[noemon]

Cameron is the one that campaigned for Brexit. He said that unless the EU gives the UK a great deal about removing the rights of EU citizens in Britain he would tell the British people that it's better to leave, after negotiations, the EU did give Britain the right to change the welfare benefits of EU citizens which up to that point were considered equal to British citizens -and thankfully still are due to Britain refusing the deal- but when Cameron came out the negotiations he said: "EU deal not good enough"* clearly nodding for Brexit, that was the tipping point which gave the green-light to all his centrist crowd to either vote for Brexit or ignore it altogether. Corbyn had not become heard enough because the centrist crowd & press was ignoring his very existence at the time, now he is also to blame for their indifference which reached hubristic levels and hence the nemesis.

*"EU deal not good enough" are words that he would have said regardless, they are words that the British are simply accustomed to hearing and need to hear every time there is any conversation with Europe so the politicians give them that indulgence.

[Philby]

What's the definition of a 'centrist'? An extremist with his brains kicked out.

Cartertonian will not be pleased.

[foxdemon]

@Potemkin is mistaken. The difference between a moderate and an extremist is that one was successful in the propaganda war and the other wasn’t.

[B0ycey]

What's the definition of a 'centrist' Stalinist? An extremist with his brains kicked out.

Fixed that for you comrade.

[foxdemon]

Ah, so it’s the white brits versus the red brits?

I think we should get back on topic. So it is true that Cameron was just stuffing the EU around in order to distance Britain from Continental social norms in order that the Tories can start dismembering the welfare state without opposition? And is it true that good old John Bull xenophobia took over when Cameron put it to the vote?

[B0ycey]

Ah, so it’s the white brits versus the red brits?

Centrism is a view point not a race?

I think we should get back on topic. So it is true that Cameron was just stuffing the EU around in order to distance Britain from Continental social norms in order that the Tories can start dismembering the welfare state without opposition? And is it true that good old John Bull xenophobia took over when Cameron put it to the vote?

Cameron lost the vote due to timing. He wanted a quick referendum to get it out of the way but it happened to coincided with the refugee crisis. The Brexit campaigners jumped on this (namely Farage) and it all became a propaganda farce of Turkish membership, NHS cash, sovereignty and unseen riches. All these points have turned out to be bullshit of course.

[foxdemon]

Centrism is a view point not a race?

Hmmm....maybe I should leave this one for @Potemkin to explain?

[Atlantis]

So it is true that Cameron was just stuffing the EU around in order to distance Britain from Continental social norms in order that the Tories can start dismembering the welfare state without opposition?

No, it is not true.

Contrary to British myths, the EU gives its member states much freedom to do as they please. The neoliberal Blairites and Tories have already taken the UK into a neoliberal deregulated wonderland to be exploited by oligarchs to their heart's content. In the EU, the UK had the best of both worlds, it was able to exploit the single market by drawing financial flows away from Europe into its deregulated "business-friendly" economy.

With the referendum as leverage, Cameron wanted to protect the City, together with its associated tax havens, from EU regulation and make sure that the UK would get a say in matters relating to the Euro, even though it is not a member.

Aside from that, the Brexit referendum was motivated by longstanding Tory objections to EU institutions, such as the European Court of Justice, having a say in domestic British affairs. The Tories don't want anybody to look into their shady backroom dealings. What they don't seem to understand is that the type of advanced trade relationship of the single market requires a common jurisdiction. They are used to impose British law on their trading partners.

And is it true that good old John Bull xenophobia took over when Cameron put it to the vote?

Yes, the Ukippers turned the referendum into a xenophobic anti-immigration event, and euroskeptic Tory backbenchers were only too happy to join into the fray. That is something Cameron didn't see coming.

He has been consistent on this issue from day one of his leadership, issuing a statement in September 2015 that, “Labour will be campaigning in the referendum for the UK to stay in the European Union.”

What politicians say and what they do isn't always identical.

The anti-EU views of Corbyn and much of the far-left are no secrete. It is obvious from every post by British leftists in this forum. Before the referendum, I pressed British leftists in this forum to come clear about their views on the EU. Nothing! Not a single pro-EU voice. They all hope the UK stays in the EU, but would much rather go on with their favorite past time of EU-bashing.

British leftists feel as uncomfortable with Europe as the Tories, perhaps even more so. They don't rub shoulders with the comrades on the continent and don't join European socialists, like the socialist grouping in the European parliament.

No, to them the EU is convenient because it guarantees economic stability, but they are not pro-European.

In the UK, the only true pro-European politicians are Tories like Hesseltine.

European integration doesn't happen on its own, it requires a political effort. Throwing a spanner into the works doesn't help.

[ingliz]

They don't rub shoulders with the comrades on the continent

British Labour MEPs hold key positions in the Socialist and Democrats Group, formerly known simply as the Socialist group in the European Parliament, a pan national group of which the Labour Party is a member.

the only true pro-European politicians are Tories

The BBC quoting a former Tory minister who observed, only half in jest, "The only thing that would satisfy them [the Tories] is bombing Berlin."

[Atlantis]

British Labour MEPs hold key positions in the Socialist and Democrats Group, formerly known simply as the Socialist group in the European Parliament, a pan national group of which the Labour Party is a member.

Sorry, don't know how I got that wrong. Perhaps I mixed them up with the Tories, who left the conservative grouping in the EP.

The BBC quoting a former Tory minister who observed, only half in jest, "The only thing that would satisfy them [the Tories] is bombing Berlin."

Just goes to show that he knows the mindset of euroskeptic Tory backbenchers.

[foxdemon]

I found this article interesting. The debate tends to focus on economic issues. But what of security? It seems the UK wants to play a leading role in determining European security policy.

Is that appropriate?

http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/75572


What Theresa May Wants from the EU


JUDY DEMPSEY

Once it leaves the EU, Britain wants a say on European foreign, security, and defense policy.

February 17, 2018
PRINT PAGEComments (1)
Carnegie Europe was on the ground at the 2018 Munich Security Conference, offering readers exclusive access to the debates as they unfold and providing insights on today’s most consequential threats to international peace.

*

There wasn’t an empty seat in the elegant banquet hall when British Prime Minister Theresa May took to the podium during day two of the 2018 Munich Security Conference. There, she spelled out what kind of relationship her country wants with the EU once Britain quits the bloc.

Dempsey is a nonresident senior fellow at Carnegie Europe and editor in chief of <em>Strategic Europe</em>.
Judy Dempsey
Nonresident Senior Fellow
Carnegie Europe
Editor in chief
Strategic Europe


And spell it out she did during a very focused thirty-minute speech that proposed what role Britain should have in shaping the EU’s security and defense policy.

Some in the MSC hall said that May wanted to have her cake and eat it. There she was, setting the agenda and the terms for a Britain that will soon lose its EU voting rights but somehow, as May said, still wants a say.

Others were more sympathetic. They said that May had presented a list of constructive proposals. Even if the devil was still in the detail, the audience now knew (at least for the moment), where Britain stood with the EU post-Brexit.

May’s key point—something she has often referred to when speaking to European leaders and diplomats—is that the security of Britain’s citizens is tied to the security of the EU. They both need each other. Because of the overriding need to “protect all European citizens wherever they are in the continent,” May said she would seek a special treaty with the EU. “Our ability to keep our people safe depends ever more on working together,” she said. The question is, how?

In practice, May said that Britain was open to continuing to send troops to EU military operations. Britain would also pay into EU foreign aid programs. It would develop weapons jointly and align with Europe on foreign policy, such as Russian sanctions. Furthermore, this special security partnership would envisage regular consultations on global challenges, as well as contribute to cyber and space capability development.

In short, May was making a convincing case for Britain and the EU to agree a special treaty on internal security cooperation post-Brexit. May even mentioned “unconditional interest” and respect for any European Court of Justice decision on issues covered by the agreement.

But then came the sting.

Without pulling her punches, May said she expected “to play an appropriate role” in shaping policies. And increasing the stakes in the Brexit negotiations, any failure to get a special deal over internal security, she argued, would have damaging effects for both sides. Indeed, without such cooperation, criminals and terrorists would benefit, she implied.

Extradition on arrest warrants would cease. There would be an end to the exchange of data and engagement with Europol. All that, she said, “would damage us both and would put all our citizens at greater risk.” Hence, May added, “There is no legal or operational reason why an agreement could not be reached in the area of internal security.”

At the same time, she asked the EU to respect Britain’s “unique status,” whether it concerned its strict data protection laws or its defense and security capabilities. The treaty “must have an ability to ensure that as the threats we face change and adapt… our relationship has the capacity to move with them. Nothing must get in the way of our helping each other in every hour of every day to keep our people safe.” And, she added, “We cannot delay discussions on this.”

After her speech, Wolfgang Ischinger, the chairman of the MSC, said the Brexit decision was regrettable. “Things would be so much easier if you stayed,” he told May. The prime minister hadn’t an ounce of doubt in her response: “We abide by the [Brexit] decision. We are leaving the European Union. There is no question of a second referendum.”

[Decky]

The Tories don't want to leave. May campaigned for remain remember, like all right wing people they love the EU as it is a centre right alliance of capitalists and bankers. The Tories are pretending to be leavers to try and con votes out of working class people but they will keep up in the EU in everything but name.

[Beren]

The UK and EU agree terms for Brexit transition period

16 minutes ago



The UK and EU have agreed on a "large part" of the agreement that will lead to the "orderly withdrawal" of the UK.

Brexit negotiators Michel Barnier and David Davis said the deal on what the UK calls the implementation period was a "decisive step".

But issues still to be resolved include the Northern Ireland border.

The transitional period is set to last from 29 March, 2019 to December 2020, and is intended to smooth the path to a future permanent relationship.

Mr Barnier said there was also an agreement on the rights of 4.5m EU citizens in the UK and the 1.2m UK citizens in the EU after Brexit, including giving EU citizens arriving in the UK during the transition the same rights and guarantees as those who arrive before Brexit.

The proposed deal will include an emergency "backstop" option to avoid a hard border that could see Northern Ireland effectively staying in parts of the single market and the customs union - a move which Theresa May has opposed.

The UK will also be able to negotiate and sign trade deals during the transition period.

Both the UK and the EU hope the terms of an agreement on the transitional period can be signed off by Mrs May's fellow leaders at the EU summit this week.

The UK prime minister said the deal showed that "with goodwill on both sides", it was possible to agree an arrangement that works for all.

"A lot of hard work has gone in to setting out this timetable and details for the implementation period once we've actually left the European Union next March so that we can move to the ... strong, economic partnership we want with the European Union for the future," she said.

Mr Barnier said the new draft legal text marks a "decisive step" but added that it was "not the end of the road".

Mr Davis said the move would would give business the stability it had asked for, and would include safeguards for annual fishing negotiations during the transition period.

He said he hoped negotiations on the UK's future relationship with the EU - including a free trade agreement - could now start "as soon as is possible... we need to get on with this now", adding that it is set to be "the biggest, most comprehensive, most effective trade deal ever".

"We must seize the moment and carry on the momentum of the last few weeks," he said.

"The deal today should give us confidence that a good deal for the UK and EU is closer than ever before."

Labour's shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer MP welcomed the transition deal, calling it "a step in the right direction".

Among other issues the two sides have had to negotiate for the transition period have been what role the European Court of Justice has in the UK, whether the UK can negotiate future trade deals with non-EU countries as well as the continuing issues of Gibraltar post-Brexit.

The current proposal includes the emergency "backstop" to avoid a hard border in Ireland which BBC Europe editor Katya Adler said was "something Theresa May said no UK PM could sign up to".

The UK and EU hope that if a transition deal is agreed negotiations can focus on what sort of permanent future relationship the UK and EU will have - with the aim of a deal being agreed in the autumn to allow time for EU member states and the UK Parliament to ratify it before Brexit next March.

Has the UK government given up Northern Ireland basically?

[Atlantis]

I found this article interesting. The debate tends to focus on economic issues. But what of security? It seems the UK wants to play a leading role in determining European security policy.

Is that appropriate?

Believe me foxdemon, there is nothing new under the sun.

Churchill wanted restEurope to unite as a minor appendix to the Commonwealth. The British are too mighty to become part of a community.

Cameron wanted to control the Euro and our money, obviously without having any part in it or submitting to common rules.

The Anglos want to control the protection racket because it is just too profitable. They want to enslave us.

[Atlantis]

The five costs of UK's pyrrhic Brexit victory

A series of once unimaginable concessions are now baked into the withdrawal agreement, with more likely to come

Dan Roberts and Alan Travis
Mon 19 Mar 2018 16.34 GMT Last modified on Tue 20 Mar 2018 00.20 GMT

The prize sought by British negotiators during their latest Brexit showdown was certainty. UK businesses desperately need to know how long they have to prepare for departure and threatened to panic without promise of a transition phase.

In this respect the Brexit secretary, David Davis, can claim a partial, if pyrrhic, victory. The EU has agreed to park outstanding disagreements for now and proposes a 21-month transition period that would last until December 2020.

Considering it could have refused to budge unless everything was resolved, this is what counts for progress in Brexit-land. The pound duly recovered some of its recent losses on the news.

But the victory is only partial because further uncertainty remains. The transition period will only apply if remaining niggles are ironed out by the time UK and EU parliaments are asked to ratify the whole withdrawal treaty in the autumn. Without full agreement, some are already questioning how valuable this latest reassurance actually is to anxious British businesses.

“There will be no legal certainty in relation to the transition arrangements until after the withdrawal agreement is agreed and ratified,” said Rob Aird, a partner at the law firm Ashurst.

What is certain, however, is that the UK has paid a high price to get to this point. A series of once unimaginable concessions are now baked into the withdrawal agreement, with more likely to come if Britain wants to avoid everything falling apart again in nine months’ time.

1. Northern Ireland

The first, and potentially most painful, climbdown has come over the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Last month Theresa May insisted no British prime minister could possibly agree to the “backstop” proposal outlined by the EU. It sought to prevent a hard border after Brexit by keeping single market rules the same in Northern Ireland.

Now, the UK has gone back to a position it appeared to accept in December that a backstop is acceptable – so long as both sides keep working toward technological and legal alternatives that might avoid this necessity for full regulatory alignment.

Since the EU regards both proposed UK alternatives as implausible, it implies an eventual showdown with Democratic Unionists has only been postponed unless new “magic” answers can be found.

The ray of hope for Downing Street is that the UK seems to have retained the right to try to come up with an alternative backstop rather than automatically accept the toxic-looking EU version – a plan D, if you like.

“We agree on the need to include legal text detailing the ‘backstop’ solution for the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland in the withdrawal agreement that is acceptable to both sides,” said Davis.

2. Fish

Almost as hard to swallow for Brexiteers is the British decision to abandon any immediate attempt to take back control of its fishing waters.

In stark contrast to recent promises by the environment secretary, Michael Gove, the UK has accepted that throughout the transition period it will abide by the current fisheries policy so despised by leavers.

“The United Kingdom’s share of the total catch cannot be changed,” said Davis, celebrating the supposed certainty this offers. Unfortunately, continuity was the last thing this particular industry wanted to see.

With similar threats to link ongoing trade access to future compliance on fisheries access, the government is already being accused of betraying the one industry which hoped to be a clear winner from Brexit.

3. Duration

David Davis accepted the 21-month transition period on offer from Brussels rather than the 24 months he once proposed because he said the two were “close enough”.

But the real surprise is the absence of any provision to extend the period if the future trade talks are not all wrapped up in time. Only recently, UK officials had urged that the period last “as long as it takes” to ensure a smooth departure.

Lest anyone think Davis was relaxed because he thought this would be plenty of time, he also dropped his previous boast that trade talks would be mostly wrapped up before the transition phase even began. This shortened phase will be “the platform upon which we build the new relationship”, he said.

4. Freedom

Other climbdowns are now irreversible according to the agreed text. Where once Britain imagined it might buy its freedom from EU rules, the treaty will commit the UK to a £40bn divorce bill stretching out until 2064.

Taking back control will also have to wait. Throughout the transition phase, Britain has now accepted it will have to abide by EU rules, particularly freedom of movement. The only bright spot is confirmation from the EU that the UK will be allowed to negotiate new trade deals elsewhere during the transition period – something both sides have always said was likely anyway.

5. Citizens

There is certainty for EU citizens as a result of another climbdown over whether they will continue to enjoy their rights in the UK during transition, but campaigners fear the concession is not entirely reciprocated.

Jane Golding, the chair of British in Europe, which represents 1.2 million Britons living in other EU countries, said the agreed legal text provided more free movement rights after Brexit for English cheddar than to British citizens.

The latest draft drops article 32, which included an explicit ban on British citizens living in another EU country moving on to live and/or work in a third EU country. But Golding said that its omission did not mean they had suddenly been allowed to keep free movement as it did not change the substance of the agreement.

“In fact the agreement is as clear as mud when it comes to our future rights to move and work across the EU, either as people falling under the withdrawal agreement or as third country nationals,” said Golding.

“With 80% of British people living on the continent working age or younger, free movement and its associated cross-border economic rights are a necessity, not a nice to have, for many ... As things stand, after Brexit English cheddar will have more free movement rights than we will.”

That's a relief. I'll still be able to eat English cheddar, especially the extra mature one, you can keep the rest.

[redcarpet]

It's half relevant. Just came across what made me gape; Rupert Murdoch u-turned on his opposition to the UK's membership of the EU. Yes! In 2015

In a spectacular U-turn, media mogul Rupert Murdoch has abandoned his plan to campaign for Britain to withdraw from the EU.
He has decided that Britain is better off staying in Europe and that to quit would be a ‘major risk.’

A well-placed source told The Mail on Sunday: ‘Mr Murdoch’s view of the EU has mellowed in recent years. He is no fan of bureaucratic blocs but if it comes down to a choice between Britain getting out of the EU or staying, he would stay in.’
The main reason for Murdoch’s new pro-EU stance is that leaving could damage British industry.

This is his second u-turn ladies and gentlemen! He was originally in favour of the EEC, yes! In the runup to the 1975 referendum Tony Benn persued, I recently was readign his dairies again and Murdoch consented to meeting with him once and objected to a referendum because he supported EEC membership.

It's not just politicians that make big u-turns; the oligarchs do too sometimes!

[noemon]

This is self-explanatory...

"Does Brexit mean we won't have any trees?"

[Atlantis]

The good thing about Americans is that they don't mince words. They say it as it is. They say things nobody dares say in the UK.

Transcript:

Embassy diplomat

"People haven't yet internalized, the economy is going to tank. I better sit on my cash.

The EU27 says, We're a club, here are our rules, you tell us how many of the rules you're prepared to accept and we'll kind of tell you where in the clubhouse you can go. That is not the British conception of what this is at all. They sort of see it as a negotiation between two equal parties.

But the British government is not interesting in telling people, you know, this thing that 52% of you said that you wanted, here are the range of options - there's less good and then there's very, very bad.

They haven't actually done a lot of, sort of, macroeconomic modelling of this, almost, like, deliberately. Like, 'We don't want to know, because leaving is going to be great and its what people voted for so lets not spend government money on analysis, that suggests that maybe people got it wrong'"

Seneca Johnson - Deputy head of economic affairs

"You know, growth is starting to slow down but what we're probably going to see is a longer term slower slide. Inflation went up from 0.5% to 3%, so it's quite a significant increase... and that's not inflation from a growing, bubbly economy.

That's inflation from an outside shock. So, that's the worst kind of inflation. That's going to be a problem.

This coming at the end of a long period of austerity. People are very, very tired of it they're very frustrated by it. And some of those longer term economic issues are some of the things that fueled brexit. So if brexit ends up not helping them, or not obviously helping people economically, that could have political knock-on effects."

Embassy diplomat

" But if, I think, the economy sinks, then that's going to put political pressure on the government. And for the people that voted to leave, they are terrified... because something they've been fighting to achieve for almost 40 years. I mean, its a generational struggle. They've now won and they're absolutely terrified that its going to be snatched away from them."

But the people wanted it!

Nothing for it, you just have to stick your head a little deeper into the sand.

[One Degree]

Another demand that an economic system that is not sustainable should be used to make political decisions.
Why?

[Potemkin]

But the people wanted it!

Nothing for it, you just have to stick your head a little deeper into the sand.

As I've been saying for a while now, this 'democracy' thing isn't likely to survive in the brave new world which is currently emerging. The 'people' are fucking idiots who don't know what's best for them. I think Putin probably has the right idea - democracy has to be 'guided', otherwise the result will be unending crises caused by the idiot voters voting for idiotic things. Lol.