughout the EU — so stripping them of the freedom of movement rights they currently enjoy.

oh my god the UK is angry about freedom of movement ending

But wasn't that what Brexit was all about? This is rather confusing, I'm afraid.

[Vassenor]

http://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brexit-files/politico-brexit-files-fundamental-divergence-the-nuclear-waste-option-lamb-and-strawberry-diplomacy/

Meanwhile, the U.K. side is cross that the EU proposes British expats in Europe will only be allowed to seek residence rights in the country they live in — not throughout the EU — so stripping them of the freedom of movement rights they currently enjoy.

oh my god the UK is angry about freedom of movement ending

But wasn't that what Brexit was all about? This is rather confusing, I'm afraid.

It was about stopping those pesky foreigners coming here while allowing us to go wherever we wish.

[Vassenor]

>Michael Gove says Brexit will be good for the environment

Uh... What?

[Calladan]

>Michael Gove says Brexit will be good for the environment

Uh... What?

Maybe he means it will Brighten it up? Make it whiter than white?

[Salandriagado]

>Michael Gove says Brexit will be good for the environment

Uh... What?

Major economic crashes do usually result in declines in carbon emissions, so maybe?

[Neu Leonstein]

The upshot from the second round of the negotiations is apparently no bueno. Politico reports "EU and UK in divorce deadlock after first full Brexit talks".

As someone who cares about public policy, I find this really depressing, and worthy of a rant. I had really thought that by now the UK team would have some sort of set of goals that they wanted to reach, and we would be able to track where the disagreements are and figure out compromises. But the only place where this seems to be even remotely possible is on citizens' rights, and even there the remains the largely binary issue of what to do about the European Court of Justice.

On everything else, it really looks like the UK delegation doesn't know what it wants to achieve yet, because Westminster has not been able to tell them. This seems a pretty colossal failure. Whether you supported Brexit or not, the time between June 2016 and March 2017 should have been spent talking about what Brexit was for. We can at least sort of tell what Brexit was against. If you voted to leave, then there were a few things that you disliked about EU membership: foreigners, specific EU policies (e.g. on trade with third countries, on labour laws or, however erroneously, on banana regulation), the EU as an institution, supranational integration as an idea. Some only cared on some or one of those issues, but those seemed to have been the main things. And the various leave campaigns ultimately won because they emphasised these issues effectively: during the campaign, the argument for leaving was purely a negative one. "Who cares", Dominic Cummings would probably say, "the point was that we needed to win first, and sort the rest out conditional on achieving this goal." And once one accepts how bad modern democracies are at making good decisions, that's fair enough, I suppose.

But winning the referendum was now more than a year ago. And despite repeatedly professing that the time had come to 'get on with the job', the Tories and various leave campaigners haven't even made the most half-arsed attempt at bringing about a national discussion with the British people about what sort of place they want Britain to be after it leaves the EU. "Brexit means Brexit", May helpfully said. And that's the problem in a nutshell: that statement was still addressed at people who voted to remain. Everything those in charge of leaving have said in public since June 2016 has been in one way or another about attacking either the EU, or the EU negotiators or, most often, those in the UK who were suspected of having EU-sympathies.

And so what proposals were put forward for the negotiations weren't really proposals at all. Just soundbites about as believable or well-founded as election promises. People would have laughed in your face even a few years ago if you suggested that the UK government's stance on what the future of Britain would be is 'we will have our cake and eat it'. The one clearly-formulated red line that the UK government does seem to have (about the ECJ) is just plain weird. No one seriously believes that the application of past or future ECJ case law in addition to or superseding UK case law was or is a major issue for the average Leave voter. It's the sort of thing legal scholars would care about, and perhaps some particularly nationalist Oxbridge history students who think British Common Law is the greatest thing since sliced bread. In short, it's a pet thing for a few people in cabinet and on the Tory backbenches. And that, of all things, is the only clearly worked-out position the UK has with regards to Brexit right now. And so now of course the UK's delegation can't do anything but spend its limited negotiation time asking the EU team questions about their proposals.

But worst of all, if anything the progress on sorting out what the government's vision for a post-EU Britain has been backwards. The initial enthusiasm is gone, May has proven a pretty shitty politician, but none of the potential usurpers are willing to take the top job knowing that the task before them would be to answer the most fundamental question that's been asked about the country for many decades.

But at least on NSG we could in theory do better... so to those who supported Leave at the time and those who fall into the 'the referendum decided and now Brexit should be pursued' camp: knowing everything that we do now about the EU's position and about how the negotiations work, what would you want the British delegation to work for? What sort of post-Brexit arrangement would you want? And what do you want the UK government to do once Brexit is done? What sort of country do you want the UK to be in twenty or thirty years' time?

[Calladan]

You say all that like it's a surprise. Like anyone, even Farage, knew what they wanted from Brexit when they started campaigning for a yes vote.

No one knew, and no one had any plans, because no one expected to win. Not a single person who was saying "VOTE LEAVE" actually thought that we, the British people, could be stupid enough to vote ourselves into this position. The entire referendum was just a publicity stunt by Cameron to win back UKIP voters - he didn't think people would take it seriously. And while Farage always wanted out, he never thought it would actually happen - he just wanted a bigger club to whack the government with over immigration and over "insane crazy EU Directives and Regulations" (and I just learned the difference between those two yesterday by the way! Go me!) so that he could get more UKIP MPs into Parliament.

But instead he won, and now his party is in decline, he is a national joke and no one gives a shit about what he thinks. (Okay - ONE good thing has come out of all this )

What do I want now that the British public proved themselves EVEN more stupid and racist than I thought they were? *shrug* Quite honestly I don't want anything. Whatever terms we arrange, the country is fucked for a generation or so. You might as well ask me "If you are plunging to your death at 30,000 ft per second, do you want the spikes you land on to be made of steel or iron?" because that's pretty much what the outcome of these negotiations is going to be like - we are monumentally fucked, no matter what they agree. And no matter what they agree, half the country will be pissed off, and the other half will be REALLY pissed off.

There is no good version of Brexit. That's what we should have had on the side of a bus.

[Neu Leonstein]

You say all that like it's a surprise. Like anyone, even Farage, knew what they wanted from Brexit when they started campaigning for a yes vote.

Well sure. And May didn't even think Brexit was a good idea. But the point is that it's been 13 months. They had the time to work it out.

[Dooom35796821595]

You say all that like it's a surprise. Like anyone, even Farage, knew what they wanted from Brexit when they started campaigning for a yes vote.

No one knew, and no one had any plans, because no one expected to win. Not a single person who was saying "VOTE LEAVE" actually thought that we, the British people, could be stupid enough to vote ourselves into this position. The entire referendum was just a publicity stunt by Cameron to win back UKIP voters - he didn't think people would take it seriously. And while Farage always wanted out, he never thought it would actually happen - he just wanted a bigger club to whack the government with over immigration and over "insane crazy EU Directives and Regulations" (and I just learned the difference between those two yesterday by the way! Go me!) so that he could get more UKIP MPs into Parliament.

But instead he won, and now his party is in decline, he is a national joke and no one gives a shit about what he thinks. (Okay - ONE good thing has come out of all this )

What do I want now that the British public proved themselves EVEN more stupid and racist than I thought they were? *shrug* Quite honestly I don't want anything. Whatever terms we arrange, the country is fucked for a generation or so. You might as well ask me "If you are plunging to your death at 30,000 ft per second, do you want the spikes you land on to be made of steel or iron?" because that's pretty much what the outcome of these negotiations is going to be like - we are monumentally fucked, no matter what they agree. And no matter what they agree, half the country will be pissed off, and the other half will be REALLY pissed off.

There is no good version of Brexit. That's what we should have had on the side of a bus.

Or perhaps people wanted the economic and trade benefits without a bunch of power hungry fools trying to unite a continent based on Franco-Germanic political ideals? And having decided it's gone too far, want out of all the political BS. Since one government is bad enough, a supranational one is even worse.

But no, just keep steryotyping the pro-brexiters as stupid racists, that'll win people over.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

May seems to be a fundamentally weak and muddled person. But with whom to replace her?

The solution to this mess is to reintroduce the property qualification franchise, and eliminate MP pay, so that we have a parliament of aristocrats once again.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

But at least on NSG we could in theory do better... so to those who supported Leave at the time and those who fall into the 'the referendum decided and now Brexit should be pursued' camp: knowing everything that we do now about the EU's position and about how the negotiations work, what would you want the British delegation to work for? ]What sort of post-Brexit arrangement would you want?

I think No Deal should be the baseline. Very likely agreement could be reached on matters like continuing to land aircraft in one anothers' territory etc.

And what do you want the UK government to do once Brexit is done?

Become a Liberal Imperialist fortress state.

What sort of country do you want the UK to be in twenty or thirty years' time?

Liberal Imperialist utopia.

[Souseiseki]

May seems to be a fundamentally weak and muddled person. But with whom to replace her?

The solution to this mess is to reintroduce the property qualification franchise, and eliminate MP pay, so that we have a parliament of aristocrats once again.

the problem is that we're ran by spoiled millionaires that have not a clue what they're doing

the solution is not to try push out everyone that isn't them

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

May seems to be a fundamentally weak and muddled person. But with whom to replace her?

The solution to this mess is to reintroduce the property qualification franchise, and eliminate MP pay, so that we have a parliament of aristocrats once again.

the problem is that we're ran by spoiled millionaires that have not a clue what they're doing

the solution is not to try push out everyone that isn't them

Not many of our politicians are millionaires that didn't become so by semi-legal corruption as a result of being politicians, a problem that is much less pronounced among people with their own money. Theresa May is a lower middle class girl done good much like Thatcher (a bit higher up that Thatcher but not a lot). Corbyn's family was somewhat richer but not much higher status; certainly not independently wealthy.

[Souseiseki]

the problem is that we're ran by spoiled millionaires that have not a clue what they're doing

the solution is not to try push out everyone that isn't them

Not many of our politicians are millionaires that didn't become so by semi-legal corruption as a result of being politicians, a problem that is much less pronounced among people with their own money. Theresa May is a lower middle class girl done good much like Thatcher (a bit higher up that Thatcher but not a lot). Corbyn's family was somewhat richer but not much higher status; certainly not independently wealthy.

this sounds a lot like the "trump is too rich to be corrupt!" line

i don't think it worked

[Souseiseki]

>implying that the aristocracy isn't infamously nepotistic and obsessed with maintaining its status, leading directly into corruption and also the occasional inbreeding

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Not many of our politicians are millionaires that didn't become so by semi-legal corruption as a result of being politicians, a problem that is much less pronounced among people with their own money. Theresa May is a lower middle class girl done good much like Thatcher (a bit higher up that Thatcher but not a lot). Corbyn's family was somewhat richer but not much higher status; certainly not independently wealthy.

this sounds a lot like the "trump is too rich to be corrupt!" line

i don't think it worked

I see no evidence at all that Trump is a corrupt politician. I think Trump believes close to everything he says and he speaks much more candidly than just about anyone else in politics.

[Vassenor]

May seems to be a fundamentally weak and muddled person. But with whom to replace her?

The solution to this mess is to reintroduce the property qualification franchise, and eliminate MP pay, so that we have a parliament of aristocrats once again.

So why do you seem to hate democracy?

[Vassenor]

this sounds a lot like the "trump is too rich to be corrupt!" line

i don't think it worked

I see no evidence at all that Trump is a corrupt politician. I think Trump believes close to everything he says and he speaks much more candidly than just about anyone else in politics.

Of course most of what he says has little to no basis in reality or rational thought, but that's a topic for another thread.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

May seems to be a fundamentally weak and muddled person. But with whom to replace her?

The solution to this mess is to reintroduce the property qualification franchise, and eliminate MP pay, so that we have a parliament of aristocrats once again.

So why do you seem to hate democracy?

It's a bad system and it has produced much worse results than our pre-democratic government.

[Eredion]

Oh boy. The English already wanting their aristocracy back. Those island monkeys.

Rich people tend to want to become more rich. I don´t think any politician in a high position no matter his personal wealth does need to worry about his financial security for the rest of his life, every corruption attempt by some lobbyist he accepts is for bonus and a rich person could also accept that. Otherwise more people would stop doing the same business tactics after they have enough millions to never worry about it. Not all rich people are like Robert Geiss though.

[Eredion]

You say all that like it's a surprise. Like anyone, even Farage, knew what they wanted from Brexit when they started campaigning for a yes vote.

No one knew, and no one had any plans, because no one expected to win. Not a single person who was saying "VOTE LEAVE" actually thought that we, the British people, could be stupid enough to vote ourselves into this position. The entire referendum was just a publicity stunt by Cameron to win back UKIP voters - he didn't think people would take it seriously. And while Farage always wanted out, he never thought it would actually happen - he just wanted a bigger club to whack the government with over immigration and over "insane crazy EU Directives and Regulations" (and I just learned the difference between those two yesterday by the way! Go me!) so that he could get more UKIP MPs into Parliament.

But instead he won, and now his party is in decline, he is a national joke and no one gives a shit about what he thinks. (Okay - ONE good thing has come out of all this )

What do I want now that the British public proved themselves EVEN more stupid and racist than I thought they were? *shrug* Quite honestly I don't want anything. Whatever terms we arrange, the country is fucked for a generation or so. You might as well ask me "If you are plunging to your death at 30,000 ft per second, do you want the spikes you land on to be made of steel or iron?" because that's pretty much what the outcome of these negotiations is going to be like - we are monumentally fucked, no matter what they agree. And no matter what they agree, half the country will be pissed off, and the other half will be REALLY pissed off.

There is no good version of Brexit. That's what we should have had on the side of a bus.

Or perhaps people wanted the economic and trade benefits without a bunch of power hungry fools trying to unite a continent based on Franco-Germanic political ideals? And having decided it's gone too far, want out of all the political BS. Since one government is bad enough, a supranational one is even worse.

But no, just keep steryotyping the pro-brexiters as stupid racists, that'll win people over.

It´s been made pretty clear by everyone in the EU and Remain that you can´t really have the benefits without the power hungry unification under our German-Franco ideals.

[Dooom35796821595]

Or perhaps people wanted the economic and trade benefits without a bunch of power hungry fools trying to unite a continent based on Franco-Germanic political ideals? And having decided it's gone too far, want out of all the political BS. Since one government is bad enough, a supranational one is even worse.

But no, just keep steryotyping the pro-brexiters as stupid racists, that'll win people over.

It´s been made pretty clear by everyone in the EU and Remain that you can´t really have the benefits without the power hungry unification under our German-Franco ideals.

We could have if we had played a bigger part to counter it. But now, we have to resort to drastic action.