Blog

Brexit, Hunting a Fantastical Beast

May government’s Brexit aims were never achievable – we’ve been hunting a fantastical beast all along

File 20181116 194519 67tlr3.png?ixlib=rb 1.1
The Snark – the beastly figment of imagination created by Lewis Carroll.
Image: Segment of an assemblage by G. Kluge of illustrations by C. Martens & T. Landseer, H. Holiday & J. Swain

Michael Keating, University of Aberdeen

 
The Brexit process started in March 2017 with the triggering of Article 50, allowing two years to complete the process. The main story since then has been of postponing difficult decisions in the hope that something would turn up. Ministers have insisted they have a mandate from the people but have struggled to agree on what it entails in practice. Negotiations within the UK government have been as difficult as those with the EU.

It might have been expected that, before March 2019, we would have a clear idea of what Brexit would look like. Instead, we have a 20-month “transition period”, which the UK government has been calling an “implementation” period. It is neither a transition nor an implementation phase, but the period in which the real negotiation of what Brexit means will take place; it can be extended once by agreement of both parties.

What has been achieved now is the minimum required for the formalities of withdrawal: the financial settlement; an agreement on citizens’ rights; and an ambiguous commitment on the Irish border question. The talk in recent months has suggested that the Irish border is the last remaining obstacle to a deal. This is misleading, as the Irish border stands in for a much larger set of issues on which discussions have barely begun – from the single market to trade to regulations.

Red, red lines …

At the beginning of the process, the UK government laid down a series of red lines. These included withdrawal from the single market, the customs union and the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and no differentiated Brexit for the different parts of the United Kingdom. These have all been breached.

Dead red.
Benedek Alpar

 
The Chequers agreement in July 2018, which formed the basis of the UK negotiating position, conceded that the UK would align with EU standards in manufactured and agricultural goods, a central principle of the single market. The new agreement concedes the customs union in the form of a “single customs territory”.

This is purportedly to deal with the Irish border, but extending the customs union to the whole UK also serves a wider purpose. British manufacturers have been telling the government that they need a customs union to secure frictionless trade and their just-in-time production chains.

The Irish government wants to maintain access to markets in Great Britain. The idea is that the customs agreement is a backstop, to be superseded by an overall trade agreement with the EU. Yet, unless that agreement also includes customs union, it is difficult to see how it could serve the purpose – since you need customs union to prevent the hard border. The UK can also withdraw from it only with the agreement of the EU. And differential treatment for Northern Ireland is certain to spark demands for a special deal for Scotland, as the Scottish government proposed in December 2017.

During the transition, meanwhile, the UK will be subject to the Court of Justice of the European Union. Thereafter, disputes about agreements will be subject to binding arbitration, another form of supranational jurisdiction. Arbitration panels will have to follow the Court of Justice’s interpretation of EU law.

Like Oslo, but different

The UK will therefore remain tied to the EU and have to accept many of its policies. This bears comparison with the Norwegian model (the European Economic Area) that was explicitly rejected at the outset – though with some differences. The UK will be tied to the EU customs union, which Norway is not. It will not enjoy all the single market benefits, which Norway has (except in agriculture and fisheries).

Cake? Eat it.
goodmoments

 
It will not, like Norway, have a consultative voice in the making of EU policies. The UK will not be bound to accept free movement of workers, but this question might come back in return for access to EU markets, especially in services.

Finally, there is to be a differentiated Brexit for Northern Ireland, which will be more closely tied into the customs union and product regulation. There is to be a special designation of products as UK (NI), and a need to meet both UK and EU regulations.

Brexit was never going to be easy, especially after the UK government rejected off-the-shelf solutions such as the European Economic Area. What it has ended up with – customs union and bits of regulatory alignment – looks rather like the model at which the Labour Party, after its tortuous internal arguments has arrived, not that Labour will agree.

Had both parties started off with the Norway model, they might have found common ground and a clearer and more comprehensible arrangement. Instead, to cite Lewis Carroll, they have been hunting a Snark.The Conversation

Michael Keating, Chair in Scottish Politics, University of Aberdeen

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Saudi National Security Apparatus Is Bearing the Brunt of the Blame for Killing

The Crown Prince Totally Denied Any Knowledge

 more
 

 more

Putin & Trump, Helsinki, 2018-07-16

The White House tried to manipulate the transcript.

== VOX ==
PUTIN: […] We have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers, guided these transactions. So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step. We can extend also it. Options abound. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
REPORTER (Jeff Mason from Reuters): President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election and did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?
PUTIN: Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.
(Source: VOX, by @jennieneufeld)

== White House (as of 2018-07-09, “Issued on: July 16, 2018 […] 5:56 P.M. EEST”) ==
PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As interpreted) […] We have solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers, guided these transactions. So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step. We can extend also it. Options abound. They all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
Q[uestion:] And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?
PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As interpreted.) Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.
(Source: White House)

== White House (as of 2018-08-09, but still “Issued on: July 16, 2018 […] 5:56 P.M. EEST”) ==
PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As interpreted) […] So we have a solid reason to believe that some intelligence officers accompanied and guided these transactions. So we have an interest of questioning them. That could be a first step, and we can also extend it. Options abound, and they all can be found in an appropriate legal framework.
Q[uestion:] President Putin, did you want President Trump to win the election? And did you direct any of your officials to help him do that?
PRESIDENT PUTIN: (As interpreted.) Yes, I did. Yes, I did. Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.
(Source: White House)

 
The White House had to correct the official transcript. The error seems to have been caused by technical problems. But as for the issue date, the White House keeps providing wrong information: The final transcript was not issued on July 16th, 2018. The corrected version was issued on August 9th.

No Collusion

The Bellman’s rule: “What I tell you three times is true!”

Kelly Ramsdell Fineman told us …

… that President Theodore Roosevelt and Edith Wharton were huge fans of the Snark. On one visit to the White House, Wharton learned of the following exchange that occurred between the President and the Secretary of the Navy (undoubtedly unaware of Carroll’s poem, or at least unaware that Roosevelt was quoting):

During discussion, Roosevelt said to the secretary of the Navy,

“Mr. Secretary, what I tell you three times is true!”

The Secretary replied stiffly,

“Mr. President, it would never for a moment have occurred to me to impugn your veracity.”

So far for three times. But 16 times is fine too:

001    “Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,
002        As he landed his crew with care;
003    Supporting each man on the top of the tide
004        By a finger entwined in his hair.

005    “Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
006        That alone should encourage the crew.
007    Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
008        What I tell you three times is true.”

329    “’Tis the voice of the Jubjub!” he suddenly cried.
330        (This man, that they used to call “Dunce.”)
331    “As the Bellman would tell you,” he added with pride,
332        “I have uttered that sentiment once.

333    “’Tis the note of the Jubjub! Keep count, I entreat;
334        You will find I have told it you twice.
335    ’Tis the song of the Jubjub! The proof is complete,
336        If only I’ve stated it thrice.”

 

The Bellman’s Rule is stated in Lewis Carroll’s The Hunting of the Snark, line #7 and line #335. I said it in Lua – wrote it in Python, I made that indeed, but I wholly forgot (when finally done), that Haskell is what you need! So, here is an example for how to implement that rule:

#! /usr/bin/haskell
import Data.List
statementList :: [String]
statementList =
  ["No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"I am a stable genius!"
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"I am a stable genius!"
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"I am a stable genius!"
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"1+1=2."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"No collusion."
  ,"Collusion is not a crime."
  ,"Collusion is not a crime."
  ,"Collusion is not a crime."
  ]
atLeastThrice :: [String] -> [String]
atLeastThrice sL =
  [head grp | grp <-
    group $ sort sL, length grp >= 3]

Result (if loaded and executed in GHCi):

*Main> atLeastThrice statementList
["Collusion is not a crime.","I am a stable genius!","No collusion."]

 
meme4trump 1 | meme4rtrump 2

Don’t Let Anyone Think Anything Different

YouTube (uploaded 2018-06-15, see also Twitter):

[Trump] Hey, he’s the head of a country — I mean he’s the strong head, don’t let anyone think anything different — he speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same.
[FOX NEWS] Well, just before you met with him, he cleaned house. Three of his top generals, some of the hardliners, he fired. Then you go over there. You took some heat over saluting one of the generals.
[Trump] I think he fired at least —
[FOX NEWS (didn’t get Trump’s joke attempt)] Three do we know of.
[Trump] — may be “fired” “at least”. “Fired” may be a nice word.

In his exercises in sarcasm, Trump actually made fun of Kim Jong Un. As Trump later didn’t dare to crack such “jokes” about Mohammad bin Salman, Trump probably takes the prince more serious than the North Korean “strong head”. Also Trump’s courage has limits, and experimental irony isn’t always good for business.

Then again, was Trump joking? In order to be on the safe side, Trump’s people did sit and stand in attention. For some of them it wasn’t safe enough, therefore the image of Trump with his people is outdated. (In the end perhaps only Pence will remain).

Trump image: Getty Images.
Kim image: KimJongUnLookingAtThings.com (see also kimjongunlookingatthings.tumblr.com). Twitter: @kjulat.