dbd33

I think it is the right thing to do next but suspect it won't help. A thumping majority for a credible leader committed to leave or to remain would clear the air but that's not what would happen.

dave_j

Many thanks for that. I knew there had to be a reason why the idea hadn't risen to the top of the boiling pot.
Looks like an extension then, can't see the EU turning down the continuing UK contribution to be followed by the long awaited election.
Much as the Remain side found themselves contriving a further delay, I really believe that it's not in their interest. Brexit fatigue will lend support to ANYONE promising to to end it for good, no matter what.
The election result will therefore be decided not on the relative arguments but who can guarantee an end to this self inflicted torture.

Novocastrian

Oakvillian already addressed that. Due to the intricate channels of economic involvement among the 28 EU countries it would damage the 27 others if the UK were to leave in a way which excluded the four freedoms. The R27, to borrow Oakvillian's vernacular, would be 3.5% of their membership (not their GDP or their budget or their GDP, that would be more ) but the UK would be diminished by 100% of their FTA's (not their GDP, that would be less) The GDP stuff and the budget stuff would maybe roughly balance out, (roughly is generous) but the FTA issue would be fatal for the UK economy, and perhaps for it's political stability.

I know you served in NI during The Troubles, but your unfortunate successors may have to do the same in Woking or SW19 for example.

In any event, as the UK Parliament does not appear to be able to agree upon what it actually wants (other than not wanting the agreement the EU has put forward) unless one party obtains a majority that will enable it to negotiate freely from its rebels (Con and Lab both appear to have such people amongst them) Lib and the SNP don't want to leave, is any delay really going to achieve anything at all?

Shard

I think the UK has not been able to "agree what it wants" because May and now Johnson have been totally in hock to anti-European extremists in the Tory party. We simply have not had the deep debate necessary to decide what we want. Most MP's don't want Brexit, but they have been running scared of being called anti-democratic traitors by parts of the press, parts of the public and the ERG. May prolonged this agony by attempts to impose her version of a compromise agreement; Johnson, seeing that didn't work, is trying to bludgeon through a No Deal. The great shame is there really hasn't been a post 2016 debate on what's best for the country.

Almost Canadian

You can place all of the blame if you wish to with May and Johnson, but I don't believe that that holds up to any form of scrutiny at all.

The SNP and the Libs have been consistent throughout - we will not vote for anything that doesn't maintain the status quo. Lab has been just as indecisive as the Cons have and both were in the unfortunate position that they, until May left, had leaders that were against what their party wanted (I appreciate that that is somewhat simplistic).

Had I lived in the UK in 2016, I would have voted to remain, but I would not have wanted what I have seen happen since. However, one feels about being on the losing side, one must respect the process and get on with it.

Almost Canadian

I accept the arguments but I simply cannot see how anyone can credibly argue that the result of the referendum in 2016 allows for the retention of all 4 of the freedoms, particularly as the EU have always made it perfectly clear that one must accept all of them, or none of them.

I can't see what could possibly occur that would require The Regiment to be deployed in Woking or SW19.

Well, that's what I think too, so why are they so reluctant to get on with an election?

Shard

The parliamentary shenanigans (from all parties) are a result of the way May dealt with a roughly even split in the country. She did not consult or dare to question the result. Indeed, she tried to invoke Henry VIII powers to bypass parliament. So much of the past three years has been spent on how to get a detrimental compromise through a reluctant parliament, rather than stepping back and exploring the full impact of Brexit. Most glaring example being the Irish border issue which was barely mentioned during the referendum campaign.

"Get on with it" is short hand for get bogged down in another ten years of international trade negotiations. It's a phrase to dupe the masses. Works surprisingly well.

Almost Canadian

Obfuscation works well too.

Shard

Theresa May certainly seemed to think so.

BoJo is having a go at it too, on one hand saying he's desperate for a 'Deal' on the other hand doing all that he can to trigger a No Deal by default.

Oakvillian

If anybody could provide a guarantee to your proviso I don't see that there would be any objection, in fact the opposition parties have all said as much - and that would also conveniently provide the compelling reason for the EU to agree to an extension. Sadly, though, the current government has made it clear through its words and actions that they would have no qualms about agreeing in principle to an early election on 14 October and then promptly changing the date to some time after 31 October, in which case the UK would exit by default without a deal.

It's not just the budget contributions and tariff-free access to the UK market that the EU wants to maintain. Again, your naivete is quite astonishing here - or perhaps you're trying to play some sort of Devil's Advocate role? A no-deal exit would be extremely disruptive, and cause significant administrative overhead, for any number of member nations and supranational organizations. There was a discussion in another thread, for example, about the European Medicines Control Agency, which until recently was based in London and staffed heavily by UK-based employees. That has now left the country, and it is costing serious time and money for all of Europe to maintain the flow of decisions on pharmaceutical and medical equipment licensing. That's just one small piece; there are countless others. Cutting off the UK without a deal is very clearly not in the interest of any EU member state or of the EU as a whole.

Shard

Yes, plenty of incentives for the EU to prefer unity. Co-operation on environmental matters, security/terrorism, negotiating clout with US/China, economic continuity, scientific research. It's such a positive relationship that if Britain were (somehow) not a member it would probably now be in negotiations to join. On more self-interested level the EU considers it's own cohesion, and the downside if the project failed and European countries fell back into their historical animosities. Not as far fetched as it seems. In this wider context, begrudging EU budget contributions seems a petty and short sighted obsession of the Brexiteers.

Almost Canadian

I fail to see why that cannot be done.

I apologise for appearing naïve. I understand the issues, it is simply that I don't feel the need to write pages and pages to explain something that should be somewhat obvious.

A no deal Brexit is not in any party's interests. Delaying to such an extent that Brexit never happens is in the EU's interests (I appreciate that it may be in the UK's interests too, but that is not the argument here) which is why, rather than negotiating as you have outlined above, the EU appears to want to stick to the plan that the UK's parliament has already rejected 3 times.

How that is sensible if one wishes to avoid a no-deal is somewhat bizarre to me but I appreciate that I am likely not as good at negotiating as you are.

In my practice, if the parties cannot agree, the Judge decides. However, in this scenario, there is no Judge and so, in this context, it appears to me that the EU's position is simply: Do what we want, or we will all suffer. As the UK parliament doesn't appear to have one way forward that commands a majority such that parliament will approve it, everyone is going to fall off the cliff, are they not?

dave_j

I think you hit the nail on the head, but in an obscurely understood way.
All other arguments aside, it's the money that's most easily understood by the electorate. Fanciful arguments about this or that carry no such impact as did the much criticised sign on the bus, it's money that's most easily understood by all.
This upcoming election will once again have pundits of all persuasions making highbrow arguments about why the vote should favour one side or the other but it'll be the easily understood visceral feel of UK cash feeding the EU trough or migrants flooding in that'll decide the outcome.
H L Merken once commented of the US citizen 'Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people' and this principle applies equally well to the UK.

BristolUK

I don't believe that. I think all those anti-Europe headlines and myths over decades (bendy bananas, banned chocolate and stuff) have played a major part.
People focusing on the £350m you mean? Most people must surely know that was a lie though, hence the criticism, but that doesn't appear to make a difference. Nor the vast sums wasted - shipping contracts for a company with no ships - since.

dave_j

I agree that there has been low level anti-EU news drip-feeding UK sentiment over the years, but people still need a reason to put that X in the box and that lost 40 billion, well that'll do nicely.