Westminstenders: And so it begins

[RedToothBrush]

Promises made that can not be kept.

We have already fallen at the first stumbling block: the desire for parallel talks on exit and future relationship that May wanted has been rejected. Not that this is a surprise seeing as we were told this.

This isn't two years of negotiations for a good deal. Forget any suggestions that it is. It's two years of damage limitation and domestic pr.

For both the UK and EU.

I do believe that May's attitude - which seemed to be more friendly in her speech and letter yesterday - has burnt all our bridges.

This talk of the world needing the EU's 'liberal democracy' isn't aimed at the EU though. Her use of the words that produced uproar in the HoC yesterday was deliberate. Why use it? It was always going to produce a reaction.

When May says she will have a consensus at home to achieve this goal one of two things must happen: to prove just how much we need the EU to make a political reversal possible at the expense of her head or to vilify the EU to a point that Remainers suddenly change their mind.

To get a good deal for the UK she can not satisfy her hard line Brexiteers. It is impossible purely because to do otherwise is like breaking the laws of physics. Trade is done mostly with who you are closest too. This is the inescapable truth. We are leaving the EU but not Europe as keeps being pointed out.

If we want to trade we have to accept EU regulations. If we do not, we do not trade. Rules we can now no longer influence by must obey.

We can not reduce immigration. We have had control of non-Eu immigration and that is not going down due to skills shortages. To combat this schools are getting less money.

In terms of sovereignty and British parliament we just gave that away. The 'Great' Repeal Act is a power grab by the executive. It seems to give the powers of the monarch to Mrs May and take them away from parliamentary scrutiny. At the same time we are forced to become beholden to Trump's America. A man who screws people for a living and has not a shred of honour.

Using security as our bargaining chip misses the obvious. If we do not cooperate we endanger Brits abroad and ourselves domestically. Are we really prepared to stop?

The opportunities of Brexit Britain are bleak. This will be normalised.

Good luck folks. We are gonna need it.

Yes Hashi every day there seems to be some news that a year ago we would not have believed possible.
If you wrote down a list of all the developments that could now happen (losing Scotland, crisis in Ireland, Gibraltar problems, price rises and recession, job losses, companies leaving the U.K., deporting EU citizens, public services LOSING money instead of gaining, complete messes through cutting ties with EU agencies, and alienating our nearest neighbours) - well would you believe it was possible we are going ahead with this, in spite of no proven gains? It's April Fools times a million.

It's April Fools times a million.

If you added the depreciation of sterling, scientific/academic brain drain and accelerated increase in projected state pension age to that list, you'd have pretty much defined "Project Fear".

A mere coincidence, I'm sure.

It's April Fools times a million or something they've been planning for decades. And the reticence of SNP and Labour to challenge Henry VIII clauses overtly and with genuine opposition, speaks volumes. It's all a fascinating insight into the dangers of an unwritten constitution and weak election expenses law enforcement.

Thanks prettybird for the link to the Richard Corbett Brussels Times interview. Very interesting.
The interviewer asked if RC thought the EU would happily allow the UK back (in the unlikely event we decide not to go through with Brexit), after all the shenanigans. He thought yes. I think no. We are alienating those nations whether we go or stay now. A lose-lose situation.

The Project Fear list of awful developments: the boiling frog analogy is important here. The gradualness of it all, coupled with TM's ability to be calm and authoritative (and convince people that all is not only ok, but in their interests), is facilitating the biggest trick ever.

I understand that the people of the Falklands voted to remain in the UK.

However, as a sitting member of the WTO, does Argentina have a veto on new members joining, for whatever reason?

Oh and EU members also have a veto on new members joining Despite the falsehoods peddled on Andrew Marr by a deceitful Penny Mordaunt, who has now been promoted. Quite telling of this gov't that someone who lied and misled voters in public be promoted.

"Penny Mordaunt, the armed forces minister, said the UK “does not” have a veto over the new membership of states such as Turkey – despite it being a key part of the Treaty of the European Union.

David Cameron said the minister was “absolutely wrong” on the matter, and implied her judgement on other matters should be called into question as a result."

Ms Mordaunt found herself at the centre of the controversy after she endorsed a controversial new Vote Leave campaign poster which shows dirty footprints entering an enlarged British passport with the caption: “Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU”.

Asked if she was resorting to “dog whistle” politics, Ms Mordaunt told the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show it was the Remain campaign that was resorting to "scaremongering" and "false reports”:

What integrity?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/penny-mordaunt-andrew-marr-uk-veto-tory-minister-accused-of-flat-out-lying-over-turkey-joining-the-a7041956.html

Just have to mention that, because it was such a shameless display of crookery.

And also - I'll say this and then shut up! - the loss of EU citizenship. I feel very bitter about that one.

And if they can block, remember Spain is a member of the EU who also have a place at the WTO.

Semi As with Hong Kong, the UK can only ensure the right of its ex-colonies and territories when it has the power to do so.

My late father spent the post-WW2 period to mid-1960s being posted to one UK colony after another, losing a few mates, then the govt eventually being forced to hand it over.

The Uk was still a military power with large armed forces, but even then it couldn't project and sustain power at long distances against determined opposition.

Pointless waste of lives and money - it's where the UK's Marshall Aid mostly went, btw.

wrt Brexit, it depends how much money - and how many lives in the case of war - the UK public are prepared to tolerate to protect the rights of 2,000 Falklanders and 40,000 Gibralterians.
It's not just the E27; in the case of the WTO it's every country with a grudge or wanting concessions then joining in with the kicking.

Would the Uk accept an economic downturn for 42,000 people living outside the Uk ?
Consider how easy it is to demonise a few hundred young Syrian refugees.

As was often stated after the Falklands 6-week war, there would have been equivalent cost in money and lives if the Uk had instead given each Falklander a million quid and killed all their young men.

Sorry, Falklands not UK but a British overseas territory?

Spain being allowed to have Gibraltar as their red line is simply because they will remain an EU member, whereas the UK will not be after Brexit.

An example of loss of UK muscle and influence within the EU, which is a natural consequence of leaving.

howabout Why assume Spain won't prioritise nationalism over jobs in Gibraltar, which would affect mainly only the neighbouring region of Spain ?

The Uk govt / voters are gungho about risking a hell of a lot more jobs throughout the UK over Brexit.

Sometimes nationalism trumps economics. Not just in the UK
The UK govt is making a serious mistake if it doesn't realise this wrt the E27 & WTO 190

Spain has been angry about Gibraltar for centuries, whereas the UK feeling about Brexit has had far less time to become ingrained.

Cailleach1 The WTO works by consensus, so one awkward member could hold things up and demand concessions.
The problem for the UK is that it needs to join very quickly after a "WTO Brexit" because it would have NO existing trade deals.
That's unusual for a new member and a vulnerable position to be in

We have been reminded several times recently that the UK has been one of the most awkward when it came to accepting new WTO members over the last few decades - the UK kept demanding changes / concessions from them.

So, there are about 40 more recent members who are potentially pissed off with the UK over that alone and will want payback.

Then add bitter ex-colonies, v poor countries who'll demand aid, countries hoping to replace the UK in key industries & business sectors ....

Every EU member has a veto on new members, whether Turkey or anyone else
It's what those opposed to Scottish Indy keep quoting !

However, Spain has said they would NOT block Scotland, because it is a different case to a member country splitting.
(imo, the economics of Indy2 are still risky, but they are a hell of a lot better than at Indy1)

Once again, the UK becoming a non-member puts it in a different position to members.
Spain would be protected against Catalonia becoming a new EU member if it split off.

There is possibly oil/gas near the Falklands, I thought.

Many of our ex-colonies had resources - it's usually why we took them in the first place and then post-WW2 tried to hang onto them

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/05/17/rockhoppers-falklands-oil-reserves-double-in-billion-barrel-basi/

I imagine the UK are very keen to keep their people on the islands.

Also why the US so strongly opposed the British Empire and froced huge concessions in exchange for help during WW2 and after - they wanted those resources for themselves.
They still do - Trump thinks the US is "owed" Iraq's oil.

Argentina has most of the UN on its side.
The US was ready to abandon the UK during the Falklands and force Maggie to accept a ruinous deal - except that idiot general Galtieri refused the deal that would have given him 80% of what he wanted.

I'm no expert but, apart from geography, I've always thought that Argentina's claim on the Falklands was quite weak: they only seemed to have had control of the islands for a few months in the 1830s. The Falklands seem to have changed hands a lot but the UK has held onto them for the best part of two centuries since then (apart from the 1982 invasion) and had them on and off before the 1830s. I'm not sure why Argentina has so many countries agreeing with their claim as, while I can understand that many governments don't want the UK exercising some sort of colonial right over the Falklands, Argentina wants to do exactly the same .

I recollect that with Hong Kong, it was only the mainland part of the territory which had been leased from China, so the island parts could have remained as UK territories. However, they weren't seen as viable, so the whole lot went to China. The realisation was there that we couldn't really do much else.

With Gibraltar, since it's not part of the UK, I can't see why someone who was more diplomatic than the current fools in power, can't suggest that an exception be made for it, and that it remains a British overseas territory but within the EU - the reverse of the situation for the Channel Islands and Greenland.

A body could get dizzy at the amount of issues that are again seeing the light of day (all at the same time) because of Brexit.

With Gibraltar, since it's not part of the UK, I can't see why someone who was more diplomatic than the current fools in power, can't suggest that an exception be made for it, and that it remains a British overseas territory but within the EU - the reverse of the situation for the Channel Islands and Greenland.

It's the obvious solution, but - and it's a big but - Spain will get a veto over it.

I imagine the UK are very keen to keep their people on the islands.

The Falkland Islanders are Falkland Islanders.
They are not 'the UK very keen to keep their people on the islands'.

I realise there's a lot of 'ashamed to be British right now' rhetoric re Brexit, but I would absolutely not be particularly proud to be part of a country that abandoned people just because of geography, economics or otherwise.

The Falkland Islanders & the people of Gibraltar made it abundantly clear in respective referendums that they wish to remain linked to Britain.
Over 90% in each case.

Wrt NI & Scotland wishing to follow a different path to UK re the EU and their future autonomy - if that's what their people want, then so be it.
However, if it were another country laying claim to them against their express wishes & will, then would it be right for Britain to say 'fine, have them'?

If FI & Gibraltar decided that they wanted to break from Britain then that is their right - but it is not for any country to forcibly decide that a country 'belongs' to them.

The Falkland Islanders & the people of Gibraltar made it abundantly clear in respective referendums that they wish to remain linked to Britain. Over 90% in each case.

Yes, but - it's already been pointed out to you how the EU Referendum in Gibraltar went, and how the results are incompatible with the earlier Referendum. (Another cock up on Cameron's part.)

Probably Gibraltar now need another one to decide which is the more important to them. I wouldn't envy them, it would be a tough choice, but at least May and the stooges would have a better idea of what the negotiating position was. (No votes for May from Gibraltar in Westminster, so why on earth should she care? Her main aim is to shore up the Tory party.)

It would be extremely ironic if she ended up seeing Irish Reunification, Scottish Independence and the loss of Gibraltar. Would this still count as 'Brexit means Brexit and I intend to make a success of it'?

Why are the interests of Gibraltar and the Falklands a red line, but not those of NI, which is actually part of the UK ?

It was the EU that prioritised the NI / RoI border.