Anonymous wrote:Why begin with Johnson's strategy?

This whole thing was Messina's idea!!!! Blame him.

Link?

Most Americans don't have a clear understanding of what the EU is or what it means and that there is an ideological as well as economic basis for the EU. The long term goal for the EU is effectively to turn Europe to a United States of Europe. The original goal of the EU is admirable, it was fully intended to make sure there would never again be destructive wars to divide and destroy Europe. But this requires substantial transfers of national sovereignty from the individual countries to the centralized EU. It's something the United States would never stomach, we would never allow a superior court consisted mostly of non Americans to pass judgment over American affairs, or a Parliament staffed mainly by delegates who are not elected by Americans to pass regulations that Americans must obey. The political structure of the EU has a substantial democratic deficit that Americans would never tolerate, the EU parliament, while elected, has little powers of its own and only rubber stamps the decisions of the 28 EU commissioners, each appointed (but not elected) by each country's leader.

The EU grew through stealth. It started out as a common market (strictly economic) and the UK joined the common market in the 1970s. Since then the EU has inched towards federalization through a series of broad treaties that transferred sovereignty to the EU bureaucracy and new Parliament in Brussels. Each individual treaty was highly unpopular in the UK but were forced through by the respective prime ministers of the day. Tony Blair had promised a referendum of a major EU treaty but signed it without the referendum because he knew it would be heavily defeated in a referendum. Each treaty was ratified by the UK parliament of the day but never had much popularity among the British (countries that did have referendums, like France and the Netherlands, had electorates that rejected the treaty but the governments went ahead and ratified the treaties, and the Irish government made their citizens vote twice to get the result they wanted). One of the treaties introduced freedom of movement, allowing EU citizens to move and work in all EU countries without real restriction, and the initial estimation by the Blair government was that around 10-15,000 EU citizens per year would come to the UK, the actual reality was close to 300,000 came per year. Anyone who lived in London in 2000 versus today knows fully well the remarkable transformation that has happened in London as a result - and this was on top of very large scale non-EU immigration that started under the Blair government as well.

Britain has long had a complicated relationship with the EU. It has been the least ideologically committed to the EU vision or the vision of a integrated and federalized Europe, it has often been the most resentful of new EU regulations. The pro-EU attitudes of particularly the Labour governments and parts of the Tory party is at great odds with the clear majority of the population. Even today many if not most "remainers" in the UK are opposed to further EU federalization, despite that it's guaranteed to happen. Their argument of staying in the EU but reforming from within is hollow to any impartial observer because the EU only reforms in one direction - further integration.

Politics and ideology aside, "no deal" means the UK leaves the EU without a trade deal in place. The other thing most Americans also don't understand is that there isn't actually a trade deal being negotiated between the EU and the UK over the past three years. It's the withdrawal agreement to settle all outstanding obligations between the UK and the EU. This withdrawal agreement would also include the frameworks for a future trade deal and the transition to that trade deal to allow as much economic activities to continue with minimal interruption. The EU firmly stated they would not negotiate a trade deal alongside the withdrawal agreement (which would be logical as it would kick in place upon the withdrawal). The Withdrawal Agreement is collapsing because a condition of the agreement was the Irish backstop, a guarantee that no matter what happened in the future, the Irish border would remain fully open, and on the EU terms, not the UK terms. The May government's concession to not force the EU to negotiate the trade agreement alongside the withdrawal agreement was a major mistake as the topic that is causing the collapse of the talks is all about a trade border, the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. May squandered any leverage she had on the outset. But this is a separate topic.

What no deal does NOT mean is the end of trade between the UK and the EU. It simply means trade operates on WTO terms. As a reference point, the US trades with the EU on WTO terms, so it is clearly not the end of the world. The danger is the slowdown in the supply chains between the UK and the EU, slowing down the delivery of goods and services. WTO introduces "friction" to trade. It really is open to debate what the actual consequences are but I suspect it won't be anywhere nearly as bad as some are predicting, but it will also be more troublesome than others want to believe. I lived in Qatar when the blockade began and previously virtually all trade to Qatar went via the UAE and Saudi but the supply chains was remarkable in rapidly adjusting to new sources and routes and there were no supermarket shortages despite that nearly all foodstuff is imported. The UK is indeed a much bigger country but that comes with its own pros and cons in a large-scale disruption.

I wish the British best of luck. I'm confident no-deal is the final outcome and I also suspect there won't be a trade treaty for a very long time (possibly never) but I also suspect it will have minimal impact on the British economy beyond a short term disruption as the economy readjusts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:During 11/18, Hillary stated Europe needed to curb immigration in order to thwart populism. What do you make of her comments?

I don't give a damn what Hillary said and neither does anyone else.

Technical note, EU freedom of movement is not considered immigration.

Pardon me: this is a political forum. We can't forget the Brexit vote was a campaign promise made on the advice of Jim Messina to mitigate concerns over immigration. The ploy worked in that campaign, the vote went sideways and this is where we are. EU freedom of movement is the only issue under the umbrella of what the electorate voted for.

It is all very sad.

Why begin with Johnson's strategy?

This whole thing was Messina's idea!!!! Blame him.

Anonymous wrote:During 11/18, Hillary stated Europe needed to curb immigration in order to thwart populism. What do you make of her comments?

I don't give a damn what Hillary said and neither does anyone else.

Technical note, EU freedom of movement is not considered immigration.

Did anyone on this thread ever pass through Ireland to Northern Ireland during the Troubles?

I remember it was the first time I ever saw a soldier with a machine gun.

Johnson's strategy has literally been to play chicken with the EU. To make sure the potential chaos is so bad that the EU is forced to give the UK a sweetheart deal in order to prevent the chaos.

During 11/18, Hillary stated Europe needed to curb immigration in order to thwart populism. What do you make of her comments?

Yes , everyone has been picking their noses. There have been no plans made for what the UK's post brexit rules would be. There has been no build up of customs, inspection and border officials. They haven't even been able to figure out what happens to the millions of EU citizens currently living in the UK.

Multinational businesses have made some plans to move their headquarters out of the UK but more domestic oriented ones have no way to plan for the future because there are no future rules on the books.

That is why this is such a shit show. Neither May nor Johnson's government have done any of the logistical legwork!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain Brexit to me like I am in fourth grade?

I understand what the EU is.
I understand there was a referendum and the British people voted to leave the EU.

Why did they want to leave the EU?

What I really don't understand is "deal or no deal". Didn't they have an outlinei in the agreements when they formed the EU, how that divorce happens? A prenup if you will?

So "deal" Brexit is Britain negotiates for some stuff they want in leaving the EU, right?

What is "no deal" Brexit and what are the consequences to Britain?

Thanks.

The short answer is National Interests. Member states must follow the rules according to five main institutions: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Court of Justice. The European Council, which is the meeting place for heads of state or government, sets the EU’s overall policy agenda and its priorities.

Those who oppose the EU feel that the governing bodies threaten the member state's free choice in matters of National Interest. They view it as a threat to their democracy.

Because they are stupid. The U.K. had more clout within the EU than it will without it. The U.K. had plenty of influence in those EU institutions. They were not helpless victims of the mean old EU. The Leave leaders were as delusional as Trump, claiming that they could make better deals one on one than as part of an international agreement, but they have failed to deliver anything workable. The U.K. can't even come up with a workable proposal with Ireland.

Well it seems the EU will want a strong border there not the UK. Looks like they will have to spend the money to make it happen. The UK most likely wants leave an open border....ie EU products can enter the UK without tariffs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain Brexit to me like I am in fourth grade?

I understand what the EU is.
I understand there was a referendum and the British people voted to leave the EU.

Why did they want to leave the EU?

What I really don't understand is "deal or no deal". Didn't they have an outlinei in the agreements when they formed the EU, how that divorce happens? A prenup if you will?

So "deal" Brexit is Britain negotiates for some stuff they want in leaving the EU, right?

What is "no deal" Brexit and what are the consequences to Britain?

Thanks.

Yes, article 50 is the exit strategy. The "no deal" Brexit will destroy the British economy because of the European supply chains. Further, the common boarders with Ireland and to a lesser extent, Scotland would be problematic to enforce. The whole thing was a manipulation by Putin to divide both England and the EU and weaken the G7. There was never a plan to a smooth exit, but this was never discussed or disclosed to the voters. It is sort of like how Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall but now US servicemembers are.

It may cause some disruptions but these type of things work themselves out pretty quickly. The markets adjust and people adapt.

These are the types of simplistic, bold faced lies that caused Brexit.

They will not work themselves out quickly. Something like 70% of the items in UK grocery stores are from the EU. Those items will not be restocked quickly. Similarly, the price of those items will go up. Essentially, Brexit will be a large tax increase on UK citizens.

They are also predicting widespread prescription drug shortages. And all they trucks and ships and cargo planes that now come from the EU and bypass customs with have to stop, and be searched and processed. There is no plan in place to do this and no infrastructure. So rather than just crossing border, they expect trucks, ships and planes to sit in line for days waiting their turn. Supplies, like medication and food won’t get into Britain without a huge delay, and huge expense while they pay people to sit and wait. Any parts of the supply chains for British goods from the EU will become expensive and getting the, will not be reliable.

And the EU can’t let Britain out with a decent deal. If they do, Germany will next in line, and demand the same deal. And the EU will collapse.

This is Putin’s wet dream. And I really wish Trumptwats would quit destroying things it took decades of hard work to build and saying it will all work out or something great will magically appear to fill the void. That’s not the way it works.

LOL yes everyone has been sitting around picking their noses since June 2016. You are right the EU does not trade with anyone outside the EU. Oh how will the Brits figure it out? You think with almost 3 years of warning retailers in Britain would be able to stockpile supplies, line up other manufacturers/suppliers, work around import/export red tape? Guess everyone will starve in Britain because they are incapable of getting food from any place but the EU? What do you think will happen if there are shortages? Do you think the government will continue with arbitrary bureaucratic rules stopping food for coming in or will they roll back the rules? The EU will be under extreme internal pressure from business groups losing the British market. Things change and the world goes on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain Brexit to me like I am in fourth grade?

I understand what the EU is.
I understand there was a referendum and the British people voted to leave the EU.

Why did they want to leave the EU?

What I really don't understand is "deal or no deal". Didn't they have an outlinei in the agreements when they formed the EU, how that divorce happens? A prenup if you will?

So "deal" Brexit is Britain negotiates for some stuff they want in leaving the EU, right?

What is "no deal" Brexit and what are the consequences to Britain?

Thanks.

The short answer is National Interests. Member states must follow the rules according to five main institutions: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Court of Justice. The European Council, which is the meeting place for heads of state or government, sets the EU’s overall policy agenda and its priorities.

Those who oppose the EU feel that the governing bodies threaten the member state's free choice in matters of National Interest. They view it as a threat to their democracy.

Because they are stupid. The U.K. had more clout within the EU than it will without it. The U.K. had plenty of influence in those EU institutions. They were not helpless victims of the mean old EU. The Leave leaders were as delusional as Trump, claiming that they could make better deals one on one than as part of an international agreement, but they have failed to deliver anything workable. The U.K. can't even come up with a workable proposal with Ireland.

Not really. Most voters didn't really think it through and thought it was all a lark.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain Brexit to me like I am in fourth grade?

I understand what the EU is.
I understand there was a referendum and the British people voted to leave the EU.

Why did they want to leave the EU?

What I really don't understand is "deal or no deal". Didn't they have an outlinei in the agreements when they formed the EU, how that divorce happens? A prenup if you will?

So "deal" Brexit is Britain negotiates for some stuff they want in leaving the EU, right?

What is "no deal" Brexit and what are the consequences to Britain?

Thanks.

The short answer is National Interests. Member states must follow the rules according to five main institutions: the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission and the Court of Justice. The European Council, which is the meeting place for heads of state or government, sets the EU’s overall policy agenda and its priorities.

Those who oppose the EU feel that the governing bodies threaten the member state's free choice in matters of National Interest. They view it as a threat to their democracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain Brexit to me like I am in fourth grade?

I understand what the EU is.
I understand there was a referendum and the British people voted to leave the EU.

Why did they want to leave the EU?

What I really don't understand is "deal or no deal". Didn't they have an outlinei in the agreements when they formed the EU, how that divorce happens? A prenup if you will?

So "deal" Brexit is Britain negotiates for some stuff they want in leaving the EU, right?

What is "no deal" Brexit and what are the consequences to Britain?

Thanks.

Yes, article 50 is the exit strategy. The "no deal" Brexit will destroy the British economy because of the European supply chains. Further, the common boarders with Ireland and to a lesser extent, Scotland would be problematic to enforce. The whole thing was a manipulation by Putin to divide both England and the EU and weaken the G7. There was never a plan to a smooth exit, but this was never discussed or disclosed to the voters. It is sort of like how Mexico was supposed to pay for the wall but now US servicemembers are.

It may cause some disruptions but these type of things work themselves out pretty quickly. The markets adjust and people adapt.

Yup.

EU is a multilateral solution, after Brexit they would need to establish bilateral relations & agreements with each country. Short term disruption. But then they would be able to make deals based on their own interest, not based on what makes the EU bureaucracy happy. It's a sovereignty play. The voters know exactly what they voted for. Thus, Johnson's call for new elections, to replace the MP who ran on Brexit and now want to waffle.

The EU has been dumping on the UK for a while and the citizens are tired of it. It's a populist movement, kind of a "make UK great again". The establishment hates it.