Meaningful votes 1-4 – Where do you stand?

The purpose of Brexit is democratic self governance. Explicitly this requires the ability to diverge in legal and regulatory terms. Implicitly, this suggests a desire to diverge from our present trajectory. In terms of the UK leaving the EU and yet retaining a trading reltionship, this dilemma revolves around the single market; flanking policies, services, and goods. The EEA in short. This dilemma exists because of the maximalist interpretation of ‘no hard border’ and and eu insistence on the absolute ‘integrity of the single market’. In consequence, this frames the offer from the EU as EEA+CU.

brexit.png

So where do you fall on this, looking across the 2019 with the (soon to be) four MV’s?

To frame the problem:

Flanking policies include social, environment and employment regulations, key elements of how society would like to organise as a collective relationship. I can compromise on non-regression, but not dynamic alignment. Services represents 80% of the domestic economy and includes strategic industries for which it would be deeply innappropriate to hand the launch keys to a third party. Very happy to have mutual recognition, but never for dynamic alignment. Goods is another matter, it includes only 15% of the domestic economy and in integrated supply-chains is often part of international regulation anyway. By way of compromise I would be happy to adopt dynamic alignment.
The UK has offered various forms of trading relationship that separate goods from services and flanking policies, offering some form of rule taking for goods. But these offers have always been rejected by the EU, because of the insistence that their regulatory integrity must be absolute and yet no form of compliance surveillance can happen on the irish border. What this means is that.
What this boils down to is an ultimatem that “you can have a thing called Brexit, but it does not allow any divergence for the economy, nor too for key elements of our collective existence. That we must bow to this future as an EU Sanjak because of a latent terrorist threat in NI is absurd.
The anwer must be to bin, the maximalist interpretation of “no hard border”, and for the eu to accept that it is in no position to operate as regulator for strategic service industries in which it is no more than an interested third-party.

I invite you to cut-n-paste the following text – selecting therein the appropriate option that reflects your choice as you might have made it at the time:

Meaningful vote #1
Withdrawal Agreement + Political Declaration (with no reassurance over backstop)
a) I supported it – as a good compromise (we weren’t going to see a [better] deal, so sign with a smile)
b) I supported it – as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done)
c) I supported it – against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)
d) I rejected it – with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)
e) I rejected it – it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)
f) I rejected it – no deal can be better than remaining/no-deal (and all deals are so deleterious it is beyond any useful compromise)

Meaningful vote #2
Withdrawal Agreement + Political Declaration (with non-binding interpretive text to assuage fears of the backstop)
a) I supported it – as a good compromise (we weren’t going to see a [better] deal, so sign with a smile)
b) I supported it – as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done)
c) I supported it – against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)
d) I rejected it – with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)
e) I rejected it – it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)
f) I rejected it – no deal can be better than remaining/no-deal (and all deals are so deleterious it is beyond any useful compromise)

Meaningful vote #3
Withdrawal Agreement (with new protocol text that would be used in the interpretation of how the backstop would apply)
a) I supported it – as a good compromise (we weren’t going to see a [better] deal, so sign with a smile)
b) I supported it – as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done)
c) I supported it – against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)
d) I rejected it – with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)
e) I rejected it – it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)
f) I rejected it – no deal can be better than remaining/no-deal (and all deals are so deleterious it is beyond any useful compromise)

Meaningful vote #4
Boris’s Agreement (NI separate for goods/agri regulation and part of a dual customs territory as per cheqeurs + Consent mechanism)
a) I supported it – as a good compromise (we weren’t going to see a [better] deal, so sign with a smile)
b) I supported it – as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done)
c) I supported it – against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)
d) I rejected it – with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)
e) I rejected it – it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)
f) I rejected it – no deal can be better than remaining/no-deal (and all deals are so deleterious it is beyond any useful compromise)

I’m keen to see what you people through, so please cut and paste the text leaving only one of the six options for each of the four votes…

To kick things off, I will do myself:

Meaningful vote #1
Withdrawal Agreement + Political Declaration (with no reassurance over backstop)
e) I rejected it – it simply failed to create a good future with the EU (something that meets [my] criteria)

Meaningful vote #2
Withdrawal Agreement + Political Declaration (with non-binding interpretive text to assuage fears of the backstop)
d) I rejected it – with a heavy heart (i wanted [a] deal and am willing to compromise, but this was a step too far)

Meaningful vote #3
Withdrawal Agreement (with new protocol text that would be used in the interpretation of how the backstop would apply)
c) I supported it – against my better judgement (very uncomfortable choice, but a necessary compromise)

Meaningful vote #4
Boris’s Agreement (NI separate for goods/agri regulation and part of a dual customs territory as per cheqeurs + Consent mechanism)
b) I supported it – as an acceptable compromise (not perfect, but would get the job done) **on assumption it arrives as suggested**

n.b. MV #2 and MV #3 where incredibly tough choices, and it would have taken little to swing them onto the other side of the coin.

I’m interested to hear your thoughts in the comments if you would be so kind…?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s