Brexit: Now What? Part III

[McHrozni]

In the case of Theresa May's plans for Brexit, perhaps you're overthinking it. I don't think it's part of a plan to take the UK to the brink and then roll back to a more sensible plan. Instead I think she has dogmatically fixed on a course of action and is determined to pursue it come hell or high water.

Maybe, but Theresa May campaigned for Bremain. What made her switch to such a self-destructive dogma? If she is indeed focused on a diamond-hard Brexit for whatever reason, she either changed opinion entirely, or lied about her personal convictions during the campaign for political points.

I find the second variant to be more likely. If it is correct she is at least capable of lying about what she wants in order to get it.

In short, it could be she has no sensible plan and is just following a dogma, but I find it unlikely.

I suspect (but have no evidence to support my suspicions) that Whitehall mandarins were working on all kinds of scenarios before and after the Brexit vote which likely involved different combinations of being in and out of various institutions (EEA, Council of Europe and so forth). Only one of these scenarios has become government policy (Hard Brexit) and maybe they couldn't construct a "winning" version of that scenario.

Then again it could just be that May, Fox, Davis and Johnson have thrown all the carefully laid plans in the bin and replaced them with the letter to Santa

The question then becomes why did the government chose that option and not some other option? If there were winning - or at least less bad - scenarios that would enable the government to at least mitigate the damage, it would be much more sensible to follow one of those. All forms of Brexit are bad, and they picked the worst one. Why?

There are two reasons I can think of:

1. This option makes it more likely they will dominate the elections for years to come or
2. The option was chosen in order to sabotage Brexit from the inside. They calculated Labour would oppose their destructive approach and a rebellion from a few Tory MPs would make the A50 bill impossible to pass. The plan backfired, because Labour imposed the three-lined whip to pass the amendment.

What do you think? Was there a third option that I'm missing?

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yeah, my suggestion was that any Soft Brexit plan concocted prior to the Brexit referendum (and remember, it's only my suggestion that any such plan existed - there's no evidence for it) is now completely dead in the water thanks to Theresa May's insistence on an out-out-out diamond-hard Brexit.

IMO there is no tactic. Theresa May is determined that there will be a diamond-Hard Brexit and damn the consequences.

I don't think it's even that complicated. The primary over-riding must be done at all costs no excuses no discussion no quarter demand of Brexiteers was to get immigration down. Any plan to remain in the EU/EEA, soft Brexit, whatever doesn't and can't achieve that.

So... the whole place burns.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I disagree on point 2. The EU is entitled to say the UK : "well come back to properly present us an parliament approved article 50 , no negotiation until then".

And that would stop all the nice article you linked right in its track.

For Article 50 I don't think the EU does have that power. It is the national government that triggers it and the EU accept it. The question of whether the Government have the authority to trigger Art 50 is an internal one for the UK.

If the national government can't agree exit terms that is a different and separate issue.

 

[McHrozni]

For Article 50 I don't think the EU does have that power. It is the national government that triggers it and the EU accept it. The question of whether the Government have the authority to trigger Art 50 is an internal one for the UK.

If the national government can't agree exit terms that is a different and separate issue.

A50 explicitly demands the country invoking it ensures it is in line with it's own constitutional requirements. EU can certainly demand UK clears up any confusion about the matter before the article is considered triggered.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

I don't think it's even that complicated. The primary over-riding must be done at all costs no excuses no discussion no quarter demand of Brexiteers was to get immigration down. Any plan to remain in the EU/EEA, soft Brexit, whatever doesn't and can't achieve that.

There's a better way to do it - do a series of missteps with your economy to bring your growth down. That will scare away economic migrants, and it should be a lot less painful than Brexit.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A50 explicitly demands the country invoking it ensures it is in line with it's own constitutional requirements. EU can certainly demand UK clears up any confusion about the matter before the article is considered triggered.

McHrozni

Perhaps but there appears to be no confusion about the matter. Triggering Article 50 and agreeing the exit terms to me seem clearly disconnected. That seems to be the whole point of the 2 year notice period.

 

[McHrozni]

Perhaps but there appears to be no confusion about the matter. Triggering Article 50 and agreeing the exit terms to me seem clearly disconnected. That seems to be the whole point of the 2 year notice period.

That would be up to the courts to decide. Certainly consensus among EU members would make it possible to Bremain.

Knowing this could happen is another powerful tool for EU negotiators. They can refuse to give any concessions without significantly greater sacrifices on behalf of UK. Either EU obtains the better deal by far, or else UK remains in EU, humiliated.
They will likely do this in any case, but in this case they have a strong safety net as well. So does UK.

McHrozni

 

[Tolls]

Maybe, but Theresa May campaigned for Bremain. What made her switch to such a self-destructive dogma?

You forgot to put "campaigned" in quotes. She was almost invisible.

I don't think it's even that complicated. The primary over-riding must be done at all costs no excuses no discussion no quarter demand of Brexiteers was to get immigration down. Any plan to remain in the EU/EEA, soft Brexit, whatever doesn't and can't achieve that.

So... the whole place burns.

This here. May has been smarting ever since her failure to reduce immigration as home secretary. So now she has a chance to fulfil all that as her legacy, come hell or high water. Of course, this also means (as you say) that her legacy will also be a pyre.

 

[McHrozni]

You forgot to put "campaigned" in quotes. She was almost invisible.

Okay, sure. But this still shows she is able to officially adopt a position that is different from her true opinions and goals.

This here. May has been smarting ever since her failure to reduce immigration as home secretary. So now she has a chance to fulfil all that as her legacy, come hell or high water. Of course, this also means (as you say) that her legacy will also be a pyre.

Hm. This is possible - she wants to reduce immigration, no matter what, and will take the country down with it if there is no other way. Single-issue politics are always the worst.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Maybe, but Theresa May campaigned for Bremain. What made her switch to such a self-destructive dogma? If she is indeed focused on a diamond-hard Brexit for whatever reason, she either changed opinion entirely, or lied about her personal convictions during the campaign for political points.

I find the second variant to be more likely. If it is correct she is at least capable of lying about what she wants in order to get it.

Yes, I think she took a politically (mis)calculated position to support Remain because she thought that if she didn't and we Remained then she would lose position.

In short, it could be she has no sensible plan and is just following a dogma, but I find it unlikely.

I think perhaps that Archie Gemmill Goal and Tolls have identified one major factor. Theresa May is smarting about her failure to control immigration and is now on a course to address that come what may.

That doesn't explain her desire to be out of the Council of Europe so I suspect that there is a "sovereignty" string in there as well.

The question then becomes why did the government chose that option and not some other option? If there were winning - or at least less bad - scenarios that would enable the government to at least mitigate the damage, it would be much more sensible to follow one of those. All forms of Brexit are bad, and they picked the worst one. Why?

Because it's the form of Brexit which keeps the rank and file of the Conservative Party happy, it's the form of Brexit which (theoretically - we'll see what actually happens) allows immigration to be controlled and it returns sovereignty to the Government.

 

[McHrozni]

I think perhaps that Archie Gemmill Goal and Tolls have identified one major factor. Theresa May is smarting about her failure to control immigration and is now on a course to address that come what may.

That doesn't explain her desire to be out of the Council of Europe so I suspect that there is a "sovereignty" string in there as well.

Maybe. If so she is either petty beyond belief, or a downright xenophobe.

A true example of who not to pick for PM.

Because it's the form of Brexit which keeps the rank and file of the Conservative Party happy, it's the form of Brexit which (theoretically - we'll see what actually happens) allows immigration to be controlled and it returns sovereignty to the Government.

By sovereignty to the Government you mean the PM and the cabinet, and not the Parliament, I take it?

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Maybe. If so she is either petty beyond belief, or a downright xenophobe.

A true example of who not to pick for PM.

IMO a combination of the two and tbh she became PM by default.

By sovereignty to the Government you mean the PM and the cabinet, and not the Parliament, I take it?

McHrozni

I'm not entirely sure what they mean when they say sovereignty because any international agreement is a "loss of sovereignty" to a certain extent because it curtails one or both parties in acting exactly as they please. I don't think they're advocating for an international free for all.

I think that there are, from a Conservative Party point of view, a few hot buttons where Europe is more liberal than the Tories are happy with and IMO it generally comes down to human rights they would rather curtail.

 

[McHrozni]

IMO a combination of the two and tbh she became PM by default.

Yeah. You're screwed.

I'm not entirely sure what they mean when they say sovereignty because any international agreement is a "loss of sovereignty" to a certain extent because it curtails one or both parties in acting exactly as they please. I don't think they're advocating for an international free for all.

In other words, it's a buzzword used to rally the idiot vote. Is that an accurate description?

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

The first long-lasting hit from Brexit is here, AIG is moving it's EU and Swiss operations to Luxembourg.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...eu-departure-leave-uk-insurance-a7619806.html

The move is expected to take up to two years. If AIG is representative of what will happen, expect UK to pay the price of a diamond-hard Brexit regardless of the deal it gets.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

The first long-lasting hit from Brexit is here, AIG is moving it's EU and Swiss operations to Luxembourg.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...eu-departure-leave-uk-insurance-a7619806.html

The move is expected to take up to two years. If AIG is representative of what will happen, expect UK to pay the price of a diamond-hard Brexit regardless of the deal it gets.

McHrozni

[Brexiteer]That's good news, we're too dependent on the financial services industry and they were responsible for the 2008 crash so we're better off shot of them.

And in any case they're only "planning" to do so - won't believe it until they actually do it.[/Brexiteer]

But yes the economic effects of Brexit will be profound.

 

[Klimax]

Personally I don't think that there is a plan to make Brexit as painful as possible. I think there is a plan to have an out-out-out diamond-Hard Brexit and if pain is the result then so be it. At that point the Dunkirk spirit will be invoked - so I think the cause and effect are the other way around.



In the past I have been (IMO rightly) criticised for overthinking Corbyn's support for Brexit. I suggested that from his perspective it's the first step in plan to implement a workers' utopia. It's been pointed out that perhaps it's just a case of "EU is face of capitalism - EU bad - leave EU" and I now concede that this simpler view is most likely correct.

In the case of Theresa May's plans for Brexit, perhaps you're overthinking it. I don't think it's part of a plan to take the UK to the brink and then roll back to a more sensible plan. Instead I think she has dogmatically fixed on a course of action and is determined to pursue it come hell or high water.



I suspect (but have no evidence to support my suspicions) that Whitehall mandarins were working on all kinds of scenarios before and after the Brexit vote which likely involved different combinations of being in and out of various institutions (EEA, Council of Europe and so forth). Only one of these scenarios has become government policy (Hard Brexit) and maybe they couldn't construct a "winning" version of that scenario.

Then again it could just be that May, Fox, Davis and Johnson have thrown all the carefully laid plans in the bin and replaced them with the letter to Santa

Letter to Santa? More like letter to Faust, with home number being 666...

 

[Planigale]

Maybe, but Theresa May campaigned for Bremain. What made her switch to such a self-destructive dogma? If she is indeed focused on a diamond-hard Brexit for whatever reason, she either changed opinion entirely, or lied about her personal convictions during the campaign for political points.

I find the second variant to be more likely. If it is correct she is at least capable of lying about what she wants in order to get it.

In short, it could be she has no sensible plan and is just following a dogma, but I find it unlikely.



The question then becomes why did the government chose that option and not some other option? If there were winning - or at least less bad - scenarios that would enable the government to at least mitigate the damage, it would be much more sensible to follow one of those. All forms of Brexit are bad, and they picked the worst one. Why?

There are two reasons I can think of:

1. This option makes it more likely they will dominate the elections for years to come or
2. The option was chosen in order to sabotage Brexit from the inside. They calculated Labour would oppose their destructive approach and a rebellion from a few Tory MPs would make the A50 bill impossible to pass. The plan backfired, because Labour imposed the three-lined whip to pass the amendment.

What do you think? Was there a third option that I'm missing?

McHrozni

I think politically May had no choice. She had to commit to a hard Brexit, the Brexiteers had to lead the negotiations. If they conclude the only practical option is a soft Brexit, then this will be believable. Any alternative would leave UKIP etc. arguing that more (greater?) Brexit was needed. They have to go go for the greatest Brexit possible then pull back to the practical.

 

[McHrozni]

I think politically May had no choice. She had to commit to a hard Brexit, the Brexiteers had to lead the negotiations. If they conclude the only practical option is a soft Brexit, then this will be believable. Any alternative would leave UKIP etc. arguing that more (greater?) Brexit was needed. They have to go go for the greatest Brexit possible then pull back to the practical.

This is ... possible, yes. I proposed she did that for Bremainers, but yes, it could be she did so for Brexiteers.

Given the rhetoric of the past few months, pulling back may not be very practical, and the risk of a diamond-hard Brexit with punitive actions by EU is quite real.

Boris Johnson just rejected any payments into EU budget again. Giving cash to EU is just about the only leverage UK has at this point. Does he really think he can extract concessions without giving anything in return?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39217075

McHrozni

 

[MCel58]

I am sure the Brexiteers will dismiss this article and the statement by the IFS as just more project fear. However, it looks like various chickens are beginning to come home to roost. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...term=216680&subid=6687085&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

 

[McHrozni]

I am sure the Brexiteers will dismiss this article and the statement by the IFS as just more project fear. However, it looks like various chickens are beginning to come home to roost. https://www.theguardian.com/busines...term=216680&subid=6687085&CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

The IFS warning on incomes follows the claim earlier on Thursday by the Resolution Foundation that the UK is in the midst of the worst decade for pay growth since the Napoleonic wars of 1803–1815.

Brexit is worse for UK workers than either of the World Wars was. Would Brits still vote for Brexit if they knew this would happen?

McHrozni