
Brexit: France activates no-deal plan - pseudolus
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46906046
======
weavie
It is interesting to note how Ivan Rogers, someone who arguably understands
Europe more than anyone else in government estimated it would take up to 10
years to come up with a satisfactory deal. But he was essentially pushed out
as he was generally considered by the government to be too pessimistic about
the whole affair..

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/15/post-brexit-
trad...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/15/post-brexit-trade-deal-
could-take-10-years-still-fail-warns/)

~~~
arethuza
I can strongly recommend Tim Shipman's _" Fall Out: A Year of Political
Mayhem"_ for an account of the post Brexit vote annus horribilis.

The only thing to look forward to with Brexit is reading his account, some
time next year, of the current antics.

~~~
weavie
Agree. I have just finished reading it.

It has left me wondering, are all administrations this shambolic - we are all
humans after all - and this book is just a rare glimpse into what goes on
behind the scenes, or is this just an exceptional circumstance? Maybe a bit of
both. It would be interesting to read about what goes on behind a really well
run government - should one exist..

------
tzs
I wonder if it would make more sense to instead of having the UK leave the EU,
have England and Wales leave the UK with the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland,
Gibraltar) remaining in the EU.

That would certainly seem fairer to the Scots, who rejected their independence
vote largely because they weren't sure that they would be able to remain in
the EU if they left the UK.

~~~
piokoch
"they weren't sure that they would be able to remain in the EU if they left
the UK" \- to be more precise, they were 100% sure that they will never be
allowed into EU, Spain would never agree for this, as this would open path for
Catalonia to leave Spain and join EU.

~~~
bogle
The Spanish government have since signaled, back in 2017, that it won't veto
any attempt by an independent Scotland to join the EU.

------
GreeniFi
I’m not sure if I’ve been stuck in an information silo and have totally lost
the plot, but there seems to be substantial circumstantial evidence that
Russia interfered in Brexit, which throws into question whether the result can
be accepted.

I’d be interested to know whether people on here think I’ve strayed into a
very plausible conspiracy theory or whether this is something real and of
concern. I feel I could accept a result in which there was not some effective
psy-ops campaign being run, but cannot accept a result which is “not the will
of the people”.

[Edit: spelling correction]

~~~
cazum
Is there any mechanism in Westminster politics, or any democratic political
system for that matter, for invalidating election results if it is determined
that an external state interfered with the process?

If it was found that Russia interfered in some capacity, would/could anything
be done?

~~~
pjc50
The Electoral Commission can void elections in the event of fraud:
[https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_fil...](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/150499/Challenging-
elections-in-the-UK.pdf)

One of their most high profile cases:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_%26_Ors_v_Rahman_%26_Ano...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erlam_%26_Ors_v_Rahman_%26_Anor)

I don't think either of these apply for nebulous "external interference", but
certain actions such as running unlawful electoral advertising should count.

Vote leave have been fined and referred to the police:
[https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/ele...](https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-
commission-media-centre/party-and-election-finance-to-keep/vote-leave-fined-
and-referred-to-the-police-for-breaking-electoral-law)

 _BUT_ : these apply to elected positions. Referendums don't really have a
strong constitutional place in the UK, and the Brexit referendum was "non-
binding": the result did not legally oblige anything specific to happen.

Brexit is a choice of the government. No-Deal Brexit is also a choice of the
government, made two years ago when sending the A50 notification without a
viable plan.

------
duxup
I can't belive there isn't a viable candidate taking up something like:

"I'm not going to drive us face first into the ground because of a referendum
the promised somethings that can't happen with a brexit. We're going to come
out with the short end of the stick here if we're not smart. We need to work
out a new deal where we stay but address some concerns."

Hopefully the EU could be adult about it and throw them a bone or two and let
things settle.

~~~
lmm
The referendum was a vote to leave; reasonable people can disagree about what
form that should take but the referendum result clearly rules out remaining in
the EU, in the most simple of terms.

May has negotiated the only practical set of terms. If Corbyn was as serious
about ruling out a no-deal Brexit as he claims, his party would've voted for
May's deal. The part I find incomprehensible is that the remain lobby refuses
to acknowledge that if we vote down every possible deal then the result will
be no deal.

~~~
matthewmacleod
I don’t really agree with this analysis.

A vote was held, and the decision was to leave. That’s fine - we should not
have run that referendum in the form it was, but we can’t deny the result.

The problem is, Brexit was an entirely empty vessel into which voters’
fantasies were poured. The outcome in no way resembles any of the ideas that
were articulated before the referendum. There is now a concrete plan that
basically everybody hates, because it’s the worst of both worlds.

There are three realistically possible options right now. The UK either exits
with the agreed deal, exits with no deal in a disorderly fashion, or cancels
Brexit and remains in the EU. The first option is bad because nobody wants
that deal. The second is bad because it would be obviously catastrophic. The
third is terrible because it directly contravenes the outcome of the
referendum.

In short, all the options are fucking awful. There’s no real democratic
legitimacy for any of them. Under these circumstances, having a second
referendum that says “this is what we were able to negotiate, now do you want
to go through with it or forget the whole thing” is possibly the least shit
option. I hope it will be cancelled, but at least if it’s not I can be sure
that it was voted for with knowledge of what was to come.

~~~
piokoch
I am not sure why hard exit is going to be "catastrophic". There are many
countries outside EU doing just fine and doing business with EU countries.
Plus nothing stops UK from signing bilateral trade deals with EU countries and
I wouldn't be surprised if Germany and France were first in the row do sign
such deal (loudly crying at the same time how important is the EU solidarity).

~~~
Kurtz79
It has been explained multiple times to several people (Donald Trump, one of
them), that for EU countries is impossible to establish individual trade
deals, they must do as part of a block.

[https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-
germany-e...](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-trade-merkel-germany-
eu-2017-4?IR=T)

It would defeat the purpose of a common market. What stops UK from doing so is
EU laws.

But I agree it won't be catastrophic. UK will survive, the EU will survive.

But jobs will be lost in the process, economies will be affected, quality of
life will be lowered.

And people voted for this to happen.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Both the UK and EU will survive, but I think that’s an awful metric.

I have a startup in the UK. We employ EU citizens, sell products and services
to EU customers, buy products and services from EU suppliers, and receive EU
grant funding. A disorderly Brexit will affect us in unknown, possibly
terminal ways.

Aside from that personal issue, I t’s possible in the worst case that hundreds
of people may die due to lack of medication. The economy will be affected to
the time of 10% of GDP over 15 years, by the government’s own prediction.

I think that counts as catastrophic.

------
cletus
I'm most disappointed in Labour and the Liberal Democrats here. The
Conservatives are kind of locked in as the Euroskeptic party at this point so
they're going to stick with the party line that referendum is binding and
they'll crash out of the EU over not leaving.

But where is the opposition saying that the referendum was nothing more than a
protest vote against immigration, 52-48% is a narrow split, we can't possibly
have our cake and eat it too (eg on freedom of movement) and that pursuing
some Norway like model combines the worst of both worlds (eg maintaining
membership of the EU customs union and being subject to its rules without
having the power to vote on and control the EU agenda as a member would).

The backstop is nothing more than kicking the can down the street and the
ultimate result is probably reunification with Ireland, which is why the DUP
in particular and the Conservatives in general don't want it.

The only alternatives are hard exit and remaining.

Why hasn't the opposition been more vocal about this? All I see is hand-
wringing and non-committal rhetoric from Corbyn.

~~~
lmm
Corbyn doesn't want to remain in the EU, and even if he did, his whole
narrative is that he wants a democracy that's more representative of ordinary
people over Westminster elites. If he tried to offer a policy of technocrats
overruling the will of the people he would lose all credibility.

The Liberal Democrats are pro-remain I think? But they're an irrelevance at
least parliamentarily.

------
camerondoll
In a decade when EU economy start collapsing, British people will be for
another vote but this time EU soldiers will be restoring ordnung and make sure
the outcome is the only right one. It's the UK last chance.

------
bdz
>less and less unlikely

I hate phrasing like this

