Not to mention that a number of Brexit supporters are vulture capitalists that have massively shorted the pound and expect to make a killing, but only if economic catastrophe occurs. They have every incentive to gum up the works to ensure no-deal occurs.
2 Likes
The whole point of May’s deal is that it allows the UK to prepare for its transition without wrecking the economy, at the cost of paying EU dues and following EU rules without having a say in them for however long the transition takes (probably 10–15 years).
Of course, the same or better result would have occurred if the UK government laid out a 15-year program for transitioning (e.g. weaning itself off its dependence on financial services, building customs infrastructure, and so on), and giving Article 50 notice only at the end of the that plan. The delusional Brexit ultras would not have any of that, however. That’s also why Merkel was so insistent on the UK giving notice as soon as possible—as soon as it was given, the UK lost all leverage.
I beg your pardon? In which possible world would that have been even remotely possible?
Same goes for your 10-15 year transition period. Politically entirely impossible - to the extent of possible civil war levels of impossible).
1 Like
Basically using the Vienna convention to cancel the backstop would mean same thing as no-deal (because the EU would then walk away from its own obligations under the cancelled deal), but after the UK having paid the €39B, so it’s even worse than no-deal.
Better than that would be to sign up to a copy-pasted Canadian or Japanese free-trade agreement (the UK government has resisted that so far, because it thinks it is a special snowflake that deserves better, even if that is the only conceivable logical consequence of all of May’s red lines) and set up a border in the Irish sea.
The UK government usually doesn’t care about Northern Ireland opinion, except in the highly unusual circumstances where Ms May gambled on an early election and is dependent on the rabid Unionist DUP party for her razor-thin majority, but that will almost certainly not be the case any more when the 2 year transition period ends and the backstop becomes necessary.
Yeah, I can’t see that happening. Neither could Parliament which is why the amendment to that effect didn’t pass.
I don’t think it even flies legally. It’s pretty clear that the backstop being permanent is something ‘foreseen’ since that’s what all the fuss is about in the first place.
Agreed.
Also agreed.
May’s decision to call the early election really does look like more and more of a masterstroke. /s
I agree that in the current British political climate (or that of 2 years ago) it is politically impossible. If the British had a rational government, competent politicians and not a completely deluded electorate, it would still be the optimal way to extricate themselves of the EU while minimizing the damage. In all likelihood they would still be worse off than staying in the EU, but not all political decisions are made on the basis of maximizing the economic outcomes.
1 Like
Definitely, if by “stroke” we mean the cerebral aneurysm sort…
Fair enough. I agree that if some sort of ruling cabal had sat down and decided the UK should leave the EU that would have been the sensible way to do it.
I think the fact it didn’t happen that way is a fairly good bit of evidence that there is no secret cabal running the UK.
It really is just a clusterfuck.
1 Like
The backstop is actually an elegant solution to the conundrum that the UK government doesn’t want a hard border in Ireland (to preserve peace), doesn’t want to comply with EU rules forever (otherwise what’s the point of Brexit?) and doesn’t want an internal border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.
On the other hand the EU cannot tolerate an open border through which bleached chicken can be imported into the EU (because of course that’s what not complying with EU rules means, lowering standards to whatever the US and China will dictate to a desperate Britain).
In a generation’s time Northern Ireland will have a majority of Catholic voters (it already has a majority of Catholics, but some are too young to vote) and they will vote for reunification with Éire, thus making the whole backstop moot, but the UK will decide which leg of the trifecta it will have to sacrifice in 2 years’ time.
Economies don’t turn on a dime. The European Single Market (which was the brainchild of Margaret Thatcher, let’s not forget) took over a decade to execute, as did the transition to the Euro, so it stands to reason extricating oneself from it would take the same amount of time, if not more. There are laws to rewrite, IT systems to transition, customs procedures to put in place, rebuilding of atrophied organs like trade negotiators, and so on. No political flights of fancy, just gritty bureaucratic toil.
Also, it doesn’t take a cabal. That’s what the Civil Service is for, to plan and propose options the elected government can choose from. The sane thing would have been to plot out alternatives and have that be the subject of the referendum, but Cameron needed to appease John Major’s “bastards”, not to lay out a coherent vision for exiting the EU, and Boris needed a way to get Cameron out of the way before he was too old to be PM.
1 Like
That’s the point. The cabal would have been needed to agree to leave in some way that did not involve mass pressure to do so immediately.
By the time there’s enough pressure to leave that parties that don’t want to leave are forced to/decide to hold a referendum and lose it, there’s no way to take the time needed.
And if the pressure is not there, why would anyone spend the time, effort and money moving the UK to position where it could be done? Especially since the whole point of being in the EU is to take advantage of the benefits of membership.
It would be a bit like joining a gym but at the same time deciding to buy all the equipment you like using in the gym to have at home.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
