It’s been a little while since we’ve discussed Brexit, but then it’s been quite awhile since there was anything truly new to talk about. That may have changed today, with Queen Elizabeth II approving PM Johnson’s request to suspend parliament a bit early and delay their return a bit longer.
This isn’t quite the same as the Reid option, it’s been done a few times before as a negotiating tactic, but given the scale of the issue in question it’s pretty close.
I don’t particularly blame Boris Johnson, he won an election that was arguably his to lose, only to face legislators at home and abroad that had been unable to arrive at a reasonable Brexit deal for nearly 2 years (and at least 5 major votes in the UK Parliament alone). He’s trying to force the EU to blink on the backstop, the part of Theresa May’s Deal that most Brexit proponents view as a way for the EU to trap Britain in the common market indefinitely, because it lays out Irish border requirements as a condition of leaving the common market that cannot be unilaterally met … and may not be able to be met at all for a couple decades.
I’m not clear on the alignment of Parliament, but Johnson may be putting his position on the line here. There’s talk of a no-confidence vote, which sounds similar to the talk of impeachment over here, but just might have some teeth to it now.
If the EU doesn’t blink, and the MPs don’t manage to oust him, they’re only going to have enough time for one last vote on an alternate deal before the October 31st deadline. Johnson likely has finally secured Brexit without the backstop, it remains to be seen whether or not the cost was also securing it without a deal.
10 replies on “Queen Suspends UK Parliament until October 14th”
I think Johnson is strategizing for a no-deal Brexit. The backstop is only the most egregious of many serious problems with the “deal” Brexit as negotiated by May. There are structures within it that are designed to be permanent and defy the intent of Brexit. For example, the European Court of Justice will have jurisdiction over British Courts–without GB being a member of the EU! There is a laundry list of that kind of thing. It’s what President Trump would describe as a “Terrible Deal.”
So I think Johnson is making a (possibly risky) play to force Parliament to reject the “Deal minus only the Backstop” in the third week of October, thus forcing a clean-break hard Brexit.
It’s also possible he’s negotiating behind closed doors for a Real Deal Brexit which really would make the transition easier for both sides, but make the exit permanent instead of making permanent a lot of the things that people wanted to get rid of when they voted for Brexit in the first place. He has a good chance to do that because, unlike May, he is (rightly) unafraid of a no-deal Brexit. He can walk away from the table. So he holds the power in the negotiation, unlike May, who gave away all of her bargaining strength in negotiations because she was so afraid of a hard Brexit and thought Brexit was a bad idea anyway and so her goal was to provide a deal whereby Britain effectively remained in the EU while calling it “Brexit.” (A wonderfully Orwellian twist.)
Personally, I’m hoping for a no-deal hard Brexit. I think whatever short-term pain (and there will be some) occurs will be more than compensated for by British growth and independence. (Easy for me to say from across the Atlantic, of course.)
One thing we can count on after a no-deal Brexit is an immediate free trade deal with the U.S.–and that is something that the no-backstop deal would explicitly prohibit. And Britain will no doubt immediately start strengthening ties with the Commonwealth. Britain could emerge as a 21st-century world power again if it can only cut the shackles with the EU. I pray that Johnson makes that happen.
I think the equivalent would more be if the house were able to vote no confidence and force another presidential election. Of course I think it’s perfectly possible for the same winner to come out of it?
One of the comments I heard yesterday that came out of parliament is that “it’s been 3 years, who’s to say that Brexit is still wanted by the people?”. Johnson had no choice but to go rogue and mix the deal on his own. But I’m with Lionell on this one – why do they need a deal? Just leave. The EU doesn’t have the teeth it once had.
Why should BREXIT be secured with a deal? A deal that favors the unaccountable elite in the EU. Seems to me that is simply changing the terms of British enslavement to the whims of the EU. Rather like jumping out of a boiling cauldron into a hot frying pan. A difference without a significant distinction.
What ever happened to self determination? Seems that such a thing is acceptable if that means going the way of global governance, unaccountable dictatorship of a remote elite, and submission to their rules without end. Yet it is to be denied if it means freedom, liberty, and the respect of individual rights.
That is what we as colonist fought the largest empire of the time to win our form of BREXIT. Now it is their turn to free themselves from the wannabe empire of the EU that is failing at every turn. It was supposed to be nothing but a common market. It transmogrified into a dictatorship and violated the individual rights of all within its falsely assumed superior power. The Britons are right to want nothing of it. Yet. there are those who would deny that right and want to maintain the enslavement to the EU and extend it by whatever means necessary.
If the power of the Queen is used to deny their denial, then Long Live the Queen. She has justified her existence beyond mere static tradition.
Under the circumstances, it shouldn’t, and I think Johnson and the Queen are doing what needs to be done at this stage. Theresa May had three years to do what Boris Johnson is trying to do, stand up to the EU in general and Merkel in particular.
If Johnson can get them to back off on the backstop, though, then exiting with a deal would expedite trade negotiations. The UK has been a part of the EU for so long that they don’t have many, maybe any, independent trade deals anymore.
I strongly suspect that the predictions of economic disaster on a No Deal Brexit are exaggerated by the BBC, but leaving without a deal will be a challenge for businesses whose customers live abroad. The only clearly legal route to deal with that will be for the UK to open trade negotiations immediately after Brexit is finalized on the 31st.
Having a deal with the EU would allow them to piggy back on those trade deals for a period of time as the UK negotiates their own.
The trade deals should be easy. Have open markets, no special deals, everyone on an even playing field that depends upon trades that both sides win by trading. Deliver competence at a price acceptable to both sides: 100% of the time with no excuses. Such deals should take no more that 20 minutes for each country.
Most of the time spent making deals is dealing with the (many) thousands of special interests pleading for their special case for favoritism. This is good only for those who wish to beat the system, make shady deals, and trade favors and influence. Then be forgiven for not delivering on the deal as made. Such things should be PROHIBITED.
And Ayn Rand was absolutely right about how money works/currency should work, largely right about how politicians behave, and in the person of Henry Rearden made a brilliant speech about how business owners should respond to such.
We’ll ignore my moral concerns with the remainder of her philosophy for now, on these points I have no significant concerns.
The simultaneous blessing/burden of conservatism is that we have to deal with things as they are. Are trade deals more complicated than they should be? Of course they are. My service contracts with most people are also more complicated than I like, at least in the beginning. There are a couple people that have been repeat clients for long enough that they just call me with a problem and I invoice them for my time and materials once it is solved. Most of mine aren’t like that, though.
With trade deals you have another layer of complexity. A business you can usually count on to remain under the same owner/president for an extended period, and so a business agreement with that person can in theory and sometimes in reality be as simple as a handshake.
All of the countries I’m aware of that have an individual in a similarly persistent and powerful position are not remotely worthy of that level of trust. All of the countries that are potentially worthy of that trust change their leadership on a regular basis, and so you’re negotiating with a few hundred people, every one of which has their own viewpoint and a plurality of which have been in the system long enough that they’ve sold at least some portion of their souls to it.
In order to get to the place you describe, a country first has to sort out how to reliably prevent this corruption, and evict the majority of those that started out corrupt, without sacrificing a free election. Term limits will accomplish the former, but as the Right Angle team has pointed out, politics tends to attract a certain class of person. There are precious few Ted Cruzes and Rand Pauls around at the level that would negotiate such an agreement. There are a few more Donald Trumps, but even those are pretty rare. Term limits, by themselves, are likely to produce a government of Harry Reids and Bernie Sandersers simply by attrition. You’ll run out of capable trustworthy people that are willing to run long before you run out of the other sort.
If we can find a way to solve this problem, then we have a road map to simple trade agreements. I don’t know what that solution would look like right now, though, and suspect there isn’t one … because humanity. If you have a suggestion, I’d like to hear it.
In the meantime, corrupt governors and legislators mean complicated agreements that are vulnerable to special interests. Britain itself, as evidenced by the Brexit votes to date, has just under half of its own PMs that are entirely unworthy of that level of trust … and some of their votes are going to be needed to pass a trade deal before we even get to the expectations of Germany or Switzerland or China.
Bottom line is, I would like the sort of trade deal you propose to be reality, but there’s a large ravine between here and there, and that rope bridge looks like something out of Indiana Jones.
I was identifying should be so and not the current highly pathological and self destructive beggar thy neighbor kind of “deals”. The current global situation is not sustainable and will eventually collapse.
The only way I know to deal with what-is in this case is Go Galt! It cannot be reformed. It must destroy itself. It will if we stop feeding it.
Let’s elaborate on what it would mean to “Go Galt!” IRL, shall we? We don’t have a remote mountain refuge concealed by adaptive camoflage, so refusing to feed it may look a bit more like Texas taking hundreds of thousands of jobs from California.
I seem to recall Ayn Rand indicating it happened naturally in this way, because people capable of contributing stop contributing when the benefit to them and their family drops below some threshold.
I, and I suspect everyone else here, am like Hank in another way. I enjoy my job, and I’m good at it. The portion that goes to the government irritates both my wife and I, but not enough to motivate me to abandon my career to spite that government. I’m definitely not irritated enough to tell the tax collector where he can shove his bill.
Going Galt has to be determined by each individual deciding how not to keep feeding them. To keep feeding the parasites is to keep them alive and allowing them to continue. THIS HAS TO STOP! They will NOT stop themselves.
The thing the parasites depend upon is your virtues. You wish to stay alive. To do so, you recognize that you must have the knowledge, skills, the willingness and character to expend the effort in a sustained way, and to stay in contact with reality all the way. Its called honesty, honor, commitment, and rational selfishness. These thing are exactly what the parasites don’t have yet they depend upon you having and maintaining them to the death – YOUR death. In other words, they use your strengths and goodness as a weapon against you. THIS IS EVIL INCARNATE!!
By your love of life, you keep working and they benefit by taking what they call their fair share away from you. Why keep allowing it? You don’t owe them or society one damn thing beyond respecting their individual rights. You rightly expect only that in return. They only wish to consume you and that you will not resist before you die.
From your one words, you are going along to get along which does not and never has worked in the long run. Today, maybe tomorrow, but not over a lifetime.