I expected another extension. There have been so many extensions already, I feel conditioned to expect they'll just keep doing it. It feels like noone on either side actually wants Brexit to happen, but they've politicked each other into a corner, and they're all too proud to back down. It will be a shock when a deadline hits and they finally don't extend it.
Only 2nd extension. It's more about "democratic rule and negotiations is difficult". If it was XVIII century they would have simply leave & do the rest with an Armada.
This all started after the referendum, when David Cameron decided not to send in the A50 letter on the next working day. The EU-27 first mumbled politely that was okay, then mumbled equally politely that the letter had better be sent before a year had passed. And indeed it was signed and sent shortly before a year had passed.
There was nothing formal about that, but if you want to count deadlines then that one may be the first. Or not, IMO it depends on why you're counting.
RT @julianpopov: The year is 2192. The British Prime Minister visits Brussels to ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline. No one remembers where this tradition originated, but every year it attracts many tourists from all over the world.
"The year is 2192. The British Prime Minister visits Brussels to ask for an extension of the Brexit deadline. No one remembers where this tradition originated, but every year it attracts many tourists from all over the world." - https://mobile.twitter.com/julianpopov/status/11856641961780...
No. It would hurt not only Uk's economy but also most of EU's economy.
How, say french PM, is going to justify to his ppl that they will suffer... say loss of 1% of gdp, just because politicians decided to teach British a lesson?
No politician would be willing to do this, that would be career suicide brought up every elections.
Plus bonus UK then gets a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card.
'Oh, the evil EU kicked us out without us having say, and now we are suffering. See how bad EU is' - Borris or another brexiter PM.
It's in the EU's best interest to treat this like a toddler's temper tantrum - wait it out and pretend it never happened when the screaming tapers off.
It's a crisis of democracy when the people voted so clearly and they're not given what they voted for. They're being slowly ignored by the political class.
I'm not sure what you think people voted so clearly on. No vote has ever been very clear about what the people wanted concerning Brexit. There has never been a public vote on a hard Brexit, merely on an intention to leave the EU, without any plan or specification about how. Many people campaigning for the Leave vote argued that the UK would stay in the common market, so you could easily argue that the people voted to stay in the common market.
It's true that what the people want is getting ignored by the political class; polls show a majority of the public wants to stay in the EU, now that is has become clear what leaving means, but the government keeps insisting on the hardest possible Brexit, against both common sense and the will of the people.
> No vote has ever been very clear about what the people wanted concerning Brexit. There has never been a public vote on a hard Brexit, merely on an intention to leave the EU, without any plan or specification about how.
Please stop spreading fud. There are many videos that I can post which have many MPs stating that a leave vote means:
But that's exactly my point: people contradict each other. Some Leave campaigners said that the UK would leave the common market, some said it would stay in the common market. The current PM said at the time that the UK will “still have access to the single market”[0]. Many other current hard-line Brexiteers said similar things at the time.
Even Nigel Farage has argued for something similar to Norway or Switzerland (known as the "soft Brexit")[1].
One of the videos you cite says "we wouldn’t be able to be in the single market, we wouldn’t be able to be in the Customs Union".
Given that the latest proposed Withdrawal Agreement would leave Northern Ireland in the single market and Customs Union, it appears you're actually reinforcing the point that no one knew what they were actually voting for.
Yes, the proposed deal does do this. Because Boris just wants a quick win and then wants to say that Brexit is done and then wants to win a majority on december 12.
It's one thing to do what's best for the country and what 17.4 million people voted for. It's another thing entirely to do what's best for yourself (that being boris)
First you are saying, people did not know what they are voting for.
Secondly, you are saying the deal on the table is not the one which was voted for.
You are conflating two different issues here.
On the second point. Yes, you are correct. The current negotiated treaty (don't call it a deal because it's a legally binding agreement) is not what the 17.4m British public wanted.
On the first point. The conservatives under May decided to interpret the will of the people and decided on a close relationship with the EU and she negotiated very badly. Thus we are where we are today due to her wilful negligence.
For the last 40 years Politicians have never delivered on their promises. Have never said what they will do on their manifestos. Are you surprised that Politicians are not doing a full on brexit? Because I am not.
> "The conservatives under May decided to interpret the will of the people and decided on a close relationship with the EU and she negotiated very badly."
Distant relationship, surely. She was negotiating a hard Brexit rather than the soft one that would have been more in line with some of the promises that had been made to the British public. Her mistake was pushing for an unreasonably hard Brexit which lead to all sorts of problems, including the Irish border. That turned out to be something she couldn't get through Parliament, and it has probably contributed to the general public turning against the idea of a Brexit entirely. No Brexit is apparently better than a bad Brexit.
I'm going to get downvoted more. But honestly, I feel we are living in parallel worlds here.
> Distant relationship, surely. She was negotiating a hard Brexit rather than the soft one
No, Junker asked her if she wanted a FTA. She declined and wanted a closer relationship with frictionless trade. So she got the deal she wanted. The UK in the customs union.
> Her mistake was pushing for an unreasonably hard Brexit which lead to all sorts of problems, including the Irish border.
No being in the customs union means the UK has regulatory alignment with the EU. Frictionless trade. It's called BINO. Brexit in name only. It's a soft exit.
She couldn't get it through parliament due to the ERG in the conservatives wanting a much harder brexit and labour saying it did not do enough to be more aligned with the EU.
I'm going to ask a serious question. Have you actually read the withdrawal treaty? Because it's BINO. It's not a hard brexit.
Do you even know what a hard brexit is? Let me explain it to you.
- Own immigration policy. No free movement.
- Able to set own taxes. Corporate Tax, Income Tax, VAT, etc.
- Able to set own foreign policy, full control of army.
- Full control of local fishing waters. Only British fishermen allowed to fish.
- Able to set own regulations for businesses and for manufacturing goods and services.
- Outside of the ECJ. UK law > EU law.
- Great Britain and NI outside of the EU, together. The UK will not be putting up a hard border. Who knows (and cares) what the EU will do.
Let me explain Boris's Deal.
- Own immigration policy. No free movement.
- Regulatory alignment with EU. We have to set our taxes the same as theirs.
- In the transition period. The UK cannot veto anything the EU does and the UK cannot act in such a manner that the EU does not like. After the transition period, some fear that Britain will join the EU army.
- Whilst UK fisherman now have access to UK waters. EU fisherman will STILL be able to fish there.
- Regulatory alignment with EU. We have to set our regulations the same as theirs.
- Probably still under the jurisdiction the ECJ.
- NI inside the EU still. A border in the Irish sea. Although the NI assembly have the right to change this every 4 years. But they have not sat for many years, who knows if this will ever get changed. Regardless the DUP are not happy.
Now that I have outlined both scenarios. Do you still think that May/Boris were wanting a hard brexit?
Finally, why does the EU want the UK to ratify this terrible deal and why the EU does not want a hard brexit?
And what is "theirs" here? The EU does not have a singular tax policy. I hope there's some coordination, but every country sets their own tax policy. Your post makes it sound like you're giving that up by leaving the EU.
Many of the things you want, you already had as a member of the EU. You had your own tax policy, foreign policy, full control of your army (if not, then that's on NATO; the EU has nothing to do with armies).
Stuff like fishing, manufacturing regulations, trade, etc are indeed subject to many EU (not to mention international) treaties. You make it sound like the UK does not want any treaties with anyone anymore. Even the WTO is an international treaty. Do you want to leave that too? Do you realise you're asking for economic isolation here? Self-imposed economic sanctions?
And yes, what May wants is a hard Brexit. Anything that takes the UK out of the EU common market is a hard Brexit. Anything that leaves the UK with access to the common market (the Norway or Switzerland model that Brexiteers used to argue for) is a soft Brexit. Breaking off all treaties like you're proposing is the No-Deal Brexit that Johnson seems to prefer if only Parliament would let him.
"Leave won by 1 million. No of EU citizens who couldn't vote 3 million. No of British abroad who couldn't vote 700,000. Citizens of 53 Commonwealth countries were able to vote just by being UK residents. Will of "the people"- depends on who you asked #BrexitExtension"
Would you have been making the same argument if the situation was reversed?
I.e. the elected leaders held a position you strongly disagreed with, and there had been a referendum on the question in which the opposition to that idea had won?
In a quaint rural town in Britain the populace voted in a referendum about what to do about the town's horse mascot. The referendum offered two choices: keep the current (healthy but a bit boring) horse, or get a new and exciting unicorn — majestic, magical, sparkly!
A tiny majority believed the unicorny promises, and voted for the unicorn in 2016.
After three years of mucking about, it turns out that the best the town council can get is either a very old and haggard pony with an inflatable novelty unicorn horn (Johnson's deal), or the rotting cadaver of a dead horse with a carrot glued on its head (no-deal Brexit).
Obviously, one of these two must happen, because the people voted for it. Keeping the perfectly serviceable horse they have now is not an option, because democracy has spoken, and changing your mind is not allowed (because democracy).
Granted, as a European I may be a bit cynical about this mess.
They only need 50% if they are willing to introduce legislation to remove or amend the fixed term parliament act. But presumably they believe it is harder to get such a majority or they want to keep the act alive.
The EU and the ECM (what was voted for back in 1975) are two different beasts.
Maastricht and Lisbon treaty would of been key changes in that transition that many countries had votes (and also revotes) upon. The UK, did not alas and it is pretty obvious that it should of.
Ironically, the children of 1975 era had no say in their future until 2016 and you can see how they voted. Also those that who in 1975 voted to join the ECM, turned out to be twice as likely to vote to leave the EU in 2016.
But the whole aspect of thresholds is one that does need some thought and equally turnout. Maybe voting should be compulsory? Maybe threshold standards need to be defined.
After all, does the EU really want to have members who are not that commited to the goals?
Democracy is a fickle matter depending upon how you measure it.
To make matters more complicated, the primary reason the UK isn't part of the Euro is because Britain crashed out of the pan-European exchange rate controls in 1992; if it wasn't for the "Black Wednesday" crisis, the pound sterling may have been abolished, again without popular referendum.
Both predicting and contributing to this crisis was George Soros, who shorted the pound sterling and profited immensely from it. This is one of many reasons he is a controversial figure in some circles.
ERM and the Euro, whilst somewhat entwined are not mutually inclusive. The reason the UK never took on the Euro, was many fold and nothing to do with Mr Soros and the great EMF gamification for printing money.
If they did a referendum upon the Pound and the Euro in the UK, the result would be much clearer and conclusive than any membership referendum. Heck, even Scotland if it leaves the UK, wants to keep the Pound.
One aspect the UK has impacted the Euro has been in blocking (as a members vote) many initiatives to control the financial markets and with that, been instrumental in curtailing the controls needed for a large encompassing currency.
But I totally disagree that the UK's primary reason for adopting the Euro was due to the ERM shenanigans. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/215/uncategorized/why-uk-... covers some reasons. But to say it is complicated is part and parcel of any currency control.
Remember, the UK's key income area's are Financial and Services, two area's in which the EU has been stymied to take control of, mostly due to it not being in the UK's main interest. Heck, even opening up services has been a backfoot EU initiative with members still not opening up those markets. But that is another matter, equally complicated and hard to summarize in a few sentences.
It was only an advisory referendum, not a binding one. (It would actually have been declared non-binding had it been binding, due to the Leave campaign breaking the law.)
It's not the referendum that's to blame here, it's the government that's using the referendum as an excuse to push through their own ideas.
To me it's far more complex than this - the vote was a) extremely tight and b) fought on the basis of outright lies (on both sides, as I recall). Not only this but the original question was simply whether to leave the EU - with no consideration given to the fact there's a near-infinite number of ways that can be done (no deal, deal, Norway-style, etc).
I believe these are the reasons that the government + parliament have found it so hard/failed to come to a conclusion. It's also the reason I don't think this whole saga is anywhere near done.
Personally I'd like to see a second ref on specific options, but that seems unlikely now.
> They didn't actually vote for anything in particular. It was a move to solve intra-Conservastives issue. It did solve it.
The degree of intra-party struggle and defections, including from the cabinet, experienced by the Tories over Brexit divisions since the referendum suggest that the referendum did not, in fact, solve the intra-Conservative-Party issue.
Maybe point on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50205603 instead.