Brexit On The Brink...

[BoSoxGal]

No, it’s evidence that the people have become far better informed since 2016 and have changed their minds. That often happens when citizens see past the lies they were sold and the bigotry of some of their fellow voters and recognize that leaving is not only far more complicated but also far less beneficial than they’d been led to believe.

[BoSoxGal]

This Slate piece is a great recap of the Brexit disaster:

How Brexit Went Off the Rails
A brief guide to three years of chaos.

By JOSHUA KEATING
MARCH 29, 20194:20 PM

For two years, the date March 29, 2019, has loomed over British politics—the day on which the United Kingdom would finally leave the European Union, a hard deadline by which all arrangements had to be made detailing the country’s future relationship with Europe.

March 29, 2019, has arrived—and nothing has been resolved. Instead, the situation has become hopelessly complicated, bordering on incomprehensible.


If you’ve gotten confused and don’t know an Irish backstop from a Malthouse compromise from a Norway model, don’t feel bad: Even the people in charge of this project often seem to be making up the rules as they go along. So as we enter a new post–March 29 phase of Brexit, it’s worth going back to the beginning of the saga to understand the key ideas and events that explain how we got here and what might happen next. Believe it or not, this is the simple version.

The U.K. and the EU

Britain joined the European Economic Community, which later evolved into the European Union, in 1973, but there was always a higher degree of euroskepticism in the island nation than in other member states. This sentiment increased after the 2008 financial crisis and the eurozone debt crisis, with particular resentment focused on what was seen as Germany’s heavy-handed and autocratic role in the union.


In 2013, Prime Minister David Cameron vowed that if his Conservative Party won the 2015 election, he would attempt to renegotiate the terms of the U.K.’s EU membership, then hold an in/out referendum on whether the country should remain a member. Cameron personally opposed withdrawal but was under pressure from both euroskeptics within his own party and the growing popularity of the far-right U.K. Independence Party, which made withdrawing from the EU its signature issue.

Cameron’s gambit worked—maybe too well. The Conservatives shattered pre-election expectations in 2015 by winning an overall majority in Parliament, giving Cameron a mandate to hold the referendum. Cameron did attempt to renegotiate Britain’s membership, but he was able to win only partial concessions on political sovereignty and control of immigration. Reeling from its defeat, the Labour Party elected the veteran leftist Jeremy Corbyn as its new leader.

The referendum

The referendum was scheduled for June 23, 2016. Cameron campaigned for the “Remain” side but gave party members the freedom to campaign for either side. Some prominent party members, including then–London Mayor Boris Johnson, became leading “Leave” proponents.


The pitch for Leave was partially based on economic concerns—including a inaccurate promise that Britain would be able to save 350 million pounds sterling a week on membership dues and spend it on the National Health Service. But concerns about immigration and border security in the wake of the European migrant crisis that began in 2015 may have played a bigger role.

When the referendum was held, voters stunned the world by voting 52 percent to 48 percent to Leave. Cameron resigned as prime minister after the defeat. Theresa May, who as home secretary had backed Remain, became the new prime minister. Johnson became foreign minister.

Hard or soft

A slim majority of Britons may have decided to leave the EU, but no one was quite sure what that breakup would look like. The referendum asked only whether the U.K. should “remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union,” which didn’t provide much of a way forward.

A split quickly emerged between those advocating a “soft Brexit” and those favoring a “hard Brexit.” In a soft Brexit, Britain would prioritize trade and access to the European common market in exchange for giving up some control over immigration and keeping a whole lot of EU regulations. Non-EU countries like Norway and Switzerland have a setup like this. Under a hard Brexit, Britain would withdraw entirely, regaining full control over its borders and domestic regulations, as well as the ability to negotiate separate trade agreements with other countries, but lose tariff-free access to the market that accounts for 44 percent of its exports.


May kept her cards close to her vest for several months, repeatedly saying only, unhelpfully, that “Brexit means Brexit.” Then, in an October 2016 speech, she indicated she would prioritize immigration controls over trade access. A hard Brexit it would be.

On March 29, 2017, May formally triggered Article 50 of the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, which gives countries two years to negotiate their withdrawal from the EU. The time limit put Britain at a negotiating disadvantage, particularly since European countries—looking to avoid future Grexits, Frexits, and Nexits—had little incentive to make things easy on the Brits. But still, Brexit opponents’ predictions of immediate economic doom were starting to look a little overblown, and the Conservatives were enjoying a healthy lead in the polls. May had reason to feel confident, which led to possibly the worst mistake of her premiership.

The 2017 election

May’s Conservatives, who were themselves sharply divided on Brexit, held only a slim majority in the House of Commons and in a key concession before triggering Article 50, May had agreed to let Parliament vote on the final Brexit deal. So in April 2017, May called a snap election in hopes of increasing her majority and negotiating leverage with Europe.

That’s not what happened. That June, in yet another surprise election result, the Conservatives lost 13 seats in the House of Commons along with their majority. In order to stay in power, the Tories had to forge a partnership with the Democratic Unionist Party, a conservative party primarily representing the Protestant community of Northern Ireland. This would have major implications later on.

The Irish question

It was clear from the start that withdrawing from the EU would be a complicated process—with unresolved questions over the status of European citizens currently living in the U.K., the host of EU regulations on the books in Britain, and the future trade relationship between the two. But the thorniest issue turned out to be one that almost no one was taking about in 2016: the Northern Ireland border.

The border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is the U.K.’s only land border with the EU. Currently, goods, services and people can cross that border unfettered. But if Britain leaves the EU’s customs union, goods crossing the border would somehow need to be checked for EU standards and tariffs. Neither side wants to impose a hard border with customs checks—which, it’s feared, could jeopardize the hard-won peace currently enjoyed in Northern Ireland after decades of sectarian violence.


But if the border remains open, it creates a backdoor for European goods to get into the U.K. unchecked. One solution would be to check goods between Northern Ireland and the island of Great Britain, but this would effectively create an economic border between the province and the rest of the U.K. This is unacceptable to May’s partners in the DUP. The “trilemma” of how to leave the EU’s single market, avoid a hard border in Ireland, and keep the country economically united remains unresolved.

Revenge of the Remainers

Suffice to say, Brexit hasn’t turned out quite as proponents hoped back in 2016, and there’s been a steady drumbeat of support to hold a new referendum, either on whatever final deal emerges from negotiations or on whether to withdraw at all. The European Court of Justice has ruled that it’s possible to revoke Article 50, and polls have shown that a narrow majority would vote Remain if another referendum were held. (To be fair, that’s what polls showed before the last referendum as well.) Revelations about the role of Russian disinformation in the run-up to the original referendum have bolstered calls for a redo. In October 2018, almost 700,000 people marched in London to demand a “People’s Vote” on Brexit, the largest demonstration in the U.K. since the Iraq war. The Scottish National Party, the third largest party in Parliament, backs a new referendum, as do a substantial number of Labour Party politicians.


Corbyn, who has been a euroskeptic since the 1970s, has ranged from ambivalent to hostile about a new referendum—there’s concern it could imperil Labour MPs in pro-Brexit areas—but has lately indicated he’s open to the idea under certain circumstances.

Things fall apart

The wheels really started to come off the Brexit train in July 2018, when May presented a draft Brexit plan to her Cabinet at Chequers—the prime minister’s country estate, roughly equivalent to Camp David. The plan was much closer to the “soft” end of the spectrum than anticipated. It involved the U.K. continuing to operate “as if” it were in the European customs union in order to avoid border checks in Northern Ireland. The problem is, once the U.K. left the union, it would have no role in setting the rules under which it operated. Boris Johnson said this would relegate the U.K. to the status of “colony.” Johnson, Brexit Secretary David Davis, and Davis’ deputy Steve Baker all resigned from the Cabinet in protest. Adding to May’s humiliation, her “Chequers plan” was then rejected by the EU at a meeting in Salzburg, Austria, in September.

No deal

Looming over these proceedings was the prospect of a “no-deal” Brexit. If Britain and the EU failed to reach an agreement by March 29, trade relations between the two would supposedly revert to World Trade Organization rules. Hard-line Brexiteers think this is just fine, but economists have warned it could have devastating economic consequences for British companies that do business in Europe and consumers who rely on products from Europe. Reassurances from the government that preparations were underway to “make sure there is adequate food supply” in the event of a no-deal did not exactly inspire confidence.

May’s deal

The prime minister finally hammered out a deal with the Europeans and got her Cabinet to back it in November 2018. Under this deal, March 29 would mark the beginning of a “transition period,” which would last at least until the end of 2020 but could be extended, during which the final trade arrangements would be negotiated. The most contentious feature of May’s deal is the “Irish backstop” meant to avoid a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.


Under the backstop, Britain will remain in a customs union with Europe during the transition period and perhaps longer—if no solution to the problem of how to check goods entering Northern Ireland can be found. This is objectionable to Brexiteers who fear that Britain could end up staying in an economic union with Europe, and unable to negotiate its own trade agreements, indefinitely. The backstop also states that some extra EU regulations will apply only to Northern Ireland in order to avoid border checks. This is objectionable to the DUP, which opposes any special status for the region. The whole provision is objectionable to basically everyone, as it means Britain will be subject to European rules that it will have no role in setting. But given the political constraints May was under, there weren’t a lot of better options.

Two more Cabinet ministers quit in protest, and in December the prime minister was forced to delay a planned vote on the deal when it became clear she didn’t have the votes.

The “No” phase

Parents of toddlers are familiar with what’s known as the “no phase,” in which young children who are just starting to discover their autonomy reject almost every option presented to them. (“Do you want to leave?” “No!” “Do want to stay?” “No!”) This is more or less what the last few months of parliamentary debate over Brexit have looked like.


On Dec. 12, hard-line Brexiteers triggered a vote of no-confidence in an attempt to replace May, but the coup attempt failed.

On Jan. 15, May finally put her plan to a vote, and it was rejected 432–202—the first time a government motion has been defeated by more than 100 votes since the 1920s.

On Jan. 16, the full Parliament held a no-confidence vote in May and again failed to unseat her. (The key factor keeping her in power at this point may be that no one really wants her unenviable job.)

On Jan. 29, Parliament rejected a “no-deal” Brexit, rejected a new referendum, and rejected a motion to ask the EU for more time. May went back to Brussels to seek more assurances from Europe on the Irish backstop.

On March 12, Parliament again rejected May’s deal, this time by a somewhat smaller margin. The following day, it again rejected a no-deal Brexit.

On March 14, Parliament finally approved a motion to seek an extension of the March 29 deadline, but May wasn’t through with brinkmanship. Under her motion, her unpopular deal would be put up for a third vote. If it were approved this time, she would ask for just a three-month delay to implement the agreement. If it were rejected again, the delay would be for longer. The government has wanted to avoid delaying Brexit past July, since that’s when a new EU Parliament will be seated and Britain doesn’t want to participate in elections for it. (At this point, that seems like the least of everyone’s problems.)


House Speaker John Bercow (if you’ve been watching the Commons debates, he’s the guy in the loud ties who’s always yelling “Order!” and delivering sick burns) threw a bit of a wrench in this plan by refusing to allow a third vote on the same motion. But rather than asking for the longer delay as she had promised, May asked for a short one and continued to press for a third vote. The EU said it would only approve this extension after Parliament voted for May’s deal.

On March 27, Parliament attempted to wrest control of Brexit away from May with a series of eight indicative votes on alternative Brexit scenarios ranging from revoking Article 50, to the Labour Party’s plan to keep Britain in a customs union with Europe, to a new referendum. None of these passed.

In a last-ditch effort to persuade Brexiteer critics to back her deal, May offered to resign if it were approved. On March 29, the day Brexit was supposed to be finished, a third vote on May’s deal was held. It failed. So, bright side, she gets to keep her job.

Where are we now?

The Brexit deadline has now been extended until April 12. By then, the U.K. supposedly has to choose between exiting without a deal or agreeing to a longer extension that will require it to participate in EU elections.


After its third defeat, May’s deal is almost certainly dead. There’s a possibility that Parliament could still vote in the coming days for a permanent customs union with Europe—an option that failed by a somewhat smaller margin than other scenarios in this week’s votes.
Or the government could call a second referendum, or a new general election.

Or, it’s possible that two weeks from now Parliament could still not have figured out what it wants to do. European Council President Donald Tusk has called an emergency summit for April 10 to discuss the situation. If there’s no clear way forward, the EU will have to decide whether to simply cut Britain loose—this means “no-deal”—or continue to try to work with it toward a solution.

At the moment, no Brexit scenario is popular enough to win the backing of a majority. May’s handling of the situation is deeply unpopular, but Parliament won’t boot her out or even let her resign. Remarkably, Labour—under fire not only for Corbyn’s ambivalent Brexit stance but also accusations of anti-Semitism in the party’s leadership—is even less popular. No one likes the status quo or any of the alternatives. The only thing certain now is that however the Brexit crisis ends, no one will be happy with the result.

[Gob]

Oh fucking YAWN! Could you try to find a more balanced piece?

[BoSoxGal]

What’s unbalanced about that piece? It’s a simple recitation of the facts, including the unpopularity of any Brexit solution yet proposed.

Please feel free to point out the alleged bias, with specific examples/explanations.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I think it's a pretty good summary of where we are: Keating isn't taking sides but pointing out how we got from A to B via G, Q and 17.

BSG notes that "the bigotry of some of their fellow voters" played a part: undoubtedly, but I think it's far less than some people think - just as here in the US, white nationalshits support Trump but account for some small proportion of his support. They are there and they are visible but like porcupines and Saddam Hussein, they like to appear bigger than they actually are.

[BoSoxGal]

Here’s an opinion piece on the matter:

The UK needs a year-long extension on Brexit – to really take back control
Gordon Brown
We could gain an opt-out from the European elections and take the time to debate our future
Sat 30 Mar 2019 02.00 EDT Last modified on Sat 30 Mar 2019 05.29 EDT

After a week that ended in an atmosphere of chaos, confusion, acrimony, hostility and mistrust, MPs are once again trying to construct a Brexit majority for something – or anything. Having lived for years now away from the Westminster bubble, I am clear that even if parliament struggles to an 11th-hour compromise on Monday, there will be little buy-in from the public. And even if for a moment there are sighs of relief, the country will still be as divided as ever.

Opinion poll after opinion poll has rejected not just Theresa May’s deal and the no-deal option, but the Canada, Norway, Switzerland and Efta options, the last three of which would leave Britain as a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker. And while MPs deserve credit for trying, there is unlikely to be a majority in the country for a deal cobbled together over a weekend on the basis of MPs’ third or fourth choices that could decide the next 100 years of our history.

There are some precedents from the last two centuries to guide us when there is both a standoff between government and parliament, and a deadlock within parliament itself. Ending the impasse over the Corn Laws, dealing with Irish independence, legislating the extension of the vote from 1832 onwards, and more recently dealing with the undemocratic power of the House of Lords all required the same innovative leadership and the courage to break with the past that we need today.

But from next week we face a challenge comparable to, or greater than, all of these: how we deal with both a stalemate on policy, and a complete breakdown of trust between parliament and the public. And there can be no outcome acceptable to the British people that does not find new and effective ways of engaging with them.

But as one door closes, another is opening. Last week the European council showed an openness to what we might call – if the word “meaningful” had not been so devalued – a meaningful extension: a longer negotiating period, not as a delaying tactic or for a return to vicious squabbling, but to reunite a divided country. And we should do what should have been done three years ago: establish region-by-region public hearings to allow straight talking and clear thinking about the concerns that brought about Brexit in the first place. A year’s extension would allow us to pursue a British version of Ireland’s successful experience in participatory democracy when they held citizens’ assemblies, to find common ground on deeply divisive issues in advance of a referendum.

There were many concerns raised by the British public in the 2016 EU referendum, such as the state of our manufacturing and our industrial towns, and a feeling that our politicians had let us down and had lost the plot in our post-imperial journey. But when it came to the specifics of Britain’s relationship with Europe, the issues that dominated were those of “taking back control of our borders”, and “taking back control of our laws”. These issues have been little discussed over the past three years as parliament has been engrossed in the minutiae of Brexit, and possible solutions to them need to be scrutinised in nationwide consultations in advance of any future referendum.

Options for more “control of our laws” could include parliament passing a UK law that any decision of the European court that offends our national and constitutional identity, and is thus in violation of article 4 (2) of the treaty of Lisbon, is unconstitutional. Options for more “control of our borders” could include registering migrants as they arrive, as Germany does, and imposing a time limit on any stay without gaining employment, as in Belgium. And outlawing, as France has, social dumping: the practice of paying Latvian workers only Latvian wages while working in France.

All these changes are achievable within the EU’s freedom of movement rules. After Monday a year-long extension to conduct public hearings – once at the bottom of the list of options – may not just be the best alternative to no deal, but the only alternative.

I have reason to believe that the problems raised by the European election timetable can be negotiated away by indirect elections – selecting a contingent of MPs from our own parliament – and by not participating in the election of the presidents of the European commission and parliament.

If we do not now promote the open and informed public debate that’s required, future historians will conclude that our country turned its back not only on our long history of internationalism and engagement, but also on our once globally renowned traditions of pragmatism, rationality and evolutionary progress. However, by striking out on a new path, we can still save our country from decades of recriminations and decline at home, and diminution in the eyes of the world.

• Gordon Brown was prime minister from 2007 to 2010

[MajGenl.Meade]

As well as a hasty Brexit, it's high time that English football was purged of foreign influences and returned to rationality.

The government must ban importing some of the best players in the world (foreigners every one of 'em). A small percentage of Irish, Welsh and Scots may be permitted to each English team (in strict ratio); all other players must be English.

Shirts will be renumbered 1-11 with one substitute permitted (he will wear #12). The ball must go forward one revolution at kick-off; goal kicks will be taken from the side on which the ball left play; the ball must be placed completely within the corner quadrant when taking a corner (we all know that if any part of the ball is over the corner quadrant line then it obviously is still in the field of play!); linesmen will be called linesmen again; TV must show the referee pacing off 10 yards at a free-kick so we can see he doesn't cheat by using metres; throw-in must be taken within one yard of where the ball left the pitch rather than 10 yards; commentators must stop using "ascendancy" when they mean "ascendant". [Note: if we stay in Europe, Italian and Spanish commentators who scream "Gooooooooooool" will be shot and that idiot bog-trotter who ruins La Liga games too]. Oh and all forms of second-guess instant replay to make refereeing decisions must be banned (except for goal-line technology of course which would have stopped Lampard being robbed of a goal that was so obvious we could see it was over the line from other end of Toyota Stadium; even the Germans).

Decent British players, such as Gareth Bale, must be banned from playing elsewhere as long as a vacant slot remains in an English Premier, Championship and League one er. . . league. [Note: Bale etc. would be permitted to play in the few crap Welsh teams but not in any Scottish or Irish ones].

If these sensible ideas to encourage homegrown talent are fully adopted, in a year or four England will have an international soccer team fully capable of reaching even as far as the round of 16 in world competitions.

[ex-khobar Andy]

And of course for political balance each team will comprise an outside left, an inside left, a centre forward, an inside right, an outside right, three half backs (left, centre and right), two full backs, and of course Gordon Banks without whom no team is complete. (Sadly, no team will ever be complete again . . . )

None of this striker, sweeper, midfielder, wingback (what the fuck's a wingback? Does anyone know?) nonsense. I blame Alf Ramsey.

And yes, I read that piece by Gordon Brown this morning in the Grauniad. Like many politicians of yesteryear his stature grows as we compare him with the idiots we seem to have regurgitated to political power in the last few years. For now I will exempt May from that list, because I think she had an impossible job. Brexit passed with a slim majority, thanks largely (but not solely) to the lies spread by Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage and their ilk. It's a while since I saw the numbers, but my recollection is that if a vote had been taken just of MPs, Brexit would have failed 2/3 to 1/3. So trying to herd this shambolic set into some sort of coherent approach to what is, to them, an undesirable end, was always going to be unlikely.

ETA: and BTW, Maj. Genl. - no substitutes. In my day, you broke your leg, you carried on dragging it behind you. Harumph!!!

[Lord Jim]

Options for more “control of our laws” could include parliament passing a UK law that any decision of the European court that offends our national and constitutional identity, and is thus in violation of article 4 (2) of the treaty of Lisbon, is unconstitutional. Options for more “control of our borders” could include registering migrants as they arrive, as Germany does, and imposing a time limit on any stay without gaining employment, as in Belgium. And outlawing, as France has, social dumping: the practice of paying Latvian workers only Latvian wages while working in France.

If all of that is as easy to do as Brown suggests, then why wasn't David Cameron able to get those concessions when he was trying to negociate a new agreement with the EU, rather than the crap nothing burger that he came back with?

it’s evidence that the people have become far better informed since 2016 and have changed their minds.

But the evidence suggests that minds haven't been changed, or if they have they've been changed on both sides because as I pointed our earlier, the polling shows the electorate remains just as evenly divided as it was in the run up to the first referendum, (demonstrations and petitions not withstanding):

Sat 16 Mar 2019 14.30 EDT

Exactly the same proportion of voters believe there should be a second referendum on Brexit as think the UK should leave the EU without a deal, according to the latest Opinium poll for the Observer.

The survey shows the country split down the middle, with 43% supporting a delay to Brexit in order to hold a second public vote and 43% believing the UK should simply quit without any agreement with Brussels.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... referendum

Given this kind of even division, the very strong likelihood is that a second referendum will produce not a clear mandate for either remaining in the EU or going forward with Brexit, but rather yet another low-fifties/high-forties vote split.

Which means that the very next day, which ever side loses will get to work agitating for Referendum #3...

That being said, given the complete paralysis in Westminster punting to a new referendum may ultimately be seen as the only way out, but I believe it would be a mistake to think that would be likely to produce any sort of final resolution on this...

Personally I think that given the even division in the electorate and the complete lack of courage and willingness to risk political backlash among the MPs (on both sides) what we are most likely to have for the foreseeable future is extension after extension on the Brexit date, which will produce a sort of "de facto Remain" while technically the UK will be committed to Leave...

And that situation is likely to endure until and unless there is finally some sort of sixty percent plus consensus within the public about which way to go...

[BoSoxGal]

Latest polling results discussed in this Foreign Policy article:

In or Out? In Brexit Finale, It’s No Longer Clear What Brits Want

Leavers say a revote would be undemocratic, but polls now put them in the minority.
OWEN MATTHEWS MARCH 28, 2019

Have British voters changed their minds about the wisdom of exiting the European Union? A swath of new polls—as well as an estimated million-strong anti-Brexit demonstration last weekend in London and 6 million signatures on an online petition to Parliament urging the government to cancel Brexit altogether—suggest that the tide is turning.

A comprehensive poll by John Curtice, a professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde, shows that in a new referendum on leaving the EU, 53 percent would vote to remain in the EU and 47 percent would vote to leave—a rough reversal of the 48 percent Remain to 52 percent Leave result in the 2016 plebiscite that originally mandated Brexit. Another poll by the National Centre for Social Research, known as NatCen, puts the split at 55 percent to 45 percent in favor of Remain.

While the polls are “too close for opponents of Brexit to assume that a second ballot would produce a different result,” Curtice wrote for the BBC on Tuesday, “equally, supporters of Brexit cannot say with confidence that the balance of opinion remains as it was in June 2016.”

That shift in public opinion directly challenges the premise on which Prime Minister Theresa May’s government has been pushing the House of Commons to support the deeply unpopular withdrawal agreement that May struck with Brussels last year. Failing to deliver Brexit would “break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy,” the UK government wrote in an official letter to the nearly 6 million signatories of an online petition calling for May to revoke Article 50, the mechanism by which the U.K. is due to leave the EU. “It is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.”

Insisting on the continuing legitimacy of the 2016 referendum—where 17.4 million voters supported leaving the EU—has become the keystone of all arguments for Brexit. And opponents of Brexit, including the vast crowds who filled central London on Saturday, have been denounced as enemies of democracy. “Let’s be honest—they are marching against democracy and the implementation of a democratic referendum result,” Marcus Fysh, a Conservative member of parliament, told the Telegraph. “They are trying to set up a second vote where Remain is on the ballot. A ‘final say’ is not what they want—they want to reverse the result. This is a putsch that is going on this week.”

Or as the satirical magazine Private Eye joked this week in speech bubble coming from a picture of May: “A second referendum would be a betrayal of democracy—which is why we need to have a third vote on my deal.”

Members of parliament have already rejected May’s withdrawal agreement twice, with historically huge numbers of Conservative MPs rebelling against their own party to oppose it. The opponents included both Brexit ultras who believe the deal would leave the U.K. too closely bound to the EU as well as Remain supporters who argue that the deal is far worse than continued membership. The government has hinted that it will put the deal to parliament a third time perhaps as soon as Friday—though despite strenuous efforts by May to win over hard-line Brexiteers, it is still unlikely to pass.

In that sense, Parliament’s distaste for May’s deal clearly reflects the mood in British society. The NatCen poll, conducted in February, showed that 63 percent of respondents believed the U.K. would get a bad deal from the EU—while just 6 percent thought that the outcome would be a good one. That’s a dramatic shift from just before the U.K. triggered the Article 50 process in March 2017: In February of that year, 33 percent of voters thought that May would get a good deal and 37 percent a bad one. In the most recent poll, 80 percent of Leave voters said the government had handled the Brexit negotiations badly, up from 27 percent in 2017.

This week, Parliament also wrested control of the Brexit debate from the hands of the government in order to conduct a series of indicative votes on eight possible ways forward—but it failed to assemble a majority behind any of them. The closest the House of Commons came to consensus were relatively narrow defeats for a Norway-style relationship with the EU—essentially following all of Brussels’s rules and accepting free movement of EU citizens while having no say in the making of those rules—and for passing May’s deal subject to confirmatory referendum. That confirmatory referendum plan, proposed by two MPs from the opposition Labour Party, is in fact a second referendum in disguise. A YouGov poll this month puts support for a second national vote at 50 percent for and 36 percent against, a significant shift in favor of a new referendum.

There’s a paradox at the heart of May’s government doggedly pushing its deal through rather than putting the matter to a new public vote: Remaining in the EU was the official policy of both Conservative and Labour parties for over 40 years, May herself campaigned for Remain in 2016, and over two-thirds of MPs also campaigned for and voted Remain. But if Brexit is no longer, in fact, the current will of the British people, why is May still adamant about delivering it? “The answer is very simple—failing to deliver Brexit will completely destroy the Tory party,” said one senior government official not authorized to speak on the record. Already, the hard-line pro-Brexiters of the European Research Group form “a party within a party … They already hate May for screwing up Brexit, as they see it, because she couldn’t deliver on their fantasy of all the benefits of [EU] membership without following all the rules. But if Brexit doesn’t happen, they will scream ‘Betrayal!’ And the swing to a new, [pro-Brexit] protest party would destroy our chances of coming back to power for a generation.”

In other words, despite the personal reservations of many Conservative members of Parliament, the future of their party remains inexorably shackled to the outcome of Brexit. But it’s also become painfully clear that the promises made by the Vote Leave campaign have been shown to be unacceptable to Brussels—and therefore undeliverable. Leading Brexiteers promised that leaving the EU would yield a dividend of 350 million pounds a week, about $450 million, for the struggling National Health Service, a claim that has since been shown to be false—especially because under the terms of May’s deal the U.K. must continue to pay some 40 billion pounds, about $50 billion, into EU coffers. The Brexiteer Boris Johnson also falsely warned of Turkey’s population of 80 million imminently joining the EU—and he infamously professed himself in favor of “having our cake and eating it.

In practice it is the EU that has held all the cards in the fraught three-year period since the referendum, resisting British attempts to split the unity of the EU members and standing in immovable solidarity with EU member Ireland, which has insisted that there be no hard border with British Northern Ireland—effectively locking the whole of the U.K. into a close customs union with the EU whether Parliament wants it or not.

May herself told party members that she would resign if they voted for her deal—but even that promise is unlikely to get enough of her fractious colleagues to back her. “Everyone knows that she’s going to go soon anyway, so the promise to fall on her sword rings pretty hollow,” said one Conservative MP who did not wish to jeopardize his government position by speaking out against his leader on the record. “The problem is I don’t see how a new leader will change much … and the public will punish us at the polls for indulging in a leadership contest in the middle of a national crisis.”

While Parliament dithers and May scrambles to assemble a majority for her deal, the clock is ticking. According to the terms of Article 50 of the EU Constitution—and indeed by an as yet unamended U.K. law—Britain is due to leave the EU on Friday, March 29. Brussels has given May a short de facto extension until April 12 to get her deal over the line—or apply for a much longer extension of up to a year that would entail Britain participating in EU parliamentary elections in May. But in order to agree, Brussels has insisted that the U.K. must offer a good reason for the delay, such as general election or a second referendum. “Brussels will be dictating the political processes of the UK,” grumbled the Conservative MP. “Doesn’t look much like taking back control to me.”

On Wednesday, European Council President Donald Tusk clearly signaled that the EU was firmly behind the British citizens who wish to remain. “You cannot betray the 6 million people who signed the petition to revoke article 50, the 1 million people who marched for a people’s vote, or the increasing majority of people who want to remain in the European Union,” Tusk told the European Council. “We should be open to a long extension if the U.K. wishes to rethink its Brexit strategy.”

With Theresa May herself ruling out crashing out of the EU with no deal—another turnaround from months of threatening exactly that outcome—it looks like the Brexit drama is set to run and run.

I’ve already posted an article discussing the huge negative economic impact that the looming Brexit cloud is having on the U.K. economy, which I think we can reasonably assume will continue to be a major issue if it continues to ‘run and run’ - not to mention, how many other critical issues important to the citizens are stalled due to the focus on this insanity? It’s tragic because it’s all politics at this point - Tories who didn’t even support Brexit in 2016 are adamant about pushing it forward to save their our political skins. The conservatives in the U.K. parliament are suffering the same delusional disorder as the right in the US Congress as they cleave to Trump.

[liberty]

I admit that I am not very knowledgeable of this brexit thing so I would like to ask the following questions:

Why would it be such economic disaster for the Brits to choose independence over remaining in the EU. Doesn’t the EU practice free trade? Would British exports be denied entry into Europe?

And why is British independence bigoted and racist? Aren’t all the member nations of the EU basically honkey crackers?

[rubato]

People who voted for Brexit haven't figured out that all trade requires a loss of autonomy. In fact, the modern world requires more, and more intimate, agreements even beyond trade, and those agreements cannot be dictated and they all involve some loss of autonomy. The UK is not gaining freedom by Brexit. It is submitting to rules that they will no longer have any say in. At all.

When we sold electronic materials into different market we had to conform to their rules. China, Japan, Europe, Korea and Taiwan all had rules about which solvents were acceptable and which were forbidden. We had been using MIBK as a solvent of choice for a long time but when Europe and shortly after Japan ruled it out we spent a lot of time and money, millions of dollars, finding alternatives and collecting data that the films met our customers quality requirements.


We had to conform to IATA safety rules for shipping dangerous goods by air. One requirement was that all of the chemists making materials being shipped be certified as"Dangerous Goods Specialists" and re-certified every other year.

IATA = The international Air Transport Authority ( Located in Canadia)

yrs,
rubato

[ex-khobar Andy]

We had to conform to IATA safety rules for shipping dangerous goods by air. One requirement was that all of the chemists making materials being shipped be certified as"Dangerous Goods Specialists" and re-certified every other year.

Don't understand this. Everyone who ships dangerous goods internationally has to conform to IATA regs, so your first sentence is nothing more than a truism. Within the US it's FAA - regulations are broadly similar. If all of the chemists making materials being shipped had to be certified, that was your company's requirement, not IATA's . IATA doesn't give a fuck about the chemists who make the stuff; just that whoever makes the shipment (I.e., fills out the bill of lading) knows what he or she is doing and packages and ships the goods accordingly. For example some items are forbidden from passenger aircraft and some may not be shipped by air at all but can only be shipped using placarded ground transportation. And the carrier* HazMat folks will make doubly sure that the shipment is as described and properly packaged, documented and labelled.

*Ask me about shipping explosives out of Tel Aviv to USA, on an El Al 747. Can be done if you talk to the right people.

[Gob]

Why would it be such economic disaster for the Brits to choose independence over remaining in the EU.

It wouldn't.

Doesn’t the EU practice free trade?

It trades with the rest of the world under WTO rues, as would the UK post Brexit.

Would British exports be denied entry into Europe?

No. The EU relies on the UK for numerous imports.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

And why is British independence bigoted and racist?

Because small minded people have no other response but to paint it so.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Why would it be such economic disaster for the Brits to choose independence over remaining in the EU.

It wouldn't. True in the long term sense but it will take years to get systems (such as customs inspections and laws) in place and during that time there will be chaos and uncertainty both of which are major turnoffs for business. In particular Britain's reputation as a safe and even staid place to handle capital will take a beating.

Doesn’t the EU practice free trade?

It trades with the rest of the world under WTO rues, as would the UK post Brexit. True of course; but I think that there will be those within Europe who will try to buy EU where they can.

Would British exports be denied entry into Europe?

No. The EU relies on the UK for numerous imports. True but see above. If tariffs are high they will have the desired effect. That's why it's important to have a deal.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

And why is British independence bigoted and racist?

Because small minded people have no other response but to paint it so. Just as true as "All Trump supporters are racists and bigots."

[BoSoxGal]

London (CNN Business)It's official: The British government's plan for leaving the European Union will be bad for the economy.

The government published a report Wednesday that outlines the economic costs associated with a range of Brexit scenarios. The Bank of England followed later in the day with its own assessment.

The United Kingdom would be worse off under all scenarios studied by the government. Officials did not estimate the precise impact of the deal Prime Minister Theresa May has negotiated with the European Union, but even in the best case it too will mean a weaker economy than remaining in the bloc.

"It is true that the economy will be very slightly smaller, but if we do the deal in the way that the prime minister has set out and negotiated, that impact will be entirely manageable," UK Treasury chief Philip Hammond told the BBC.

The official estimates underscore the harsh economic reality of Brexit: Under any scenario, leaving the European Union will make Britain poorer than staying in.
"If you look purely at the economics, remaining in the single market would give us an economic advantage," Hammond said.

The Bank of England said that May's plan could result in new trade barriers that would cause the UK economy to be 0.75% smaller than currently forecast in 2023. If she can negotiate a future trade relationship with the European Union that does not include customs checks or regulatory barriers, the economy could be 1.75% larger.

(article from November 2018)

Luckily we have economic intellectuals like Gob to set us straight where the U.K. government and Bank of England (and many economists there and here) have it all wrong.

Here’s a Bloomberg (lefty libtards!) article that details the damages already occurred in the U.K. economy while Brexit has been looming:

Brexit economic impacts thus far

[rubato]

Don't understand this. Everyone who ships dangerous goods internationally has to conform to IATA regs, so your first sentence is nothing more than a truism. Within the US it's FAA - regulations are broadly similar. If all of the chemists making materials being shipped had to be certified, that was your company's requirement, not IATA's . ... " .

The point is that international trade requires a loss of autonomy. The more complex and the more intimate our relations are with other countries the more autonomy we give up. IATA gave us (and everyone else) the option that our shipping person be IATA certified OR the chemist who puts the material in the bottle be certified. When we lost a shipping clerk who was an IATA dangerous goods specialist he was replaced with someone who was not and was, ahem, challenged to pass the test, forcing the issue.



yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

Personally, I completely reject the "Trump Supporter/Brexit Supporter" equivalence that many Brexit opponents both in this country and in the UK seem to find so attractive. (To me, it seems about a wrong-headed as the attempts Strop has made from time to time to try to lump Trump together with George W. Bush or even Mr. Reagan...)

It's way too facile...

The fact of the matter is that there are rules that the UK has to accept as a member of the EU that the overwhelming majority of Americans would never put up with for five minutes...

Aside from a tiny sliver of folks on the far left radical fringe, nobody in this country, Trump supporter or Trump opponent, Republican, Democrat or Independent would ever accept the idea of an international court being able to over rule our Supreme Court, for example...(There would be even less support for that in this country than there is for abolishing the private healthcare system...)

In terms of political tactics, there are also significant differences...

Fear-mongering has always been the centerpiece of the Trump political strategy; without it he couldn't survive. In the case of Brexit, while both sides have engaged in a degree of fear-mongering the clear advantage in that regard is with the Remain folks, who were predicting the apocalypse if Brexit passed...

(In some cases literally; at one point David Cameron actually went so far as to predict that Britain leaving the EU would result in WW III... )

[RayThom]

A few of my English cousins have indicated that there were many "blue collar, pub crawling" types who voted for Brexit mainly due to their disdain for the government's laissez-faire approach to immigration -- and mostly directed at Pakistanis who, by and large -- are on the dole. They somehow thought a vote for Brexit would control the immigration problem. Almost three years later they realize how wrong they were. Plus, their own livelihood may very well be impacted with Brexit implementation.

Apparently, if another vote were to be scheduled, there would be many ex-Brexiteers now voting to stay. Unfortunately, they have come to realize, no doubt too late, that a reversal may not be feasible.

Two well seasoned axioms come to mind: damned if you do and damned if you don't. And, be careful what you wish for...

[ex-khobar Andy]

Per LJ:

Aside from a tiny sliver of folks on the far left radical fringe, nobody in this country, Trump supporter or Trump opponent, Republican, Democrat or Independent would ever accept the idea of an international court being able to over rule our Supreme Court, for example...(There would be even less support for that in this country than there is for abolishing the private healthcare system...)

You have already accepted (well, most of the US) that a supra state court (SCOTUS) can over-ride the state courts. You could argue that because US citizens have a say in the makeup of the court via their votes for President, SCOTUS is a quasi democratic entity - which it is. So too is the European Court via the European Parliament. It was never intended (well, maybe by some it was) to be a United States of Europe but it's not a bad analogy if not pushed too far.