Brexit post-Ms. May
 

Boris Johnson, I've heard it reported, says if he's elected Prime Minister, the U.K. will leave the E.U. in October with or without a deal. He says the way for the U.K. to get a good deal is to be willing to leave without one.

Isn't it widely feared that a no-deal Brexit could lead to renewed violence on the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland? Or does "No Deal" mean no deal except for some arrangement for that border?

If Boris the Buffooon becomes PM, the rest of the EU will be so busy laughing that they won't have time to think about a new deal - which, in any case, they've said is out of the question.

A laughable buffoon at the helm of a major world power? One shudders to think.

One could perhaps twist them both together, light the touch-paper and retire to a safe distance...

Hard to see how Brexit, Trump and election meddling, and the right wing wave in Europe is anything but dangerously advantageous to Putin.

Or maybe there's something going on within those societies that can explain said phenomena without recourse to a foreign bogeyman. Perhaps the free-trade neoliberal order hasn't done that well by a great many people, and with the traditional organs of the left either gutted (e.g. unions), in thrall to neoliberalism themselves (e.g. most soc-dem parties in Europe), the left counternarrative gets either subsumed in bad-faith polemics (see the every-hour-on-the-hour hit pieces against Corbyn and Sanders) or simply isn't publicly available, the loudest voices saying things aren't okay are on the far right. But no, let's make it about those dastardly Russkies!

I don't think it's an either-or equation. Actually, not that many things are in my experience.

Cheers,
John

Hi Max,

As I understand it, "no deal" means exactly that: "no deal". We'd leave the EU without any (special) agreements on anything -- trade, travel, air traffic, the Irish border and so on.

The UK government has made plans for what do regarding the Irish border in the event of a no deal Brexit. Which is basically to have a temporary period of, well, doing nothing much different, followed by, well, trying hard to come up with a workable plan later:

“In a no deal scenario, the UK government is committed to entering into discussions urgently with the European Commission and the Irish Government to jointly agree long-term measures to avoid a hard border.”

However, the UK can only plan what it does on its side of the border. So, it says it won't apply tariffs (some small exceptions) or place physical barriers. Whereas Ireland, being in the EU, might be expected to do so, as physical checks and tariffs by EU countries are normally required on borders with non-EU countries. However the Irish government has said that, "its overriding objective is to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland [and] is not planning for customs posts". In the event of a no deal it will "engage in intensive discussions with the EU Commission and our EU partners".

- Matt

I've had it out with a fair number of "Russkies," or however you put that to lump me in with, well, who cares. Some are friends, others, not so much. Many of them like to talk politics and, sometimes unfortunately, so do I. More often than not, we disagree. Anyway, if you don't think Putin is a threat, maybe you should talk to more people from European countries who are feeling it.

x
Personally -- because I can't speak politically -- I think the current political festering of the GB and US reflects a failure of the imagination.
x
x

The difference, James, isn't that I like Putin (I don't), but that framing the breakdown of the post-Cold War neoliberal order as a problem, in the first instance, of national security plays into some of the most invidious assumptions of both the American Empire and the European Union's architects in which the main point is maintaining primacy--economic, military, or (in the U.S. especially) both. You know, the stuff that's rendering the entire planet uninhabitable.

I'm not going to defend how the US and other countries handled things after the cold war. However, from either a guest on his show or in an article Fareed Zakaria had written, a convincing argument was made (well, convincing to me) that the west had not only mishandled the situation, but vastly underestimated the number of hardliners in the Russian government in the 90s. And that this significantly contributed to the situation we have now. Anyway, whether you'd agree with this or not, I'll leave it at that. For now, at least. Plus I think I've wandered off the thread's topic. As always.

Hardliner is an interesting word. My impression of Putin's goals for the West, which I believe are shared by a variety of Russian officials and citizens, is not that they want the return of Communism, as the word might imply. It is I think better expressed by this joke a Russian guy told me last year in Bulgaria.
A Frenchman, an American, and a Russian are discussing happiness. The Frenchman says "Happiness. You're on the Champs Elysees, a beautiful lady on your arm. You stop, have a wonderful meal with a fine wine, watching the sun set behind the Eiffel Tower. That's happiness." And the American says "No, no, no. Happiness. You're in L.A. It's a gorgeous afternoon. You get in your convertible, drive to Vegas, put five dollars down on the tables and walk out with a million bucks. That's happiness." And the Russian says, "You two have no idea about happiness. You're in Siberia. Minus forty degrees. It's 3 a.m. You're in the barracks. The door opens, an arctic blast blows in. The lieutenant, standing in the doorway, says 'Petrov! You're on duty!' And you are *not* Petrov."

Cheers,
John

The fall back situation for the UK in the event of a no deal Brexit is to apply WTO rules. WTO rules require custom controls where there is a variation in excise and tarriffs between trading partners.
Would that Boris Johnson were a buffoon, unfortunately he isn’t a buffoon, he was a very competent mayor of London, but he is a cad and serially dishonest. If he does manage to become leader of the Conservative Party then he will not survive the vote of confidence in the House required to become Prime Minister if he maintains a leave with no deal policy.
Expect him therefore to renege on whatever pledges he may offer in order to succeed May

Quincy Lehr, I like what you've said in this thread. Points for having the courage to stick your head in the neo-liberal lion's mouth. (That said to Quincy, the point below digresses.)

I know it's way too simple to equate the American "MAGA" crowd with Brexiteers, but I was on the periphery of a discussion recently that mostly did just that. When I raised a finger, I tried to . . . certainly not defend or excuse bigotry, xenophobia, jingo-ism, and such like. I merely tried to suggest this: when Trump and Farage and other drum-beaters are out of the picture, there's still a beat that a large swath of our society is itching to dance and march to.

I put it in terms that the table of talkers immediately understood: "Even when the 'smart' people are back in charge, what to done about all our dumb people? I mean, by definition, there are fewer 'new' jobs in the New Economy-- that's why Business is shifting to them! When the fantasies of easy solutions fail to win elections, the question remains: What's going to happen to those left without a chair when the economic music stops?"

Without a trace of irony, and to a roar of approving laughter, one at the table said: "The Archie Bunkers of the world? Fuck 'em. They should have studied harder."

Another added, "Whattya mean our dumb people? The dumb are not my people. I've worked pretty hard to show that . . . ."

Yup, what Daniel said.

Hmm. I have a thought or two, but will limit myself to agreeing with the phrase "Whattya mean our dumb people?"
Dumb people, like anybody else, I hope, don't belong to anybody, they are free and independent agents. As the old saying goes, "The people have voted - the bastards!"

Cheers,
John

Thanks to all for participating and particularly to Matt and Jim H. for the direct answers to my question. I guess one reason I'm confused is that there isn't a clear answer. If both Matt and Jim are right, the UK's fall back plan is to impose custom controls (per WTO rules) without a border.

(It seems more complicated than my original fear, that Johnson was tacitly threatening that the only way for the EU to avoid violence was to sweeten the Brexit deal.)

I don't suppose this is a very original observation, but the situation must really cheer those who oppose democracy by showing how incoherent can be a decision made collectively. (In the U.S., we're doing our bit to support democracy by proving that empowering a single decision maker is no guarantee of coherence.)

Max: "the situation must really cheer those who oppose democracy by showing how incoherent can be a decision made collectively."

I suspect that Putin these days goes to bed every night happy.

Cheers,
John

What is sometimes forgotten Max is that Brexit is almost wholly an English phenomenon. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland rejected it with sizable majorities, reinforced by results in the recent European parliamentary elections.
The net result of a no deal exit which would include Scotland and Northern Ireland
would be fiercely resisted and would lead to the end of Mrs May’s ‘cherished union’
All right the DUP would tag along but they’re in a minority’s and are more of a cult than a political party.

Jim

Please don't forget Wales.

I was watching a documentary on Margaret Thatcher tonight, and feeling sad to see how far our leadership and my (Conservative) Party have fallen.
Please don't see Brexit as a left wing/right wing split: it's about independence.

And interdependence.

I don’t know if anyone sees Brexit as a left wing/right wing split David, it is equally incomprehensible that Sunderland, almost totally dependent on Japanese car manufacture, should be allied to the empire nostalgia of the right wing ERG to form the main constituents of Brexit,
Wales is equally perplexing, but I think the Welsh are having a serious change of heart.

Well, Jim, as I say, I don't see it as a left wing/right wing split, and the "empire nostalgia" just doesn't exist.
And no, the Welsh have had no change of heart: their vote was consistent with their previous one, and with the English vote.
Annie, I agree about interdependence, but don't think the concepts are mutually exclusive.

As I understand it, the European Parliament doesn't make laws, so the recent election is more like an opinion poll than an election. The unelected EC makes the laws. There is no line of accountability between MEP constituents and the legislation the EC enacts. That may seem reasonable to some, but it is certainly contrary to UK traditions of electing MPs and having them do what you want or else.

To give effect to the referendum, the UK should have "crashed out" (so called -- into WTO rules and bilateral or multilateral negotiated agreements) as soon as it was clear the EU would not agree to terms acceptable to the UK. That is still the case, so better late than never. There was never any reason to believe the EU would offer anything other than punitive terms. They have played their side extremely well, making the Brits tie themselves into knots and proving to all other members that secession is too costly to attempt.

Exactly correct, Bill.
They have played their side with great competence, unlike our pathetic excuse for a government.
However, they now have the British people to deal with.

Bill,

Well, much hangs on what you mean by "make". The European Commission (which is not directly elected) drafts and proposes laws. The areas in which it can propose laws is restricted by the EU treaty, unanimously agreed by all member states.

To become law such a proposal requires being passed by a majority vote by the European Parliament, which also has the power to amend the proposed laws. It is also voted on by the European Council, requiring a qualified majority (i.e. larger than a simple majority) to pass and in some cases, on more sensitive issues, it requires unanimous agreement.

The European Council comprises heads of government of the 28 member countries. Hence, the heads of the elected governments of those countries. The European Parliament, as you know, comprises members who are locally/regionally elected by the citizens of the member states. Incidentally, the UK has 73 (10.3%) of the 751 seats allocated to the 28 members states in the European parliament.

So: the Committee 'makes' laws only in the sense of proposing them. However, the elected representatives in Parliament 'make' the laws, in the sense that they make the proposals law -- or not.

How is the Commission formed? Well, a potential president of the Commission is proposed by the Council (the 28 heads of government), to reflect the results of the European Parliament elections. This proposal then requires approval by a majority vote in the European parliament. Each of the 28 member state nominates a commissioner to serve as a member of the Commission, so that there is one from each member state. Each nominee appears before the European parliament to explain their vision, and answer questions, and the Parliament must vote by a majority to approve them. Finally the Council must then also vote to approve each commissioner (by a qualified majority). So, the Commission, comprises commissioners nominated by member states and approved both by directly-elected representatives (Parliament) and by the heads of member states' governments (elected by the citizens of those countries). The Commission can be deselected, in its entirety, by a ‘censure vote’ in the European Parliament (requiring a two thirds majority).

I'd say this is a misunderstanding of the situation. The recent election elected one of the two bodies with power to vote on what is and isn't law within the EU. The other body being the heads of government of each of the member states -- those governments having been democratically elected to represent their citizens.

best,

Matt

Thanks, Matt. Very helpful. So the popularly elected body cannot originate legislation, but it can modify it and block it. And the line of accountability for the non-elected body indirectly runs through the Council and the Parliament.

We have a Metropolitan Council here with substantial executive power over regional development and transportation. Though they are appointed by the elected state Governor, the appearance of accountability is low.

David- “The Welsh have not had a change of heart, their vote is still consistent with the English”
Not according to the latest European election results as stated by the BBC;

Remainers
Plaid Cymru. 19.6%
Lib Dems. 13.6%
Greens 6.3
Change Uk 2.9%
Total 42%

Leavers
Brexit party 32.5%
Ukip 2.9%
Total 35.4%

Labour and the Conservatives polled 21.8 % between them and splitting this vote fifty/fifty which is a reasonable assumption, still leaves a comfortable majority for remain, and represents a significant change since the referendum when Wales voted 52.5% to leave

The other important body is the European Court of Justice, which does have pervasive influence and is not elected.
Essentially it is the last Court of Appeal appellants can approach on matters of human rights violations and transgressions against European law and treaty agreements. It supersedes judgements handed down by the highest courts in member countries, the House of Lords for example, and is a bone of contention with many Brexiteers who want to ‘bring their laws back’

Indeed, Jim.
And somebody pointed out that if you add up the results of all the other Premier clubs it proves that Manchester City didn't win the League.

Not if you add up all their results against Manchester City they didn’t. And, after all, isn’t that exactly what they did?

To go back more than a few posts, they are willfully dumb, Daniel, and don't deserve representation. Maybe they're not going away, but life is too short for that nonsense. Sorry, but they can't be allowed to make shit up. Carry on about May. (That was bothering me. But I'm done.)

An interesting development...

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2019-...uropean-union/

Interesting article, Annie.
It's probably well-known in the UK how Donald Trump explained to America that a new referendum would be "unfair to the winners." Presumably even if in the meantime they had changed their minds about the idea.

Cheers,
John