Brexit - The UK's Potential Withdrawal from the European Union

[DonRocks]

I got this email from my MIL last night. I wonder how many Americans don't even know what Brexit is.

---

Coucou Don,
Nous avons traduit ce texte au cours. Intéressant non?

---

And the text was this: brexit.pdf

It's shocking just how little coverage Brexit is getting in the Western media, and *why*? This is *big news*, and we're hardly reading anything about it - are we that ethnocentric of a country where we can't hear news even about *Europe*? Goodness knows if something similar was happening in Asia, Africa, South America, Central America, or Australia.

"Brexit Would Hit House Prices, Says Osborne" on bbc.com

"U.S., Japan FX Row Overshadows G7 Meeting; Leaders Eye Brexit Threat" by Leika Kihara and Stanley White on reuters.com

"G7 United Against Brexit, But Can Only Hope For An 'In' Vote" by Stanley White and Megumi Lim on reuters.com

 

[johnb]

5 hours ago, DonRocks said:

I got this email from my MIL last night. I wonder how many Americans don't even know what Brexit is.

---

Coucou Don,
Nous avons traduit ce texte au cours. Intéressant non?

---

And the text was this: brexit.pdf

It's shocking just how little coverage Brexit is getting in the Western media, and *why*? This is *big news*, and we're hardly reading anything about it - are we that ethnocentric of a country where we can't hear news even about *Europe*? Goodness knows if something similar was happening in Asia, Africa, South America, Central America, or Australia.

"Brexit Would Hit House Prices, Says Osborne" on bbc.com

"U.S., Japan FX Row Overshadows G7 Meeting; Leaders Eye Brexit Threat" by Leika Kihara and Stanley White on reuters.com

"G7 United Against Brexit, But Can Only Hope For An 'In' Vote" by Stanley White and Megumi Lim on reuters.com

While it's probably true that near-useless news media like CNN have not paid much attention, serious media have.  Here is an article about brexit  from just yesterday's NYT, one of many that have run recently.  At the end there are links to several previous articles over the last few months (non-NYT subscribers can read several for free).  I don't regularly follow the Washington Post, but a quick Google search of "washington post brexit" yielded more than two pages of recent WashPo articles on the subject.

[DonRocks]

8 hours ago, johnb said:

While it's probably true that near-useless news media like CNN have not paid much attention, serious media have.  Here is an article about brexit  from just yesterday's NYT, one of many that have run recently.  At the end there are links to several previous articles over the last few months (non-NYT subscribers can read several for free).  I don't regularly follow the Washington Post, but a quick Google search of "washington post brexit" yielded more than two pages of recent WashPo articles on the subject.

I have no doubt that major papers are covering this story (how could they not?), but it seems like most really, truly important stories (like this one) are things that I run across randomly in my day-to-day web work, without specifically going to a news source; I don't believe I've stumbled across it one single time (and I'm on the web a *lot*).

Am I wrong in assuming this isn't getting the coverage that it perhaps should? I may well be.

[LauraB]

You said the 'Western media' has not covered this.  I assume you mean the American media, because the BBC has covered this extensively, as you might imagine.  Also, NPR has been all over this story.  

[johnb]

19 hours ago, DonRocks said:

I have no doubt that major papers are covering this story (how could they not?), but it seems like most really, truly important stories (like this one) are things that I run across randomly in my day-to-day web work, without specifically going to a news source; I don't believe I've stumbled across it one single time (and I'm on the web a *lot*).

Am I wrong in assuming this isn't getting the coverage that it perhaps should? I may well be.

Here is a recent Onion comment pertinent to this thread.  Even though it didn't literally happen, I judge it closer to truth than to satire. "Facebook Clarifies Site Not Intended To Be Users’ Primary Information Source."

I admit I'm a news junkie. I spend a good deal of time reading the NYT (I subscribe to the internet edition), The Economist (ditto), watching political commentary on TV that is based on what I believe to be facts not emotions and opinions, not to mention forays into the Daily Beast, HuffPost, New Yorker Daily, and others.  This is JMHO, but  I believe that if one seeks to be informed then one needs to take deliberate steps to be informed, not rely on just happening into it.  The internet is predominantly a wasteland of puffery, flim-flam, ephemera, and non-information;* digging out the worthwhile nuggets doesn't just happen but takes planning and effort, and a skeptical mindset.

* Present website excluded of course

 

[DaveO]

On 5/22/2016 at 7:35 AM, johnb said:

Here is a recent Onion comment pertinent to this thread.  Even though it didn't literally happen, I judge it closer to truth than to satire. "Facebook Clarifies Site Not Intended To Be Users’ Primary Information Source."

I admit I'm a news junkie. I spend a good deal of time reading the NYT (I subscribe to the internet edition), The Economist (ditto), watching political commentary on TV that is based on what I believe to be facts not emotions and opinions, not to mention forays into the Daily Beast, HuffPost, New Yorker Daily, and others.  This is JMHO, but  I believe that if one seeks to be informed then one needs to take deliberate steps to be informed, not rely on just happening into it.  The internet is predominantly a wasteland of puffery, flim-flam, ephemera, and non-information;* digging out the worthwhile nuggets doesn't just happen but takes planning and effort, and a skeptical mindset.

* Present website excluded of course

I agree.  The web and news are two different things entirely though the web carries news sites.  One must visit them to get the news.  I'm also a news junkie, lifelong.  I vary subscriptions.

Several years ago I was comparing business stories in the WSJ and NYT.  Remarkably different coverage, even on stories w/out an obvious political slant.

[DaveO]

Back to the topic:  Brexit.  Today The Washington Post has a front page story on Brexit.  Front page on web and in print.  I must admit to only having scanned the coverage over time. This one is in the hands of the Brits.  Clearly though it has a connection to the current American political environment as Brexit, as I understand it, is being fueled by opposition to immigration.  But the situation in Britain is way different than that in the US; British immigration opportunities from natives of other EU nations is unlimited as I understand it.  Its an issue I've heard about for years, as natives of the wealthier Western European nation members of the EU bemoan immigration from less affluent Eastern European members.  

Immigration:  Its an issue that has caused natives of everywhere to scream and moan and complain and do far worse over centuries of time in countless nations.  I hope the Brits make a smart move on the vote.  

[Ericandblueboy]

2 hours ago, DaveO said:

Immigration:  Its an issue that has caused natives of everywhere to scream and moan and complain and do far worse over centuries of time in countless nations.  I hope the Brits make a smart move on the vote.  

The Brits were smart by not adopting the Euro, which gave them control over their own monetary policy.  However, by joining the EU, they gave up immigration control.  I'm curious, what is the smart move on the vote?  If we have a vote on whether to have open borders with Mexico, I'd think a super-majority would say no. 

[DaveO]

25 minutes ago, Ericandblueboy said:

The Brits were smart by not adopting the Euro, which gave them control over their own monetary policy.  However, by joining the EU, they gave up immigration control.  I'm curious, what is the smart move on the vote?  If we have a vote on whether to have open borders with Mexico, I'd think a super-majority would say no. 

ha.  so I put out that I hope the Brits make a "smart move"....you asked "what is the smart move"  ....and frankly I don't know..    I figured "smart move" is "open to interpretation".   I haven't been impacted by immigration.  I don't have qualms about it.  Clearly though it has multiple impacts and in any nation it causes winners and losers...hence the Trump movement and Brexit and those that oppose both.

[ktmoomau]

I have seen coverage in newspapers and on WTOP on my commutes, but not particularly heavy coverage by say the regular evening news, which I don't think particularly qualifies as news anymore.  I think the world economy overall is really shaky right now, so it makes sense that many countries are experiencing a revival of nationalist tendencies, exhibited by many in our own country (Who are those people that make fun of people with history degrees and what they will do with them?  Forecast political and economic shifts should be the answer.).  I am sure immigration, the financial status of many of the countries the EU has given vast loans to, the slipping of the pound against various world currencies has them really considering what is best for them.  It's hard to say what would be best for them, leaving takes some control out of their hands for shaping economic policy of places that owe them money like Spain, France and Germany.  But they are still the lender and would benefit in other ways. They get subsidies and other benefits back from the EU, but at what cost?

[DaveO]

On 5/22/2016 at 10:35 AM, johnb said:

Here is a recent Onion comment pertinent to this thread.  Even though it didn't literally happen, I judge it closer to truth than to satire. "Facebook Clarifies Site Not Intended To Be Users’ Primary Information Source."

I admit I'm a news junkie. I spend a good deal of time reading the NYT (I subscribe to the internet edition), The Economist (ditto), watching political commentary on TV that is based on what I believe to be facts not emotions and opinions, not to mention forays into the Daily Beast, HuffPost, New Yorker Daily, and others.  This is JMHO, but  I believe that if one seeks to be informed then one needs to take deliberate steps to be informed, not rely on just happening into it.  The internet is predominantly a wasteland of puffery, flim-flam, ephemera, and non-information;* digging out the worthwhile nuggets doesn't just happen but takes planning and effort, and a skeptical mindset.

* Present website excluded of course

The other day I realized I was following the news via facebook.  I thought of this post.  Its not something I do. In fact never.  During the day though I realized I was doing exactly that which I purposefully avoid.  Two posts by two different people describing somewhat obscure pieces of news in general, but compelling to me had crossed my view.  I further researched them.  In that vein the further research is something I'd often do on any piece of info that seems obscure. 

In any case I'd go back to johnb's suggestion and practice (one I subscribe to).  If one wants to follow the news one should read way beyond Facebook.

 

[DonRocks]

"Theresa May Calls Off MP's Vote on Her Brexit Deal" on bbc.com

The House of Commons consists of 650 elected MPs (Members of Parliament), and is somewhat analogous to our House of Representatives.

"There's No Good Way out of the Brexit Disaster" on washingtonpost.com

[zgast]

3 hours ago, DonRocks said:

"Theresa May Calls Off MP's Vote on Her Brexit Deal" on bbc.com

The House of Commons consists of 650 elected MPs (Members of Parliament), and is somewhat analogous to our House of Representatives.

"There's No Good Way out of the Brexit Disaster" on washingtonpost.com

Save my kids' short-line EU access!!!

[Count Bobulescu]

I've been following the Brexit issue in the English language EU media since the get go. I'm firmly in the camp that believes the Brits are crazy to be going down this road. I'm originally from across the pond.

One of the best pieces I've come across is this transcript of a lecture given 12/13/18 at the University of Liverpool by Sir Ivan Rogers UK ambassador to the EU from 2013 to Jan 2017, when he resigned after his personal views that the Brits were screwing up big time, were leaked.

The lecture sets out 9 lessons to be learned from the Brexit negotiations. It's a long lead and could be heavy going for those unfamiliar. Suggest you first skim the 9 headlines before deciding if you want to dig further.

Bloomberg has a daily Brexit bulletin email.

 

Brexit Negotiating Disaster

[DonRocks]

5 hours ago, Count Bobulescu said:

I've been following the Brexit issue in the English language EU media since the get go. I'm firmly in the camp that believes the Brits are crazy to be going down this road. I'm originally from across the pond.

One of the best pieces I've come across is this transcript of a lecture given 12/13/18 at the University of Liverpool by Sir Ivan Rogers UK ambassador to the EU from 2013 to Jan 2017, when he resigned after his personal views that the Brits were screwing up big time, were leaked.

The lecture sets out 9 lessons to be learned from the Brexit negotiations. It's a long lead and could be heavy going for those unfamiliar. Suggest you first skim the 9 headlines before deciding if you want to dig further.

Bloomberg has a daily Brexit bulletin email.

 

Brexit Negotiating Disaster

There seems like something of a parallel between the Brits having voted for Brexit, and our having voted for, well, you know. 

"We didn't really just do that, did we?"

And now, they're stuck with a really bad situation. Question: Is there any way they can get out of this?

[Count Bobulescu]

4 hours ago, DonRocks said:

There seems like something of a parallel between the Brits having voted for Brexit, and our having voted for, well, you know. 

"We didn't really just do that, did we?"

And now, they're stuck with a really bad situation. Question: Is there any way they can get out of this?

Yes, a lot of "leave" promises already broken. 

Theresa May, is slowly but surely being dragged kicking and screaming toward a 2nd vote, despite her protests. 

In Parliament, there's no majority for any of the various leave options, hard, soft, Canada+, Norway ++, no deal etc. but there is, and always has been, a majority in Parliament to remain, so its increasingly likely it will be kicked back to the public for another vote, on the basis that parliament is impotent to carry out the first will of the people. That carries the risk of embittering the leavers, because remainers would likely win a 2nd vote, though not by a huge margin.

 

100 days out, Brussels released today a "No Deal" contingency plan. Some are suggesting that this will prevent British Airways, (because its parent is EU based), from flying internally in the UK, London to Edinburgh etc.

EU No Deal Contingency Plan

[DonRocks]

2 hours ago, Count Bobulescu said:

100 days out, Brussels released today a "No Deal" contingency plan. Some are suggesting that this will prevent British Airways, (because its parent is EU based), from flying internally in the UK, London to Edinburgh etc.

EU No Deal Contingency Plan

Might one say that Britain has snookered itself?

[Count Bobulescu]

10 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Might one say that Britain has snookered itself?

Yes, but much less polite descriptions are much more common. 😊 

[Tweaked]

How Brexit will kill the British sandwich <insert British food jokes here>.  But seriously, the infographic in the story illustrates how much the British economy counts on "just in time" deliveries from continental Europe.  Pretty much the only sandwich food item that the U.K. is currently self-sufficient is the bread.

[Count Bobulescu]

7 hours ago, Tweaked said:

How Brexit will kill the British sandwich <insert British food jokes here>.  But seriously, the infographic in the story illustrates how much the British economy counts on "just in time" deliveries from continental Europe.  Pretty much the only sandwich food item that the U.K. is currently self-sufficient is the bread.

And even with that just in time, by one definition the UK currently ranks as the 7th most food secure country. Suspect that rating will drop if they crash out with no deal.

OTOH, Manhattan typically has little more than a 24 supply of food. 

[DonRocks]

Count B,

Could you please explain, in 100-200 words, what the hell happened, what the ramifications are, and what is preventing GB from getting out of the predicament they're in? I don't fully understand this myself, and I suspect that if I don't, then others don't either - and we'd really appreciate a substantive, layman's explanation of the situation at hand - treat us as if we're intelligent, but ignorant about this particular thing.

Cheers,
Don

[Count Bobulescu]

3 hours ago, DonRocks said:

Could you please explain, in 100-200 words, what the hell happened, what the ramifications are, and what is preventing GB from getting out of the predicament they're in? I don't fully understand this myself, and I suspect that if I don't, then others don't either - and we'd really appreciate a substantive, layman's explanation of the situation at hand - treat us as if we're intelligent, but ignorant about this particular thing.

The referendum was not required, it was an optional attempt to relieve "Tea Party" type leave pressure.

The confusion has arisen because the leave campaigners induced some people to vote on the basis of some promises they have been unable to fulfil, and immediately disowned within hours of the vote, such as diverting money that currently goes to the EU, to pay for UK health services. People were asked simply to vote yes or no on leave. 52% voted to leave.

The EU had a protocol in place for a country to leave, but it had never been tested. When it came time to negotiate terms for the post Brexit relationship it became apparent that people had various reasons for voting leave, dislike of EU courts and institutions, control of immigration, particularly from Eastern EU countries, claims of welfare cheats etc. Most UK immigration comes from Commonwealth countries, not EU countries, so leaving the EU won't do a lot to solve the immigration issue. 

Inability to accommodate these disparate interests while at the same time trying to hold on to as many EU benefits as possible for business etc ( free movement of goods, but not people) has bedeviled the process. There have been as many resignations from the May admin as firings from the unmentionable's

There's no majority in parliament for anything the EU will agree to, other than remain, which the voters rejected. Think of it like Texans voting to secede, then unable to agree among themselves to accept any future relationship offers the US will agree to.

Brexit has been described as the greatest act of unforced national self harm in history.

[DonRocks]

36 minutes ago, Count Bobulescu said:

Brexit has been described as the greatest act of unforced national self harm in history.

What would it take for them to say, "We take it back!" and just stop it from happening?

Hell, we have precedent right here in Washington, DC.

[Count Bobulescu]

11 hours ago, DonRocks said:

What would it take for them to say, "We take it back!" and just stop it from happening?

Hell, we have precedent right here in Washington, DC.

Would that it were so simple. John Bull is a proud and headstrong man.

If the government said that, they'd open themselves up to charges of undermining democracy, ignoring the will of the people etc. 

If/when a 2nd vote is announced, the leavers will want to know when they can have a 3rd vote, and if not, why not, and where will it end etc.

The counter argument will be that it's more serious than a regular 4-5 year election, because it's a once in a generation event, that people didn't fully understand first time. Young people who didn't vote are bitter at their parents and grandparents for messing with their future.

They are now talking about stockpiling food and medicine, and putting troops on standby over the holidays.

I think 77 is worse. It's more about countermanding than ignoring the will of the voters. I just read an interesting brief by legal and economic professors in the upcoming SCOTUS Tennessee case about how vested interests so often prevail on politicians to do what's in their specific interests rather than the public's. I think there are similarities in the 77 case. I haven't followed the issue since the election.

[Count Bobulescu]

Posted on an EU message board. UK immigration stats....while non EU immigration has always been higher, a 2012  EU mandate allowed more Eastern Europeans into the UK, and there is evidence of a political backlash to this.

 

The Too Many Charts Link

 

 

 

[Count Bobulescu]

To get some idea of why the UK negotiating team have been likened to the Keystone Kops, consider this. Eighteen months into the process, the Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab conceded that he hadn't really understood how important the port of Dover was to UK trade.

80% of all trucks entering the UK do so thru the port of Dover. Even the dogs in the street know the importance of Dover.......

Ever Heard of Dover?

[DonRocks]

15 minutes ago, Count Bobulescu said:

To get some idea of why the UK negotiating team have been likened to the Keystone Kops, consider this. Eighteen months into the process, the Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab conceded that he hadn't really understood how important the port of Dover was to UK trade.

80% of all trucks entering the UK do so thru the port of Dover. Even the dogs in the street know the importance of Dover.......

Ever Heard of Dover?

Dominique "Broccoli" Raab learns: "Even Rover Knows Dover."

[Count Bobulescu]

From a longer Bloomberg email.......

 

Quote

 

80 Days to Go

Today in Brexit: Will Brexit actually happen on March 29?

The idea of delaying Brexit has been discussed by U.K. and European Union officials, the Telegraph reports, in the latest sign that the divorce might not actually happen on time.

Bloomberg reported last month that British officials in private were floating the idea of an extension. Prime Minister Theresa May herself has become less adamant in public when asked if Britain will leave on time. A minister broke ranks yesterday to acknowledge that an extension was possible, and Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay responded with carefully chosen words: “It is this government’s firm intention not to extend Article 50.”

The Telegraph reports that officials have put out “feelers” about an extension, testing the waters. May’s office denied the report.

Meanwhile, May continues to pin her hopes on squeezing a last-minute concession out of Brussels that will be enough to convince Parliament to back her deal. She spent the holidays calling European leaders and had what her team described as constructive discussions. Perhaps the most interesting development has been talks between the Irish and German governments. German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas is in Dublin today. May is trying to get the EU to agree to a target start date for the future trading relationship, to limit the life of the much-loathed Irish backstop. And she’s hoping it will materialize in time for the Parliament vote.

 

 

 

Quote

 

Brexit in Brief

$1 Trillion Move | Banks, insurers and money managers are planning to move about 800 billion pounds ($1 trillion) of assets from the U.K. to the rest of Europe as Brexit uncertainty takes its toll, according to a survey conducted by EY.

 

 

The UK annual GDP is about $2.6T. Equivalent to moving about $7T out of the US.

 

[Count Bobulescu]

The government is stockpiling medicines etc. and now the peeps are stockpiling food. UK could market itself as the hot destination for preppers.

 

Bloomberg.....

 

Quote

Forum Fears | Concerns over food shortages after Brexit seem to be filtering into the public consciousness. A thread on stockpiling food, started on the Mumsnet parenting forum on Monday, has attracted more than 500 posts, with many users saying they were already taking precautions against empty shelves.

Quartz......

Quote

Crunch-time Brexit debate begins in the British parliament. In the week before prime minister Theresa May puts her Brexit deal to a vote in the House of Commons, lawmakers will debate the agreement for five days starting today. May conceded she was on track to lose the vote on Jan. 15, while an alliance of cross-party MPs passed an amendment that will make it harder for the UK to crash out of the EU if May’s deal is voted down.

 

[Count Bobulescu]

After plan A went down by 230 votes the largest margin since 1925, which was 160 votes, the PM survived a no confidence motion. Tells you a lot about the state of confusion. The vote on T.May's plan B has been set for Jan 29. Plan B is scheduled to be unveiled Monday. 

 

The chances for any one of a number of Black Swan events such as no deal crash out, or 2nd referendum are increasing.

 

If a 2nd referendum were to be held there would now likely be a big fight over the wording. A simple repeat of the original, something more complex, or a vote on the deal Parliament just rejected are the three most obvious, but other options also exist.

[DonRocks]

1 hour ago, Count Bobulescu said:

If a 2nd referendum were to be held there would now likely be a big fight over the wording. A simple repeat of the original, something more complex, or a vote on the deal Parliament just rejected are the three most obvious, but other options also exist.

One thing I don't understand is, why can't there be a simple REPEAL of the original, instead of a simple REPEAT?

[Count Bobulescu]

4 hours ago, DonRocks said:

One thing I don't understand is, why can't there be a simple REPEAL of the original, instead of a simple REPEAT?

Even though that sounds logical, it's also the worst of all worlds. That would be the equivalent of the US Congress impeaching the American people, and saying you may have voted for a communist or fascist for Prez, but we won't tolerate it. The hell with by the people for the people etc.  Next worst is a repeat. People please impeach yourselves.

 

The pols asked the peeps a  simple but flawed question. The peeps delivered their verdict, and the pols have been unable to implement the result. 

 

The essence of this dilemma is not a result of the 2016 referendum, but has been bubbling away among the pols of all parties since the Margaret Thatcher days. 

 

The UK has had a tortured history with the EU and its forerunners from day one.

They were invited to join the original, and refused. When they later changed their mind, DeGaulle blocked them. Less than 10 years after they joined Margaret Thatcher launched a campaign to get our money back, a claim for rebate of overpayments. Continentals have rightly long considered them the least enthusiastic members.

[DonRocks]

33 minutes ago, Count Bobulescu said:

Even though that sounds logical, it's also the worst of all worlds. That would be the equivalent of the US Congress impeaching the American people, and saying you may have voted for a communist or fascist for Prez, but we won't tolerate it. The hell with by the people for the people etc.  Next worst is a repeat. People please impeach yourselves.

 

The pols asked the peeps a  simple but flawed question. The peeps delivered their verdict, and the pols have been unable to implement the result. 

What I'm asking is: Why can't they give the people a second referendum, now that they've had adequate time to see the full consequences of the first one?

(BTW, what you describe in the first paragraph is exactly what the DC City Council did with Prop 77. This has nothing to do with you, or Brexit, of course, but I thought it was worth pointing out.)

[Count Bobulescu]

1 hour ago, DonRocks said:

What I'm asking is: Why can't they give the people a second referendum, now that they've had adequate time to see the full consequences of the first one?

(BTW, what you describe in the first paragraph is exactly what the DC City Council did with Prop 77. This has nothing to do with you, or Brexit, of course, but I thought it was worth pointing out.)

Brexit isn't the only clock ticking. EU Parliamentary elections are due at the end of May.

There's no legal obstacle that I know of. The obstacle is political ambition, posturing, self preservation interest, egos etc. 

 

The UK currently holds almost 10% of the EU seats. EU had previously agreed that upon UK exit, the size of parliament would not be reduced, but that the UK seats would be divided up. Talk now in the UK of delaying Brexit will complicate that plan, and its 100% the consequence of the Brits inability to agree among themselves. Each of the remaining 27 holds veto power. If the Brits fail to endear themselves......  A 2nd referendum, no matter the question, will mess with EU plans, and maybe cause one of the 27 to exercise its veto power..

[Count Bobulescu]

There's an EU published "stairway" infographic in this year old article. You need to read the article to understand the infographic. The more red lines the UK creates, the fewer its options become, and the lower down the stairway it goes, i.e it can't have Norway status because it won't agree to the items listed under Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine etc. Some had hoped the UK would remain at the top of the stairway in a position like Norway, but it's refusal to compromise on various issues mean it is heading to "less than Canada" and WTO rules like a remote Pacific Island.

Stairway to Hell

[Count Bobulescu]

Five options for the way ahead by Bloomberg, part of a longer email, no link. Note in #5 they say Parliament has the tools to block "No Deal". Will they use them?

Quote

 

So where do we go from here? With just 70 days to go until exit day, here’s a look at the most likely scenarios:

1. Brexit in Name Only, and Not Quite Yet

Keeping close ties to the European Union’s single market and customs regime might be the best way of getting a Brexit deal that Parliament can support, though May has ruled it out.

This option is known as “Norway-Plus” or “Common Market 2.0” to its supporters. Detractors deride it as “Brexit in Name Only.” Critics have a point: It would leave the U.K. taking rules from Brussels and wouldn’t address one of the main pledges of the referendum campaign — to bring an end uncontrolled immigration from Europe. Businesses would mostly be pleased, though the Bank of England doesn’t want to become a rule-taker.

How would we get there? Motions or amendments in the Commons need to show there’s support for the idea. The government would then ask for an extension to the March 29 deadline and a reopening of talks with the EU. The Withdrawal Agreement remains unchanged, including the much-loathed Irish border backstop. But the declaration on future ties is rewritten, making it very unlikely the fallback option will ever be used.

The plan then needs to get through the House of Commons. May might lose a couple of pro-Brexit ministers along the way, while the governing Conservative Party would be more divided than ever. Britain could then leave in late 2019 or 2020 and most people wouldn’t notice anything different.

2. Sign Up to a Customs Union

May has long promised not to sign up to a customs union, which would prevent the U.K. from striking new trade deals with other countries. That was another key pledge in the 2016 campaign. She reiterated that stance in private to Brexit hardliners on Thursday. Changing tack here would risk resignations by euroskeptic ministers and would lose her some Conservative supporters. But it might just be enough to win over pro-EU Conservatives, and some Labour MPs who would see it as close enough to the party’s official policy as to be acceptable.

This one also comes with an extension of the negotiating period, so Brexit won’t happen on March 29. And the Irish border issue won’t be completely fixed just by staying in the customs union. There’s a risk pro-Brexit Conservatives and the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party could be so outraged that they oust May’s government by lending their support to Corbyn’s next no-confidence vote.

3. General Election

Several paths lead to this one. Labour wins a no-confidence vote with the help of angry Brexit supporters and an election is triggered. Alternatively, May could call an election as the only way to get a mandate for her deal. The Daily Mail reports today that civil servants were told to draw up contingency plans in case of a snap poll. Still, it might not change the parliamentary arithmetic much. So the impasse remains unresolved. 

4. Second Referendum

If Labour repeatedly fails to get the general election Corbyn is seeking, the next option is to consider backing a second referendum. His party’s members voted at their conference last year that one should be on the table, so if Corbyn backs a re-run there’s a fair chance it will happen. About 10 Conservatives have already come out in favor of going back to the people, as have the smaller opposition parties. According to government research shared with lawmakers during cross-party talks yesterday, the process would take more than a year. The paper was “illustrative only” and set out “factual detail,” May’s spokeswoman said.

5. No Deal

This is the default option and the one both sides want to avoid. The U.K. Parliament is overwhelmingly against it and has tools to block it. Britain can also unilaterally reverse Brexit, according to a court ruling last month — another safety net. But May doggedly refuses to rule out no deal, and so businesses still have to prepare for the worst.

 

 

[Count Bobulescu]

This two y.o. Times FP reflects a typical John/Jane Bull attitude..........We've come along way since.....Time to crush is fast approaching.

 

 

[Count Bobulescu]

T. May generally sounds more grounded and rational than Donny T. but when you see a report like this you have to wonder........

No Surrender, Not an Inch

At least some MP's are stirring.

#10 Worried Rank & File Will Usurp Authority

[Count Bobulescu]

Two posts this morning by the same person on a UK forum illuminate the John Bull attitude.....and there's a lot of it about....... Ignores the fact that if it weren't for US help, and death of twenty million Russians they might very well be speaking German in Blighty today.

Quote

Getting some backbone is the correct phrase. We have faced far worse than this in these islands, and still within living memory.

We're not going to war for Pete's sake. How must those folks back in 1939 have felt? Europe in flames, with a crazy nutcase invading country after country? Isolated, on our own, trying to stand up to this madman in Germany?

Our army caught on a beach, with the only way out across the sea? Having to pick up the pieces after that, as German planes bombed our cities?

All this is, is us leaving the EU, and having difficulty finding our place in the outside world again. Once the dust settles, Europe will trade with us again. It's in their financial interests to do so. I understand their fears of us making a success of it, because they don't want any other countries saying they want to leave.

But in the end, money talks as it always does. We will find our way, and it will be difficult at first. But we must always keep in mind, the guts and determination of the British people in 1939, and the horrors they faced for years. By 1945 the economy of our country was in ruins. This is not the case here. 

We can do this

.
 

Quote

The number one concern for me with EU membership is unending immigration. I fear for the future with this issue. They will keep coming forever. We could never build enough homes to feed the demand. Britain would be ruined by urban sprawl, and gridlocked roads. Plus the social unrest caused. Nothing is more important if the young of this country are ever going to see affordable rents and homes to buy. We must also deal with immigration from outside the EU.

You well know my opinion on Ireland. I am sick to the back teeth of the Irish, going back decades to my time in the British army. We should have taken steps to leave northern Ireland in the early 70s. I am guessing many Ulster people left to live in Britain during the troubles. We should have said we're getting out, and Ulster people who don't want to live in a united Ireland should leave, and come to Britain.

Now, once again the Irish issue is causing us great difficulty in trying to leave the EU. Backstabbing from your political leaders has sickened me. He may well regret his actions at this time. The EU are just using Ireland as a big stick to beat us with.

Fortunately, on the immigration issue from northern Ireland by EU citizens trying to get into Britain by the back door, we have a sea between us. This can be managed at a future time, depending if this becomes a problem. 

If the EU agreed to an end to free movement to the UK, which they won't of course, I would consider voting remain in a second referendum. I'm not sure, because the EU have shown us nothing but contempt since we voted to leave the EU. Plus they are pushing for ever closer integration towards a United States of Europe. I'd have to think long and hard, but it will never happen. The EU would never give up on this right of movement.

 

[Count Bobulescu]

Westminster today considered 7 amendments to  T. May's proposal that was roundly defeated two weeks ago. Only one passed, a conservative proposal to send May back to Brussels to reopen negotiations on the Irish border backstop.

The purpose of the backstop is to prevent a hard border in Ireland for fear of reigniting violence.

The first car bomb in about 20 years exploded at night in front of a courthouse close to the border on Jan 19.

The EU said to May tonight, don't bother, no chance, and the Irish government is not as they say "best pleased".

 

Westminster today voted down amendments that would have sought an extension of time for negotiations, and would have prevented a no deal crashout, which everyone says they are against. Go Figya.

[Count Bobulescu]

Since the Irish Border Backstop will now be Topic A, until it's not, anyone wanting a better understanding could do worse than listen to this 13 min presentation by Sabine Weyand the EU's Deputy Chief Negotiator, the person who actually runs the show, and who rarely speaks.  She ranges beyond the backstop.

Even some hardline Brexiters are conceding she may have a point, and maybe more than one.
 

[Count Bobulescu]

Here's an excerpt from a longer smart posting on an EU discussion forum.

 

I think Westminster and the UK media at a basic level is treating the entirety of the withdrawal negotiations as a political rather than a legal process. Hence their confusion when political actions have no effect. It's a category error.

 

Someone else in the same discussion pointed out that unlike other counties, the British people are not sovereign, parliament is, and that gives MP's an inflated sense of their importance. Brits only relatively recently discarded the moniker of "subjects" in favor of citizens.

[Count Bobulescu]

Bloomberg....

 

Quote

Another Glimmer | Arlene Foster, the leader of the Northern Irish party that props up May’s government, said on Monday: “This is not a time for intransigence.” Still it’s not clear if that refers to her own intransigence or just other people’s. 

[Count Bobulescu]

A wise & astute poster opines on a suitable Y2K type abv. for Brexit day....

 

Quote

I like the term "B-day" because it suggests that just like "Bidet"..... it could be messy and there's a high risk of getting your arse burned.

For some people March 29, arrives before the end of February..........

Quote

The predicament of UK exporters. As a member of the EU, the UK benefits from preferential trading rights with various nations. In the case of a no-deal Brexit on March 29, those rights could be lost immediately. As Richard Partington and Heather Stewart write for the Guardian, that’s already putting UK exporters—whose shipments can take weeks—in a tough spot. Tariffs could be significantly higher when a cargo vessel arrives than when it departed.

[Count Bobulescu]

Nigel Farage one of the leading instigators of the Brexit campaign, registered a new political party over the weekend,  www.thebrexitparty.org for the purpose of fielding candidates in the upcoming elections to the EU Parliament----if the Withdrawal Agreement is delayed.

 As of last check they were claiming 48,000+ expressions of interest in joining within the first 48 hours of launch. I've seen a pro Brexiter claim that the ruling Conservative Party has only 70,000 members. Given the Brexit campaign's past record with dodgy numerical claims I'd treat both of those numbers with some suspicion. That said, given past accomplishments people have reason to be fearful of him, just like closer to home.

[Count Bobulescu]

First, a little fun.......

Quote

Q. What is the difference between Brexit and the Fyre festival

A. One was an Island fantasy where people just made up stuff they had no ability to deliver. They conned people using Social media into believing a small Island would instantly transform into a party paradise but later it was revealed the organisers never had any clue how to do any of it. The whole thing ended up being seen by the World as a total joke.

The other one was the Fyre festival

An NYT opinion piece written a few weeks ago by an Indian writer who (with good reason) doesn't hold the Brits in particularly high regard.........

Quote

The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class
Britain’s rupture with the European Union is proving to be another act of moral dereliction by the country’s rulers. The Brexiteers, pursuing a fantasy of imperial-era strength and self-sufficiency, have repeatedly revealed their hubris, mulishness and ineptitude over the past two years. Though originally a “Remainer,” Prime Minister Theresa May has matched their arrogant obduracy, imposing a patently unworkable timetable of two years on Brexit and laying down red lines that undermined negotiations with Brussels and doomed her deal to resoundingly bipartisan rejection this week in Parliament.

Such a pattern of egotistic and destructive behavior by the British elite flabbergasts many people today. But it was already manifest seven decades ago during Britain’s rash exit from India.

From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative Party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.

 

Malign Incompetence of British Ruling Class

[Count Bobulescu]

Several votes scheduled in Westminster in about 10 days. Not May's deal. No deal, Attempt a modified deal, Ask for an extension of time, and some others. Not certain whether any, some, or all will pass.

There is some sentiment in the EU to granting an extension, but no agreement on for how long. If that scenario were to materialize there is also sentiment in the EU that says the longer the time granted, the more we must insist that the UK, hold EU elections which are scheduled for late May.

In such circumstances, the elections themselves could become a defacto 2nd referendum, or they might actually hold a 2nd ref in conjunction.

It's all still to play for.

[Count Bobulescu]

Rumors abound in the UK that Brexit leader Nigel Farage (that"s Nige to you and me), may be about to be caught up in a EU Russian Money Laundering Investigation. His former assistant has already been convicted of money laundering in the US and cut a deal to avoid up to 23 years.

UK press is much more constrained by libel laws than US, hence the headline is posed as a question.

Is Nigel Farage about be arrested?
 

[Count Bobulescu]

The commentary below appears to have escaped from behind a paywall. I lifted it in its entirety from another site,  because there was no link, and even if there was a link.......... The Financial Times has an opinion writer named Philip Stephens. It expresses a viewpoint with which I concur.

Opinion Brexit
After Brexit, Britain will be a rule-taker
The salutary parable of the noisy lawnmower and the chlorine-washed chicken
Philip Stephens 

My favourite story of Brussels barminess is the one about the noisy lawnmower. During the 1980s, the EU took it upon itself to impose a decibel limit on motorised grass-cutters. What better proof for suspicious Brits of European megalomania than this intrusion into the very garden sheds of our green and pleasant land? Never mind. Britain, we are told, is taking back control. After decades as a rule-taker, it will rise again as a rulemaker. Such are the delusions of Brexiters.

Through a British lens, things European are rarely as they first appear. Taunted by what was then a small band of Tory Eurosceptics, the foreign secretary Douglas Hurd ordered an investigation into the origins of the directive. The news was not good. The episode was not after all a Brussels power grab. Ministers had backed the European Commission’s initiative. Worse, they had proposed it. They had then expended considerable political capital to force the measure through against German opposition. We are talking, by the way, about Margaret Thatcher’s government.

The rationale, it turned out, was hard-headed self-interest. Germany, a nation renowned for its tidiness and thus a lucrative market for lawnmowers, had blocked imports. German machines were quieter than most, so the Bonn government had set a national noise restriction to lock out the competition. Only an EU directive (permitting a higher decibel level) would allow British companies a foothold in the market. Thatcher’s government had deployed the same strategy to open up EU markets to the roar of British motorcycles.

Free-enterprise Brexiters railing against supposedly excessive EU red tape have never understood the relationship between common rules and open markets. Liberalising trade across national frontiers requires shared standards to ensure a level playing field. The single market has had great success in promoting trade because the EU has been able to harmonise the rules.

Once a small sect, the Tory party’s English nationalists have now stormed the ramparts of government. These Brexiters are intent on making the same mistake about the rules under which Brexit Britain will trade as they once did about lawnmowers. Rule-taking, they intone, is for sissies. Unshackled from the EU, Britain will create its own standards and norms.

They are wrong. The simple fact is that in today’s global economy, rulemaking is the property of the most powerful players. If you are one of the world’s biggest importers you can insist others meet your standards. Likewise, if you have a serious grip on a particular industry you can set sector-wide norms. The EU, the US, and, to varying degrees, China, Japan and India all fit this bill.

Britain is not big enough. Within the EU it has been at once a rulemaker and a rule-taker. Outside, its only real choice will be between whether it should accept rules from Brussels or elsewhere.

Brexit will make trading with the EU more expensive and troublesome. But the bloc will remain Britain’s most valuable export market. Manufacturers that want to sell their products into the single market — and that means most companies of significant size — will be obliged to continue to abide by Brussels’ rules even as they lose friction-free access. Small companies can do as they please — unless they want to join any supply chains crossing EU borders.

Britain will be able, it is true, to make its lawnmowers even noisier if it so chooses. No one in the union will buy them. The same will apply to products falling within the tens of thousands of regulations covering just about everything from food hygiene, environmental protection and vehicle safety standards to data transfer requirements and consumer protection. Service businesses likewise. Unless they want to give up on the European market, the suited professional classes will be obliged to keep up with EU benchmarks. The only thing that will change is that British ministers will no longer take part in setting them.

Ah, I hear nostalgists for the Anglosphere say. We can sign up instead for American rules. True enough. In some cases this might even make sense. Brexit is an opportunity to dismantle the panoply of taxpayer-funded protections and subsidies paid to farmers. There is cheaper produce available on world markets. Washington has already said a bilateral trade deal will depend on better access to the British market for America’s industrialised agriculture.

The government could swap European for US standards. Personally, I have no quarrel with rules permitting chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef. It would be barmy to leave the EU and keeping paying out to farmers. The switch, though, would kill exports to Europe. And even the most ardent Brexiter may struggle to portray as taking back control the appearance in supermarkets of chlorinated chicken.

The Bank of England seems to think there are one or two areas of financial services where Britain has sufficient clout to be an international rulemaker. Maybe. But financial institutions are already voting with their feet by heading to Dublin, Paris and Frankfurt.

The lesson here is that national sovereignty is illusory when separated from the power to act. This extends beyond trade. Britain can take back control of its borders only with the willing collaboration of the French authorities at Calais. Lawnmowers or chicken, the one certainty is that post-Brexit Britain will play by someone else’s rules.

[DonRocks]

8 hours ago, Count Bobulescu said:

The commentary below appears to have escaped from behind a paywall. I lifted it in its entirety from another site,  because there was no link, and even if there was a link.......... The Financial Times has an opinion writer named Philip Stephens. It expresses a viewpoint with which I concur.

This is outstanding.