|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 9, 2018 14:11:51 GMT -5
"Prime Minister Theresa May struggled Monday to keep her government from imploding after the resignations of Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, a tousle-haired frontman for the campaign for Britain to leave the European Union, and David Davis, her once-loyal “Brexit minister” in charge of negotiating the country’s divorce. Ever since she bungled the 2017 election, losing a majority in parliament, there has been rampant speculation over how long May would remain in the top job. That question has never been more urgent. As May prepares to meet with President Trump in his first official visit to Britain later this week, hard-line Brexiteers are openly debating a no-confidence vote that could sweep her from power." linkLike Trump's Trade War, Brexit was supposed to be easy. But now reality has come home, and... "The prime minister’s plan for a soft Brexit was pushed forward by May at a crunch cabinet meeting at her countryside manor, called Chequers, on Friday.In that meeting, May had appeared to win over her fractious cabinet and secure approval for her plan, which was to be published as soon as this week in a lengthy White Paper that would stake out Britain’s vision for future relations with Europe. While May’s plan for exiting the European Union has not been fully revealed to all members of her party — let alone to parliament, the business community or the public — the brief outline that was released shows she supports a middle way of compromise with Brussels, keeping Britain closely aligned with Europe on standards, 'a common rule book for industrial goods and agricultural products.' This, her critic charged, would shackle Britain and make it 'a rule taker versus a rulemaker.'” The fundamental problem is obvious in those last two sentences. In order to be able to trade with EU countries--the UK's most important trading partners--products and services would have to conform to EU standards. So, exiting the EU means meeting their requirements while not having a seat at the table in writing them. This always was the weakness of the Brexit position. With May getting weaker by the day, the EU has little incentive to offer much, so it's entirely possible that what's coming is either a chaotic split in 8 months, or a successful demand by anti-Brexit parliamentarians from across the parties for a national referendum on whatever May finally decides is Brexit in practice. And that's when the rubber will hit the road. Already there's been a shift in public support from pro- to anti-Brexit, though it's still close in polls. But it's one thing to vote for a general idea, another to have to opt for a specific version of it. My guess is that if such a referendum is held it will fail, and the UK will wind up staying in the EU. Just a guess.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 9, 2018 19:38:55 GMT -5
So, the Tory split over Brexit is beginning to resemble the GOP's in the House over budgets: "As Johnson’s resignation was announced, Labour MPs were being briefed about the government’s soft Brexit plan by May’s de facto deputy, David Lidington, in a sign that Downing Street is beginning to accept that it will need to draw on cross-party support to get her plans through parliament, without the backing of hardline Brexiters…Jacob Rees-Mogg, chair of the pro-Brexit European Research Group of Tory MPs, said it was of 'grave concern,' that the government had briefed Labour. 'If they plan to get this deal through on the back of Labour votes, that would be the most divisive thing that they can do.'” linkIt's possible there will be a no-confidence vote soon, pushed by the extreme Brexiters among the Tories--a rare move by a faction to bring down its own party's government. May already is warning that if the government falls there will have to be an election, and "that divided parties lose elections. 'f we don’t pull together, we risk the election of Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister,'one cabinet minister said, summarising what was said at the meeting." Indeed. Labour made huge gains in the recent election, and will be only too happy to see this Conservative minority government collapse. The EU side is reacting with studied nonchalance, seasoned by a whiff of Schadenfreude: "A senior Brussels source insisted they were unruffled by Davis’s resignation, dismissing it as 'UK politics' 'Let’s see how it goes. We negotiate with the negotiators,' he said...The European council’s chair, Donald Tusk, tweeted: 'Politicians come and go but the problems they have created for people remain. I can only regret that the idea of #Brexit has not left with Davis and Johnson. But … who knows?'” Note the Trumpian ending there. For those who love how the Brits show off their oratorical skills, honed at Oxbridge debate societies, the exchange between Johnson and May is outstanding. Johnson wrote: "On Friday I acknowledged that my side of the argument were too few to prevail, and congratulated you on at least reaching a cabinet decision on the way forward. As I said then, the government now has a song to sing. The trouble is that I have practised the words over the weekend and find that they stick in the throat." May replied: "Thank you for your letter relinquishing the office of secretary of state for foreign and Commonwealth affairs. I am sorry – and a little surprised – to receive it after the productive discussions we had at Chequers on Friday, and the comprehensive and detailed proposal which we agreed as a cabinet... As we developed our policy on Brexit, I have allowed cabinet colleagues considerable latitude to express their individual views. But the agreement we reached on Friday marks the point where that is no longer the case, and if you are not able to provide the support we need to secure this deal in the interests of the United Kingdom, it is right that you should step down." link
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jul 9, 2018 20:42:38 GMT -5
So, the Tory split over Brexit is beginning to resemble the GOP's in the House over budgets: "As Johnson’s resignation was announced, Labour MPs were being briefed about the government’s soft Brexit plan by May’s de facto deputy, David Lidington, in a sign that Downing Street is beginning to accept that it will need to draw on cross-party support to get her plans through parliament, without the backing of hardline Brexiters…Jacob Rees-Mogg, chair of the pro-Brexit European Research Group of Tory MPs, said it was of 'grave concern,' that the government had briefed Labour. 'If they plan to get this deal through on the back of Labour votes, that would be the most divisive thing that they can do.'” linkIt's possible there will be a no-confidence vote soon, pushed by the extreme Brexiters among the Tories--a rare move by a faction to bring down its own party's government. May already is warning that if the government falls there will have to be an election, and "that divided parties lose elections. 'f we don’t pull together, we risk the election of Jeremy Corbyn as prime minister,'one cabinet minister said, summarising what was said at the meeting." Indeed. Labour made huge gains in the recent election, and will be only too happy to see this Conservative minority government collapse. The EU side is reacting with studied nonchalance, seasoned by a whiff of Schadenfreude: "A senior Brussels source insisted they were unruffled by Davis’s resignation, dismissing it as 'UK politics' 'Let’s see how it goes. We negotiate with the negotiators,' he said...The European council’s chair, Donald Tusk, tweeted: 'Politicians come and go but the problems they have created for people remain. I can only regret that the idea of #Brexit has not left with Davis and Johnson. But … who knows?'” Note the Trumpian ending there. For those who love how the Brits show off their oratorical skills, honed at Oxbridge debate societies, the exchange between Johnson and May is outstanding. Johnson wrote: "On Friday I acknowledged that my side of the argument were too few to prevail, and congratulated you on at least reaching a cabinet decision on the way forward. As I said then, the government now has a song to sing. The trouble is that I have practised the words over the weekend and find that they stick in the throat." May replied: "Thank you for your letter relinquishing the office of secretary of state for foreign and Commonwealth affairs. I am sorry – and a little surprised – to receive it after the productive discussions we had at Chequers on Friday, and the comprehensive and detailed proposal which we agreed as a cabinet... As we developed our policy on Brexit, I have allowed cabinet colleagues considerable latitude to express their individual views. But the agreement we reached on Friday marks the point where that is no longer the case, and if you are not able to provide the support we need to secure this deal in the interests of the United Kingdom, it is right that you should step down." link
It's been quite a series of troublesome elections/referenda there in the UK lately. Interesting to watch.
"But it's one thing to vote for a general idea, another to have to opt for a specific version of it. My guess is that if such a referendum is held it will fail, and the UK will wind up staying in the EU."
This is why it cracked me up when May put Boris Johnson in charge of the sh!t sandwich he helped make once she became PM - I thought it was a master stroke to make him see it through. Sure enough, the extent of his planning appears to have ended the day of the election and everybody is trying to make the best of what was basically a poorly-informed emotional vote on a technical, diplomatic, economic matter.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jul 9, 2018 22:00:18 GMT -5
This is why it cracked me up when May put Boris Johnson in charge of the sh!t sandwich he helped make once she became PM - I thought it was a master stroke to make him see it through. Sure enough, the extent of his planning appears to have ended the day of the election and everybody is trying to make the best of what was basically a poorly-informed emotional vote on a technical, diplomatic, economic matter.
Good observation, GB. In fact, Johnson, Farage, et al. were so surprised to have won that they inadvertently let slip that they actually had no idea what would come next. It was predictable all along that this would turn out to be extremely difficult to manage in a way that did not hurt the UK economy and/or result in the UK largely stuck with EU rules over which it had no say. Indeed, the No side was saying it all along. The whole referendum was dreamed up by Cameron and his cronies as a way to shut up the anti-EU faction in the House that was making it hard for them to govern. Now governing has gotten much harder, and instead of lancing a boil the referendum has caused the infection to metastasize.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Sept 25, 2018 9:55:38 GMT -5
The Labour Party suddenly has embraced the idea of a new referendum on Brexit: "The chances of Britain holding a second referendum on Brexit just got higher. Britain's opposition Labour party was voting Tuesday on a policy that would put a new public vote on the table if Prime Minister Theresa May failed to get an eventual Brexit deal through the UK Parliament. And Labour's Brexit spokesman, Keir Starmer, received rapturous applause at his party's annual conference when he raised the prospect that staying in the European Union would be on the ballot paper. 'Nobody is ruling out "Remain" as an option,' he said. "His comments were significant because Labour has been as divided over the issue as May's Conservative Party. Some Labour MPs represent districts in Britain that voted decisively to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum, and fear losing their seats if there is a general election. The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is known to be a lifelong Euroskeptic. But the party membership, which propelled Corbyn into power, strongly supports staying in the EU and has forced the leadership's position to evolve." linkThis turnabout follows from last week's admission by May that the UK-EU talks are stalled because the plan she presented was turned down by Brussels. No surprise there: it effectively would have left the UK functionally part of the EU without being a paying member or committing to following all the rules. It turns out that Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, who used the Brexit vote for their own ends, really never had any idea just how it would work. Indeed, they admitted that the day after their surprise win. So they've left poor May, who actually opposed their harebrained scheme, to try to make it work, while each of them now is outside government. I'm increasingly convinced Brexit won't happen. The latest polls show a clear majority would vote to remain if a referendum were held now, and I believe it's likely that majority will grow as the implications of Brexit continue to become clear. link
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Oct 3, 2018 11:47:05 GMT -5
If the UK "crashes out" of the EU without a negotiated deal the costs will be high: "Higher charges on international credit card payments. Extra taxes on parcels from Europe. More red tape for hospitals that import blood or organs for transplant. These are some of the potential consequences the United Kingdom will face if it crashes out of the European Union without a deal on trade, according to notices published Thursday by the UK government...Companies have been asking for guidance from the government since Britain voted to leave the European Union in June 2016...The 24 documents published by the UK government cover areas including banking, medicine, farm subsidies, organic food production, nuclear power and science research funding. "In many cases, the government warned that businesses would face more red tape and higher costs. UK customs officials have estimated that filing new trade declarations would cost businesses up to £20 billion ($26 billion) per year. The British pound took a hit after the documents were published, falling 0.75% against the dollar to $1.28. Around 50 more notices will be published before the end of September." linkJohnson and Farage insisted that Brexit would be not only cost-free, but a money-maker for the UK. This was economic nonsense, and the May Government now is being forced to bit the bullet on just how costly this move will be. And of course, she actually opposed Brexit in the first place. The EU actually is proving itself quite resilient these days. Italy's new "populist" government just tried to circumvent the 2 percent of GDP the rules allow for annual budget deficits by adopting a plan with a 2.4 percent deficit. Yesterday they backed down in the face of EU insistence. Apparently, the idea that the Brussels "bureaucrats" could be bullied by elected parliaments with anti-EU majorities was wrong; Germany and France back the Bureaucrats, and everyone else has no option but to follow their lead.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 15, 2018 22:16:44 GMT -5
The past two days have been bonkers in London. On Wednesday PM Theresa May pushed through a reluctant Cabinet the 585-page deal she had negotiated with the EU to set the terms for Britain's exit. The reaction was, predictably, less than enthusiastic. Her Brexit Minister resigned just four months after his predecessor also had resigned over the direction of the agreement. Several other ministers have followed, and more may do so in the coming days. The Guardian estimates that about 224 MPs are likely to support to the bill, and 415 to oppose, assuming the various blocs they've identified vote as anticipated. It would take 325 to pass, assuming all members vote. The problem for May is that nearly all the votes for this deal have to come from her Conservative caucus, which is split. There are about 133 Brexiters among the Tories who mostly will vote no, along with a few remainers who hope to for a popular referendum on the package. That leaves May with just over 200 votes she can count on from her own party. Meanwhile, Labour will whip its MPs to vote against the deal, in part to bring down the government and force a new election, where they stand a decent chance to emerge as the governing party; most will follow the part's lead. The Scottish and Welsh nationalist parties strongly oppose Brexit, while the Lib-Dems do also, but as usual could swing the other way if they get some amendments. And the Democratic Unionists from Northern Ireland, whose votes keep the Tories in power, oppose the deal because of its provisions on Ireland, which essentially leave the province under EU rules that would not apply in the rest of the country, this as a way of avoiding a hard border with Ireland, which effectively would break the peach agreement brokered in the 1990s. As if all that weren't enough, a faction of the Conservatives has announced a motion of no confidence in the government, which could end May's premiership. It's not clear how many votes there are for that, but it's a sign of the disarray. And where are the guys who started this mess, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson? Mostly sitting it out quietly. 's
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Nov 15, 2018 22:48:35 GMT -5
Sebastian Mallaby lays out the problem and the options: "In 2016, the expectation of chaos was ridiculed by the Brexit gang that won the referendum. To cite four leading Brexiters who later held cabinet positions: Britain would 'hold all the cards' in negotiations with the European Union; it could 'have our cake and eat it'; a replacement trade deal with the E.U. would yield 'the exact same benefits'; and the bargaining would be 'the easiest in human history.' Once Britain freed itself from the shackles of the E.U., it would conclude wonderful new trade deals of its own and rapidly emerge as the Singapore of Europe. "Now the government has published a draft exit treaty. It is as long as a Dickens novel and far more confusing. The most controversial portion concerns the Irish 'backstop,' which would kick in at the end of a transition period unless Britain managed to negotiate an unexpectedly deep trade deal with Europe. To avoid a destabilizing hard border between Northern Ireland and the independent Republic of Ireland, the backstop provides that the North would live by Europe’s rules on food products and goods standards, even though the United Kingdom would have lost all influence over those rules’ content. "Meanwhile, to minimize trade barriers between the North and mainland Britain, the mainland would remain within the E.U. Customs Union. This would prevent it from negotiating its own separate free-trade deals; so much for the vision of Britain as Singapore. What’s more, Britain would not be allowed to shake off this restraint without the E.U.’s approval, and the European Court of Justice would adjudicate customs disputes. So much for the Brexiters’ promise of enhanced British sovereignty. "Whether or not it gets a new leader, the Conservative Party faces four options. The first is to push the prime minister’s deal through Parliament, but for now it seems to lack the votes for that. The second is to try to break the logjam by calling an election, but this would pose a risk that the Labour Party, now firmly rooted on the far left, would take power, so the Conservatives are unlikely to go there. The third option is to leave the E.U. without a deal. But this would risk such chaos — empty shelves in supermarkets, 20-mile traffic jams at new border checks — that most Conservatives won’t want that, either... "The fourth option is a new referendum. This would be cumbersome to organize and uncertain in its outcome, but at least it might deliver a sense of closure for the nation. The parliamentary process has generated a compromise that is pleasing to no one. If it is implemented, Brexiters will spin a myth that they were betrayed by bureaucrats and Eurocrats and the establishment writ large: Their populism will grow even more poisonous. A second vote would give the Leave camp an opportunity to vote for a cleaner break with the E.U., even if it came at the expense of Ireland. It would also give Remainers a chance to make the argument for solving the whole Brexit problem by staying in the E.U. Then the nightmare would be over." link
Clearly, Brexit has not met the Brexiteers' expectations because those were foolishly naïve. Now the country is confronted with the reality of what is likely rather than a wish-fulfillment dream. It's hard to imagine that this really can end without another referendum, this time giving voters a choice between accepting Brexit as negotiated or staying in the EU. The odds are that they'd vote to reverse the previous referendum, which would be a very good thing--and which likely would end the UK's history of being a pretty bad EU member because it no longer would have to worry about placating the Boris Johnsons.
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Nov 20, 2018 20:54:22 GMT -5
Clearly, Brexit has not met the Brexiteers' expectations because those were foolishly naïve. Now the country is confronted with the reality of what is likely rather than a wish-fulfillment dream.
Totally agree with this and in that sense, Trump was right to draw parallels between his campaign and Brexit during his campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 8, 2018 23:46:55 GMT -5
The British Parliament votes on the Brexit agreement in the coming week, and there's general agreement it will lose. The only question is how badly. May's been warning MPs that this is the best deal they can get with the EU, other than some cosmetic changes they can toss in to help May save face (Lithuania's President says, “Usually there are some — I can joke — tricks. We promise to promise.”). But there is nothing in the way of a substantive change the EU is going to offer. linkOf course, Boris Johnson--Britain's Donald Trump--who famously and incorrectly assured voters in the referendum campaign that they literally could have their cake and eat it, and that it all would be very easy and smooth, now insists that if only Her Majesty's Government show "a bit of gumption" by threatening to crash out of the EU without an agreement they'll have more leverage to force through major changes. The reaction on the Continent: "Europeans have gone slackjawed at London’s political chaos, with normally demure diplomats comparing the process there to a slow-motion car wreck...E.U. negotiators say the British are badly deluded and that their own business leaders actually fear a no-deal Brexit less than concessions that could give British businesses advantages in the vast E.U. market without the obligations of E.U. regulations and taxes." Exactly! Johnson's understanding of trade seems to be just as primitive as Trump's; no wonder both visibly stumble from crisis to crisis. So, both sides now are girding for an outcome neither actually wants. "On the E.U. side, preparations have accelerated in recent weeks, as the depth of the British chaos becomes clearer, according to diplomats involved in the discussions. And on Friday, the British government warned of border disruptions for up to six months if the United Kingdom crashes out of the E.U. Within a matter of days, the E.U. and Britain could impose measures to allow planes to keep flying, medicine and food to continue flowing into the United Kingdom, and British citizens living in Europe to remain there. But any plans will be temporary, analysts say, leaving deep uncertainty." The whole thing is insane. And to think it all started out as a ploy by David Cameron to save his hold on No. 10 by promising the anti-EU faction of his party a referendum on membership...only to lose it.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 10, 2018 16:17:05 GMT -5
OK, two Brexit threads consolidated. Now onto the latest: "Faced with a devastating loss in Parliament, British Prime Minister Theresa May announced Monday that she would delay a vote on the Brexit deal she negotiated with the European Union and instead return to Brussels to ask for more concessions. 'If we went ahead and held the vote tomorrow, the deal would be rejected by a significant margin,' May conceded to a packed chamber in the House of Commons. Nearly 100 members of her own Conservative Party had signaled they would vote against her half-in, half-out version of Brexit." linkMay's minority government simply lacks the political strength to pull off something this big and controversial. The Tories have a minority of 315 in the 650-seat House of Commons, and rely on 10 Members from the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party to cobble together a bare majority of 325 (the Speaker never votes, so effectively there are 649 voting Members). But the DUP opposes the Brexit deal because it ultimately treats Norther Ireland more like the Republic of Ireland than a constituent part of the United Kingdom in order to keep the peace on that island. The opposition Labour Party also is split on Brexit, but its Members have no interest in propping up May's government, while the Scottish National Party (35 seats) and Liberal Democrats (11) almost unanimously oppose Brexit. That's why the loss of about 100 Tories spelled doom for the agreement. And there's little hope that putting off the vote while trying to get some kind of cosmetic "concession" from the EU will change the lineup fundamentally. In this circumstance, there are only a few possible outcomes: (1) May goes ahead with the vote, loses badly, and is force to resign as PM; (2) Labour introduces a bill of no-confidence, it passes, and May is forced tor resign and call new elections; (3) Tories force May to resign and pick a new leader who tries to pick up the Brexit pieces in the short time left (a number already are circling the pathway to No. 10), (4) May takes her proposal to the people in a new referendum, or (5) the UK "crashes out" of the EU on March 29 without any agreement at all (aka Chaos). In other words, there's something approaching chaos. Fortunately, the EU's highest tribunal, the Court of Justice, ruled today on a way out: “The United Kingdom is free to revoke unilaterally the notification of its intention to withdraw from the E.U.” link They've left May with the best possible outcome--just say no to Brexit. Let's hope she--or a successor--takes it before it's too late.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 10, 2018 22:45:49 GMT -5
Matt O'Brien of the WP gives the clearest explanation of what's really happening: Even if you’re not a fan of British humor, it’s hard not to laugh a little at Brexit. Sure, there have been bigger disasters in history, but it’s rare to find dumber ones. The whole idea, after all, behind Britain leaving the free-trade zone that is the European Union was for it to “take back control” from the bureaucrats in Brussels so that it could … make its own free-trade deal with the European Union? Well, that and keep immigrants out. The problem, though, is that the E.U. links the free movement of goods to the free movement of people. It won’t give you one without the other. So the only way Brexit wouldn’t be a worse deal than the one Britain already has would be if the deal wasn’t really Brexit in any meaningful sense of the word. Which is to say if it was just a fig leaf that kept Britain’s current relationship with the E.U. more or less intact while giving it a new name. But then what would the point of all this be? Well, that’s the joke. (I told you, it’s British humor.) Now, in case all of this wasn’t already absurd enough, there’s another layer to it: Northern Ireland. It’s the only part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with an E.U. country, and the fact that you can’t tell that — there are no checkpoints or barriers between the two — is one of the great achievements of the peace process of the past 25 years. Why does that matter? Well, a “hard” Brexit that pulled Britain out of the E.U.'s customs union would end all that. Everything that moved between Ireland and Northern Ireland would suddenly need to be inspected to make sure that it complied with the other’s different rules and regulations. Which, of course, is a nonstarter for the Northern Irish, whose votes British Prime Minister Theresa May needs to maintain her slim parliamentary majority. So if economic pragmatism wasn’t enough of a reason to prefer a “soft” Brexit that changed very little, political expedience would seem to be more than one. And it has been. Indeed, the May government has agreed to what’s known as an “Irish backstop” that would keep all of Britain in the E.U.'s customs union for an indefinite period of time. The idea being that Northern Ireland needs to remain in to prevent a hard border from being set up between it and Ireland, and that the rest of the United Kingdom needs to then stay in as well to prevent an economic border from being set up between it and Northern Ireland. In the meantime, Britain and E.U. would work on hammering out a new deal that would supposedly resolve all of these contradictory issues — taking Britain out of the E.U.'s customs union without taking Northern Ireland either out of it or out of the United Kingdom’s customs union — at a later date. The problem is that this compromise isn’t good enough for the biggest Brexit backers in May’s Conservative Party, who really believed that the only reason they couldn’t have their cake and eat it too was that Brussels wouldn’t let them. And so now it’s up to her to try to come up with a solution to a problem that doesn’t have one. The simple story is that a win for British sovereignty — a hard Brexit — would be a loss not only for the British economy but also for Irish integration. And while they might be willing to make that first trade-off, that’s not the case for the second. Which is why it wouldn’t be surprising if all this ended the most fitting way possible: with another vote that gives them a chance to pretend that none of this ever happened. www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/12/10/brexit-looks-more-more-like-bad-joke/?utm_term=.21a91883548dOne way to think about this is through US history. Essentially, the Constitution created a customs union among the states, a common market, right in Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress the power: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;...To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; To establish post offices and post roads; To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." And in Section 9: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another." And Section in 10: "No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress." Post-World War II Europe recognized that the huge common market of the United States gave our country an extraordinary advantage in the modern economy by allowing for an efficient movement of the principal factors of production (goods and services, capital, and labor) across state boundaries without tolls, customs checks, passports, etc. Americans take this for granted, but under the Articles of Confederation states did put up trade and other economic barriers against each other, one of the reasons why the Framers scrapped rather than amended the Articles, as they had been called to do. Europe has had a harder time accomplishing this because of its long history of "blood and soil" nationalism, but the architects of the EU ultimately had in mind a United States of Europe that would look a lot like the United States of America. In a sense, the EU is an homage to the US. No wonder some Brits--mainly in England--don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 11, 2018 13:14:14 GMT -5
Theresa May is running around Europe today trying to find a way to salvage her Brexit deal. Angela Merkel told her party what she'd told the PM: “We said that there will be no further opening of the exit deal.” May almost certainly will be hearing that across the Continent. Meanwhile, back the requisite 48 Tory Members (at least) have submitted letters demanding a vote on May's leadership of the party, and effectively as PM.* Many expect that she could be out by the end of the week.
Across the aisle, Jeremy Corbyn, as Leader of the Opposition, is being pushed by smaller opposition parties, including the Scottish and Welsh nationalists as well as the Liberal Democrats, to force a vote of confidence in May. He doesn't want to do that just yet because it would fail, but it's clear that he's hoping to call one as soon as it can win so as to trigger a new election. Others are hoping instead that a loss for May's plan would lead to a "People's vote" on her Brexit plan, which likely would lose, leading to the collapse of Brexit altogether.
Quite a day over there!
*EDIT: The UK media are saying that while some Tories have told them the 48 letters are in or will be shortly the actual number remains unconfirmed. More tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 12, 2018 12:59:22 GMT -5
"Lawmakers in Britain’s Conservative Party on Wednesday triggered a no-confidence vote against Prime Minister Theresa May, threatening her leadership as she struggles to secure a deal for Britain to leave the European Union. May responded that she would not resign but would carry on with her vision for Brexit. She warned rebellious lawmakers that ousting her would not make getting a better Brexit deal any easier, but instead would bring delay and confusion. “'I will contest that vote with everything I’ve got,' said May, speaking outside her Downing Street residence. 'I stand ready to finish the job.' The no-confidence vote involves only Conservative Party lawmakers and not the entire Parliament. If she is toppled as party leader, replacing the prime minister could take weeks. Changing leaders now, May warned, would 'put our country's future at risk and create uncertainty when we can least afford it.'” linkEven if May survives this revolt she's politically wounded just by the fact that the Tory backbenchers have forced this vote. And it's possible that at some point soon her minority government will face a no-confidence vote of the whole Commons which could force a new election. All this with just over 3 months left before Brexit is scheduled to take effect, with or without a UK-EU agreement. What a mess! This is the legacy of that posh toff David Cameron. The idiot.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 12, 2018 16:59:57 GMT -5
So, May did survive, by a vote of 200-117. That's a pretty comfortable win, though it's noteworthy that more than 1/3 of her Tory colleagues voted to oust her. One the one hand it puts numbers around just how divided the party is, primarily over Brexit. On the other the losing side just made the worst mistake in politics, summarized Ralph Waldo Emmerson this way: “Never strike a king unless you are sure you shall kill him.”
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 15, 2018 22:17:47 GMT -5
Theresa May is being urged to give her MPs free rein to vote for a second referendum, with a new group of ministers poised to back another public ballot on Brexit...Senior figures in the government are convinced that with no sign of the parliamentary stalemate being resolved, Tory MPs must be allowed a free vote in a series of ballots over different options – allowing ministers and backbenchers to support a second referendum as a way out. Some ministers are planning to take matters into their own hands and back another public vote should the prime minister’s beleaguered Brexit deal be rejected. 'Once the deal has been voted down, there will be no clear government position and we will be freer,' said one." linkThe problem with May--well, a problem--is that she tends to be completely linear in her thinking. The public voted for Brexit and the government has to deliver it, never mind that after 2 1/2 years of negotiations it's much clearer to officials and the party what the real costs of Brexit will be. A more flexible politician would see that there's no majority for any of the alternatives in Parliament. The sensible thing would be to whittle down the choices, then go back to the voters and have them choose between, say, the negotiated deal or no Brexit. But instead she keeps digging in deeper saying the government has “a democratic duty to deliver what the British people voted for...I have never lost sight of my duty and that is to deliver on the referendum result and to do so in a way that protects British jobs, keeps us safe and protects our precious union.” This is just obtuse in light of the facts as they exist. The reality is that the UK has been divided over membership in the EU from the very beginning. So there really is no solution at all. Former Tory chairman Chris Patten puts it this way: “It would be nice to think that some kind of solution – a Norway option, another referendum, or May’s deal, or plunging out without a deal – would actually close the debate and the lion would lie down with the lamb, but I don’t see it happening. It will go on and on and on.” As it has for decades. That's one reason why many EU governments are content to let them go, reducing the internal dramatics that distract the Union from it's bigger project of creating a more unified continent.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Dec 16, 2018 12:48:42 GMT -5
There's growing momentum behind a second referendum, but the PM is resisting: "Downing Street vehemently denying drawing up contingency plans for a second referendum...May’s chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, sent a series of tweets on Sunday morning denying reports in two Sunday papers that he had told colleagues a fresh referendum was the only way through the Brexit crisis...The idea of a referendum as a way out of the parliamentary impasse has been creeping up the agenda at Westminster for months, pushed by a cross-party alliance of pro-remain MPs. But it appeared significantly more likely last week after the prime minister pulled a vote on her deal." linkAnd on the Opposition side: "Labour activists who want to ditch Brexit because they believe it will make it impossible for the party to implement a leftwing manifesto have launched a fresh campaign for a second referendum. The move puts Jeremy Corbyn under increasing pressure to drop his resistance to a new public vote. A 'model motion' stating that Labour should campaign to put the issue to the people again and then back Remain is being circulated to all constituency Labour parties by Corbyn supporters. They hope most local parties will sign up to it before Theresa May returns her Brexit deal to the House of Commons some time next month." linkWhat's striking, especially about the pressure on Corbyn, is that the politicians are debating the idea of a new referendum not in terms of whether Brexit is good or bad for the future of the UK, but whether it's good or bad for their own party. "[Labour Party members and supporters overwhelmingly oppose Brexit and a clear majority back a second referendum while Corbyn, a lifelong Eurosceptic, and some of his allies are resistant, believing a second referendum could lead to a huge loss of traditional party supporters to Ukip." Corbyn and his allies prefer to force a general election by defeating May's bill in the House; many 'fear that if they call a vote [of no confidence] and fail to force a general election they will not only have united the Tories, but will then themselves come under greater pressure to back a second referendum.'" Across the aisle "a group of senior Conservatives is urging colleagues to 'rebuild support with younger voters' by backing a second referendum...'If we are to remain a party of government, it is absolutely critical that we increase our support among younger generations,' they say. 'To do this, we must listen to and engage with their concerns on Brexit. They voted overwhelmingly to Remain in the European Union in 2016 – and since then have become even stronger in their views. Since the referendum, nearly 2 million young people are now of voting age. Of those in this group who are certain to vote, an astounding 87% support the United Kingdom staying in the European Union. If we do not hear their voices, who could blame them for feeling excluded and powerless on this most vital issue. The truth is that if Brexit fails this generation, we risk losing young people for good. Our party’s electoral future will be irrevocably blighted.'” I am not trying to castigate these party leaders, who after all are doing their jobs, which includes winning elections. But when you consider that this issue is not about the mundane policy disputes that motivate politics most of the time (increasing or decreasing spending on this or that program, for example) but rather about the future of the country in the world at large, you might expect a more elevated level of debate. But politicians are not different from the rest of us; their mind-sets develop around their day jobs, and they tend to bring that approach to everything they do, even if it seems inappropriate for the moment. The only ones really talking above this level to the bigger issue are those out of office (e.g., Tony Blair) or unlikely ever to get very high up in Parliament (permanent backbenchers). It's one of the downsides of representative democracy that the usual wheeling-and-dealing style needed to get legislation passed fails when applied to big, binary decisions like this one.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 1, 2019 23:54:18 GMT -5
Labour members are significantly more opposed to Brexit than Jeremy Corbyn is, with 72% of them thinking their leader should fully support a second referendum, according to a study of attitudes in the party. The polling, part of an ongoing wider academic study into attitudes in various parties, found that only 18% opposed Labour campaigning for a second referendum, while 88% would then opt for remain if such a vote was held...The findings 'increase the pressure on Labour’s leader to get off the fence', [the study's author] said. 'If Jeremy Corbyn genuinely believes, as he has repeatedly claimed, that the Labour party’s policy should reflect the wishes of its members rather than just its leaders, then he arguably has a funny way of showing it – at least when it comes to Brexit.'” linkMost observers believe that Corbyn actually favors Brexit, but can't say so because most of his party's voters, and especially its dues-paying members, oppose it. So he waffles. Ultimately, it seems more likely than not that a second referendum will have to be called now that the actual conditions for Brexit are known. Theresa May can't keep harping back to 2016 as if nothing's changed in the meantime. And Corbyn can't hide behind a general election forever.
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jan 2, 2019 1:06:52 GMT -5
Something’s a bit “off” about Corbyn.
Presenting a concrete deal to voters is a great way to bring this back to voters IMO. Presents a more realistic choice than the previous vote.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 9, 2019 13:43:37 GMT -5
Parliament is now considering Brexit, taking preliminary votes in the lead-up to next Tuesday's vote on the EU-UK deal negotiated by the Government. Yesterday they took a somewhat symbolic vote against a no-deal "crash-out" from the EU: "British Prime Minister Theresa May suffered another setback to her Brexit withdrawal deal Tuesday as members of her own Conservative Party joined opposition Labour Party MPs in favor of a vote to curb the government's spending powers if Britain fails to secure an agreement deal on its departure from the European Union. Parliamentary members voted 303 to 296 in favor of an amendment to the Finance Bill that will restrict May from amending taxes to cope with the consequences of crashing out of the European Union without an agreement." linkMore significant was today's controversial vote on the process for consideration of the Brexit bill; referred to as the "business motion" or the "rule" as we would call it in Congress: "Theresa May will be obliged to present MPs with a new Brexit plan within three days if her current proposal is voted down next week, after a procedural amendment to the plan’s progress through the Commons was passed amid chaotic scenes. The amendment to the business motion for the plan, drawn up by the Conservative former attorney general Dominic Grieve, gives May the deadline to put forward new plans if she loses the vote, as many expect, next Tuesday. The amendment was passed by 308 votes to 297 following stormy scenes in which a series of Conservative MPs castigated the Speaker, John Bercow, for allowing the amendment." linkWhat made the vote so controversial was that Speaker Bercow, a hard-right Conservative, accepted the amendment, even after the House's professional parliamentarians told him it was not in order, following long precedent. He conceded as much to the MPs: “I understand the importance of precedence but it does not completely bind. If we were guided only by precedence nothing in our procedures would ever change.” Bercow's being castigated across the party/ideological spectrum for this decision. But the fact that it passed is another indicator that May is not likely to get a yes vote on the agreement six days from now. If that's the case, Labour sources have indicated Jeremy Corbyn will roll out a vote on no confidence in an effort to force a new election; barring that, there will be a push for a new referendum on Brexit. What a mess!
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 13, 2019 21:11:05 GMT -5
So Tuesday's the day for the big vote in Parliament, and right now predictions from Tories themselves are that May's plan will lose by between 50 and 100 votes--with some fear that it could be more. At that point May would have to come back with a revised plan within 3 days, per a rule passed last week. Presumably there's a staff working on that somewhere in Whitehall, but it's hard to imagine what they'll come up with that could sway the House. Meanwhile, a cross-party group of Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrats, and Scottish Nationals will be introducing a couple of bills on Monday that would set up for a new Referendum giving voters a choice between May's plan and no Brexit at all. Other Members are looking to push for a Norway-style link to the EU, which would keep the UK within the EU's common market, which some think could gain a lot of Labour votes. linkAgainst this chaotic backdrop, the EU is preparing for what they anticipate will be a British request to delay the deadline for Brexit under Article 50 of the EU charter from March 29 until at least July. That means they anticipate that either there will be a new general election or a re-do of the Brexit referendum during the spring, and the UK will need time to allow those to happen before it can conclude anything with the EU. Neither side really wants a no-deal Brexit, but the EU's been firm that the UK isn't going to get any better deal than what May's negotiated. What a mess! link
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jan 13, 2019 22:33:50 GMT -5
This really feels analogous to our situation in the U.S.:
1) A misinformed (perhaps criminally misinformed) segment of the population votes for a disaster. 2) Sure enough, disaster looms 3) Reality sets in and votes swing the other way at the next election 4) Sets up a contest between older and newer electoral reality in which old reality attempts to cling fast to a crumbling facade.
In retrospect, the sins of the first election include widespread disinformation involving a hostile foreign power and a failure to recognize or take adversaries (both domestic and foreign) seriously enough.
On a deeper note, new vulnerabilities in campaign finance (Citizen's United) and election oversight (Voting Rights Act ended) in the U.S. and a willingness to look the other way on dubious Russian wealth inflows in the U.K. may have contributed as well.
There is a lot to fix if we wish to maintain our sovereignty.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 14, 2019 22:50:14 GMT -5
There is a lot to fix if we wish to maintain our sovereignty. The irony is that both the Brexiteers and Trumpists ran on a "sovereignty" platform while taking support from a subversive foreign power.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 15, 2019 15:37:13 GMT -5
May's government has suffered the worst defeat in nearly 100 years, with the Brexit agreement going down by 432 to 202. That is much worse than had been expected just a few days ago. On Wednesday there will be a vote of no confidence, after which who the hell knows what's going to happen. What a mess!
May lost nearly 120 Tories on the vote, while only 3 Labour Members and 3 Independents voted for the Government's proposal. That's more than 1/3 of her party's Members opposing her deal. It's a remarkable defeat, but once more shows that this entire catastrophe is and always has been about the deep divisions with the Conservative Party over the country's relationship with Europe. No one seems to have a clue where they go from here.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 16, 2019 16:46:46 GMT -5
So, yesterday the House of Commons delivered the worst loss in modern history to the sitting government by 432-202, rejecting its singular initiative. Today, the House narrowly rejected the Opposition's no-confidence motion, by a vote of 325-306, preventing a new election that might produce a majority to deal one way or the other with Brexit. Each party faces its own conundrum:
Conservatives: May is looking for some formula that will win a majority, but the hard-line Brexiteers have warned her that any move toward staying in the EU Custom Union (as Labour proposes) will split the Tory Party in two.
Labour: Corbyn favors a "soft Brexit" something like the Norwegian relationship, with the UK part of the Customs Union, but a majority of Party voters (especially signed-up members), and probably a majority of Labour MPs, oppose Brexit altogether, so he's spent his time fudging on the issue entirely, even as he's been demanding a new election.
Scottish Nationals, Liberal Democrats, Green: Each wants a commitment both to take no-deal off the table and to keep a "people's vote" (second referendum) on. May has rejected both already.
Democratic Unionists: The Northern Irish Protestants will support the Tories as long as there's no permanent agreement to keep an open border in Ireland and close off NI from the rest of the UK to avoid having it be a back-door around Brexit. But May also won't agree to a hard border in Ireland, so how this will work is anyone's guess. (Sinn Fein refuses to take its elected seats on the principle that it views Northern Ireland as part of the Irish Republic, not the UK.)
In other words, there's no position that could command a majority in this House unless May decides to split her own party by seeking Opposition votes, which she will not do; the whole Brexit saga has been about holding the Conservative Party together, after all. Her only real hope is to mollify enough of the hard-liners in her own party without losing the support of her pro-remain Tories. It's not at all clear she can pull this off. Those favoring another referendum are hoping that when all the other alternatives have been tried and failed May and Corbyn will agree to call for a new referendum. Then the issue will be what question to ask. May will want her proposal (presumably somewhat modified before resubmission to Parliament on Monday) vs. no Brexit, but others likely will want the stark choice of no-deal Brexit vs. no Brexit. It's not obvious even that can be managed.
In short, the UK still is in one hell of a mess.
|
|
|
Post by badgerjon66 on Jan 20, 2019 11:32:57 GMT -5
Context. Yes, similarities between UK revolt of the deplorables against tyrannical govt. & US deplorables rejection of same. Establishment/deep state/uniparty....fights back against real democracy in both cases, exposing a number of hypocrites in both cases. If May were really trying to do the bidding of the people, instead of helping their swamp undermine Brexit, she would have been thrown out of office. Pretty good head-fake by her. EU in toto is in very deep shit, with elections for their nobles coming up soon as France, Italy, and UK (at least) hang by a thread. German govt. close to instability too. Look past WP etc for real coverage of developing new French revolution.
Was Pelosi's junket to Brussels another move by deep state to undercut our President? She seems unconcerned about availability of security for 90 or so Trump haters going there as opposed to SOTU, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by goldenbucky on Jan 20, 2019 14:24:55 GMT -5
Look past WP etc for real coverage of developing new French revolution.
To where? Russia Today?
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 20, 2019 16:08:58 GMT -5
Context. Yes, similarities between UK revolt of the deplorables against tyrannical govt. & US deplorables rejection of same. Establishment/deep state/uniparty....fights back against real democracy in both cases, exposing a number of hypocrites in both cases. If May were really trying to do the bidding of the people, instead of helping their swamp undermine Brexit, she would have been thrown out of office. Pretty good head-fake by her. EU in toto is in very deep shit, with elections for their nobles coming up soon as France, Italy, and UK (at least) hang by a thread. German govt. close to instability too. Look past WP etc for real coverage of developing new French revolution. Was Pelosi's junket to Brussels another move by deep state to undercut our President? She seems unconcerned about availability of security for 90 or so Trump haters going there as opposed to SOTU, LOL. As usual, jon, you've got pretty much everything wrong, lol. Neither the UK nor US governments are "tyrannical" by any metric, so the first premise is laughable. I've been to countries with tyrannical governments, and if you think the US or UK are like them I think you need to get out more. The real issue in the UK is that a clique of upper-class Oxbridgians with delusions of Imperial grandeur posed as "populists" as part of a power-struggle within the Tory Party, and once they'd won the referendum had no idea what to do, so allowed Theresa May to take on the thankless job of saving their party from complete collapse. As for the EU, it's worth noting that public support for it on the Continent has increased dramatically. For example, this is from January 4: "Danish support for EU membership has reached a three-decade high in the wake of Brexit. According to a Kantar Gallup poll published on Friday by the Berlingske newspaper, 66 percent of Danes are in favor of membership. That’s up from 54 percent in 2016, which is the year the U.K. voted to leave the bloc in a referendum. Support for a Danish exit has fallen to 22 percent, from 29 percent in 2016." link No country is threatening to leave the EU other than the UK, although many members would like to jettison Hungary for its anti-Semitic government's erosion of democratic norms. The "New French Revolution" peters out by more and more each Saturday. The "junket to Brussels" reflects your "news" source, but it was just a crew stop on the return trip from Afghanistan. You know, the country where US troops have been fighting since 2001. Maybe you heard about that. I guess it's a "junket" if you sit at the airport to some people who've never seen an airport before.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 20, 2019 16:25:52 GMT -5
Just to be clear what Brexit really is about: "Theresa May is expected to reject calls to forge a cross-party consensus on Brexit when she lays out her plan B to parliament on Monday, choosing instead to back new diplomatic efforts in Brussels to renegotiate the Irish backstop...Despite her claim in the wake of last week’s significant defeat in parliament that she would speak to “senior parliamentarians” from all parties to seek a compromise, government sources insisted her overriding priority was to prevent a historic split in the Tory party." linkPeople in her own government are saying exactly what commentators have been saying all along: this is not about what's good for the UK or it's people; it's about what's good for the Tory Party. Period.
|
|
|
Post by Old Badger on Jan 21, 2019 15:49:00 GMT -5
This is how casually Tory leadership walked into an existential crisis for the UK: "David Cameron never believed he would have to hold an EU referendum because he expected to fall short of an overall majority in the 2015 election, according to Donald Tusk...In an interview as part of a BBC documentary, Tusk said: 'I asked David Cameron, "Why did you decide on this referendum, this – it’s so dangerous, so even stupid, you know," and, he told me – and I was really amazed and even shocked – that the only reason was his own party.' Tusk continued: '[He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there’s no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum. But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory.'” linkIt long has been suspected that Cameron did not plan to hold the referendum he'd promised his anti-EU hard-liners in order to win re-nomination. This merely confirms that. It also confirms that Cameron is a total twit and a posh wanker--like much of the British upper class. Playing around with their nation's future without seriousness is par for the course. Now they're in a right shambles that could break up the Union and can't find a way out of it.
|
|