Group items tagged

Now the British are well and truly stuck. Under present EU rules, they cannot simply give up Brexit after having formally initiated the departure process. They would now legally have to apply for readmission to the European Union—and as a newly admitted state, they would theoretically be obliged to submit to the Euro currency and to the Schengen rules on free movement of labor. The pre-Brexit U.K. had been exempt from those rules

it’s not just Britain that is the loser. Brexit, along with Trump’s trade war, is jolting the world economy, frightening financial markets, and edging us all closer to the next global recession. Trump’s big deficit-financed tax cuts have pushed the U.S. into deficits as deep as those incurred to fight the Iraq war. The most powerful anti-recession stimulus available is freer trade.

By now, the U.K. and EU alike would likely welcome a face-saving compromise—one that spares the U.K. the humiliation of asking to be released from the exit process it triggered, one that protects the EU from the disruption of losing its most economically dynamic and militarily capable member state. The EU's own rules offer no obvious off-ramp from the looming crunch—but American help and American pressure might possibly construct such an off-ramp just in time.

One thing the two men share is a recklessness that looks like courage in the eyes of their supporters, but which also sabotages the work of policymaking and diplomacy.

On the lengthy efforts of Mrs. May's government to arrive at a compromise with Brussels, Mr. Trump scoffed that “deals that take too long are never good ones.”

These are two incommensurable ideas of what power consists of, although any effective state must have both at its disposa

The specific challenge that posed for Northern Ireland was identified and baked into the commission’s negotiating mandate in May 2017. But in February 2019 Dominic Raab, a man who briefly led Brexit negotiations, and fancies himself as a potential prime minister, admitted he had not read the Good Friday agreement. It is only 35 pages long.

The prospect of Britain ending up in a customs union with the EU has been at the forefront of Brexit argument for nearly two years. On Monday around 50 Tory MPs attended a training seminar organised by colleagues on what a customs union is and how it works. At least they were curious. Breathtaking, wilful ignorance of facts has been a routine feature of the debate

Last week Boris Johnson told Telegraph readers that May should “drop the deal” and, in the next line, that she should “extend the implementation period to the end of 2021”. The implementation period is part of the deal. Drop one and you lose the other. Johnson is not stupid, but he has affected stupidity for so long that the difference no longer matters.

Nicola Sturgeon has described as “shameful” Westminster’s failure to consider the impact of Brexit on the economy, as her own government prepares to publish a “clear-eyed, hard-headed” analysis of potential outcomes of leaving the EU.

Sturgeon continued to put pressure on the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, to join the SNP in coalition against a hard Brexit

The leader of the SNP at Westminster, Ian Blackford, invited opposition leaders from across the Commons to a new year summit last Tuesday to coordinate cross-party efforts to limit the “catastrophic damage” of a hard Brexit, but Corbyn did not attend.

Several British newspapers were abuzz with the news former UKIP leader Nigel Farage backed another Brexit vote. The Guardian wrote of “hopes raised for second EU referendum.” The Daily Telegraph also led with Farage, with the headline: “Get ready for second Brexit vote.” The Financial Times featured a story on London bosses being told that “banks will be at heart of Brexit trade talks.” The Daily Telegraph reported on a crackdown on “illegal immigrants’” bank accounts. The Daily Mail ran a story on U.S. President Donald Trump canceling an upcoming visit to the U.K. “amid fears he won’t be made welcome.”

One step forward, two steps back. That seems to be the pace at which the UK is moving towards its exit from the European Union, even as it nears its current Brexit deadline at the end of the month.

Johnson's vote on his deal was indicative of its level of support in Parliament, but it wasn't definitive. There still has to be a "meaningful vote" on his pact, and an amendment which passed on Saturday means that every piece of his agreement also needs to be supported in Parliament before Britain can leave the EU.

On Tuesday, Johnson won the first parliamentary vote on the legislation designed to implement his deal. The bill passed the confusingly named second reading by by a decent majority, too -- 329 votes to 299. But some Labour MPs who dislike the deal say they voted in favor so that it could move onto the next phase, when amendments can be added.

Brexit watchers are shifting their attention to 11 p.m. local time (6 p.m. ET), the deadline for Boris Johnson to request an extension to Article 50 from the European Union. He is legally obliged to do so and has previously stated that the government would comply with the law. However, today in the House of Commons he caused huge confusion, after saying that the law didn't "compel" him to "negotiate" a delay to Brexit. Government officials elected not to clear up the messy words of the Prime Minister and as things stand, we are in the dark as to exactly what is going to happen, or if we will even hear what Johnson chooses to do. 

They need to not break the law, but they need to not look as though they've gone back on their pledge of not delaying Brexit. 

the tall barricades of corrugated metal and concrete erected during the sectarian conflict, known as the Troubles, that began in 1968 and ravaged Northern Ireland for three decades. The walls were built to divide Protestant and Catholic enclaves and to prevent people from killing one another as the spiraling cycle of attacks took hold.

“We’re not ready for it,” he said. “I’m sure you’re probably fed up with hearing about Brexit,” he said. “But people are worried about a bad deal, the wrong deal or no deal.” If things went badly, he added, “I think we’re going to need these walls more than ever.”

Few of the hard-line politicians who advocated Brexit seemed to consider the consequences their push to “take back control” would have on the delicate peace in Northern Ireland or, for that matter, on the cohesion of the United Kingdom itself. In the more than three years since the referendum, the matter of Northern Ireland has presented a unique and treacherous stumbling block to any agreement between the British government and the European Union on the terms of withdrawal.

Today, Britain is very much not on the edge of national annihilation, whatever the hyperbolic coverage of the past few weeks might suggest. But it is in the grip of chaotic mismanagement that has left the country poorer and weaker, having lost its fourth prime minister in six turbulent years since the Brexit referendum and with an economy pushed close to its breaking point.

when did this era of the small people begin? What was its genesis?

He had also signed up to a new European treaty that left a fatal tension at the heart of Britain’s membership in the European Union. Major’s European compromise left Britain inside the European Union but outside its single currency. In time, the inherent tension in this position would reveal itself in disastrous fashion—the historian Niall Ferguson has called it “Brexit 1.0.”

The U.K. economy hasn’t been knocked off course by Brexit yet. That will curb the Bank of England’s appetite for action for now.

That is likely to push inflation up further and faster than the BOE had been expecting. It is also likely to lead to real wages being squeezed again in 2017—a painful prospect for U.K. consumers. The lack of clarity over the shape and form of Brexit is likely to weigh on investment too.

whence Britain’s radicalization? One answer is that respectable nationwide averages mask the tough experiences of subgroups. Between 2010-2011 and 2014-2015, more than a third of Britons suffered a fall in household income of more than 5 percent. Those depending heavily on the state have suffered the effects of harsh cuts in government spending. Young workers, who have provided much of the support for Labour’s lurch leftward, have fared worse than old ones. The shocking price of homes has made it difficult for non-owners to live in regions with good job prospects.

But the larger explanation is cultural. On the left and the right, there is a sense that society is changing rapidly and unfairly. The right-wing version of this insecurity centers on migration. Between 1964 and 1989, the number of migrants arriving to live in Britain never exceeded 250,000 in a year. But in the two years leading up to the Brexit vote, new arrivals exceeded 600,000 annually. When Conservative populists rant xenophobically about “taking back control,” they are exploiting the backlash from that surge in foreign voices.

left-wing cultural insecurity centers on a form of inequality that goes beyond the data on incomes, encompassing ownership of assets and the sense of job stability. The haves can count on a salaried job, a stake in the housing market and perhaps some corporate shares or share options. The have-nots face short-term work contracts, high rents and no prospect of a stake in the profits generated by capitalism.

O’Brien’s show received a call from a Leave voter named Bill, who said he owed the host an apology. “I was wrong, I was wrong, I was wrong, I was wrong,” the man began to say, in an accent that placed him firmly outside the British élite. “I’m an old-fashioned git, really, I suppose . . . For some reason, I thought we were better off, but, clearly, I was wrong.” As Bill made this admission, his voice broke and he started crying. O’Brien pointed out that 17.4 million Britons made the same choice, and told him not to blame himself. Bill was inconsolable. “I was wrong, I am so sorry,” he blubbered. “What have I done to my country?”

May had very little bargaining leverage. She and the Europeans both knew that, even as Britain went through the motions of leaving the E.U., it couldn’t afford to make a clean break. Which, of course, raises the question of what the point of the exercise was to begin with.The harsh fact is there was no point.

Contrary to the claims of the Brexiteers, Britain already had substantial flexibility within the E.U. Having long ago opted out of the common currency and other E.U. initiatives, it retained the freedom to set its own interest rates and fiscal policies, check visitors at the border, and reject some of the legislative directives from Brussels, but it enjoyed all the advantages of the single market. To the extent that any E.U. member country was having its cake and eating it, Britain was the one.

In a full-page advert in the Algemeen Dagblad, Rutte said he saw the Netherlands, “a country that isn’t perfect but where we do make progress”, as a “precious possession” that belonged to everyone but “was brittle … and can easily break”

He compared the country to “a fragile vase” held by its 17 million “ordinary and exceptional” citizens who “do not only want a good life for themselves and those around them, but also want to contribute to the happiness of others”.

Making sure the vase stays in one piece often requires “compromises … in which difficult problems are solved in a sensible way,” he said: “I almost never get my way. I water down my demands because I have a responsibility to keep that vase intact.”

To the governments of the other 27 European Union nations, the U.K. message is that failure to agree a Brexit deal would be a geopolitical calamity that could bring unimaginable risks to the Continent’s security. But to the British public, the message has been one of reassurance. The government insists that preparations are well under way to cope with any fallout should the talks fail: Brexiters have flooded the airwaves to drive home the message that no deal is no big deal.

In December’s Joint Report on the state of the negotiations, the British government accepted an obligation to pay €40 billion ($46.4 billion) to the EU in settlement of the U.K.’s outstanding financial commitments

if the U.K. leaves the EU with no agreement and refuses to pay its debts, it will become an international legal pariah, at least in the EU’s eyes. The EU will want to recover what it believes it is rightfully owed and will pursue its claims through international courts.

The prime minister has been using the UK taking part in European elections in May as a threat. Everyone else should see this as the great opportunity

It might split May’s party – could they stand on one manifesto? – though it would unite Labour under a clear remain banner.

The latest British Social Attitudes survey from John Curtice finds leave/remain the true political divide, polarisation deeper and more passionate than at the referendum and far outstripping party loyalties. Some 40% feel strongly about Brexit from both sides, but only 8% report an equally strong passion for a political party. Class now is no predictor of political party affiliation, he finds; but age and education, closely linked with the old being less educated, are the leave/remain dividers.

social anthropologist Kate Fox. In her classic book Watching the English, she writes about the deep layers of performance and self-mockery that smother even heartfelt misery and anger: “Even if you are feeling desperate, you must pretend to be only pretending to feel desperate.”

More generally, she talks about “perverse obliqueness”, “emotional constipation” and a “general inability to engage in a direct and straightforward fashion with other human beings”

Brexit demands to be debated in the most fundamental terms – but England being England, it is too often reduced to the political equivalent of small talk.

The City of London has warned that businesses will start activating Brexit contingency plans unless there is a transitional deal by the end of 2017, as Philip Hammond tried to calm fears that a final agreement may not be reached for another year.

In a letter to Hammond before next month’s budget, McGuinness said the UK was facing a “historically defining moment” and warned that the timetable for business to prepare for transition was “tightening very rapidly”.

“We must have agreement with the EU on transition before the end of 2017,” she added.

he referendum didn’t create division. It exposed something that was already there, latent. This was hard to see if you attended to people’s conventional political views about taxation or public spending; even the issue of immigration, by itself, wasn’t “it.” Nor was it to be found in something as vague as “feelings” or “emotions.” It lay elsewhere, in the realm of the individual political psyche, that blending of personal, family and nonacademic history, casually informed reasoning, clan prejudice, tribal loyalty and ancestor worship that forms the imaginative framework in which, as we represent it to ourselves, our lives relate to events in the wider world.

What may seem, rationally, to be dead, gone and replaced (or to have never existed) is actually still there, immanent, or hidden, or stolen. An empire. An all-white Britain. A socialist Britain. A country that stood alone against the Nazi menace. One’s young self. A word for this is “dreaming.”

the hard-core Brexiteer minority as most in tune with the Leaver dreaming: that state of mind where it’s natural to talk about the Britons who endured the Nazi siege of the early 1940s as “we,” as if the present and the past, the dead and the living, were one and the same, bound to re-enact the slaying of a European dragon every few generations.

The Labour MP Chuka Umunna, who is campaigning for a second referendum said: “The stark reality is that the principal way of stopping no deal – which is a distinct possibility – is by getting an extension of the article 50 process. The EU is clear – they will grant an extension to allow for a people’s vote, not for further negotiation, so committing to a people’s vote is the way to stop no deal.”

Meanwhile figures have emerged showing the government has spent more than £4m on consultants to help prepare for leaving the bloc. This includes almost £1.5m on Boston Consulting Group, which in 2016 warned that “a protracted period of uncertainty and volatility seems very likely on many dimensions, including on growth, trade, investment, interest rates, and financial markets”

In an interview with the Sunday Times, the trade minister, Liam Fox, put the chances of Brexit being cancelled altogether at about “50-50” if parliament votes down Theresa May’s deal. “If we were not to vote for that, I’m not sure I would give it [Brexit] much more than 50-50,” Fox, a leading supporter of leaving the EU, told the newspaper.

The Conservatives, who have been in power nationally since 2010, braced for losses amid anger over unsteady Brexit negotiations, an explosive immigration scandal and years of public spending cuts that have seen local officials close libraries and slash services.

The elections will determine who controls the councils, which collect garbage, fix potholes and run schools, and many voters will choose firmly on local issues. In London, many residents fret about the lack of affordable housing. Campaigning in the northern English city of Sheffield has been dominated by a controversial decision to cut down thousands of trees as part of road-improvement plans.

Both the Conservatives and Labour say they will deliver on the decision to leave, but Labour wants to seek softer terms and retain closer ties with the bloc. The party hopes anti-Brexit feeling will help it win in pro-EU Tory areas such as the affluent London boroughs of Wandsworth and Westminster.