Brexit discussion thread II

J Mysterio

Many outlets reporting that Foster really did ring and get through to May during lunch with Juncker. So, basically Foster told her 'no' and May bowed down and scuppered the entire deal. Why didnt May tell her a sweet nothing, or at least tell her 'this is happening' and call her bluff. I think the excitement was too much for Foster but May cowed immediately, and embarrassingly.

Peregrinus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Wow! Unionists arent going to feel to good about that... absolutely pilloried by the British press. Maybe they might reconsider by Wednesday and we can get the deal done.

To my lasting regret, this won't bother the DUP at all.

Remember, they see themselves as a beseiged community, a righteous remnant. It's no coincidence that their foundation myth is the Siege of Derry; they like nothing better than being besieged - if everybody's against them, they know that they must be Right. And Principled. And True. That's very comforting. It's when everybody's not against them that they feel insecure; they no longer know who they are.

Which is why - I said it at the time - a British government dependent on the DUP is profoundly unstable. There is nothing the DUP likes more than to bring their own house down about their ears on a "point of principle". You really don't want to be in the house with them when that happens.

As far as I can see, the only viable Brexit deal at this point is (a) "regulatory convergence" (or whatever term you want to pick) is substantially extended across the UK, rather than confined to NI, but (b) it's sufficiently softer than EEA/CU membership that the Tories can colourably say that they have succeeded in getting a Brexit deal while leaving the single market and the customs union.

Will this put fairly sharp limits on the trade deals that the UK can hope to agree with the US, China, countries yet to be discovered under the sea, etc, etc? Yes, it will. But (a) an EU trade deal was always going to be more important to the UK than any of these, and indeed more important than all of them put together; if the UK is forced to choose between a good EU trade deal and the theoretical freedom to negotiate trade deals with other countries on any terms it chooses, it should chose the EU trade deal, hands down, no questions asked. And (b) the fantasy of incredibly wonderful and favourable trade deals with the US, China, etc, was always a fantasy; none of them were ever going to offer anything remotely as good as what the UK currently has with the EU.

The question is, how can the UK get from where they are now to there? May's negotiating stock has plummeted. She brought a compromise to the table, and then had to take it away again because it turned out her own country - her own party, even - was not sufficiently behind her, and she could not deliver it. From the other side of the table, negotiating with someone in that position is an absolute nightmare; with the best will in the world, nothing they say can be relied upon. You will make no concessions, and give no ground, in order to make a deal with someone in that situation, since you have no confidence that the deal can actually be delivered.

May has to assert herself - face down the hard Brexiters in her own party by demanding a vote of confidence on the basis that if she wins it the party will be authorising her to negotiate the necessary compromises with the EU to make possible the Brexit deal that the UK needs. If she wins that vote of confidence, a Brexit deal may yet be salvaged; if she loses, it's (a) a new Tory leader and a general election, or (b) a new Tory leader, a commitment to a no-deal hard Brexit followed at some not-very-long deferred point by a general election followed by the new UK government going back to the EU and saying, can we get back to talking about a Brexit deal? Beyond that, I think the UK has run out of options.

And a final note: the difference between what Ireland has been able to acheive in these negotiations and what the UK has been able to achieve I think tells you all you need to know about how much "control" Brexit actually returns to the UK.

Strazdas

J Mysterio wrote: »

Many outlets reporting that Foster really did ring and get through to May during lunch with Juncker. So, basically Foster told her 'no' and May bowed down and scuppered the entire deal. Why didnt May tell her a sweet nothing, or at least tell her 'this is happening' and call her bluff. I think the excitement was too much for Foster but May cowed immediately, and embarrassingly.

Whatever was going on behind the scenes, it was hugely embarrassing for May. She flew to Brussels to publicly sign off on Phase 1, it was all systems go on all fronts and with a large media presence. Then Foster tells her 'Forget it' and May has to meekly tell Juncker and Tusk the deal is off, after the big choreographed build up all morning. Tony Connelly on RTE reckons the EU were privately furious with her.

solodeogloria

Deleted User wrote: »

Robert Peston on ITV News making some interesting predictions as to what TM will do at cabinet tomorrow. Saying that she will confront Gove and Johnson et al and tell them its a deal for the whole UK similar to what was on offer for NI today or theres a hard Brexit or even maybe a 2nd referendum and the possibility of no Brexit at all after that. Could be stormy......

Good morning!

I personally doubt this will happen. I also doubt that she will exclaim that the UK is going to stay in the single market and customs union.

Think about the reaction to Andrew Rosindell that some people had on this thread (Having watched it I do think the Ireland as a whole will leave the EU is cloud cuckoo land) there aren't just two people in cabinet who can and will make May's life a living hell but there's at least 30 on the backbench. This is what I meant when I said they would make the "bastards" on Major's cabinet look remarkably pleasant.

The idea that May would now be keen to unleash a civil war in the Tory party on top of her current difficulties is mad.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Leroy42

Totally agree Solo, TM is a shambles and the idea that she will stand up to anybody is fanciful.

Well, I guess she might finally grow a backbone and try but the others would laugh and call her bluff.

If I were British I would be very concerned that the current PM is so clearly incapable.

Solo, you have defended her in the past but even you must see that with May at the helm a no deal is the only realistic option at this stage.

That there is nobody any better to take over just shows what a massive hole the UK has dug itself.

Nobody can have any confidence going in to negotiations with the UK. There will be quite a wait for these trade deaks to restore the lost trade.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I personally doubt this will happen. I also doubt that she will exclaim that the UK is going to stay in the single market and customs union.

Think about the reaction to Andrew Rosindell that some people had on this thread (Having watched it I do think the Ireland as a whole will leave the EU is cloud cuckoo land) there aren't just two people in cabinet who can and will make May's life a living hell but there's at least 30 on the backbench. This is what I meant when I said they would make the "bastards" on Major's cabinet look remarkably pleasant.

The idea that May would now be keen to unleash a civil war in the Tory party on top of her current difficulties is mad.

I don’t see that she has a huge amount of options, Solo.

The problem here is that the internal contradictions in the Brexit worldview that have long prevented the UK from producing a coherent and practical Brexit plan can no longer be ducked. May cannot reconcile her various red lines in a way which both (a) commands sufficient political support at home, and (b) offers a basis for a favourable relationship with the EU and the rest of the world into the future. You can try to have your cake and eat it, but when the cake turns out to be a disintegrating wet sponge you end up neither having it nor eating it. And that’s pretty much where we are now.

What are the May’s options?

1. Unilateral hard Brexit. Just walk. No exit payment. No transitional period. No trade deal. Just the bare minimum of agreements necessary to keep British planes in the air, to maintain supplies of radioactive elements for medical imaging, etc. Serious bad feeling with the EU. Hard borders. Serious short-term disruption, long-term damage to the UK’s economy. Serious damage to the UK’s reputation, standing, muscle when it comes to negotiating with third countries.

2. Negotiated hard Brexit. An exit payment. A Canada-type trade deal at best. Hard borders. Material damage to the UK’s economy. Weak position for the UK to negotiate with third countries.

3. Get real. Continue to press for good trade deal with the EU, and to prioritise that above other objectives. Channel Margaret Thatcher to face down bastards in own party. Seek mandate from party to make compromises necessary to achieve good trade deal in interests of UK. Take Boris Johnson out behind barn and shoot him pour encourager les autres. Either extend regulatory convergence to whole of UK to keep DUP onside, or make deal with SNP or Lib Dems that, e.g., they will abstain so that government’s Brexit proposals (inc. necessary compromises) get through Commons, on the basis that they feel soft Brexit better for the country than hard Brexit. Or do both of these things.

Option 1 is the least attractive and would be political suicide both for May personally and for her party for years to come. It would also do the most damage to the UK, both politically and economically. It really has nothing to recommend it.

Option 2 is a poor outcome for the UK and for May personally, since it highlights that she is not in control of her party, never mind her country. Hard brexiters will object to making an exit payment and getting just a Canada-type deal. (“Canada didn’t have to pay!” they will cry, completely missing the point as they invariably do.) It may well be that May can no more deliver support for this kind of a Brexit than she could deliver support for what was on the table yesterday.

Option 3 is risky, since it involves aiming high and quite possibly falling short of the mark. On the other hand, what has May got to lose? Options 1 and 2 both spell political doom for her. With option 3 she may yet snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, restore her reputation and deliver a not-completely-catastrophic Brexit for which in years to come her country will be grateful.

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I personally doubt this will happen. I also doubt that she will exclaim that the UK is going to stay in the single market and customs union.

Think about the reaction to Andrew Rosindell that some people had on this thread (Having watched it I do think the Ireland as a whole will leave the EU is cloud cuckoo land) there aren't just two people in cabinet who can and will make May's life a living hell but there's at least 30 on the backbench. This is what I meant when I said they would make the "bastards" on Major's cabinet look remarkably pleasant.

The idea that May would now be keen to unleash a civil war in the Tory party on top of her current difficulties is mad.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

If she silences the cabinet Brexiteers she will silence the backbenches or render them powerless.
That is politics, that is leading.
There have always been noisy backbenchers. And 'backbencher' goes hand in hand with 'powerless'.
Sooner or later May is going to have to play her stake here and lead. And the time is here imo

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t see that she has a huge amount of options, Solo.

The problem here is that the internal contradictions in the Brexit worldview that have long prevented the UK from producing a coherent and practical Brexit plan can no longer be ducked. May cannot reconcile her various red lines in a way which both (a) commands sufficient political support at home, and (b) offers a basis for a favourable relationship with the EU and the rest of the world into the future. You can try to have your cake and eat it, but when the cake turns out to be a disintegrating wet sponge you end up neither having it nor eating it. And that’s pretty much where we are now.

What are the May’s options?

1. Unilateral hard Brexit. Just walk. No exit payment. No transitional period. No trade deal. Just the bare minimum of agreements necessary to keep British planes in the air, to maintain supplies of radioactive elements for medical imaging, etc. Serious bad feeling with the EU. Hard borders. Serious short-term disruption, long-term damage to the UK’s economy. Serious damage to the UK’s reputation, standing, muscle when it comes to negotiating with third countries.

2. Negotiated hard Brexit. An exit payment. A Canada-type trade deal at best. Hard borders. Material damage to the UK’s economy. Weak position for the UK to negotiate with third countries.

3. Get real. Continue to press for good trade deal with the EU, and to prioritise that above other objectives. Channel Margaret Thatcher to face down bastards in own party. Seek mandate from party to make compromises necessary to achieve good trade deal in interests of UK. Take Boris Johnson out behind barn and shoot him pour encourager les autres. Either extend regulatory convergence to whole of UK to keep DUP onside, or make deal with SNP or Lib Dems that, e.g., they will abstain so that government’s Brexit proposals (inc. necessary compromises) get through Commons, on the basis that they feel soft Brexit better for the country than hard Brexit. Or do both of these things.

Option 1 is the least attractive and would be political suicide both for May personally and for her party for years to come. It would also do the most damage to the UK, both politically and economically. It really has nothing to recommend it.

Option 2 is a poor outcome for the UK and for May personally, since it highlights that she is not in control of her party, never mind her country. Hard brexiters will object to making an exit payment and getting just a Canada-type deal. (“Canada didn’t have to pay!” they will cry, completely missing the point as they invariably do.) It may well be that May can no more deliver support for this kind of a Brexit than she could deliver support for what was on the table yesterday.

Option 3 is risky, since it involves aiming high and quite possibly falling short of the mark. On the other hand, what has May got to lose? Options 1 and 2 both spell political doom for her. With option 3 she may yet snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, restore her reputation and deliver a not-completely-catastrophic Brexit for which in years to come her country will be grateful.

Good morning!

She's got everything to lose in number 3. You can't guarantee that she won't pick up more "bastards" in an election. I personally doubt the 1922 Committee would put it to another election anyway. They have been gagging for an opportunity to get rid of May but they can't do it. The Brexit negotiation for good or for ill has saved her job.

Her mistake yesterday was that she didn't speak with the DUP before agreeing to the wording. Had she kept a line open with the DUP or at least had the good sense to make the British officials more aware of their position they possibly could have had agreed better wording. Or alternatively if she had simply met Foster and explained the consequence of what was agreed beforehand (regulatory alignment to areas that affect the GFA only) then they may have had the agreement of the DUP also.

Despite the fact there's been moaning about the DUP on this thread - you can't blame them a) for responding in the way they did after being kept in the dark both by Theresa May and by Whitehall, or b) holding to their principles just like everyone else is.

On b) it's important to note that the UUP hold to a similar position. David Trimble wrote in the Spectator last week saying it was unworkable. He's basically said that yesterday's move was a dog's dinner. That it was. So the issue isn't just the DUP but unionist political parties across the board. You can see how it appears that Dublin was calling the shots to the detriment of the unionists. I don't blame them for this.

I had a feeling all was too good to be true by lunchtime as did many others on the thread.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If she silences the cabinet Brexiteers she will silence the backbenches or render them powerless.
That is politics, that is leading.
There have always been noisy backbenchers. And 'backbencher' goes hand in hand with 'powerless'.
Sooner or later May is going to have to play her stake here and lead. And the time is here imo

With all due respect that's remarkably naiive when you don't have a majority. You're only going to make them louder.

And that's fair enough. They have every right to be loud. They are only holding to their principles just like everyone else is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

Solo, surely you can see it's all a complete shambles now? The UK government is not governing.

solodeogloria

murphaph wrote: »

Solo, surely you can see it's all a complete shambles now? The UK government is not governing.

Good morning!

No. I think Brexit needs to happen. The problem now is in terms of how it is happening.

May made a huge miscalculation yesterday both by not thinking at the very least of the unionists and the backbench of her own party.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

FrancieBrady

solodeogloria wrote: »

With all due respect that's remarkably naiive when you don't have a majority. You're only going to make them louder.

And that's fair enough. They have every right to be loud. They are only holding to their principles just like everyone else is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

With all due respect, the absolutely red faced embarrassment for a British PM yesterday should in ordinary decency be a resigning matter.

If she is entering into international agreements (like yesterday) that she cannot deliver then she has to take stock.
She has to 'lead' or leave the stage.
Staying is once again putting the Tory party game before running the country.

Edward M

FrancieBrady wrote: »

With all due respect, the absolutely red faced embarrassment for a British PM yesterday should in ordinary decency be a resigning matter.

If she is entering into international agreements (like yesterday) that she cannot deliver then she has to take stock.
She has to 'lead' or leave the stage.
Staying is once again putting the Tory party game before running the country.

Just looking at her yesterday after the reversal, she looked like a little lost dog. There's no way for her to look credible again after yesterday.
She has to go I'd say!

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Her mistake yesterday was that she didn't speak with the DUP before agreeing to the wording. Had she kept a line open with the DUP or at least had the good sense to make the British officials more aware of their position they possibly could have had agreed better wording. Or alternatively if she had simply met Foster and explained the consequence of what was agreed beforehand (regulatory alignment to areas that affect the GFA only) then they may have had the agreement of the DUP also.

Despite the fact there's been moaning about the DUP on this thread - you can't blame them a) for responding in the way they did after being kept in the dark both by Theresa May and by Whitehall, or b) holding to their principles just like everyone else is.

On b) it's important to note that the UUP hold to a similar position. David Trimble wrote in the Spectator last week saying it was unworkable. He's basically said that yesterday's move was a dog's dinner. That it was. So the issue isn't just the DUP but unionist political parties across the board. You can see how it appears that Dublin was calling the shots to the detriment of the unionists. I don't blame them for this.

I had a feeling all was too good to be true by lunchtime as did many others on the thread.

But the DUP position doesn't guarantee an open border and probably mean hardware on the Irish border. They were going to have their cake and eat it, it wasn't going to be an orange cake but a chocolate cake. They have screwed it up for the people of NI unless there is a change of heart. Their insistence to stick to their principles, which you find admiring, is still principles stuck back in the 1900's and not fit for purpose in the present.

But for a Brexiter this is exactly what they wanted. The "soft" border option is once again off the table and its full speed ahead with hard brexit with a possible no deal. But who cares, its just almost all experts that warn against this but they are not to be trusted. I mean the UK hasn't melted up to now how George Osborne said they would so all of them are wrong.

flaneur

I’m not in any way agreeing with the DUP, but is is quite surprising that the May didn’t talk to them first. It sounds actually quite dismissive and arrogant and it shows how she really views the DUP.

Enzokk

flaneur wrote: »

I’m not in any way agreeing with the DUP, but is is quite surprising that the May didn’t talk to them first. It sounds actually quite dismissive and arrogant and it shows how she really views the DUP.

The Conservatives shouldn't need to consult the DUP only on matters on the NI. If they did engage all of the parties you would find that most likely the majority would agree with the agreement of yesterday. Would you still advocate that they then consult with the DUP?

flaneur

I’d advocate that they are realistic about their position and don’t turn up in Brussels or anywhere else making total idiots of themselves.

They are making the UK look utterly moronic and as if it doesn’t really have a functioning government.

They basically didn’t have the political support to do what they were committing to do in the media around the world.

Some correspondents this morning were saying that that she appears not to have even had a full debate in cabinet about it.

I don’t like the idea that the DUP are supporting this government, but that’s the reality of the situation and it just shows the total lack of reality in the British government at the moment.

They’re the same on every topic to do with Brexit. You can’t just solve all this with bluster.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

But the DUP position doesn't guarantee an open border and probably mean hardware on the Irish border. They were going to have their cake and eat it, it wasn't going to be an orange cake but a chocolate cake. They have screwed it up for the people of NI unless there is a change of heart. Their insistence to stick to their principles, which you find admiring, is still principles stuck back in the 1900's and not fit for purpose in the present.

But for a Brexiter this is exactly what they wanted. The "soft" border option is once again off the table and its full speed ahead with hard brexit with a possible no deal. But who cares, its just almost all experts that warn against this but they are not to be trusted. I mean the UK hasn't melted up to now how George Osborne said they would so all of them are wrong.

Good morning!

Again - like flaneur said. The DUP were left in the dark by Whitehall and by Theresa May. I don't blame them at all for their reaction or for their concerns about their place in the UK being weakened. That's a valid concern.

The problems of yesterday in my mind rest entirely with the Prime Minister. I'll be interested to see if Cabinet were even fully aware! I don't know how Johnson or Gove or indeed Liam Fox would have agreed to it.

I'm going to be interested to see what can happen by the 14th. She's on the narrowest tightrope possible and she needs to stay on the middle of it to make it to the other side. Or indeed pray it doesn't snap completely in the meanwhile.

If anything it is fascinating politics.

Edit: it is also interesting when you hear people like Jacob Rees Mogg actually sound authoritative in the Tory party by saying the Conservatives never agreed to this wording and that it was just propaganda by the Irish Government (admittedly they shouldn't have ever released it until it was publicly agreed to by the British but that is conspiracy theory section). People like him and their chances at the top job are the reason why Peregrinus' number 3 wouldn't work.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Edward M

Enzokk wrote: »

The Conservatives shouldn't need to consult the DUP only on matters on the NI. If they did engage all of the parties you would find that most likely the majority would agree with the agreement of yesterday. Would you still advocate that they then consult with the DUP?

And the border issue doesn't concern NI I suppose?

flaneur

Forgetting about the politics of NI for a moment, and forgetting about whether we like or dislike the DUP, the problem is that, once again, the British government is being totally unrealistic and assuming “it’ll all right on the night” and going into major international meetings totally unprepared and without any of the background work done.

The reality of the situation is that the May government has no majority and is in a technical arrangement supported by the DUP, who have well established and very uncompromising and extreme views on this. Everyone told them this back when the government was first formed. They didn’t listen.

These are complex, difficult and extremely important negotiations and you cannot just treat them like this.

The hot air, bluster and spin doesn’t work in reality.

lawred2

solodeogloria wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

But the DUP position doesn't guarantee an open border and probably mean hardware on the Irish border. They were going to have their cake and eat it, it wasn't going to be an orange cake but a chocolate cake. They have screwed it up for the people of NI unless there is a change of heart. Their insistence to stick to their principles, which you find admiring, is still principles stuck back in the 1900's and not fit for purpose in the present.

But for a Brexiter this is exactly what they wanted. The "soft" border option is once again off the table and its full speed ahead with hard brexit with a possible no deal. But who cares, its just almost all experts that warn against this but they are not to be trusted. I mean the UK hasn't melted up to now how George Osborne said they would so all of them are wrong.

Good morning!

Again - like flaneur said. The DUP were left in the dark by Whitehall and by Theresa May. I don't blame them at all for their reaction or for their concerns about their place in the UK being weakened. That's a valid concern.

The problems of yesterday in my mind rest entirely with the Prime Minister. I'll be interested to see if Cabinet were even fully aware! I don't know how Johnson or Gove or indeed Liam Fox would have agreed to it.

I'm going to be interested to see what can happen by the 14th. She's on the narrowest tightrope possible and she needs to stay on the middle of it to make it to the other side. Or indeed pray it doesn't snap completely in the meanwhile.

If anything it is fascinating politics.

Edit: it is also interesting when you hear people like Jacob Rees Mogg actually sound authoritative in the Tory party by saying the Conservatives never agreed to this wording and that it was just propaganda by the Irish Government (admittedly they shouldn't have ever released it until it was publicly agreed to by the British but that is conspiracy theory section). People like him and their chances at the top job are the reason why Peregrinus' number 3 wouldn't work.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

So the fault doesn't lie with a communications cockup in Dublin?

solodeogloria

lawred2 wrote: »

So the fault doesn't lie with a communications cockup in Dublin?

Good morning!

The cockup that stopped progress yesterday was in London.

The media cockup was in Dublin and Brussels. They shouldn't have said anything was agreed until it was publicly stated in a press release.

You need to read my posts properly. I was very clear that the main issue was with the Prime Minister.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

No. I think Brexit needs to happen. The problem now is in terms of how it is happening.

May made a huge miscalculation yesterday both by not thinking at the very least of the unionists and the backbench of her own party.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

She's rapidly running out of options quite clearly. This whole sorry carry on yesterday must surely show you just how weak the UK's negotiating position is.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Despite the fact there's been moaning about the DUP on this thread - you can't blame them a) for responding in the way they did after being kept in the dark both by Theresa May and by Whitehall, or b) holding to their principles just like everyone else is.

As regards not blaming the DUP, I have to say that everyone else in the mix has been willing to move somewhat - the Irish have moved, the EU has moved, Westminster has moved. But the DUP have not moved at all. Which, admittedly, to anyone familiar with the DUP should come as no surprise.

But I agree; I do get a sense that May failed to keep them in the loop the extent that she should. When Foster gave her “sensible Brexit” address, I thought this was because she was softening the party up for a (slight) move because May or her office had persuaded her that it was necessary, and in Ulster’s best interests. I guess I was wrong. Or, Arlene’s nerve cracked, and she retreated to the barricades.

Either way, we’re in a sticky situation. Arlene, having taken this stance, can hardly move from it now. As you point out, she would be crucified both by elements in her own party and by the UUP, plus if she shifted now everyone would blame her for sabotaging agreement on Monday by refusing something that she later accepted. So she hasn’t so much nailed her colours to the mast as nailed her own head to the mast. Here she stands; she can do no other.

So, regulatory divergence between NI and GB is pretty much off the table, unless perhaps May can carry it through without the support of the DUP.

That’s a tall order, since it requires May both to find non-DUP support outside the Tory party, and also to face down those elements within the Tory party who would oppose it. And even then there’d be a question over whether the UK could deliver it in practice. Some day there will be a functioning devolved administration in NI again, and the DUP will be in it; and trying to force NI into a regulatory divergent position from GB against the wishes of elements of the NI administration would be, um, problematic. There has been talk of a referendum in NI to try get local approval for regulatory divergence from GB and so force the DUP’s hand, but I think the British government has probably learned to beware of referendums. Plus, remember that the GFA was approved in NI by referendum, and the DUP still held out against it for nine years. The UK doesn’t have nine years to sort this out.

So, too many complications; this isn’t going to happen.

The other option is UK-wide regulatory alignment with the EU; the DUP and the UUP would both buy that cheerfully. And, as far as RoI is concerned, it’s even better outcome than the one we have been targetting. It may be a bitter pill for some in the UK to swallow, but at the moment it looks like the only way to get for the UK what it needs, which is a favourable EU trade deal. And it would be widely acceptable within the UK generally, and within the British political establishment.

All May needs to deliver that is to take control of her own party.

That’s a big “all”, I hear you say, and you’re right. If she tries it, she does have everything to lose. But she also has everything to win, and no other option gives her that.

The bottom line is that there isn’t much point in being leader of the Tory party if you can’t lead the Tory party. If there’s to be any point to her occupation of the office, she has to exert her authority and take control, or die in the attempt.

Given what happened on Monday, there is absolutely no way that the EU will now put any new position to May. The onus is very much on May to come back and make an offer to the EU, and to make an offer with credibility as to her capacity to deliver it. That requires her to exert her authority over her party. End of.

flaneur

lawred2 wrote: »

So the fault doesn't lie with a communications cockup in Dublin?

It has absolutely nothing to do with Dublin. The Irish government position was clear and they’ve been extremely concise.

The British side is waffling and chancing their arm.

To be quite honest, it’s the most incompetent government I’ve seen in Westminster and it’s endangering the UK economy with this kind of dithering, unprepared, nonsense.

Everything’s been about a myopic view of factions within the Tory Party, yet they’re trying to negotiate what is probably the most significant deal the UK has had to do in the modern era.

At the same time they can't even negotiate with their confidence and supply partner in Westminster?!

If they're that incapable, and the government is that dysfunctional, they need to be big enough to put the UK's stability first and resign.

Blowfish

Enzokk wrote: »

The Conservatives shouldn't need to consult the DUP only on matters on the NI. If they did engage all of the parties you would find that most likely the majority would agree with the agreement of yesterday. Would you still advocate that they then consult with the DUP?

What's interesting is, it seems that Varadkar did consult the Irish opposition early yesterday and they agreed with the wording. It's amazing to see the stark contrast between how this is being handled over here.

I don't know if Varadkar has managed to strike a deal with the other parties to put the national interest first when it comes to Brexit so they don't start taking pot shots about how the process is running, but both he and they deserve full credit for presenting a United front either way. I don't think I've ever seen Irish politics this united.

Enzokk

flaneur wrote: »

I’d advocate that they are realistic about their position and don’t turn up in Brussels or anywhere else making total idiots of themselves.

They are making the UK look utterly moronic and as if it doesn’t really have a functioning government.

They basically didn’t have the political support to do what they were committing to do in the media around the world.

Some correspondents this morning were saying that that she appears not to have even had a full debate in cabinet about it.

I don’t like the idea that the DUP are supporting this government, but that’s the reality of the situation and it just shows the total lack of reality in the British government at the moment.

They’re the same on every topic to do with Brexit. You can’t just solve all this with bluster.

She doesn't have the support for any position at the moment, other than just letting time pass. If she doesn't make a stand for one position or the other its just going to be one shambles to the next. She is on the hook for the hard Brexiters, she is on the hook for the DUP, but she cannot go for a hard Brexit either as they are the minority in her party.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again - like flaneur said. The DUP were left in the dark by Whitehall and by Theresa May. I don't blame them at all for their reaction or for their concerns about their place in the UK being weakened. That's a valid concern.

The problems of yesterday in my mind rest entirely with the Prime Minister. I'll be interested to see if Cabinet were even fully aware! I don't know how Johnson or Gove or indeed Liam Fox would have agreed to it.

I'm going to be interested to see what can happen by the 14th. She's on the narrowest tightrope possible and she needs to stay on the middle of it to make it to the other side. Or indeed pray it doesn't snap completely in the meanwhile.

If anything it is fascinating politics.

Edit: it is also interesting when you hear people like Jacob Rees Mogg actually sound authoritative in the Tory party by saying the Conservatives never agreed to this wording and that it was just propaganda by the Irish Government (admittedly they shouldn't have ever released it until it was publicly agreed to by the British but that is conspiracy theory section). People like him and their chances at the top job are the reason why Peregrinus' number 3 wouldn't work.

See above. There is no position she can take that she can comfortably get through her party. So either she lets it fizzle out in a no deal, or she get a more centrist position closer to Labour and tries to work with them to get rid of the right wing of her party.

I doubt this will succeed as Labour will be eyeing a new general election and I don't know if she will go for that option either.

The only option left if she doesn't stand up to the DUP and the like of Gove, Johnson and JRM is for a hard Brexit. You will get your wish, we will suffer and the world will be poorer for that position. But you will have your control at least.

Edward M wrote: »

And the border issue doesn't concern NI I suppose?

Did you read my post? She should consult all the parties in Northern Ireland to get to the best solution. At the moment the DUP is the voice for NI, it a disgrace. Seeing as there is no Stormont to negotiate with, she should talk to all the parties in NI to reach a consensus.

Samaris

Blowfish wrote: »

I don't know if Varadkar has managed to strike a deal with the other parties to put the national interest first when it comes to Brexit so they don't start taking pot shots about how the process is running, but both he and they deserve full credit for presenting a United front either way. I don't think I've ever seen Irish politics this united.

I suppose if anything was going to make FF, FG and SF agree, it would be the UK.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The cockup that stopped progress yesterday was in London.

The media cockup was in Dublin and Brussels. They shouldn't have said anything was agreed until it was publicly stated in a press release.

You need to read my posts properly. I was very clear that the main issue was with the Prime Minister.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The Irish government and the EU can rightfully expect that when the prime minister says the wording is ok then it's game on. They will have been astounded to find out she didn't have the authority of the small minded Christian fundamentalists she relies on to keep her in power.

flaneur

Blowfish wrote: »

What's interesting is, it seems that Varadkar did consult the Irish opposition early yesterday and they agreed with the wording. It's amazing to see the stark contrast between how this is being handled over here.

I don't know if Varadkar has managed to strike a deal with the other parties to put the national interest first when it comes to Brexit so they don't start taking pot shots about how the process is running, but both he and they deserve full credit for presenting a United front either way. I don't think I've ever seen Irish politics this united.

Competence, a full grasp of the technicalities and experience of dealing with complex negotiated positions vs arrogance and bluster.

I saw Mairead McGuinness being interviewed on Sky News yesterday, as VP of the European Parliament and she was concise, fully briefed and absolutely knew what she was talking about and it came across.

What's going on in the UK at the moment is actually frightening and I think it's coming from a bizzare phase of British and American politics where competence is seen as a bad thing and getting headlines and populism is everything. It's very much in line with that "we don't need experts" mantra.

Whatever your party politics in Ireland, I think the last few years and dealing with the financial crisis, and also dealing with the NI agreements, social partnership and all of that has utterly transformed Irish politics. There's a genuine capability to get on with things, find agreements and solutions and it is showing as a stark contrast between the Irish and British systems at the moment.

I think we are really looking at a particular poor and rudderless period of British politics that's lacking anyone with real leadership ability. I'm not even convinced that Corbyn is the great saviour of all of this either. He's proven to be very divisive within his own party too.

Weak and wobbly may be the new style of the UK on the medium term.

Samaris

This has been brutal for May's authority. Did she really try to slip it through behind their backs or did Foster choke? Both options seem incredible.

Beechwoodspark

Simply put, either the UK re-confirm the deal they agreed to yesterday, or they don't.

If they don't, then the talks are not progressing to the much coveted phase 2.

So the ball is in their court. They are wasting so much time with all these games.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Enzokk wrote: »

She doesn't have the support for any position at the moment, other than just letting time pass. If she doesn't make a stand for one position or the other its just going to be one shambles to the next. She is on the hook for the hard Brexiters, she is on the hook for the DUP, but she cannot go for a hard Brexit either as they are the minority in her party.

Right. But this doesn't of necessity mean an election. You know that right?

The 1922 Committee might prefer a vote of no confidence in May. They would have ousted her in June if it wasn't for these negotiations.

Enzokk wrote: »

See above. There is no position she can take that she can comfortably get through her party. So either she lets it fizzle out in a no deal, or she get a more centrist position closer to Labour and tries to work with them to get rid of the right wing of her party.

I doubt this will succeed as Labour will be eyeing a new general election and I don't know if she will go for that option either.

An election may not be an option if they kick out May first.

Enzokk wrote: »

The only option left if she doesn't stand up to the DUP and the like of Gove, Johnson and JRM is for a hard Brexit. You will get your wish, we will suffer and the world will be poorer for that position. But you will have your control at least.

I'm as disappointed as the next man that Theresa May didn't pull off an agreement yesterday but I don't blame the DUP for holding to their position. They are kingmakers and May didn't show that the respect the DUP felt it deserved. Bad things were going to happen.

Today's chatter is much much more interesting than usual on this thread because it's less about do I agree with Brexit or not but about the power play that is an inherent part of the Westminster rat race.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

The cockup that stopped progress yesterday was in London.

The media cockup was in Dublin and Brussels. They shouldn't have said anything was agreed until it was publicly stated in a press release.

You need to read my posts properly. I was very clear that the main issue was with the Prime Minister.

I think this is correct. It may have been an error for Dublin/Brussels to disclose the draft wording and to talk up the prospects of agreement before anyone had signed on the dotted line, but I don't think it changed the outcome. Do we imagine that if the DUP had found out about the deal after May and Juncker had announced agreement on it, their reaction would have been any different?

From May's point of view, in fact, it is probably marginally better (or, at any rate, marginally less awful) that the deal fell apart just before she signed up to it, rather than just after.

Akrasia

The best thing for the UK now, is a snap general election.

It's an awful idea, a waste of precious time and it would be hugely divisive and disruptive, but it's still the best thing for the UK.

When May had the GE earlier this year, the point was to have a strong majority for the brexit neotiations so she could pass a deal through parliament. After yesterday, it looks pretty certain that she hasn't a hope of passing any deal through parliament, so the rest of the negotiations are a complete waste of time because no matter what she agrees, it will be voted down.

They're on a one way trip to crashing out of europe with the current government, so their only chance is to have a flash election.

When the election is over, there will probably still be a hung parliament, but given how the two main parties are internally divided, there is the possibility of establishing a voting pact amongst like minded MPs across the isle for the sole purpose of passing the least worst brexit deal.

I still think that the majority of British public opinion favour either no brexit, or a very soft brexit as do the majority of politicians in both main parties.

TLDR: The current trajectory is almost certainly a No Deal crash out of the EU.

Even though an election would bring huge uncertainty, it's better to have a chance of doing a deal, than no chance at all

The quicker the election happens, the more of a chance the new government will have to negotiate a deal before the deadline, a window that gets narrower every day.

First Up

Rick Shaw wrote:

I am disputing that they are representative of your typical person in the north.

Given that N.I is about as polarised a society as you could find, the notion that any political party could be described as representing a "typical" person is pretty absurd.

However it also fair to say that the DUP represent a particular type of person and that point of view got more votes and more seats than any other.

Samaris

I'm inclined to agree on tbe need for an election. Tories/DUP have hit a wall and are inextricably tangled in red lines. Can't get rid of the Irish or the EU so may need to try changing the party in charge and see where they get to.

blinding

Perhaps the British Government should offer Special Status to Each and Every Individual in Northern Ireland . You are free to take this up if you wish or decline as you wish .

I started that as a humorous suggestion.....but it becomes a great idea as I write .

Contact your Political representatives I believe I have solved this problem .

seamus

Akrasia wrote: »

The best thing for the UK now, is a snap general election.

I wonder if May might just bypass the DUP and bring the proposal directly to the UK parliament.

There's a good chance Corbyn would support it, which means that the Tories don't need the DUP to get this agreement over the line.

Of course, it would effectively mean the end of her government as the DUP withdraw in a strop, but it would also set up an incoming administration with a clear negotiating path ahead of them.

Which could play well in the polls.

Though that's probably fanciful thinking on my part. Forward thinking and putting country before party has not been a feature of any recent Tory governments.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Given that N.I is about as polarised a society as you could find, the notion that any political party could be described as representing a "typical" person is pretty absurd.

However it also fair to say that the DUP represent a particular type of person and that point of view got more votes and more seats than any other.

The DUP only got 36% of the vote in the most recent election. The fact that they have so many seats is an artifact of the quaintly crapulous British electoral system.

They did get more votes than any other party, but they are a long way from representing any kind of consensus or dominant view on Brexit. As we know, NI voted to Remain, and opinion surveys taken since the referendum suggest a strong preference for a softer rather than a harder deal.

If you line up the NI parties between (a) those who favoured Brexit in the refefendum, plus those who opposed Brexit but now accept it and want a Brexit that will be uniform across the UK, versus (b) those who opposed Brexit in the referendum, and now call for a Brexit with special status/treatment for NI, then group (a) gets 46% of the NI vote, group (b) gets 50% and the remaining 4% goes to minor parties or independents whose position on Brexit is not easily classified.

LeinsterDub

A humorous and not to wide of the mark take on yesterday.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/04/theresa-may-brussels-jean-claude-juncker-eu-northern-ireland

It finishes with this gem

All for none and none for all. Juncker sighed. He needed a drink badly. Another one. It was a three-bottle day. Every time he thought the UK couldn’t get any more incompetent, it somehow managed to surprise him

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

Right. But this doesn't of necessity mean an election. You know that right?

The 1922 Committee might prefer a vote of no confidence in May. They would have ousted her in June if it wasn't for these negotiations.



An election may not be an option if they kick out May first.

Sure, but whether she continues or someone else takes over the problems are the same for the UK. If a JRM or Johnson does indeed take over it doesn't change the position in the House of Commons. They will still have a razor thin majority only thanks to the DUP. The only difference is that they will be able to exit the EU without a deal with no votes needed from the HoC.

But those in the Conservative Party that prefer a soft Brexit will make the same noise, but from the backbenches if she does leave. So either way the position of the UK is incredibly weak.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm as disappointed as the next man that Theresa May didn't pull off an agreement yesterday but I don't blame the DUP for holding to their position. They are kingmakers and May didn't show that the respect the DUP felt it deserved. Bad things were going to happen.

Today's chatter is much much more interesting than usual on this thread because it's less about do I agree with Brexit or not but about the power play that is an inherent part of the Westminster rat race.

Well the position, or the weak position, of the UK PM has been discussed on here for a long time. It been clear since the election that her position is very weak and this goes for the UK negotiation position as well.

baylah17

What becomes clearer and clearer with each passing day is that the UK government are in no position to negotiate with the EU at all as they have little or no chance of having anything they negotiate being accepted or ratified by Parliament.
Its not just the DUP that are holding the UK government hostage, it is a sizable group of conservative M.P.'s who seem to believe their own insane narrative that "Britain" can be great again once they have put the bogeyman that is Europe in its place.
Perhaps it is time that the EU made it clear that there is no point in negotiating with the UK until its government is in a position to deliver on such negotiations.

flaneur

I would just hope that a general election would actually clear the air. So far, I'm not entirely convinced that the political mood has changed in England.

There are just so many political factors that will play into it. It's just a particularly tumultuous time in British politics.

Also I think even if there's a softening of the position, the British relationship with the EU is changed forever. I'm not convinced that there's really any way back to the status quo. The EU now sees the UK as an unpredictable and even potentially hostile 3rd party. I think the European and probably Irish position is likely to be trying to create a buffer against the chaos and crazy. I can't see there being anyone rushing to expose their own economies to this kind of thing again.

Once bitten, twice shy.

LeinsterDub

baylah17 wrote: »

What becomes clearer and clearer with each passing day is that the UK government are in no position to negotiate with the EU at all as they have little or no chance of having anything they negotiate being accepted or ratified by Parliament.
Its not just the DUP that are holding the UK government hostage, it is a sizable group of conservative M.P.'s who seem to believe their own insane narrative that "Britain" can be great again once they have put the bogeyman that is Europe in its place.
Perhaps it is time that the EU made it clear that there is no point in negotiating with the UK until its government is in a position to deliver on such negotiations.

The EU rightly doesn't interfere with the internal politics of members states or 3rd countries they are negotiating with. It's unfortunatly up to the British to realise that they are wasting their own time.

Sethanon

First Up wrote: »

Given that N.I is about as polarised a society as you could find, the notion that any political party could be described as representing a "typical" person is pretty absurd.

However it also fair to say that the DUP represent a particular type of person and that point of view got more votes and more seats than any other.

While the extremes of both sides are indeed very polarised, the majority of people in the north now sit in the middle and really they could be typically represented by the alliance party.

The problem is how the system is set up. The DUP got the most seats with only 36% of the votes. and the GFA makes sure they always have a say and the power to veto issues.

While the GFA doesn't state it must be the DUP in a power position (it could be the UUP), but here in the north if you want anything done for your benefit you have to vote for the extreme of your side. What I mean by that is, Sinn Fein and the DUP are the only parties who get things done in the north at the minute. The less extreme parties do not have the pulling power or competence. Hence why it is Sinn Fein and the DUP on top, and not a reasonable party like the Alliance, or even the less extremes like SDLP.

I myself am catholic and I do vote Sinn Fein for the reason above, but a lot my friends are protestant and vote DUP for the same reason, even though they hate the DUP. The system is a mess in the north, but it is a bubble here that struggles to see past old grudges.

The funny thing is that if Sinn Fein took its seats in Westminster then the DUP have have no sway of TM as the DUP would not have enough seats to help then

baylah17

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The EU rightly doesn't interfere with the internal politics of members states or 3rd countries they are negotiating with. It's unfortunatly up to the British to realise that they are wasting their own time.

Where did I suggest they should.
There is no onus on the EU to waste time negotiating with a group of individuals who lack the authority to deliver on what is negotiated.
The EU adopted such a tactic before leading to the resignation of members of the Greek Government, a gov that was considerably more united than that of the UK.

hatrickpatrick

Would it be at all plausible for the Irish government and the Tories to jointly threaten to hold a United Ireland referendum if the DUP doesn't back down on this almost-done-deal, purely as a bluff to make them cool their jets? Given that NI voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, they could arguably make a case that such a referendum would have every possibility of passing in the current climate, particularly with the alternative prospect of a customs and immigration border.

Note that I'm not for an instant suggesting such a referendum would or should be held at the current time, it would be complete madness in my view to throw that into the mix on top of everything else that's going on, but I just mean purely as a bargaining chip, "play ball or we pull the trigger" message to the DUP. Too out there, or is anything too out there given recent events?

Sethanon

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Would it be at all plausible for the Irish government and the Tories to jointly threaten to hold a United Ireland referendum if the DUP doesn't back down on this almost-done-deal, purely as a bluff to make them cool their jets? Given that NI voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, they could arguably make a case that such a referendum would have every possibility of passing in the current climate, particularly with the alternative prospect of a customs and immigration border.

Note that I'm not for an instant suggesting such a referendum would or should be held at the current time, it would be complete madness in my view to throw that into the mix on top of everything else that's going on, but I just mean purely as a bargaining chip, "play ball or we pull the trigger" message to the DUP. Too out there, or is anything too out there given recent events?

Wouldn't work, and the DUP know it. Simply put... people in the north want the best of both (like they have it now). They want the benefits of UK facilities such as free health care etc. and still have access to the EU (basically what TM agreed for them yesterday).
So even with the threat of a border poll the DUP will be unphased as they know the majority, including catholics, realise that its better for them to be part of the UK. Lets face it, here is nothing but a massive leach on the UK's economy, the people here do not want to have to actually work like you do in the south.

The only way I see a border poll passing is if there is a hard border and NI begins to suffer. Other than that, the people here are on the gravy train compared to the free state

The one thing that points out the stupidity of politics here, is that the DUP blocked a deal which would make NI the most attractive part of the UK (attracting big companies to move there rather than Europe) but they blocked it just because it looks like Dublin would be getting a 'win'
Its stupidity beyond belief

hatrickpatrick

Sethanon wrote: »

Wouldn't work, and the DUP know it. Simply put... people in the north want the best of both (like they have it now). They want the benefits of UK facilities such as free health care etc. and still have access to the EU (basically what TM agreed for them yesterday).
So even with the threat of a border poll the DUP will be unphased as they know the majority, including catholics, realise that its better for them to be part of the UK. Lets face it, here is nothing but a massive leach on the UK's economy, the people here do not want to have to actually work like you do in the south.

The only way I see a border poll passing is if there is a hard border and NI begins to suffer. Other than that, the people here are on the gravy train compared to the free state

The one thing that points out the stupidity of politics here, is that the DUP blocked a deal which would make NI the most attractive part of the UK (attracting big companies to move there rather than Europe) but they blocked it just because it looks like Dublin would be getting a 'win'
Its stupidity beyond belief

On the bolded section, if this is the case then is blocking this deal not political suicide for the DUP? If the deal would have been popular among DUP voters, obviously a majority of the unionist population at the moment, does this not give another unionist party a massive opening to swoop in as the "unionist but pro-deal" alternative?

Very risky move considering that another NI assembly election in the near future is a serious possibility...

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

They did get more votes than any other party, but they are a long way from representing any kind of consensus or dominant view on Brexit.

I never suggested otherwise.