
Why Hasn’t Brexit Happened? - xmmrm
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happened-yet/
======
basicplus2
"The final negotiated Withdrawal Agreement that May unveiled to Parliament
last November caused the whole country, Brexiteers and Remainers alike, to
gasp in horror. May’s team had been sent away to declare British independence
and had returned with a document of surrender. The agreement not only
contained (as expected) a £39 billion ($50 billion) “divorce” fee, but also
left E.U. courts free to top that fee up. It locked Britain into a customs
union with the E.U., with no mechanism for leaving it—ever. The E.U., and the
E.U. alone, would decide when Britain had fulfilled the backstop agreement,
and any move to break it unilaterally on Britain’s part would be resolved by
giving the E.U. jurisdiction over Northern Ireland’s economic relations. It
subjected Britain to E.U. trade sanctions more onerous than those meted out to
other countries. It laid out contexts in which E.U. law would retain its
supremacy over U.K. law.

The Withdrawal Agreement not only did not end Britain’s ties to the E.U. In
the name of Brexit, it actually deepened and constitutionalized them."

~~~
Fjolsvith
"Brexit was not an “outburst” or a cry of despair or a message to the European
Commission. It was an eviction notice. It was an explicit withdrawal of the
legal sanction under which Brussels had governed Europe’s most important
country. If it is really Britain’s wish to see its old constitutional
arrangements restored, then this notice is open to emendation and
reconsideration. But as things stand now, the Leave vote made E.U. rule over
the U.K. illegitimate. Not illegitimate only when Brussels has been given one
last chance to talk Britain out of it, but illegitimate now. What Britons
voted for in 2016 was to leave the European Union—not to ask permission to
leave the European Union. It is hard to see how Britain’s remaining in the
E.U. would benefit either side."

~~~
cafard
"It was an explicit withdrawal of the legal sanction under which Brussels had
governed Europe’s most important country."

Europe's most important country? It seems to me that one could make a strong
case for Germany.

------
I_complete_me
Brexit is a word that seems to have many meanings. Brexit to Brexiteers means
a clean break. Brexit to remainers (remoaners?) means the end of a trade
regime that Britain was doing fairly well out of despite the large dues. After
Brexit, whenever or if ever it happens, Britain will have to sit down with
Europe to negotiate trade deals. This is not mentioned by Brexiteers. The
complication of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was pooh-poohed by the Brexiteers
during the run up to the Referendum of 2016 and now they are hoist on their
own petards. I realise that there are many other reasons besides the above.

~~~
rexpress
Brexit to some Brexiteers means what they rather fancifully believe is the
'clean break' of no-deal. To some other Brexiteers, Brexit means continued
membership of the customs union, but not the single market. No doubt that
there are numerous other configurations of Brexit that various people thought
they were voting for, including staying in the single market.

These different Brexits would result in very different futures for the UK, and
yet they were all aggregated into one vote, 'Leave'.

There has yet to be any evidence that there is greater support from the public
for any particular Brexit than there is to remain.

------
dfawcus
> The 1973 vote to enter the EEC was the first the United Kingdom ever had.

Nope. The first referendum was in 1975, after we had joined in 1973. It was
about if we should remain, or leave; not about if we should join.

~~~
ramblerman
He mentions that right above though

> The Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath brought the United Kingdom into
> the European Economic Community (EEC)in 1973, and voters ratified the
> decision in a referendum two years later.

I think it's just a typo, and he meant 1975

------
Havoc
All of which ignores one rather crucial detail: Attempting major geopolitical
change like this without a coherent plan and suitable strong mandate is
suicide.

Brexit may have had some merit of sorts, but launching into this without those
was destined to be a disaster. And what's left of the farce is entirely
meritless

------
nemetroid
> And while such borders might present new challenges after Brexit, there were
> proven solutions: non-E.U. Switzerland, for example, keeps its borders,
> travel, and trade open with four major E.U. countries. These problems only
> became “insoluble” when E.U. diplomats discovered they might be used to
> tangle up the Brexit negotiations.

Complete nonsense, just like the rest of the article. Switzerland (and Norway)
are both Schengen countries, and even so, the borders are hardly "open". More
importantly, the shape of the border is completely incomparable to that
between Ireland and Northern Ireland.

The Irish border is the _only_ blocking issue, all else heard from brexiteers
is just misdirection.

------
cafard
"The real grounds for elite hostility toward [Boris Johnson] lay elsewhere"

Quite, but unreliability, irresponsibility, and a tendency to consider his own
interests as more important than those of the public ought to be among the
grounds listed.

~~~
hayd
Then why not call an election with a one line bill to ensure it happens prior
to 31st October?

------
fargle
Fantastic article. Thank you.

I particularly like the explanation of the analogy wrt. treaty vs. merger. A
treaty is what is wanted and needed, a merger is what they got. Starting to
not blame the Brexiters for what they need to do.

~~~
forgotmypwd123
The stuff on Northern Ireland is incredibly biased and inaccurate.

------
tonyedgecombe
If May hadn’t called an election in 2015 it would probably have been delivered
by now.

