Brexit: UK to leave single market, says Theresa May

[Zinegata]

That is a lot of poor-blaming here. "If the poor want to get rich, they have to bootstrap themselves". Uh... no.

Who's blaming the poor? Failed governments are not "the poor". Government officials are certainly very rarely "the poor". Indeed many government officials in weaker nations are rich precisely because they exploit the poor by creating scapegoat issues to remain in power. The only time I chastised "the poor" was when I pointed out how they keep believing the promises of these scumbag "populists" anyway.

What I said is I have very little sympathy for people who do not take opportunities that do exist so that they can escape poverty. While people in small European villages whine about the lack of work, Filipinos have been enduring long VISA lines and sometimes even potential death at the hands of cruel employers for years. If entitled EU citizens won't take the work that's a train ride away, then I know people from this country who'd happily fly to the EU to take that work instead if the option was available.

[His Divine Shadow]

There's loads of information by what I would call both competent and sane economists on how the eurozone is a failure and they aren't people pushing for protectionism either. Just check out Mark Blyth for instance on the euro and the imposed austerity on member countries and it's effects.

What I am getting from you is we shouldn't complain until we have it as bad as some arbitrary line you've drawn in the sand. You don't get to complain because I got it worse, basically. Reminds me of this sentiment:


Well guess what, people are complaining and things are changing, faster every year, it's a snowball effect. It is in fact you who is in the position of being the one angry at a world that is changing in a direction he doesn't like, yet unable to do anything about it.

[madd0ct0r]

Well, I guess brexit will make it much harder or much easier to blame the eu for the true opportunists like Bottom Johnson. No. Actually what am I saying?

This is the post truth era. Results of policy don't matter. You don't even need to spin anymore, just lie. Just like the economic logic of austerity was a lie, in the UK and outside.

[Zinegata]

Just check out Mark Blyth for instance on the euro and the imposed austerity on member countries and it's effects.

You mean the imposed austerity on member states who, by and large, have uncontrolled spending because their governments consistently spend beyond their means?

Look, you can debate whether or not austerity is good for a country - I will agree with you I don't think its terribly effective.

But the idea that a state can spend far beyond its means and impose those deficits on other countries is a ridiculous non-starter to begin with. Austerity wouldn't even be a thing in the first place if certain governments had actually controlled their spending. And yet governments like that of Greece want to pretend they didn't dig their own graves in the first place and the big bad EU is to blame!

If it was a Third World country that was defaulting on their loans left and right due to uncontrolled spending, there wouldn't be an austerity debate. The world would just let the said country go bankrupt, let its economy collapse, and allow the people to suffer.

In short, I'm not drawing arbitrary lines. I am pointing out how ridiculously spoiled and entitled most of the Euro skeptics are to begin with; in the sense that in discussing any problem they always find a way to wash their hands of any blame.

If governments like that of Greece want a truly honest discussion, then the very first thing they have to do is admit they have an uncontrolled spending problem first and that they should be penalized for it. You can't make a mess without consequences.

[His Divine Shadow]

Austerity does not only not work, it produces MORE debt. It's not just less effective a solution it's completely anti-effective. It's not just a solution that performs badly, it's a non-solution that makes the problem worse! Meanwhile stimulus does work. It's a matter of fact that the state MUST borrow and spend in times of recessions to help the economy recovering, then paying off the accumulated debt in times of good economic performance.

And no, it's not just some eurozone countries, it's every single eurozone country is held to the fiscal standards which prevent them using stimulus and borrowing to recover their economies, instead they only have austerity, which has the inverse effect.

It is also a fact that the southern economies despite their problems kept on ticking and working more or less when they had their own currencies and that it was a set of circumstances unique to the formation of the euro that caused. When they had their own currencies they had to pay more interest for loans relative to the stability of their economies, this was a system much more regional and thus stable because it did not have the built in systemic risks the eurozone introduced.

And the idea that greece is soley responsible for their situation is such an oversimplification to the point it's false, but the simple moralizing fariy tale wins over complicated facts every day of the week:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles ... ain-athens

I mean, we didn't really bail out greece... we bailed out the banks holding their debt.

[Starglider]

You mean the imposed austerity on member states who, by and large, have uncontrolled spending because their governments consistently spend beyond their means?

The problem is that historically, the 'means' included monetisation of debt and high inflation reducing the remaining debt. Essentially many southern European countries were using inflation as a means of taxation because their actual taxation systems were not efficient and could not collect enough revenue.

But the idea that a state can spend far beyond its means and impose those deficits on other countries is a ridiculous non-starter to begin with.

The non-starter was expecting counties to instantly switch to a German-style low inflation model; the massive reform of tax systems and cultural attitude to taxation would have taken at least a decade even with concerted focused effort, and there was no such effort after joining the euro.

Austerity wouldn't even be a thing in the first place if certain governments had actually controlled their spending.

In liberal circles, 'austerity' and 'controlling spending' are the same thing.

[K. A. Pital]

That is a lot of poor-blaming here. "If the poor want to get rich, they have to bootstrap themselves". Uh... no.

Who's blaming the poor? Failed governments are not "the poor". Government officials are certainly very rarely "the poor". Indeed many government officials in weaker nations are rich precisely because they exploit the poor by creating scapegoat issues to remain in power. The only time I chastised "the poor" was when I pointed out how they keep believing the promises of these scumbag "populists" anyway.

What I said is I have very little sympathy for people who do not take opportunities that do exist so that they can escape poverty. While people in small European villages whine about the lack of work, Filipinos have been enduring long VISA lines and sometimes even potential death at the hands of cruel employers for years. If entitled EU citizens won't take the work that's a train ride away, then I know people from this country who'd happily fly to the EU to take that work instead if the option was available.

Why should people be content with their nations being plundered and villages impoverished, just because they can move to another nation to work? This does not compute.

Yes, people in the Third World will be ready to endure much greater hardships to escape from hell. No, it does not mean that people in poorer villages and towns have to be content with the EU and just relocate.

[Tribble]

As I believe this should be the general "Brexit" thread:

Brexit: MPs overwhelmingly back Article 50 bill


BBC News
MPs have voted by a majority of 384 to allow Prime Minister Theresa May to get Brexit negotiations under way.
They backed the government's European Union Bill, supported by the Labour leadership, by 498 votes to 114.
But the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats opposed the bill, while 47 Labour MPs and Tory ex-chancellor Ken Clarke rebelled.
The bill now faces further scrutiny in the Commons and the House of Lords before it can become law.
The prime minister has set a deadline of 31 March for invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, getting official talks with the EU started. The bill returns to the Commons next week.
MPs held two days of debate on the bill, which follows last June's referendum in which voters opted by 51.9% to 48.1% in favour of Brexit.
Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, a leading Leave campaigner, called the Commons result "absolutely momentous". Speaking on Facebook, he added: "We may be leaving the EU treaties. We are not leaving Europe."
The UK would "forge a new identity" and make "an amazingly positive contribution" to Europe, he said.
Analysis
By Laura Kuenssberg, BBC political editor
This time last year few in Westminster really thought that this would happen. The then prime minister's concern was persuading the rest of the EU to give him a better deal for the UK.
His close colleagues believed the chances of them losing, let alone the government dissolving over the referendum, were slim, if not quite zero.
This isn't even the last vote on this bill.
There are several more stages, the Lords are likely to kick up rough at the start.
But after tonight, for better or worse, few will believe that our journey to the exit door can be halted.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had imposed a three-line whip - the strongest sanction at his disposal - on his MPs to back the bill.
Shadow cabinet members Rachael Maskell and Dawn Butler quit the party's front bench shortly before the vote, in order to defy his orders.
Also, 13 Labour frontbenchers voted against their own party position, apparently without first resigning.
Mr Corbyn said: "Labour MPs voted more than three to one in favour of triggering Article 50. Now the battle of the week ahead is to shape Brexit negotiations to put jobs, living standards and accountability centre stage.
"Labour's amendments are the real agenda. The challenge is for MPs of all parties to ensure the best deal for Britain, and that doesn't mean giving Theresa May a free hand to turn Britain into a bargain-basement tax haven."
One MP was heard to shout "Suicide" when the result of the vote was announced.
'Detailed questions'
Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron, seven of whose nine MPs voted against the government, said: "The Tories and Labour have failed future generations today by supporting a hard Brexit.
"Labour's leadership tonight have waved the white flag. They are not an opposition; they are cheerleaders."
MPs will discuss the bill in more detail next week when it reaches its committee stage in the Commons, during which amendments to the government's plans will be discussed.
The SNP's foreign affairs spokesman at Westminster, Alex Salmond, said: "Next week there will be detailed questions and the calibre of the government will be judged by how they respond to the amendments."
Plaid Cymru's Westminster group leader, Hywel Williams, called Labour's stance "deeply disappointing", adding: "This was not a vote on whether to accept the referendum result. It was a vote on whether to endorse the Tories' extreme version of Brexit."
Ken Clarke, the only Conservative MP to defy his party by voting against the bill, said the result was "historic", but the "mood could change" when the "real action" of negotiations with the EU starts.
Earlier, the Commons voted against an SNP amendment aimed at scuppering the bill.
The bill was published last week, after the Supreme Court decided MPs and peers must have a say before Article 50 could be triggered.
It rejected the government's argument that Mrs May had sufficient powers to trigger Brexit without consulting Parliament.
Talks with the EU are expected to last up to two years, with the UK predicted to leave the 28-member organisation in 2019.
Copyright © 2017 BBC.

read:http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38833883

The House of Commons has now had it's say, and it approved the Brexit bill. Barring something unexpected like the House of Lords stalling things even I must concede the likelihood that Article 50 will be triggered at the end of March as planned.

At this point, what would be more productive- attempting to stop Brexit outright, attempting to put enough pressure on the PM to move stay in the EEA, or attempting to control whatever the PM tries to negotiate outside of the EU / EEA?

[Zinegata]

Why should people be content with their nations being plundered and villages impoverished, just because they can move to another nation to work? This does not compute.

Ultimately, people have to be responsible for their own well-being. If you are living in a country full of people tolerating corrupt governments, then nobody should guilt-trip them into staying and helping if an opportunity exists elsewhere to better their lives. Nobody should be required to be a nationalist to begin with.

Yes, people in the Third World will be ready to endure much greater hardships to escape from hell. No, it does not mean that people in poorer villages and towns have to be content with the EU and just relocate.

Sorry, but that's what I call entitlement. The whole point is that immigrant workers in the Third World would greatly prefer a system like the EU. They would not care if it wrecked the "home government" economy, because again they are leaving their home countries in large part to escape the corrupt politicians running it to begin with.

And when I look at cases like Greece, which is known to have a rather corrupt government, I really can't feel sympathetic for them when they try to pawn off their own problems to the EU. As I said, it's coming off more and more as scapegoatism.

[Zinegata]

Austerity does not only not work, it produces MORE debt. It's not just less effective a solution it's completely anti-effective. It's not just a solution that performs badly, it's a non-solution that makes the problem worse!

Yes, like I said you can argue it doesn't work. The problem is that it still glosses over the simple fact that Greek spent way more than it should have and got into crippling debt anyway. And note that money was not exactly going into increasing the Greek economy so it could grow enough to repay the debt - corruption was a pretty big thing during this period too.

And the idea that greece is soley responsible for their situation is such an oversimplification to the point it's false

It is not an oversimplication to say that nobody forced Greece to borrow money so they can spend far beyond their means in the first place.

Again, ultimately, countries (and the government officials running the country) have to be responsible for the decisions they make. Many countries make the mistake of borrowing too much when interest rates are good. So do many businesses. And yet do people shed a tear when a company folds because the interest rate changes weren't anticipated? Of course not.

The reason again why I'm so dismissive of these examples is because nobody would be blaming the EU or even think of a bailout if this wasn't Greece or a European Union country. Argentina fell into the same debt trap and had its economy suffer in the early 2000s. Was anyone saying it was primarily the fault of anyone other than Argentina when they defaulted in 2001? Of course not.

I mean, we didn't really bail out greece... we bailed out the banks holding their debt.

Oh, gee, that makes the Greek government blameless then I guess. Rather than perhaps looking at how the real fault of the banks is that they - like in the US subprime mortgage crisis - kept lending to the Greeks anyway and let the crisis deepened even though it wasn't clear how the Greeks were ever going to pay it back.

But when banks are involved let's automatically blame the bank and not the people borrowing from it knowing they can't pay back the loan. Because banks are automatically evil I guess.

[His Divine Shadow]

No it really is an oversimplification to say "It is not an oversimplication to say that nobody forced Greece to borrow money so they can spend far beyond their means in the first place." It paints a false view of reality.

The reality is that nobody forced the banks came to greece and said "we want to buy your bonds, here have €€€". Nobody forced the banks to buy bonds from a country that everyone knew had problems with corruption. Why should we bail out the banks for being idiot moron hell fuckers and doing bad business? They should fold, Greece should have defaulted. Nobody bailed out. That would have been the right thing.

Remember we're not really bailing out Greece here, the money went straight to Greece's creditors, not greece. It is infact an untruth to say Greece that was bailed out at all. Remember the EU doesn't give two turds about greece, the only reason any money was sent was to prevent the moron hell fucker banks from folding due to their idiotic lending and insane over-leveraging.

So yeah, it's really all about the banks. Nobody cares about greece, they're just a scapegoat to distract all the moralizing idiots and swabian housewives from following the money trail to its end.

[His Divine Shadow]

Remember the simple fact, you can't have reckless borrowing without reckless lending;
http://www.globalresearch.ca/eurozone-p ... -2/5460786

But French banks knew that they could not make billions by competing in Germany, nor were German banks expecting to vanquish the French. They looked instead to a simpler and easier market to loan out the plentiful supply of cash they had – the poorer, mostly southern European states that had agreed to take part in the launch of a common currency called the Euro in 1999.

The logic was clear: In the mid-1990s, national interest rates in Greece and Spain, for example, hovered around 14 percent, and at a similar level in Ireland during the 1992–1993 currency crisis. So borrowers in these countries were eager to welcome the northern bankers with seemingly unlimited supplies of cheap cash at interest rates as low as one to four percent.

Take the case of Georg Funke, who ran Depfa, a German public mortgage bank. Depfa helped Athens get a star credit rating, raised €265 million for the Greek government railway, helped Portugal borrow €200 million to build up a water supplier, and gave €90 million to Spain to construct a privately operated road in Galicia. For a while, the middle class in Greece like the middle classes in Spain and Ireland, benefited from the infrastructure spending stimulus. When Depfa nearly collapsed in 2008, Funke was fired.


Or take the case of Georges Pauget, the CEO of Crédit Agricole in France, who bought up Emporiki Bank of Greece for €3.1 billion in cash in 2006. Over the next six years, Emporiki lost money year after year, blowing money on one foolish venture after another, until finally, Crédit Agricole sold it for €1 – not €1 billion or even €1 million – but a single euro to Alpha Bank in October 2012. Crédit Agricole’s cumulative loss? €5.3 billion.

Money poured in from other banks like Dexia of Belgium. Via Kommunalkredit, Dexia loaned €25 million to Yiannis Kazakos, the mayor of Zografou, a suburb of Athens, to buy land to build a shopping mall. It made similar loans to other Greek municipal authorities including Acharnon, Melisia, Metamorfosis, Nea Ionia, Serres, and Volos.

“The tsunami of cheap credit that rolled across the planet between 2002 and 2007 … wasn’t just money, it was temptation,” financial writer Michael Lewis wrote in Vanity Fair. “Entire countries were told, “The lights are out, you can do whatever you want to do, and no one will ever know.”

Bloomberg took a look at statistics from the Bank for International Settlements, and worked out that German banks loaned out a staggering $704 billion to Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain before December 2009. Two of Germany’s largest private banks—Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank—loaned $201 billion to Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain, according to numbers compiled by BusinessInsider. And BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole of France loaned $477 billion to Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, and Spain.

There is a very good parallel to this situation of cheap and easy money in the recent sub-prime mortgage crisis in the U.S.

In a recent book, A Dream Foreclosed: Black America and the Fight for a Place to Call Home, author Laura Gottesdiener explains that 30 years ago, African Americans were unable to borrow money to buy houses because of a practice called redlining—where banks drew fictitious red lines around neighborhoods they would not lend to even if the borrowers had good credit and good jobs.

Today, redlining is illegal, but the reverse has happened. In the 1990s, poor people around the U.S. were offered 100 percent loans to buy houses at low rates with virtually no collateral.

“The mortgage market for white Americans was flush. There was no more money to be made from issuing mortgages to white Americans. The banks needed new consumers,” Gottesdiener told Corporate Crime Reporter magazine. “So, they moved into the minority market. But they weren’t selling the conventional loans. They were selling these incredibly exploitative predatory loans.”

We know how the sub-prime crisis ended in 2008 – and it almost brought down the global economy.

What happened after the creation of the Euro was very similar. The Greek government is in debt today to Germany and France not just because they borrowed money for unwise projects, but also because the bankers pushed them to take money that they would never have been able to approved under normal circumstances.

But as Stiglitz has noted, these German and French banks have now been rescued. An ATTAC Austria study showed that 77 percent of the €207 billion provided for the so-called “Greek bail-out” went to the financial sector and not to the people.

How the Greeks will vote on the European Union austerity package this Sunday is hard to predict, but more must be done – it is time to investigate the bankers who created the EuroZone crisis and hold them accountable.

But the bankers are not the only ones. There must be repercussions for the European Union bureaucrats and politicians who promoted the idea that free-market competition in financial services would benefit everyone. And not least of all, there should be a serious debate on how to reverse many of the policies that were used to create the European single market in financial services.

Lookit these fuckers just shoveling money into the south, they deserve to go under. Instead the EU bailed them out.

[K. A. Pital]

Ultimately, people have to be responsible for their own well-being. If you are living in a country full of people tolerating corrupt governments, then nobody should guilt-trip them into staying and helping if an opportunity exists elsewhere to better their lives. Nobody should be required to be a nationalist to begin with.

This Randian bullshit about people going Galt is not making your point stronger - only weaker. Only by forsaking your society, you can make your life better? What kind of a sad fucking life is that? And I say that as a person who actually moved away, severing almost all ties. You can't seriously be expecting that of everyone, it is just callous, social-darwinist and pathetic at the same time. "The poor deserve to be poor" is a good summary of what you are saying. It is not true. Society is a complex mechanism and by ignoring its plight, nobody is making anything better.

Sorry, but that's what I call entitlement. The whole point is that immigrant workers in the Third World would greatly prefer a system like the EU. They would not care if it wrecked the "home government" economy, because again they are leaving their home countries in large part to escape the corrupt politicians running it to begin with.

Whose entitlement, you dumbass? Mine? I left my god damn country to protect myself and make my life better. I know what the fuck you are talking about. But why the hell a desire to fix things at home rather than simply fleeing represent "entitlement"? It represents bravery, I think.

And when I look at cases like Greece, which is known to have a rather corrupt government, I really can't feel sympathetic for them when they try to pawn off their own problems to the EU. As I said, it's coming off more and more as scapegoatism.

I could have said the same about the Philippines, I have been to the nation and I find no kind words for your government, it is a corrupt one. But I am sympathetic to your nation. I feel that you have suffered mistreatment from brutal foreign powers like Spain, Japan and the US, who in the end are collectively responsible for a great deal of suffering that happens. I respect those who try to change your nation for the better.

If the Greeks dislike the EU meddling in the affairs of their nation, it is their god damn right. And nobody is forced to stay, but nobody can be forced to leave either. Like I said, expecting an entire nation to turn into a pauperiSd ghost town supported by remittances as something GOOD is a fucking sick, sickening vision of life, future and society.

Understood? We clear?

[Thanas]

Any further talk about Greece will be split from this thread.

[Crazedwraith]

As I believe this should be the general "Brexit" thread:

-snip-
The House of Commons has now had it's say, and it approved the Brexit bill. Barring something unexpected like the House of Lords stalling things even I must concede the likelihood that Article 50 will be triggered at the end of March as planned.

For all the good it did. I've most been supportive of Corbyn but I can't think why he ran a three-line whip is support of the Government all I can think is the fear of the 'waa! undemocratic' weapon being used on them forever more.

At this point, what would be more productive- attempting to stop Brexit outright, attempting to put enough pressure on the PM to move stay in the EEA, or attempting to control whatever the PM tries to negotiate outside of the EU / EEA?

I figure the lattermost.

ETA: The Brexit White Paper is due to be released today. It seems ridiculous that they had a vote on it before it was fully revealed what they were voting on.

[Thanas]

ETA: The Brexit White Paper is due to be released today. It seems ridiculous that they had a vote on it before it was fully revealed what they were voting on.

So just like the referendum then.

[Crazedwraith]

Basically, yeah. Sadly our opposition seems unwilling to actually oppose.

As someone pointed out to me Labour possibly wants to look good for the bi-elections in pro-Leave areas soon.

[Hillary]

ETA: The Brexit White Paper is due to be released today. It seems ridiculous that they had a vote on it before it was fully revealed what they were voting on.

So just like the referendum then.

Absolutely.

Article 50 was always going to be voted through by the Commons. Both leaders of our two main parties are pro-Brexit (although they were campaigning on the opposite side during the referendum - theoretically, at least) and had imposed a 3-line whip on the issue - there were never going to be enough rebels to even slightly challenge the outcome.

The first step into the void has been taken - fuck every single MP who voted for the bill. The vast majority of MPs know that it is not in the country or their constituency's best interests, but they didn't have the balls to stand up and be counted.

This is going to be really, really shit. For everyone.

[Tribble]

The sad thing is that pretty much everything in her "White Paper" can be more or less done by moving to the EEA:

c.Scope of the EEA
The EEA goes beyond traditional free trade agreements (FTAs) by extending the full rights and obligations of the EU’s internal market to the EFTA countries (with the exception of Switzerland). The EEA incorporates the four freedoms of the internal market (free movement of goods, people, services and capital) and related policies (competition, transport, energy, and economic and monetary cooperation). The agreement includes horizontal policies strictly related to the four freedoms: social policies (including health and safety at work, labour law and the equal treatment of men and women); policies on consumer protection, the environment, statistics and company law; and a number of flanking policies, such as those relating to research and technological development, which are not based on the EU acquis or legally binding acts, but are implemented through cooperation activities.

d.The limits of the EEA
The EEA Agreement does not establish binding provisions in all sectors of the internal market or in other policies under the EU Treaties. In particular, its binding provisions do not concern:
the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy (although the agreement contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fishery products);
the customs union;
the common trade policy;
the common foreign and security policy;
the field of justice and home affairs (although all the EFTA countries are part of the Schengen area); or
the economic and monetary union (EMU).

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourser ... 6.5.3.html

Hell even when it comes to immigration the EEA has some mechanisms similar to Cameron's "emergency brake" proposal, which can in fact limit freedom of movement during extenuating circumstances, so there would be some degree (albeit minor) of repatriation there. Even if leaving the EU/EEA was the long term objective, she's an idiot for pulling the plug right now.

What's the next stage of the process, third reading and vote?

[Tribble]

Just to extend the above and break down how her "12 Principles" compares to the EEA:

1. Providing certainty and clarity – We will provide certainty wherever we can as we approach the negotiations.

One would think there would be a hell of a lot more certainty and clarity by moving to a relationship model with the EU that already exists instead of starting from scratch.

2. Taking control of our own laws – We will take control of our own statute book and bring an end to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the UK.

See the list of EEA exclusions in my previous post. In particular, the UK would no longer be a part of the Court of Justice of the European Union if it moved to the EEA.

3. Strengthening the Union – We will secure a deal that works for the entire UK – for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and all parts of England. We remain fully committed to the Belfast Agreement and its successors.

Strengthen the union by flat out ignoring the electorate in Scotland, London, and Northern Ireland, even when they propose EEA as a compromise? Ya sure.

4. Protecting our strong and historic ties with Ireland and maintaining the Common Travel Area – We will work to deliver a practical solution that allows for the maintenance of the Common Travel Area, whilst protecting the integrity of our immigration system and which protects our strong ties with Ireland.

Much easier to do under the EEA, abandoning "freedom of movement" and establishing borders is the kind of the exact opposite of maintaining close ties with Ireland.

5. Controlling immigration – We will have control over the number of EU nationals coming to the UK.

It goes without saying that any relationship which includes the single market must include freedom of movement. The EEA does have some abilities to influence immigration though, so it's disingenuous to suggest that nothing would change.

6. Securing rights for EU nationals in the UK, and UK nationals in the EU – We want to secure the status of EU citizens who are already living in the UK, and that of UK nationals in other Member States, as early as we can.

Would be accomplished by moving to the EEA

7. Protecting workers’ rights – We will protect and enhance existing workers’ rights.

EU generally has the highest standards when it comes to workers rights when compared to the rest of the world, leaving the EU will likely cause a downgrade on this front, especially if leaving the EEA as well.

8. Ensuring free trade with European markets – We will forge a new strategic partnership with the EU, including a wide reaching, bold and ambitious free trade agreement, and will seek a mutually beneficial new customs agreement with the EU.

Would be accomplished by remaining in the EEA.

9. Securing new trade agreements with other countries – We will forge ambitious free trade relationships across the world.

Would be accomplished by moving to the EEA, as it does not cover trade agreements with other countries.

10. Ensuring the UK remains the best place for science and innovation – We will remain at the vanguard of science and innovation and will seek continued close collaboration with our European partners.

"Remains" is perhaps a dubious claim at best, but at any rate it would be much easier to maintain scientific agreements with other EU countries by staying in the EEA than leaving. I'm not entirely sure if the scientific endeavours are EU specific or if EEA countries can also participate (though I believe it's the ladder)

11. Cooperating in the fight against crime and terrorism – We will continue to work with the EU to preserve European security, to fight terrorism, and to uphold justice across Europe.

Again, this is better accomplished by remaining in the EEA than by leaving the EU market entirely. Either way, one would think it's kind of hard to uphold justice across Europe while simultaneously withdrawing from the Court of Justice of the European Union, but I digress.

12. Delivering a smooth, orderly exit from the EU – We will seek a phased process of implementation, in which both the UK and the EU institutions and the remaining EU Member States prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us.

Much easier to accomplish by remaining in the EEA.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourser ... 6.5.3.html

Do you think they even bothered to take a look at what the EEA contains before going full on Ape-s*^t? (Probably not).

[Zaune]

They're probably not actually serious about most of those anyway. Especially not #4, #6 and #7, and I wouldn't bet too much on #11 either if they're not bluffing about turning us into a tax haven.

[Thanas]

Tribble, it is all about the dirty immigrants stealing their jobs, so they will not accept a compromise at all.

[Tribble]

Tribble, it is all about the dirty immigrants stealing their jobs, so they will not accept a compromise at all.

For the government in charge and a significant fraction of its support base, sure. It would be interesting to see how may of the "leave" group supports an EEA type membership. Is there any research into that?

Anyways, it's now passed final reading and going to the House of Lords... which probably won't do anything meaningful. Going to post updates on this thread rather than make a new one:

Britain Jumps Into a Brexit Wonderland

With all the craziness going on in Washington these days, it’s easy to ignore what’s happening in the outside world. But Trump-style populism and nationalism is a transatlantic threat, and we should keep an eye on how it is progressing in other countries.

On Wednesday, the United Kingdom’s House of Commons took an important step toward pulling the country out of the European Union, passing a Brexit bill by an overwhelming margin: 494–122. Cowed by right-wing newspapers and fears that Brexit supporters in the rural shires and northern cities would punish them for defying the result of last year’s referendum, hundreds of pro-European M.P.s voted for the legislation, which opens the way for Theresa May, the Conservative Prime Minister, to trigger Article 50 of the European Union treaty.

Once May takes that step—and she has said that she wants to do it before the end of March—negotiations will begin with other E.U. members about the terms of Britain’s exit. Most experts expect these talks to last about two years. And then, to the delight of xenophobes and nationalists everywhere, Britain’s forty-four-year partnership with continental Europe will most likely come to an end. M.P.s will get an up-or-down vote on whether to approve the deal the government reaches with the E.U., but they won’t be able to amend it. In another parliamentary vote on Wednesday, a proposal to hold a second public referendum after the exit negotiations are completed was heavily defeated.

The Euroskeptics, pro-Brexit campaigners, and Trump appeasers are busy celebrating. David Davis, the Minister for Brexit, called the parliamentary vote “historic.” Nigel Farage, Trump’s pal who used to head the U.K. Independence Party, said, “I never thought I’d see the day where the House of Commons overwhelmingly voted for Britain to leave the European Union.”

Farage was being honest, at least. Back in 1993, when he helped to set up UKIP as an avowedly nationalistic and anti-European party, calling for the U.K.’s withdrawal from the E.U. was a fringe position in British politics. But during the past decade and a half, as the E.U. expanded to the east and large numbers of migrants from countries such as Poland and Latvia arrived in Britain, anti-immigrant and anti-E.U. sentiment flourished. With the right-wing tabloids busy running stories, many of them dubious, about immigrants with large families relying on welfare programs, many British voters paid little attention to careful studies showing that E.U. migrants, as a whole, pay considerably more in taxes than they receive in government benefits. Fake news triumphed.

It would be uplifting to report that since the referendum, in June, which the Leave side won by fifty-two per cent to forty-eight per cent, the pro-Europe forces had been making a vigorous effort to persuade the public that it made a disastrous mistake. That hasn’t happened. Under the leadership of the hapless Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party, the main opposition group in Parliament, has come around to toeing the pro-Brexit line. In advance of Wednesday’s vote, Corbyn ordered Labour M.P.s to support the Brexit bill, and most obeyed his edict—though fifty-two defied Corbyn and voted as their consciences dictated.

To be fair to the Labour Party, it is in a tough spot. Like U.S. Democratic congressmen and senators from districts and states that Donald Trump won, the Labour Party’s M.P.s can’t afford to ignore the views of their electors. Many represent working-class constituencies that voted for Brexit, and the rise of UKIP represents a serious threat to them. Corbyn’s edict reflected a fear that if the Labour Party were seen as trying to overturn the result of the referendum, it could get wiped out in the next election. But for all this cold political logic, it was a sorry sight to see Labour, a party with a long tradition of internationalism and standing up for minorities, lining up alongside the Farages of the world.

Political self-interest also played a big role on the Conservative side, where loyalty to May and the Party leadership overcame the qualms about Brexit that many centrist Tories still have. (Unlike in the U.S., the phrase “centrist conservative” is not yet an oxymoron in Britain.) Ken Clarke, one of the Party’s elder statesmen, who served as Chancellor of the Exchequer under John Major, during the nineteen-nineties, was the sole Tory M.P. to vote against the Brexit bill.

Last week, in the lead-up to the vote on the bill, Clarke gave a speech containing some hard truths about his party and the Brexit folly. Referring to Enoch Powell, a Conservative politician who turned himself into a political pariah by delivering a virulently anti-immigration speech way back in 1968, Clarke said that Powell, who died in 1998, would “probably find it amazing to believe that his party had become Euroskeptic and rather mildly anti-immigrant in a very strange way in 2016.”


Ridiculing May’s recent claims that leaving the E.U. would enhance Britain’s standing in the world, and enable it to make its own trade deals with countries like America and Canada, Clarke went on to evoke “Alice in Wonderland.” “Apparently you follow the rabbit through a hole and you emerge in a wonderland where suddenly countries throughout the world are queuing up to give us trading advantages and access to their markets,” he said. “Nice men like President Trump, President Erdoğan are just impatient to abandon their usual protectionism and give us access.” Clarke added, “No doubt somewhere there is a Hatter holding a tea party with a dormouse.”

The sarcasm was eminently justified. For all the talk immediately after the Brexit referendum about Britain seeking to leave the E.U. gracefully and with continued access to its huge market for British firms, it’s now clear that isn’t going to happen. Non-E.U. members who want close ties to the union must pay a price: accepting free movement of labor and making a contribution to the E.U.’s budget. (That is what Norway does, for example.) But May, in seeking to appease the xenophobes, has said that restricting immigration is her first priority. That means the so-called soft-Brexit option is off the table. If the other E.U. members play hardball during the upcoming negotiations, which they have every incentive to do in order to discourage other countries from leaving, U.K. exporters will get no preference at all: they will be on equal standing with Brazilian and Chinese firms. Britain will have to make its way alone.

For the City of London and British industries with close ties to Europe, such a “hard Brexit” represents a grave threat. Already, bankers in Frankfurt and Dublin are talking about poaching business and talent from their London-based competitors. Reflecting the blow to Britain’s competitiveness, the value of the pound sterling has fallen sharply since the referendum. In the short run, this has helped cushion the blow to the economy by making British exports cheaper, and G.D.P. growth has held up better than many analysts expected.

Over the long term, though, the United Kingdom faces the prospect of being a small open economy with a vulnerable currency and a persistent trade deficit. Britons with a long memory, of whom there don’t seem to be very many, will recall that during the nineteen-eighties it was exactly this uncomfortable set of circumstances that prompted Margaret Thatcher, who was hardly a lover of the Brussels bureaucracy, to support the single-market project, which eventually led to the E.U. we see today.

Surveying the challenges ahead, the respected non-partisan Institute for Fiscal Studies is now projecting that the U.K.’s G.D.P. will grow by just 1.6 per cent this year and 1.3 per cent next year. To meet its budget targets, the May government will have to continue with austerity policies that have already lasted nearly eight years. “Cuts to day-to-day public service spending are due to accelerate while the tax burden continues to rise,” Paul Johnson, the director of the I.F.S., said.

There is a grim parallel here with what is happening in the United States. In Britain, the biggest beneficiaries of public-spending programs are low-income voters, many of whom voted for Brexit. Likewise, in the U.S., Trump’s tax cuts and his proposed repeal of Obamacare will hurt the poor and benefit the rich. In both countries, the hard-pressed will be the ones who pay for the populist lurch. It is almost too depressing to watch.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cass ... wonderland

[Crazedwraith]

Holy heck, that article pulls no punches. Interesting to get an unvarnished look at it from the other side of the pond.

[Tribble]

Holy heck, that article pulls no punches. Interesting to get an unvarnished look at it from the other side of the pond.

I thought you might enjoy it