Aceris
4267
But that rule clearly doesn’t apply to the EU.
I don’t think they care about Farage personally either, but I think he helps them to recognize that some part of the hard Brexit crowd is actively trying to beak up the EU, or substantially weaken it.
Please google ‘example’. It simply isn’t true that obligations necessarily fail to survive the cancellation of an agreement.
I am curious what actual messes those would be.
I don’t think you understand the difference between a Canada style trade deal and what the UK enjoys currently, if you think that the former isn’t a disaster.
It’s usually said that 80% of the UK economy is services. A Canada-style deals gives the UK nothing on this front; no support for the financial services industry and only very limited EU commitments for cross-border provision of services. Relatively good framework for tariffs on goods; yes (though still expensive, because you need border controls, and the margins for import/export just go way up compared to the situation with no border controls). The UK service industry, on the other hand, is left completely screwed.
Which is why the UK government has been desperate to avoid a Canada FTA. Contrary to what you think - the EU is quite happy to offer the UK a canada-style FTA agreement and has stated so multiple times. To quote Tusk verbatim:
“The EU wants a relationship with the UK that is as close and special as possible.From the very beginning, the EU offer has been not just a Canada deal, but a Canada plus plus plus deal. Much further-reaching on trade, on internal security and on foreign policy cooperation.”
The problem is that some people think that they can get a Canada plus deal that has all the benefits of today’s working relationship, without any of the things that Leavers don’t like. And the world just doesn’t work that way.
Also, going for a Canada-style deal doesn’t make the Irish problem go away. Because a Canada-style deal means a hard border, and you’re back to the backstop problem: either you get a permanent hard border in Ireland, or Northern Ireland needs to be covered by a different agreement. And while a Hard Brexit would be bad for Northern Ireland, it will hopefully not result in an immediate outbreak of violence, as long as the UK government is seen to be working to find a solution. Institute a hard border on a permanent basis, though, and all bets are off.
It really does take great strength of will to pretend that something like the backstop will not be required in basically any Brexit deal and/or any future negotiated relationship between the EU and the UK. Anyone arguing against the backstop without explaining what they will do instead shouldn’t be taken seriously.
draxen
4273
EDIT:
If this is indeed the shape of the May/Corbyn Brexit:
This doesn’t sound too bad to me. No Deal just wasn’t viable - too extreme a policy.
Likewise with 2nd referendum/SM - too extreme. So as a compromise between the 2 it’s not too bad on the face of it.
Indeed, this all makes sense given the dynamic. The question is just why the couldn’t have made this same compromise two years ago.
I knew Corbyn would sell Labour minorities down the river with their appeasement of the ethno-nationalists racist opposition to FoM. This will at least kill a huge chunk of Labours voterbase. 1m marchers and 6million petition signatories will not vote Labour again.
Analogue for US readers: Democrat leaders meet with Trump to discuss how high to build the wall, and agree budget for Trump’s child prison camps.
Yeah I know!
But we will be FREEEEEEEEEE and be able to negotiate our own trade deals with Mauritius.
draxen
4277
Save us Obi-Corbyn-One you’re our only hope!
dry heave
If indeed this is what Corbyn and May come back with… interesting.
The UK leaves the EU, but still has to adhere to the trade deals negotiated by the EU. Except now the UK has zero influence over what gets negotiated. But oh - let’s still screw over our services industry. So basically the UK gets none of the advantages of Brexit (other than stopping freedom of movement), while divesting itself of all influence and economic advantage.
A consummate deal that strips Brexit down to the naked truth that @playingwithknives has been talking about all along; destroying the economy is acceptable, as long as the politicians can pretend that they did something to stop brown/eastern people from entering the country.
Also, brilliant political work in forging a deal supported by both PM and opposition leader that still may not have enough support to pass through parliament.
Commons votes on an amendment to the Business Motion and ends in a tie!
Edit: so the speaker breaks the tie by voting No, and we won’t have another set of indicative votes on Monday.
spiffy
4282
We’re only really talking about everyone who doesn’t speak English, basically. My racist neighbours (who are quite nice British people otherwise) rail against the immigrants (the Koreans, the Poles, the everythings) in my little borough --but not you, they hastily add, we like Canadians and Americans. Oh ok lovely old ladies of my street, I’ll try not to take your bigotry into account when I force myself to wave good morning.
It’s people who look different, who sound different, who have different names, who celebrate different holidays, or worship different gods, or eat different food, or send their children to different schools.
or people who fuck different holes, or identify as different genders.
You don’t tend to get prejudice at one without the other.
Jewish, Sikh and Hindu Brexiters I know of tend to be of the “Its teh only way to stop the Muslim invasion!!!?!!” type btw. and, oh boy, as an aside, Hindu ultra-nationalists who sniff about exmuslim communities are absolutely crazy racist, like pro-genocide loons to a man. The things you learn on non-Western chat groups are eye opening.
draxen
4284
weary sigh
I can’t believe we’re having this conversation AGAIN.
Immigration control and racism are two entirely separate things. You can desire tighter immigration control without being racist. They are not the same thing!
When you label an idea as racist then that automatically shuts down any discussion.
What reasonable, intelligent person wants to be at all associated with racism or racist views?
You cannot have meaningful discussion about many important topics if you simply label the argument that you disagree with as racist.
Racism is a terrible, terrible thing. Racists are crazy, radicalized fringe groups. I abhor their views. They represent a tiny minority of deeply, deeply disturbed people but if you allow their influence to disrupt meaningful debate then you are doing yourself and others a disservice.
For example:
I favor a skills based immigration system over freedom of movement. This is not because I am against immigration. Actually, I am very much in favor of immigration. I strongly support multiculturalism. It is because I am against mass immigration.
Mass immigration is where large groups of immigrants congregate in a single geographic location. This has a negative impact on integration which I believe is essential for immigration to work successfully. Mass immigration can create pockets of immigrants where they are able to avoid any kind of interaction with the natives of their host country. They can go about their entire day, their entire lives and only converse or associate with members of their same ethic group. I believe too many of these cultural pockets can have a negative impact on the society of the host country.
This is not being racist!!
Brexit is a spectrum of views.
Jeez…
“Desiring immigration control”
You have to deconstruct that down to its core roots.
and then you’ll find it these are based around racism or xenophobia, or an inherent belief that one ethnicity has priority over another.
Jeremy Corbin apparently wants a customs union and access to the single market, which are two different things that would require freedom of movement… This might not play out all that well.
