Brexit

[britbox]

There is no argument in that article that it means cuts.

I'll quote from the actual article you posted:

In a no-deal planning notice published earlier this year, the government pledged to step in to fill gaps left by the withdrawal of EU funds.

So, Chris, I'll ask you what arguments are there that Brexit means cuts to EU Conservation Projects in British Territories? None are presented.

 

[Chris Koziarz]

There is no argument in that article that it means cuts.

I'll quote from the actual article you posted:

In a no-deal planning notice published earlier this year, the government pledged to step in to fill gaps left by the withdrawal of EU funds.

So, Chris, I'll ask you what arguments are there that Brexit means cuts to EU Conservation Projects in British Territories? None are presented.

The statement you quote herein, taken out of context, contradicts the general message of the article which is:
- Eu-funded grants for Falkland Island penguin protection programs, such as LIFE & BEST, will cease
- There is fear that said programs will be discontinued as a consequence.

The context of your quote (if you read the whole paragraph concerned) is: in case of the deal on brexit, "all EU environmental funding up to 2020 will continue". That's because the deal maintains the economic ties until 2020.
Now in case of no deal, I assume the pledge by UK govs, to "fill the gap" is about that time period, until 2020 only, although it's not clearly stated (the article is poorly written, also in other ways), so assuming that, there is still uncertainty beyond 2020.

In general, I think in tackling any environmental issues, including this one, human cooperation is needed. Sadly, cooperation is not in the agenda when brexit is concerned, and EU is collapsing. So all env issues surrounding EU will suffer.

 

[britbox]

First, it's unlikely the "Deal" in its current format will get through Parliament... and it's pretty clear that no commitments on many issues can be made until Brexit is resolved one way or another. That doesn't mean that penguins will suffer... it means no financial commitments can be made until Brexit is resolved... not just on environmental issues... pretty much everything!

As for leaving... what we are talking about (or should be talking about) is the ultimate sovereignty of decision making.

By the way, with the prospect of a no-deal departure (which I doubt will actually happen)... pressure is now being ramped up by German manufacturers... but either way, whatever deal is done, long-term chaos suits nobody... and after a period of short-term chaos, cooler heads will prevail (driven by the private sector) and things will start getting done for the mutual benefit of both parties.

 

[britbox]

Theresa May has pretty much zero chance of getting that deal through Parliament as it stands. What a mess.

So, the options look grim.

May's Deal... This is a damn awful deal. If she can take the Backstop out at the 11th hour... she might have a chance of squeezing it through. It's still not a good deal but it's better than the current one.

No Deal... At this point in time, this is not really a good option. No Deal should have been the default negotiating position two years ago with a view to striking a better deal. But moving to it at this stage, is going to cause a lot of chaos because a large portion of business are unprepared.

Second Referendum... this will cause long term political chaos and possibly extensive civil unrest. I'm not convinced that Remain would win either. It's also not going to happen in time unless they revoke Article 50... which would also cause chaos.

General Election... Corbyn wants to deliver Brexit - it's pretty clear without him saying it outright. His members are strongly pro-remain and his voters are pro-remain (although to a lesser extent than the membership). The Labour Party are in as much of a mess as the conservatives over this. if there was an election, I actually believe Conservatives would probably win on the basis that a lot of Lab will vote LibDem.

Crazy times ahead.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

So, May loses the deal, but wins in the no-confidence motion. This is probably the worst combination of results. If either result was the other way it would have been good for her.

Looks like now a second referendum will happen. Not sure how the result would turn out to be if it was held.

But, if a bad deal gets passed, Scotland is sure to break away.

 

[britbox]

So, May loses the deal, but wins in the no-confidence motion. This is probably the worst combination of results. If either result was the other way it would have been good for her.

Looks like now a second referendum will happen. Not sure how the result would turn out to be if it was held.

But, if a bad deal gets passed, Scotland is sure to break away.

I don't think Scotland is sure to break away because if you think the UK leaving the EU is complicated then rest assured the Scots leaving the UK and then trying to join the EU independently will be fraught with issues... and they will have to apply to join the EU - they don't become part of it by default. There would be two massive negotiations to be had.

New EU countries need to adopt the Euro. The Scots would have to ditch the pound and enter the Eurozone. That's not looking a good choice as it stands.

Bear in mind a few things...

The Scots voted by over 10% to remain part of the UK rather than seek independence. When they had this vote, oil prices were much higher than they are now. They would have to do some major economic re-evaluations as part of their manifesto on another leave the UK vote.

They voted by a wider margin to remain in the EU... but... and this is important - as part of the United Kingdom. Likewise Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU as part of the United Kingdom.

There is not much chance that Northern Irish unionists would vote to remain in the EU if it meant leaving the UK. Union is what they stand for. If you posed the question, "Leave the EU and remain part of the UK" or "Remain in the EU and Leave the UK" then I'd bet my house that Northern Ireland would vote Leave EU in that circumstance rather than the current Remain choice.

The Scottish vote would be less cut and dried than the Northern Irish one, but there is still quite a strong unionist tradition.

Also remember that Scotland's trade with the rest of the UK dwarfs it's trade with the EU.

Since the Scottish referendum, the Scottish National Party (SNP) lost 21 seats in the UK Parliament and 6 seats in the Scottish Parliament. This would suggest that support for Scottish Nationalism is decreasing, not increasing. Of course, this was before Brexit rather than after.

Then we look at sovereignty. This is the biggest issue for me in why I want the UK to leave the EU. So you might ask why don't I think this works with the Scottish question?

In my opinion, it's not comparing like with like. The EU is on a project to centralise power... the UK is de-centralising power. The Scots got a Parliament which gets more powers year by year... The EU is on a march to slowly grab more power year in year out from it's member states. Tax harmonisation? It will happen... An EU Army... It will happen Individual Member State Vetos... slowly being eroded.

So, in short... no way is it a dead cert that Scotland will vote to leave the UK and then vote to join the EU as a separate entity.

 

[britbox]

So, May loses the deal, but wins in the no-confidence motion. This is probably the worst combination of results. If either result was the other way it would have been good for her.

Looks like now a second referendum will happen. Not sure how the result would turn out to be if it was held.

But, if a bad deal gets passed, Scotland is sure to break away.

I think right now, the second referendum isn't quite as likely as some of the coverage it's been getting suggests.

Why?

Right now, there are only about 70+ MPs who are committed to calling for it. I do think it's Labour's last roll of the dice, so that could change very quickly... but...

a) What would the question be?

Leave the EU or Remain? We already had that question...

Leave on May's deal or Remain? That's not really viable and would cause outrage, seeing as most Brexiteers don't regard May's deal (in its current format as Brexit)

Leave on WTO terms or Remain? Large sections of parliament are already trying to put the WTO option out of orbit, so this would just create more chaos... so it would be a vote for more of the same deadlock in parliament.

b) It would be an almighty blow to democracy and a large part of the populace would never forgive the politicians for bringing it back to the table. They'd already instructed Parliament on what they wanted and had been told prior to the vote that the result would be carried by Parliament.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

It is foolish to create a referendum where people vote on the details of the deals. That is essentially making people do the work of the government. I agree that they should not go for a second referendum.

But, what happens if no deal is reached by end of March? Is not that a deadline by which some default action kicks in?

 

[britbox]

It is foolish to create a referendum where people vote on the details of the deals. That is essentially making people do the work of the government. I agree that they should not go for a second referendum.

But, what happens if no deal is reached by end of March? Is not that a deadline by which some default action kicks in?

As it stands, the UK leaves the EU with no deal. There will be a deal of sorts though... even if it's on basic WTO type terms. That kind of deal doesn't suit the UK or the EU. There may be an extension of Article 50 (the date) although there is no legal precedent for doing this right now.

May is still hammering away with this current deal trying to get the numbers together. As it stands, there is highly unlikely to be any major amendments to that deal other than some of the language before she puts it back to Parliament. She's got a big task on her hands.

The Conservatives are deeply divided over it, but the media seems to be overlooking the fact that this whole thing is causing major internal divisions in the Labour Party... really bitter infighting.

 

[britbox]

By the way, the EU negotiators must be laughing at the way all this has been conducted. All their internal plans and discussions are behind closed doors and not available for public consumption (much like most EU decision making) while the UK Parliament are discussing everything in plain sight, squabbling like 3 year old children.

Imagine if you were buying a car and the car salesman knew in advance that you were preparing to rule out not leaving the showroom without a purchase (no deal) and got to hear your family discussing what you were wanting to do in plain sight!

You have to be prepared or at least be perceived to be prepared to walk away without a deal or you'll get very little movement back in return. Simple logic eh?

 

[Federberg]

In a fantasy world maybe. But as I've told you all along, the EU has an incentive to make any exit as unpleasant as possible. It's existential for them. All those Brexiters making claims about having their cake and eating it were lying, and they knew they were lying. The chickens are simply coming home to roost that's all

 

[britbox]

In a fantasy world maybe. But as I've told you all along, the EU has an incentive to make any exit as unpleasant as possible. It's existential for them. All those Brexiters making claims about having their cake and eating it were lying, and they knew they were lying. The chickens are simply coming home to roost that's all

I think most people were aware it was a rocky ride out. The entire population was leafleted informing them as such even before the referendum.

Still, that doesn't hide the fact that May's negotiating strategy has been little short of disastrous. A Canada++++ was on the table a long time ago according to David Davis and Donald Tusk. Davis wanted to pursue that road and then negotiate to swap in parts of other existing EU trade deals... meaning that a large part of the deal would have been based on previous EU arrangements that had been negotiated before in other agreements... and then negotiate additional elements.

May decided to override the Brexit office, hence all the resignations and follow her own nose, which was largely focusing on a Remain Minus deal. "This is the Brexit I want" she said. Problem is no fucker else did and yet she is still pursuing it... even now.

Yes, the EU want to make this difficult but they won't want a final solution that is punitive to their own members... at least not beyond the short term. It's also going to have a lot of internal issues to deal with on the horizon.

 

[Federberg]

There is no solution with Britain leaving that is going to be a positive for the EU. Their calculation is not about mitigating the specific adverse impacts a Brexit will have on the EU economy. They have far more significant concerns than that. I'm still not sure you get it. The next most likely country to try to leave is Italy. If Italy were to leave and re-denominate their multi-trillion euro debt, there wouldn't just be an EU economic disaster, there would likely be a global depression, so again... I repeat, they'll take whatever pain they have to, to dissuade other countries from going down this sorry path.

PS,, I'm not sitting here trying to defend Theresa May. That would be a fools errand

 

[britbox]

There is no solution with Britain leaving that is going to be a positive for the EU.

Absolutely agree. But unless they can stop Brexit, and let's be frank - there are a lot of forces working to do just that, then at some point some sense of realpolitik kicks in

Their calculation is not about mitigating the specific adverse impacts a Brexit will have on the EU economy. They have far more significant concerns than that. I'm still not sure you get it. The next most likely country to try to leave is Italy. If Italy were to leave and re-denominate their multi-trillion euro debt, there wouldn't just be an EU economic disaster, there would likely be a global depression, so again... I repeat, they'll take whatever pain they have to, to dissuade other countries from going down this sorry path.

I do mate. I've said that the Eurozone is a ticking timebomb on numerous occasions... and the effects of a disaster would permeate to the wider EU...

The west as we know it is a ticking timebomb in any event and I think we both agreed that the next financial crisis would make the 2008 one look like a picnic.

We're already seeing billions moving from Italy into German banks.

The EU project will either implode completely or they'll have to restructure completely into different tiers of membership. I'm preferring the UK get out now while it can.

PS,, I'm not sitting here trying to defend Theresa May. That would be a fools errand

 

[Federberg]

I think you know that I've always said that the EU as is currently constituted looks infeasible in the long term. There has to be more democratic accountability surrounding the central bureaucracy. There has to be some sort of fiscal union enabling intra-country transfers etc. I don't see how that will be acceptable to the broad majority of countries. The tragedy for me is that the UK was in the perfect situation. A part of the economic union without surrendering our currency. Able to affect legislation that... and this is the critical point... whether or not the UK remains in or not will continue to greatly impact the UK. Brexit makes no sense under current circumstances, and the bigger emerging market economies become the less relevant the UK will be once it's out of the EU. It is endlessly ironic to me that the Trump Administration by virtue of it's very existence has completely smashed any fantasies that an Anglo-Atlantic alliance might be a viable alternative. I don't disagree with you about the EU's shortcomings, I disagree about what the optimal mitigation should be for the UK

 

[britbox]

I think you know that I've always said that the EU as is currently constituted looks infeasible in the long term. There has to be more democratic accountability surrounding the central bureaucracy. There has to be some sort of fiscal union enabling intra-country transfers etc. I don't see how that will be acceptable to the broad majority of countries. The tragedy for me is that the UK was in the perfect situation. A part of the economic union without surrendering our currency. Able to affect legislation that... and this is the critical point... whether or not the UK remains in or not will continue to greatly impact the UK. Brexit makes no sense under current circumstances, and the bigger emerging market economies become the less relevant the UK will be once it's out of the EU. It is endlessly ironic to me that the Trump Administration by virtue of it's very existence has completely smashed any fantasies that an Anglo-Atlantic alliance might be a viable alternative. I don't disagree with you about the EU's shortcomings, I disagree about what the optimal mitigation should be for the UK

I don't think we're far apart on much of this, although like you said I think the differences are optimal mitigation and for me, sovereign accountability and transparency. Without the latter you're missing a vital cornerstone of real democracy.

The other big issue for me is where the EU is heading. It's OK voting for Remain and saying Leavers don't know what they voted for (I'm not levelling that at you, more as a general observation of arguments I've heard) but in reality, Remainers don't really know what they are voting for either... the EU is not a static project - it's moving toward a Federal Superstate and all the pillars that go with it. Federal Superstates of different cultures, languages and values are doomed to fail. History tells us this over and over again.

A multi-tiered multi-speed Europe might work but the direction it's currently going won't. The Eurozone will likely implode in its current format (only a matter of time IMO), the EU executives ignorance of local concerns and a growing culture of blaming the EU for everything will permeate into the rise of far left and far right groups all around the continent.

I don't think the EU has been bad for the UK to date. I don't hate the EU, just some of its structures and the direction it's heading. On the contrary, I think from the early 80s through to the GFC was a period where you can say This is as good as it gets... despite people moaning 24/7. But I think we're entering a different time and the UK will be better served by being out than in to deal with it, and to plot its own course.

 

[Horsa]

Here are the arguments that brexit means cuts to eu-funded conservation projects (e.g. penguin) in uk-owned territories:
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-penguins-climate-change-peril/
What do you think of that, especially if you support leavers?

I meant to answer you well before now but I got 4 bottles of wine for Xmas. I drunk 2 bottles before the 27th then Mother found a Xmas present she couldn't find on Xmas day which just turned out to be a bottle of wine so I was either always drunk or hungover until the 13th & I thought you'd prefer a proper answer from me. I'm triskaidecophobic so avoided saying anything on the 13th. I've adapted a totally new life-style which incorporates some of my friends suggestions into my life & I'm feeling much better. I'm feeling great about it & I feel like a totally different person. It's really turned my life around. I've also been stressed about an interview I had last week but I feel much better again now.

I think it's bad as I like penguins but that isn't the most important thing. I've explained how circumstances were in the North many times. We saw getting out of the E.U. as a way to save the money that we paid into the E.U. for helping people in our own country who were really struggling. I don't mind helping other countries when your own is managing o.k. but we weren't. I was aware that it would be more expensive in the short term until we got everything up & running but thought that we'd save later. I've also explained my other thoughts on this issue lots of times before so I'll avoid doing the subject to death.

I will also say that with the plans our country has got for Brexit or lack thereof & the deal that was available we're actually much better off in than out.

 

[Horsa]

The statement you quote herein, taken out of context, contradicts the general message of the article which is:
- Eu-funded grants for Falkland Island penguin protection programs, such as LIFE & BEST, will cease
- There is fear that said programs will be discontinued as a consequence.

The context of your quote (if you read the whole paragraph concerned) is: in case of the deal on brexit, "all EU environmental funding up to 2020 will continue". That's because the deal maintains the economic ties until 2020.
Now in case of no deal, I assume the pledge by UK govs, to "fill the gap" is about that time period, until 2020 only, although it's not clearly stated (the article is poorly written, also in other ways), so assuming that, there is still uncertainty beyond 2020.

In general, I think in tackling any environmental issues, including this one, human cooperation is needed. Sadly, cooperation is not in the agenda when brexit is concerned, and EU is collapsing. So all env issues surrounding EU will suffer.

I don't mind co-operating where money isn't concerned especially when some working Brits are having to rely on foodbanks etc. I won't explain my other reasons as I've done them to death already.

 

[Horsa]

Theresa May has pretty much zero chance of getting that deal through Parliament as it stands. What a mess.

So, the options look grim.

May's Deal... This is a damn awful deal. If she can take the Backstop out at the 11th hour... she might have a chance of squeezing it through. It's still not a good deal but it's better than the current one.

No Deal... At this point in time, this is not really a good option. No Deal should have been the default negotiating position two years ago with a view to striking a better deal. But moving to it at this stage, is going to cause a lot of chaos because a large portion of business are unprepared.

Second Referendum... this will cause long term political chaos and possibly extensive civil unrest. I'm not convinced that Remain would win either. It's also not going to happen in time unless they revoke Article 50... which would also cause chaos.

General Election... Corbyn wants to deliver Brexit - it's pretty clear without him saying it outright. His members are strongly pro-remain and his voters are pro-remain (although to a lesser extent than the membership). The Labour Party are in as much of a mess as the conservatives over this. if there was an election, I actually believe Conservatives would probably win on the basis that a lot of Lab will vote LibDem.

Crazy times ahead.

I agree. The state of our government at the moment is a complete & utter shambles. The phrase "... couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery" springs to mind.

 

[Horsa]

So, May loses the deal, but wins in the no-confidence motion. This is probably the worst combination of results. If either result was the other way it would have been good for her.

Looks like now a second referendum will happen. Not sure how the result would turn out to be if it was held.

But, if a bad deal gets passed, Scotland is sure to break away.

If a 2nd referendum occurs a lot of people won't vote as they don't think their vote has been taken seriously & we're not living in a real democracy.

Scotland is not sure to break away because although Scotland has a parliament it doesn't get to choose everything though it gets a lot of benefits from being in the U.K. that it doesn't have to pay for. Some Scots who wanted independence before the independence vote didn't like it because the vote didn't go their way so were looking for any excuse to try to push for another independence referendum. There are a lot of benefits Scotland gets from being in the U.K. as well as benefits they'd get from being independent.