The more I hear of May's deal tonight the more I think it looks like BrexitINO - Brexit In Name Only.
We're leaving.
But staying in the Customs Union.
And Single Market.
Seemingly indefinitely.
And subject to all the EU's rules as a result.
The only thing that has changed is we have lost any control.
But I strongly suspect we will be paying nonetheless.
We always knew May was a Remainer.
But not that much a Remainer.
And there is the minor hurdle of parliament to overcome.
Except it might actually comply with Labour's six tests.
We'll have to see.
But now the question is 'why do it at all in that case?'
You can see why the Brexiteers are angry.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
So your happy then?
No….
We should stray in that case
Sam says:
“So your happy then?”
What a perverse conclusion to draw from what you just read. [Shakes head in disbelief.]
Indeed…..
I agree. It’s crap, but, as I indicated on the previous thread, this is as good as it gets. Neither of the main parties should seek to impose a whip. As Hume once put it, reason is the slave of passion – and never more so than in this case. But with a free vote, some sense might prevail.
Paul Hunt says:
“I agree. It’s crap, but, as I indicated on the previous thread, this is as good as it gets.”
But if no deal is better than a bad deal……?
If the logic of ‘No Deal’ is staus quo ante, I’m up for that.
*Any* deal is by definition better than no deal, because that deal will necessarily ameliorate some of the problems caused by a no deal outcome. That is why it is called a deal. Or to put it another way, no deal is the worst possible deal.
That said, this is clearly not the best possible deal, which would be remaining in the EU.
How long will May remain Prime Minister? Who’s next?
3 a.m here and up to burst forth on matters of science. Will to live failing, so here for R & R. Brexit, like Trump, is territory for psycho-dynamics, an old term I favour as it conjures-up magnets. Maybe we should point a few horseshoes at May? Her speech to the nation at the no 10 pulpit said nothing on content, only that she was delivering on the referendum. Whether this is a vote winner given so many know the whole thing was a fraud, we can only wait and see. This is like a con artist saying she will push on with the Ponzi. Corbyn seems to be saying it’s all tosh. This is the correct answer delivered some time after the exam answers were published. I’m in ‘hire Guy Fawkes, submit to direct rule from Brussels’ territory. There are serious ways forward, but it’s like reasoning with a gunslinger.
May has been hoist by her own petard (DUP), the country held to ransom by a cabal of medieval wood-chip burners and anti-abortionists. Hussar!
The whole thing is like bringing back control to a bent local sherrif who runs organised crime.
I struggle to get past the steam-venting. The deal “honours” a non-sensible referendum and provide “a much better deal than the (shit sandwich) of no deal, says Gawke, a man of failed promises on Grenfell.
There are two documents here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/progress-on-the-uks-exit-from-and-future-relationship-with-the-european-union
Glancing through it looks like undergraduate flannel trying to fill space whilst addressing nothing – a classic tactic in British bureaucracy according to Goffman. In the shorter 7 page document you can find a paragraph on fishing. It’s as vague as possible and says wads we should do in or out on environment and conservation and squat on reinvigorating our own fleet and repelling “the Spanish Armada”. The documents are an easy read to the academic eye used to ‘piled high and deep’. Better to read Goffman (Presentation of Self in Everyday Life) who quotes Sir Humphrey (from 1941) on the tactic – howling good fun. There is a philosophy of vagueness (agony) and these documents are clearly produced to confirm it all. They parse to nothing, not even the kind of legalise we might seek loopholes in. There is no string! BREXITINO is as good as any summary.
May’s speech has more in it – very nasty “national interest” sloganeering no one familiar with 1930’s Germany should use. We have exited language not the EU!
What are the real reasons for not having “a first sensible referendum armed with the facts”? I suspect the main one is fear that it would expose our political and media system as the Wizard of Oz. Deep in this are common notions of what argument is and our delivery system for public deliberation. Recently, media Pixies have made little of a 54 – 46 stay in poll of 20,000 in favour of Brenda from Bristol telling us we just want it over, showing no self-awareness of the gaff. Blair is making more sense than anyone else. What world did I wake up in?
Good grief Archytas – what are you on?
Mind you, you seem calm and reflective – despite everything.
Whatever it is that you are on, can I have some?
‘why do it at all in that case?
To cut the net expenditure, get rid of the MEPs, civil servants and assorted academics from the UK riding on the gravy train, and most important of all considering what the EU’s biggest budget item is, to bring agricultural policy home.
Have you noticed the substantial number of new civil servants this will require?
You are living in cloud cuckoo land
Being a rule taker should require fewer civil servants in Brussels
Chris
So why are we getting more?
Please think before you ink
Richard
Thanks for the time put in here Richard and important stuff on tax that’s made my long-term scientific-social economics make more sense to me as practical. Putting positive views forward in the face of current blind intransigence is tough. The only answer is “Green”. What we should be looking at is stuff like this on human impact – http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/285/1891/20182047 and developing modern politics away from medieval and economic delusions. Instead, we are drawn into the madness or watching cricket (as I am – fabulous run out by Stokes – while Rome burns). Having finished my scan of the “plan” I’m depressed anyone can think of the documents as argument. This environmental paper goes down a treat in comparison, though is depressing for non-illusory reasons. Our impact is much wider than commonly held. A big question in the Brexit farago is how we can develop the sense of science on a wide-enough basis, including its multi-narrative perspective, so as not to be “patronising” and “elitist”. This was known pre-science to the Pyrrhonists, though they lapsed into only Greek elitists being capable of making synthesis from varying arguments!
If we think of line diagrams from exit and stay, much that needs doing looks much the same in both lines, though stay requires less re-inventing wheels of commerce. The link shows how small scale increases accumulate to massive impact. I suspect something as serious has taken place in our lexicon of common sense and its political exploitation. Later today we will hear more of he same vacillation with air-space wasted by people chucking more chronic slogans. Now, can I interest anyone in my new “bunker derivatives”?
As usual, thanks
archytas says:
” Now, can I interest anyone in my new “bunker derivatives”?”
As long as we can laugh we are still in with a chance. It’s all we’ve got left. 🙂
It is reported : “May says the choice is clear. We can choose to leave with no deal, or have no Brexit at all …. ”
Possibly the first recorded utterance from her that makes any sense ? Better late than never. This should always have been the understanding behind the Brexit negotiations.
Hi Richard,
Regarding BRINO. The choice has always been between a hard brexit that harms our economy and closer alignment whilst being outside the EU which harms our economy less but makes no sense (all the disadvantages of following the rules with no say in them).
This government (shambolic as they are) have had a look at the first option and don’t like what they see. This deal is closer to the 2nd option above but merely serves to bring the absurdity of its inferiority to our current situation into clear view.
The only rational choice must be – to ask Brussels to allow us to withdraw from our Article 50 application.
May’s choice is ‘in, but out’ – as far as having any say in future EU decisions is concerned.
And if Labour help her now with her Brexit deal – God help them!
Jennifer (aka Jeni, Havantaclu) Parsons says:
“And if Labour help her now with her Brexit deal — God help them!”
God help us, everyone…says Tiny Tim.
I suppose what is sinking in here for me is that May seems to have abdicated her role to one of passivity or perceived neutrality. It is as though she has essentially handed the issue over to the EU.
As I am not a EU hater, I’m not too troubled by this (it if were the case – it may not) as May herself said that ‘BREXIT means BREXIT’ which essentially ignored the sovereignty of Parliament who really is only body that can say that with any authority. Not her or any Prime Minister for that matter.
So the issue of us being a vassal state to Europe and foregoing our sovereignty does not trouble me since the Tories ignored Parliamentary sovereignty anyway. As ever with the neo-liberals its not that they disapprove of us being a vassal state, it just that we have to be a vassal to them alone and no one else!
Thinking now how this might pan out – maybe (is that her name now ‘May-be?) May has a death wish and is just fed up with it all. So she will be happy for her reign to collapse so that someone else eventually left holding the bag?
But really….why is it just so hard to just say STOP?
Everything is unfolding as it should. In my analysis two years ago which was later published on this site, my conclusion was that I doubted that it was technically possible for this Brexit project to result in us leaving the EU. And so it seems. We just stay in the customs union for ever. Or whatever else the 27 decide.
If the British public had voted for their politicians to turn base metal into gold, the result would have been no less certain.
In fairness to our English cousins, the outbreak of Post Imperial Stress Disorder (PISD) which brought this nonsense about is less serious than the outbreak in Germany after WW1, or indeed that which currently infects the Russian people. It could get much worse. Scotland should leave and get on with being a small nation within the European community.
Best option? The case a group of Scottish politicians is taking to the ECJ in the teeth of objections by Wastemonster, to confirm that all the British government has to do is vote to cancel the article 50 application to stop the madness is found in our favour. A brief outbreak of sanity in London then does the trick.
One can hope on the last
A currency crisis would help….