Westministenders: Rebel Rebel Your Brexit is a Mess.

[RedToothBrush]

Hot Tramp, I love you so!

The European Parliament have agreed to progress talks to the next stage. Despite Brexiteers saying its not legally binding, it is apparent that the EU certainly disagree.

Not only that, but the wording of the deal goes further. It binds us to not being able to agree and new trade deals for 2 years.

The All Important Amendment 7 to the Great Repel Bill has been successful. May’s power grab has a set back.

By just FOUR votes the government was defeated. How May will be regretting that pointless election tonight.

Parliament will have a meaningful vote on the exit terms.

But don’t be too excited. Brussels might not like this as May can not guarantee the UK will agree to a deal. It means the the EU are negotiating with parliament NOT May now.

There is also the suggestion that the mood of parliament is changing and is beginning to lean more towards a EFTA / EEA type deal.

But equally this could also send us to the brink with a deal from the EU that could be rejected by parliament.

The stakes just got higher.

the only thing he could come up with was "Do you really want an EU army?".

If they are less likely to fire on UK citizens than the UK army then ... yes, actually is my answer.

Sadly I think the article Pain quotes is correct.

Although there seem to be a lot of "moderate" Brexiters around, those who will tell you they genuinely think the UK will be better off out, those who seem to have done at least some reading, when you actually drill down into what they are saying, effectively they want to pull up the drawbridge on people

Excluding the really hard-liners who hate the "authority" of the EU, most "moderate" Brexiters are actually relatively happy with a lot of EU standards (see chlorine chicken, pharmaceuticals etc) and laws (human rights), so when they are pushed into a corner the only think left is the immigration issue.

I don't think most people in England anyway realise that the majority of non-English in the UK are actually not from the EU at all, didn't enter via the EU, are legally there because of the heritage of the British Empire.

But it's easier to convince themselves that if the UK left the EU there would be no "foreigners"

actually drill down into what they are saying, effectively they want to pull up the drawbridge on people

This is the conclusion I have come to as well. When you drill it all down, the term Leave was subconsciously or consciously dangerous.

It's not just pulling up a drawbridge that some want either, it feels as if some mean ' Leave!' to people settled here for generations, before pulling up the drawbridge.

If our much needed immigration, including from the EU ,reduces to a trickle, What then? Who else do we want to Leave?

I was at this in the Guardian yesterday - I can't work out if DD is deliberately trolling us....

"Brexit secretary David Davis will warn the European commission that it cannot “cherrypick some sectors” when negotiating a trade deal, according to a senior government official, who said the UK planned to treat goods and services as inseparable."

amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/18/david-davis-to-warn-european-commission-it-cannot-cherrypick-brexit-trade-deal-sectors?__twitter_impression=true

I give you: "ICI", "BP", "BT"

Yes but they haven't had to remove the Imperial or the British or whatever from their names.

Er, yes they did.

"British Petroleum" became "BP" in the 1990s
"British Telecom" became "BT" in the 1990s

in each case the reason given was that as global companies, "British" sounded a little parochial and ... dated.

I am also sure "Imperial Chemical Industries" became plain ICI at some point. But since they're no longer British, it's an arguable moot point. I'll withdraw that one.

David Davis seems convinced that he is the one with the power in these negotiations [baffled]

"Brexit Inner Cabinet" meetings must be a hoot

Well, maybe LH - sounds like more a choice thing than a 'you can't use the word institute' as far as I recall

It was a choice. The choice was to stop being British, as it wasn't as warmly welcomed around the world as you might have thought. It either put people off (probably for silly trivial historic reasons), meant nothing at all (to vast swathes of the world), or was counter productive. I'm pretty certain the news stories at the time highlighted how the US doesn't really "do" Britain.

It's a shame, in a way, we didn't have a "Money Programme" type documentary on the Branding of Britain in the 80s and 90s. It might have shaken a few Brexiteer shibboleths.

UK sees growing threat from Russian propaganda, cyber-attacks

www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-security/uk-sees-growing-threat-from-russian-propaganda-cyber-attacks-idUSKBN1EC2KD

Mark Sedwill, who is overseeing a review of Britain’s security services, told a parliamentary committee that Russia is attempting to “sow dissension” and undermine democracy in Britain and other western nations.

He said the threats from Russia included from unconventional warfare such as disinformation campaigns to the dangers posed from an increase in its military capability in the North Atlantic and in Eastern Europe.

“We know that the Russian threat is definitely intensifying and diversifying,” Sedwill said. “The Russian attitude has worsened more generally towards the West and that seems set to continue.”

Britain has been more vocal in recent weeks about the threat posed by Russia at a time when there is growing concern among some members of the ruling Conservative party about the impact of cuts to defense spending.

Prime Minister Theresa May last month in her most outspoken attack on Russia accused the country of meddling in elections and planting fake stories in the media.

The head of Britain’s armed forces said last week trade and the internet are at risk of damage from any Russian attack on underwater communications cables that could disrupt trillions of dollars in financial transactions.

Sedwill accused Russia of planting fake stories in the media about the conduct of soldiers in Eastern Europe, where NATO troops are based to undermine the legitimacy of them being there.

He also accused Russia of meddling in the recent French elections even though he said this had no chance of changing the outcome of the vote.

“It clearly was designed to undermine the citizen’s trust in their systems and we see quite a lot elsewhere,” he said.

Things that I would query:

• "Accusing" Russia of meddling in the French elections makes it sound as though it isn't established as fact, which I thought it was?

• May being "more vocal" about the interference might be true but it's comparing it to her saying nothing about it for all this time. It's still an incredibly weak response in comparison to other countries' responses, even if like in the US they're being undermined by some elements of those in charge. We've got nothing happening here, which is infuriating.

.

Interesting, those angry Leavers who say that opposing Brexit, or even trying for soft Brexit,
is "attacking the White [sic] population of Britain"

The definition of "White" seems to have changed, btw
Non-white apparently now includes Eastern Europeans - reminiscent of the 1930s and the "subhuman slavs"

the choice was to stop being British
was also the time when British Airways rebranded as BA, removing the jack from their tail fins - until Margaret's handkerchief anyway..

Interesting view from afar.

www.nytimes.com/2017/12/19/opinion/brexit-deal-theresa-may.html

At a working dinner in Brussels on Thursday night, Mrs May had to tolerate being slapped on the wrist by one European leader after another: All agreements entered into in the first phase, which covers financial arrangements, the Irish border and citizens' rights, were to be "translated faithfully into legal terms." Otherwise, phase two, which will deal with Britain's transition toward Brexit and future trading arrangements with the common market, would not proceed. Thus admonished, Mrs May was ushered out from the dinner like an 18th century lady banished to the drawing room, while the leaders of the other 27 states stayed behind at the table to smoke cigars and drink port or at any rate to discuss the future of Europe.

The Brexit that is taking shape around the hapless Mrs May is not the one hard-line Brexiters promised when they vowed to "take back control." Locking the door on migrants and free trade with purveyors of chlorinated chickens look increasingly unlikely. To avoid making a special case of Northern Ireland, Britain has been forced already to concede a "soft Brexit." In effect, it is going to be stuck with European Union rules it just won't have any say in making them.

A Conservative rebellion last week that saw Mrs May defeated in the House of Commons means that any final Brexit deal she reaches with the European Union must be submitted to Parliament for debate before it is signed into law. The government had hoped to rely on a constitutional precedent established by that old British bulldog, King Henry VIII, to avoid this scrutiny. A government spokesman hastily issued a statement that said, "We are as clear as ever..."

But there has been nothing clear about this government's strategies for leaving the European Union. It may not even have any. Earlier in this month of mortification, Mr Davis was forced to admit that he had actually carried out no assessments on how Brexit would impact the British economy, despite having claimed on multiple occasions that he and his officials had carried out from 50 to over 100 such assessments, which he said went into all aspects in "excruciating detail." He escaped indictment for misleading Parliament with the support of the D.U.P.

Faced now with the requirement of stating its plans in language capable of being turned into laws and protocols, the government looks more and more foolish. Mrs May's attempts to stride purposefully on the international stage look increasingly like someone floundering, lost, through the snow.

There were a few emollient words for the prime minister before she was sent home across the English Channel on Thursday, but they just sounded patronizing. Any embarrassment over a debacle authored entirely by Britain is looked upon coldly. If the country makes a fool of itself, all the better an unedifying spectacle is sure to discourage other restless member states down the road.

After their summit, European Union leaders sent a message to London: The government must urgently "provide further clarity" on its plans. Mrs May, who has never been a convincing advocate for the cause she must champion, now has three months to put together a coherent set of proposals to bring back to the European Union, while getting on with the legally fraught task of implementing the first phase.

If Mrs May and her blustering crew represent the best of British diplomacy, then post-Brexit Britain will be a sorry state.

But why should we believe Theresa May on the one hand (that the Russians have meddled in UK affairs) and on the other hand believe Theresa May that the referendum result is sacrosanct ? Or indeed the 2017 election result.

Or (tinfoil hat on) are we being ever so slowly teased into a reality where the Tories should have got a majority in 2017, but didn't because of those pesky Russkies, so the solution is that we should let them rule anyway ?

Interesting, those angry Leavers who say that opposing Brexit, or even trying for soft Brexit,
is "attacking the White [sic] population of Britain"

Was that an 'angry leaver' who sent that to David Lammy then?

It's just that the date on it & the sentiment seem to be more to do with David Lammy's report about tackling lack of diversity and underrepresentation, which has been discussed a lot today.

The message is disgusting, obviously, regardless of the motivations of the sender.

That is interesting about the definition of white shrinking. The usual trend is for it to expand, as bame populations grow and the white population face becoming minorities. The Irish in America were seen as other but now are not, as were the Italians (I think).

Oh, my. Poor David Lammy. Did he realise he was attacking the white population of Britain and is a one man supremacist? Of course it has to be zero sum. If you are standing up for rights, you are accused of taking rights away from others. Not that he has done this.

Is that because he is a decent and reasonable (even rational) human being? You see that is now equivalent of being a saboteur nowadays. Associating these two things.

I am reminded of 'The Remains of the Day'. When Darlington (Fox) is adamant he wants the two Jewish refugees sacked. He has been poisoned with the influence of prejudice. Afterwards, when it has been revealed what had carried out in the camps, his conscience is heavy. And he asks what happened to the girls.

We can all be manipulated and brainwashed. We rely on a standard of decency to prevent the perverse taking over. This standard is under much pressure at the highest echelons at the moment.

That is interesting about the definition of white shrinking.

Ethnicity has always been a movable feast (which slightly highlights how useless it is as basis for anything).

When my DF moved to the UK, he (and the other spics and eyeties) were shunned by the cheerful salt-of-the-earth "white" shopfloor workers. Fast forward a couple of years when Indians started working there, and it was "we whites have to stick together" as my DF was figuratively invited to the top table ...

I suspect some Irish people might find that familiar ?

And... ministers have agreed to go for a bespoke trade deal. Of the unicorn kind. Because of course the EU will back.down.

You couldn't make it up.

You really couldn't make it up

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-uk-falklands-islands-un-votes-security-council-united-nations-chagos-lord-hannay-a8118086.html

The EU will refuse to back Britain in United Nations votes over the Falkland Islands after Brexit, a former ambassador has suggested.

Other countries regarded the UK’s loss of influence since the Leave vote “as a shark would regard blood in the water”, Lord Hannay told a Parliamentary inquiry.

It was laid bare when EU countries helped inflict a humiliating defeat on Britain over the legal status of the Chagos Islands, in a UN vote in June, he told MPs.

“We could have the same phenomenon if and when the Falklands comes before the United Nations at some stage or other in the future,” Lord Hannay warned.

The former UK ambassador at the UN and in Brussels said it had come as a “huge surprise” to Argentina when the EU imposed sanctions after its 1982 invasion of the Falklands Islands.

“They would never have done that if we had not been a member. I don’t believe for one minute they would have done,” Lord Hannay told the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

“The EU solidarity issue is now, I’m afraid, in play – and I think we will lose it.”

The Chagos Islands vote – sending the long-running dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague – showed “the way the wind is blowing”, the diplomat added.

The warning was echoed by Sir Robert Sawers, another former UN ambassador, who said: “The standing of the UK has come into question, whether it plays the role in the world that it has traditionally done and which our leaders claim they aspire to.”

Sir Robert pointed out that, when the UK recently lost its judge on the ICJ bench – for the first time in its 71-year history – a French candidate was successful.

“I think that reflects an admiration for what France has done in 2017, for its new leadership and its centrality in the European Union,” he told the committee. “You can’t say any of those things about the UK.”

Other countries were taken aback by Brexit, he said, adding: “They wonder why Britain has taken this course when it didn’t seem to be one about engagement in the world.”

Theresa May was “respected around the world”, but consumed by the huge task of EU withdrawal.

“That means she is not able to play the same international role in the world that, say, the French president has been able to play over the last six months,” Sir Robert added. “That’s just a statement of reality.”

The Foreign Affairs Committee ahs launched an inquiry into “the UK’s influence in the UN”, following recent evidence that it is on the wane.

France, Germany, Spain, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands were among EU members who abstained in the June vote on the Chagos Islands, a disputed territory in the Indian Ocean.

Last month, the UK was forced to withdraw its candidate to fill a vacancy on the ICJ, because of inevitable defeat in the UN general assembly.

Lord Hannay said the UK had traditionally been able to influence Washington and shape EU policy at the UN, as a permanent member of the security council.

“It goes without saying, I’m afraid, that – since June of last year – those two pillars of our influence at the United Nations have been shaken.”

I've come round to, iirc LH's pov ?, that if the UK is to Brexit, then it is best on WTO terms,
better for the UK and for the E27:

Any Brexit will be worse for the Uk than what it currently has as an EU member
However, with anything less than the purest form of Brexit, most Leave supporters will blame any bad effects on Brexit not being "pure" enough - much like a religion
That would have very serious political and social consequences, increasing the attraction of the far right nationalsts.

With a pure WTO Brexit, Leavers - while suffering more economic disadvantages of Brexit - would at least enjoy the achieving their main Brexit aims - stopping FOM and ECJ, which ar the 2 issues which most raise xenophobia & hate

They will of course try to blame "EU punishment", but on WTO terms, they will also have to blame the rest of the world for being beastly too.

re Remain:
The EU would suffer if it allows back in a bitter, humiliated UK, obstructing and wrecking, with almost all Leavers hating the EU and its citizens as never before.

Hence, until at least polls consistently show for say 3 months that 60% of the public want to Remain, it would be best to have a pure WTO Brexit
Let the UK public and politicians see over the following few years how difficult life becomes for ordinary people, with "Britain Unchained " pure Brexit.

After 5-10 years, when the boomers are less dominant as voters, a future govt can apply to join EFTA, then wait until / if the public is ready to apply to join the EU.

Yes Palermonese, we Irish get a lot of that nowadays.

"We don't want immigrants - but we don't mean you obviously"