Brexit discussion thread III

steddyeddy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

She isn't in the shadow cabinet, he can't fire her from being a backbencher.

No but he can certainly speak out against her dangerous rhetoric about the Good Friday agreement.

Econ_

Peregrinus wrote: »

Hoey is not on the front bench, so she can't be fired from it.

(Nor is she likely to be on the front bench under the present regime. She does not like Corbyn, and the feeling is by all accounts mutual.)

Not that I doubt you but is there any evidence that she doesn’t like him?

I ask because she was one of the minority of Labour MPs that stood by him when his leadership was challenged shortly after the EU referendum.

Hoey sticks out like a sore thumb in the Labour Party.

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

He is the worst sort here - an ideologue in a position of relative power - but he is far more in favour of Brexit than May, who was a campaigner for Remain before the referendum.

He's clearly a hard Brexiteer. He wants the UK out of the EU, Single Market and Customs Union, meaning ideologically he's not that much different to Rees-Mogg and Farage.

Peregrinus

Corbyn and May were both (formally) Remainers before the referendum, but neither was especially passionate about it.

Corbyn probably does see reasons to leave other than short-term political advantage, and to that extent he is more of a Leaver than May. But his reasons for leaving do not include the kind of narrow identity-validating nonsense that bedevils UKIP and the Tories. And he has adopted a policy of remaining in the Customs Union; that alone would make the Irish border question much easier to solve. Plus, Labour (and indeed Corbyn) would generally have a much better sense of why the Irish border needs to be kept open than the pantomime horses who currently run the Tory party do.

I do think a change of government in the UK would help to resolve the border issue, but I don't think we can bank on a change for a while yet.

Professor Moriarty

Econ_ wrote: »

Not that I doubt you but is there any evidence that she doesn’t like him?

I ask because she was one of the minority of Labour MPs that stood by him when his leadership was challenged shortly after the EU referendum.

Hoey sticks out like a sore thumb in the Labour Party.

They would have diametrically opposite views on NI.

Peregrinus

Strazdas wrote: »

He's clearly a hard Brexiteer. He wants the UK out of the EU, Single Market and Customs Union, meaning ideologically he's not that much different to Rees-Mogg and Farage.

You're describing Teresa May's position there!

Corby has (reluctantly) signed up to a policy of remaning in the Customs Union.

As between the two of them, it is May who is chasing the harder Brexit.

Strazdas

Peregrinus wrote: »

Corbyn and May were both (formally) Remainers before the referendum, but neither was especially passionate about it.

Corbyn probably does see reasons to leave other than short-term political advantage, and to that extent he is more of a Leaver than May. But his reasons for leaving do not include the kind of narrow identity-validating nonsense that bedevils UKIP and the Tories. And he has adopted a policy of remaining in the Customs Union; that alone would make the Irish border question much easier to solve. Plus, Labour (and indeed Corbyn) would generally have a much better sense of why the Irish border needs to be kept open than the pantomime horses who currently run the Tory party do.

I do think a change of government in the UK would help to resolve the border issue, but I don't think we can bank on a change for a while yet.

He has specifically says he favours being a member of "a" customs union with the EU. You cannot be a member of the actual Customs Union and yet be outside the Single Market.

ambro25

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

Because the said decision makers, current and potential, know very well that the worst effects of a crash-out would not be felt in the short term, no more than the worst effects of the referendum result and its handling to date have yet been felt at street level.

A crash-out would absolutely be felt from day 1. Planes grounded, exports stopped at Dover, trucks queued back to London...

I said the worst effects. Not all the effects.

The difference exists, and is non-trivial: Brexit-in-the-making has been generating effects since June 2016.

Grounded planes on day 1 would not be a ‘worst’ effect at street level for British Joe Average. It would certainly contribute to bring them about, however.

Econ_

Strazdas wrote: »

He has specifically says he favours being a member of "a" customs union with the EU. You cannot be a member of the actual Customs Union and yet be outside the Single Market.

In essence, you can.

There are three types of customs union being referenced in the UK.

1) *The* Customs Union - You need to be a member of the EU to be in this.

2) *A* Customs Union - An exact replicate of *The* Customs Union. It's technically different to 1), but in name only. So for all intents and purposes it is the same as 1). Norway is the obvious example. This option is open to the UK, even outside the Single Market.

3) *A variation* of the Customs Union - Partial or near full alignment of rules with *The* Customs Union. Turkey are an example.


So it's important to remember that 1) and 2) are the same here.



Corbyn's position on this is extremely disingenuous. His proposal is 3) with a plan to be partners at the table with the EU in negotiating third country trade deals. It's complete pie in the sky as even EU member states do not have the type of authority and say that Corbyn is proposing the UK to have. But I suppose it was only an opening gambit that helps him transition to a policy of accepting 2).

backspin.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Indeed, the EU shows more concern for both nations long-term interests than the feckless eejits we elect.

If the EU could have ejected Greece they would have. They couldn't though without causing massive repercussions.

We will learn that our interests are well down the line too. The interests of the project will come 1st, 2nd & 3rd.

Nitrogan

backspin. wrote: »

We will learn that our interests are well down the line too. The interests of the project will come 1st, 2nd & 3rd.

Shouldn't that always be the case?

The good of Ireland as a whole should be more important than a hockey pitch in D4 for example.

I think the EU is better at looking after the greater good than we are because local polticians can't influence the decisions the way they shamelessly do here.

More scrutiny of local expenditure by the EU would be a good thing for Ireland.

flutered

Bit cynical wrote: »

However in reality is going to come down to some sort of compromise. We can use our veto as a threat but we can't really use it in practice for economic reasons.

The UK are leaving the EU and the customs union. We would rather they were not but we have to accept that reality. Because of this the EU will insist that Ireland build border controls of some sort. Ireland will therefore seek the minimum necessary to keep the EU happy. Ideally, if the UK get a very good trade deal then issues of smuggling will not arise to any great extent and so a Norway style border with relatively free movement of traffic should be possible.

could it be that the eu not ireland who would have to build any border, remembering that under wto rules the uk will have to build one

Water John

OOPS, another whistlblower could be getting Johnson and Gove into all sorts of difficulty.

'The money was registered by BeLeave with election authorities as a donation from Vote Leave to an independent youth operation. Sanni says BeLeave shared offices with Vote Leave – fronted by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove – which in practice offered advice and assistance to the group and helped them to decide where their cash would be spent.' Observer

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/24/brexit-whistleblower-cambridge-analytica-beleave-vote-leave-shahmir-sanni

Nody

flutered wrote: »

could it be that the eu not ireland who would have to build any border, remembering that under wto rules the uk will have to build one

Border control is a local country responsibility; EU has no authority nor staff with right to stop vehicles etc. at the border. Hence it will be Ireland's job to guard the Irish border.

Zubeneschamali

backspin. wrote: »

If the EU could have ejected Greece they would have.

It is kind of basic that the EU does not have the power to eject member states, so your statement is about as meaningful as saying "If the EU could have cast a spell and changed Greece into a statue, they would have".

Back in the real world, the Greek people elected a crowd of yahoos who thought they could ignore the woejus state of Greece's finances and keep spending regardless. The EU stared them down.

As for Ireland, you seem to have missed the bit where the EU gave Ireland the biggest digout in our history when we were beyond flat broke. "Waaah - they put conditions on it!" - so would you if you were helping out your cousin with his gambling problems.

Water John

The best thing that was happening here, were the boys coming in, every 3 months to see we were, on track.

This Brexit whistleblower is much more, up to date. CA can't throw the line that he wasn't around at the time of the ref.
Wonder were people busy inside in the last few days, whilst waiting for the warrant?

backspin.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is kind of basic that the EU does not have the power to eject member states, so your statement is about as meaningful as saying "If the EU could have cast a spell and changed Greece into a statue, they would have".

Back in the real world, the Greek people elected a crowd of yahoos who thought they could ignore the woejus state of Greece's finances and keep spending regardless. The EU stared them down.

As for Ireland, you seem to have missed the bit where the EU gave Ireland the biggest digout in our history when we were beyond flat broke. "Waaah - they put conditions on it!" - so would you if you were helping out your cousin with his gambling problems.

It was to help the EU every bit as much Ireland. If not more so. Both Ireland and Greece would have been let sink if they could have and the EU wouldn't have suffered.

swampgas

backspin. wrote: »

It was to help the EU every bit as much Ireland. If not more so. Both Ireland and Greece would have been let sink if they could have and the EU wouldn't have suffered.

We are part of the EU and part of Europe. Get some perspective.

LeinsterDub

Labour is seeking to build cross-party consensus in parliament behind plans that will enshrine into law a promise not to have any infrastructure, customs posts or cameras on the border of Northern Ireland and the Republic after Brexit.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/24/labour-seeks-cross-party-consensus-on-irish-border-brexit-deal

Potentially good news for us. However it would require at least half a dozen Tory rebels if I'm not mistaken.

Thargor

backspin. wrote: »

It was to help the EU every bit as much Ireland. If not more so. Both Ireland and Greece would have been let sink if they could have and the EU wouldn't have suffered. You are some cheerleader for the EU zuben. Typical of so many craven boot licking Irish when it comes to 'our betters' in Europe.

Talk us through how well it would have gone if the EU hadn't bailed us out...

Calina

Thargor wrote: »

Talk us through how well it would have gone if the EU hadn't bailed us out...

Please don't because it is completely off topic for this thread.

All due respect, we don't need a derail from Brexit on whether the bail out was a good idea or not. There were dozens of threads on it before now I'm sure.

Econ_

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/24/labour-seeks-cross-party-consensus-on-irish-border-brexit-deal?__twitter_impression=true

Labour is seeking to build cross-party consensus in parliament behind plans that will enshrine into law a promise not to have any infrastructure, customs posts or cameras on the border of Northern Ireland and the Republic after Brexit.

The plan, which will be announced on Sunday by shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer, would force the government to honour what is to date only a political commitment to avoid a hard border solution, once the UK leaves the EU in a year’s time.

Capt'n Midnight

Most of the countries in the EU are small.

Most of the potential members, apart from Turkey and Morocco neither of which are joining any time soon, are small countries. Norway and Switzerland are about the biggest of the rest and they have specific reasons why they might not integrate closer.

Backing Ireland is a relatively cheap and easy way to prove to the small countries that the EU will look after their interests too. Cohesion of the EU is worth a lot more in the long term than appeasing the UK, who quite frankly are unlikely to be grateful no matter what is done for them.

ancapailldorcha

Calina wrote: »

Please don't because it is completely off topic for this thread.

All due respect, we don't need a derail from Brexit on whether the bail out was a good idea or not. There were dozens of threads on it before now I'm sure.

Mod: Agreed. Anyone wishing to discuss the EU bailout is more than welcome to start a new thread on this forum.

murphaph

backspin. wrote: »

I have no faith that the EU will give much consideration to the Irish border over the medium to long term. It's a stick to beat the British with during the negotiations. But as per usual we will be flung under the bus when the time is right. Ireland and Greece have both learned how the EU operates.

Go to Greece to see what real austerity looks like. It's what happens when you cook the books long enough

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

Both Ireland and the EU really want a good trade deal with the UK. But for Ireland in particular not having an open border would really harm us economically, so the deal the UK would be offering here, even viewed in purely economic terms, is distinctly suboptimal; by definition it cannot be a really good trade deal if it doesn't deliver an open border. Add the political dimension - the political and communal signficance to Ireland of having an open border - and unless the degree of border restriction is very, very small, we’re really not going to like it. We’d rather have the open border, thanks. And, because Option C continues indefinitely, we can have a permanently open border simply by vetoing the trade deal. (The UK/EU FTA , although yet to be negotiated, is almost certainly going to be a “mixed agreement” which, as a matter of EU law, requires the consent of each Member State, so we will have a veto.) That’s a pretty strong position for us to be in.

I don't entirely agree with your opening sentence here. Both Ireland and the UK want a good trade deal since existing trade is still very strong between the two countries. From the point of view of the EU as a whole, I don't think the EU cares that much about a good trade deal. There are some industries and locations such as Ireland that would be affected badly if there were no deal but most of the EU would carry on reasonably well.

Ireland's leverage is due to its veto. But if a poor deal is negotiated between the EU and the UK we can't use that veto to improve the deal to our advantage.

Will the EU pressurise us not to use our veto? Will they lean on us to accept some border restrictions so as to facilitate a trade deal for the greater good of the Union? I don’t think they will, to any great extent. There has been a very consistent understanding of Ireland's concerns about the border, and it's significance, at the EU level, and we have had solid support.

The public image is that the EU are negotiating with the UK in good faith but at the same time politically there are reasons why they may not wish the deal to succeed or to succeed very well. For this reason, far from pressurizing Ireland not to use the veto, they may be quite comfortable with the idea. It means that the UK suffers from leaving which sends a message out to other countries that may be thinking along the same lines while at the same time preserving the EU's good faith image.

Yes there are negative economic consequences for the EU as a whole but if these can be largely confined to a small peripheral country then maybe from the EU's perspective it is not so bad.

That’s why the EU has put the Irish border front and centre of the negotiation process right from the get-go, to the puzzlement and then fury of Brexiters who just don’t get it. The Brexiters see the EU as purely about countries co-operating for economic advantage, and that is part of the reason why they have completely misunderstood the EU position on Brexit, and been completely wrong about the attitudes and actions that the EU would take. The EU's raison d'etre is the prevention of conflict in Europe; free trade, the single market, etc are good because they help prevent conflicts. Closing the Irish border will not help to prevent conflict, and the EU will not find a Free Trade Agreement that involves a hard border in Ireland a particularly attractive proposition.

No I think the Irish border is relatively prominent in negotiations because Ireland has a veto and the UK (moreso than the EU) need Irish approval if any sort of deal is to go ahead. Like you and others point out, a good trade deal is more important for the UK than the EU. Where I disagree is that I think this puts us in a weak rather than strong position since we too, need a good trade deal more than the EU as a whole.

Of course I don't mean to suggest that the EU wants conflict on its territory but rather it is something they may choose to live with particularly if it doesn't affect most EU citizens.

demfad

And here it is...the finale of the Cambridge Analytica files exposing crimes by the vote Leave campaign.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/24/brexit-whistleblower-shahmir-sanni-interview-vote-leave-cambridge-analytica

OK, best summarise first

• In summary it looks like Vote Leave broke electoral law to set up puppet campaigns just in order to funnel money through them in order to over spend their legal £7m limit.
• The money went to AggregateIQ: Another SCL company and twin of Cambridge Analytica. (Bannon, Mercer)
• Vote Leave directors tried to cover up by deleting evidence to obstruct an ongoing investigation
• Some of these directors are now political advisors to Theresa May.

Shahmir Sanni of Leave campaign 'beLeave' is the whistleblower this time.
Himself and BeLeave director Darren Grimes (two young students out of college) worked in the Vote Leave campaign, were instructed to set up a seperate organisation by Vote leave directors. They were told Vote Leave were donating them £700,000 which they never saw it was funnelled to AggregateIQ.

AggregateIQ was set up by Cambridge Analytica whistlelower Chris Wyllie to create set up the technical platforms and databases for Cambridge Analytica.
(It is an SCL company and was formerly called SCL Canada. SCL is parent of Cambridge Analytica also).
This ties Steve Bannon, Robert and Rebekah Mercer to the heart of the official Vote Leave campaign.

When Vote Leave realised an investigation was under way a director, Victoria Woodcock, logged into a 'smoking gun' google drive shared by both campaigns and AIQ. She deleted all activity by herself and Dominic Cummins and others: deleted 140 files in total.Vote Leave director Chloe Watson is now political advisor to Theresa May. Another director Parkinson is now her political secretary.

ALL this evidence has been passed by Shahmir Sanni to investigators

If you read the article youll realise how much integrity Shahmir Sanni showed by coming forward.
Last night in an official no10 statement last night Parkinson outed him as gay. Despicable behaviour which may need investigation if it was used as Kompromat.
In the statement, Parkinson also said that Chris Wylie did not introduce Grimes and Sanni to him. The article writer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has just produced documents on twitter exposing this as another lie.

Worth a read....

Water John

This is opening the 'can of worms' but will the rest of the UK media, follow the story?
It should force another set of TM advisors to resign. It should cause both Johnson and Gove to come under serious political scrutiny.

One would be very suspicious of the delay in getting the CA search warrant.

Jim2007

demfad wrote: »

If you read the article youll realise how much integrity Shahmir Sanni showed by coming forward.

Your confusing integrity with self preservation! Integrity is what should have kicked in when he was asked to do it. Self preservation kicked in because there was a chance of getting caught, such people don’t think much about integrity.

Capt'n Midnight

demfad wrote: »

If you read the article youll realise how much integrity Shahmir Sanni showed by coming forward.
Last night in an official no10 statement last night Parkinson outed him as gay. Despicable behaviour which may need investigation if it was used as Kompromat.

Leo is gay

So this smear campaign is a complete non-issue to the EU.

UK gutter press again.


At this stage there's little doubt that the DUP got bankrolled for the Leave campaign on the mainland. And there's the Cash For Ash thing too. Neither will affect their core. And the Tories seem to be immune too. Pity the opposition is also putting control of the party above country.

demfad

Jim2007 wrote: »

Your confusing integrity with self preservation! Integrity is what should have kicked in when he was asked to do it. Self preservation kicked in because there was a chance of getting caught, such people don’t think much about integrity.

Read the article: Asked to do what?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Leo is gay

So this smear campaign is a complete non-issue to the EU.

UK gutter press again.

I'm not getting your point. For a man coming from a conservative Pakistani background being outed as gay is certainly not a non-issue: he spent yesterday evening explaining to his mother.
This was not leaked by the press: rather by the official political secretary of Theresa May on an official Downing Street statement.

This is not part of the article rather a development showing that the whistleblower may have been threatened and was deliberately compromised by Parkinson possibly as a warning to others.
At the least, despicable behaviour by Parkinson.

At this stage there's little doubt that the DUP got bankrolled for the Leave campaign on the mainland. And there's the Cash For Ash thing too. Neither will affect their core. And the Tories seem to be immune too. Pity the opposition is also putting control of the party above country.

Coordinating with other campaigns, destroying evidence, obstructing justice: these things are illegal and the investigators now have the evidence.

Also the referendum is supposed to be fair: The electoral commission may have to make a call here.

murphaph

It gets murkier and murkier. The outing of a Pakistani man as gay is quite clearly going to be a significant problem for him personally and that's what matters when you're sending out a threat that others should think before doing the same. The leave campaign cheated. Who stands to gain from all this? Where does the money ultimately come from?

That the British public accepts this speaks volumes about the state of affairs there these days.

Peregrinus

Bit cynical wrote: »

I don't entirely agree with your opening sentence here. Both Ireland and the UK want a good trade deal since existing trade is still very strong between the two countries. From the point of view of the EU as a whole, I don't think the EU cares that much about a good trade deal. There are some industries and locations such as Ireland that would be affected badly if there were no deal but most of the EU would carry on reasonably well.

Ireland's leverage is due to its veto. But if a poor deal is negotiated between the EU and the UK we can't use that veto to improve the deal to our advantage.

The Withdrawal Agreement does't require unanimous consent of the member states; it can be approved by a qualified majority. So, formally, we don't have a veto over it. But we don't need one; partly due to nifty footwork by Iveagh House in 2016 and 2017, and partly because the EU's broader interest in the border aligns with ours, the EU is fighting our corner on the border question.

As for the EU not caring about a trade deal with the UK, they do care. It's true that UK trade is more importgant to Ireland than to any other single member state, but nevertheless it is important to other member states, and the great bulk of the UK's trade with the EU is with countries other than ourselves. The UK imports about GBP 21 billion from Ireland, but they import GBP 23 billion from Italy, GBP 28 billion from Spain, GBP 38 billion from France, GBP 75 billion from Germany. True, these are larger economies than Ireland but, still, these figures add up. On current figures, the UK would be in the EU-27's top five trading partners, just above Russia and a bit below Switzerland. That's big enough to matter.

Bit cynical wrote: »

The public image is that the EU are negotiating with the UK in good faith but at the same time politically there are reasons why they may not wish the deal to succeed or to succeed very well. For this reason, far from pressurizing Ireland not to use the veto, they may be quite comfortable with the idea. It means that the UK suffers from leaving which sends a message out to other countries that may be thinking along the same lines while at the same time preserving the EU's good faith image.

Yes there are negative economic consequences for the EU as a whole but if these can be largely confined to a small peripheral country then maybe from the EU's perspective it is not so bad.

Yes, the EU are acting in good faith. True, they don't want Brexit to be a roaring success, but they don't need to manoeuvre to bring about that outcome; that will be the outcome without any manoeuvring at all. The EU are not going to negotiate a trade deal and then sabotage it; they just won't negotiate a trade deal that isn't in their interests in the first place. They have no need to do that; they are not under that kind of pressure.

And I think it's a mistake to think that if the UK crashes out the negative consequences "can be largely confined to a small peripheral country". We'll be more affected than any other country, but the consequences certainly won't be "largely confined" to us. Remember, crash-out doesn't just mean hard border in Ireland; it means a hard border between the UK and the whole of the EU.

Bit cynical wrote: »

No I think the Irish border is relatively prominent in negotiations because Ireland has a veto and the UK (moreso than the EU) need Irish approval if any sort of deal is to go ahead. Like you and others point out, a good trade deal is more important for the UK than the EU. Where I disagree is that I think this puts us in a weak rather than strong position since we too, need a good trade deal more than the EU as a whole.

Of course I don't mean to suggest that the EU wants conflict on its territory but rather it is something they may choose to live with particularly if it doesn't affect most EU citizens.

Although we don't have a veto over a withdrawal agreement, we do have a veto over a free trade agreement (probably; it depends on the terms of the free trade agreement).

Obviously, if the deal falls apart over other issues - e.g. citizens rights - there is nothing Ireland can do about that. But if the deal looks like falling apart over the border and nothing else, Ireland's attitude is important. These are the circumstances in which the EU might press Ireland to accept a somewhat hard border.

But, honestly, I don't think they will. Other issues aside, the EU's impressive solidarity in the face of Brexit, contrary to Brexiter predictions, persists precisely because the EU is not, despite what Brexiters believe, a mechanism by which the rest of Europe is subjugated to wishes and interests of France and Germany, Solidarity is a foundational value for the EU, and the EU has just as much interest in defending its own solidarity as it has in defending the single market. The notion that the EU will force Ireland to let the British have their way is just one more in a long line of Brexiter fantasies. But the notion that the only reason they don't press Ireland will be a secret wish to sabotage the trade deal they have negotiated is equally fanciful. If the EU does reach agreement with the UK on a trade deal, it'll be a trade deal that the EU actually wants.

flatty

It's not the British public in general in fairness. Unless this is put to them by the mainstream media, they remain unaware.
Most have no idea as the mainstream print media is for the most part in the clutches of a small coterie of oligarchs who are all bent on brexit for whatever reason, the BBC are supine as the govt control their purse strings, and the the govt has been hijacked by hardcore brexiteers, and the opposition have been hijacked by a small swathe of hard left idealogue bullies.
It's a perfect storm.

Water John

Well the media cannot carry the story, in relation to CA and Trumps victory and ignore the same co and its tactics in the Brexit Ref.
The international media will put the two stories together anyway. CA and anyone attached to them are now, media fodder.

LeinsterDub

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQ0bFAgTGwk

His interview for C4. Explosive stuff.

Water John

Just seen the end of the Politics programme on BBC. The panel, incl The Sun and Express, all agreeing on serious issues to be investigated and a whole area that needs new controls.

BJ tells us, everything is fine!!!

Skedaddle

You can be 100% sure the attitude will be "oh it's all too late now. We've come this far. We might as well have a Brexit anyway."

The aspect of English society that contains the stiff upper lip also tends to suffer from an absolute an inability to backdown.

Leroy42

That and "well what about Remain, what about Project Fear".

That has already started. And of course the usual, "well prove it made any difference. This stuff doesn't change anybodies mind, sure the public don't listen anyway"

J Mysterio

Bit of a grand (and possibly flimsy) conspiracy theory on my part, but part of me is starting to wonder if this is the UK Governments way of getting out of Brexit.

I really wouldnt put anything past the likes of Gove, Johnson and May though. They really just can't be trusted in any way. Highly manipulative and deceitful.

Sam Russell

J Mysterio wrote: »

Bit of a grand (and possibly flimsy) conspiracy theory on my part, but part of me is starting to wonder if this is the UK Governments way of getting out of Brexit.

I really wouldnt put anything past the likes of Gove, Johnson and May though. They really just can't be trusted in any way. Highly manipulative and deceitful.

That is unlikely as Gove and BoJo are implicated in what could be highly illegal if there is sufficient evidence.

So no - no conspiracy, unless you count complete incompetence as conspiracy.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Withdrawal Agreement does't require unanimous consent of the member states; it can be approved by a qualified majority. So, formally, we don't have a veto over it. But we don't need one; partly due to nifty footwork by Iveagh House in 2016 and 2017, and partly because the EU's broader interest in the border aligns with ours, the EU is fighting our corner on the border question.

As for the EU not caring about a trade deal with the UK, they do care. It's true that UK trade is more importgant to Ireland than to any other single member state, but nevertheless it is important to other member states, and the great bulk of the UK's trade with the EU is with countries other than ourselves. The UK imports about GBP 21 billion from Ireland, but they import GBP 23 billion from Italy, GBP 28 billion from Spain, GBP 38 billion from France, GBP 75 billion from Germany. True, these are larger economies than Ireland but, still, these figures add up. On current figures, the UK would be in the EU-27's top five trading partners, just above Russia and a bit below Switzerland. That's big enough to matter.

It does matter but for example, based on your figures, Ireland's exports to the UK are over five times greater than Italy's exports as a proportion of their respective GDPs. This figure would be higher still if we take into account Ireland's exagerated GDP figures due multinational inward investments. In addition, countries like Italy can more easily divert exports to other European countries due to their geography.

And I think it's a mistake to think that if the UK crashes out the negative consequences "can be largely confined to a small peripheral country". We'll be more affected than any other country, but the consequences certainly won't be "largely confined" to us. Remember, crash-out doesn't just mean hard border in Ireland; it means a hard border between the UK and the whole of the EU.

But the impact over the whole of the EU will be spread out. The political fallout will be minimal and such fallout as there is will be will not be directed towards the EU, who will be seen as arguing in good faith, but towards Ireland for exercising or threatening to exercise its veto.

Although we don't have a veto over a withdrawal agreement, we do have a veto over a free trade agreement (probably; it depends on the terms of the free trade agreement).

It is Ireland's trade agreement veto that is key here. Without Ireland's approval, there can be no trade agreement. The UK wants to leave both the customs union and the single market but they need a free trade agreement after they leave. Therefore Ireland is central to negotiations at all stages.

Obviously, if the deal falls apart over other issues - e.g. citizens rights - there is nothing Ireland can do about that. But if the deal looks like falling apart over the border and nothing else, Ireland's attitude is important. These are the circumstances in which the EU might press Ireland to accept a somewhat hard border.

Well the point I have been arguing is really the opposite of that. If the EU for its own political reasons rather than economic one's wants Brexit to be seen as a failure, then it is convenient to have Ireland exercise its veto. That way the EU can be seen as negotiating in good faith. Brexit becomes a failure despite the apparent good intentions of the EU.

In such a scenario, there is an economic cost for the EU as a whole but severe damage is limited to Ireland.

I expect that behind the scenes this is understood as a possibility.

But, honestly, I don't think they will. Other issues aside, the EU's impressive solidarity in the face of Brexit, contrary to Brexiter predictions, persists precisely because the EU is not, despite what Brexiters believe, a mechanism by which the rest of Europe is subjugated to wishes and interests of France and Germany, Solidarity is a foundational value for the EU, and the EU has just as much interest in defending its own solidarity as it has in defending the single market. The notion that the EU will force Ireland to let the British have their way is just one more in a long line of Brexiter fantasies. But the notion that the only reason they don't press Ireland will be a secret wish to sabotage the trade deal they have negotiated is equally fanciful. If the EU does reach agreement with the UK on a trade deal, it'll be a trade deal that the EU actually wants.

Most of the above is arguing against a point I was not making. Therefore I agree that the EU will not be pressing Ireland to accept a somewhat harder border than exists at present. I disagree, however, on the reasons.

wes

Its amazing how hopelessly naive the whistle blower was about the UK. I would have sympathy for him, but as I said before being from the a similar back ground, I can't get over the foolishness of people like him supporting Brexit. Still credit where credit is due, he has risked everything to tell us the truth and was also be betrayed by Brexiters, when they outed him (just shows how nasty and vile Brexiters can be).

Not surprised Brexiters cheated, and that there linked with the Cambridge Analytica and Trump. They cheated there way to victory, and they will still go ahead and destroy there country.

What they don't realize is that this will be used against them endlessly. If the Scots get another indy ref, you can be damn sure that the SNP, will be shouting about this endlessly. The only good thing that may come out of Brexit is that it may cause the break up of the UK, and show how destructive and dumb the whole thing was, and how little Brexiters value democracy, now that we know they cheated.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

That is unlikely as Gove and BoJo are implicated in what could be highly illegal if there is sufficient evidence.

So no - no conspiracy, unless you count complete incompetence as conspiracy.

Plus there are good people in the Tory party who wouldn't countenance supporting that kind of stuff. Just because the Eurosceptic wing of the party has hijacked the Tories for now doesn't mean that they are all lying Little Englanders.

trellheim

Well the media cannot carry the story, in relation to CA and Trumps victory and ignore the same co and its tactics in the Brexit Ref.
The international media will put the two stories together anyway. CA and anyone attached to them are now, media fodder.

twitter is not a nice place today, more mud being slung than the ploughing champs

the BBC seem to be somewhat biased this last couple of weeks. Not normally so, though, so thats a bit strange.

Sam Russell

trellheim wrote: »

twitter is not a nice place today, more mud being slung than the ploughing champs

the BBC seem to be somewhat biased this last couple of weeks. Not normally so, though, so thats a bit strange.

You must be getting a different BBC to the one I get. Since the ref result, the BBC treat Brexit as the norm and to go against the democratic will of the people would be to demonstrate bias, which is against the BBC charter. Of course it would also go against their paymasters.

That Kuinsberg one is very pro such a view - Brexit is the orthodoxy, anything else shows bias.

Enzokk

trellheim wrote: »

twitter is not a nice place today, more mud being slung than the ploughing champs

the BBC seem to be somewhat biased this last couple of weeks. Not normally so, though, so thats a bit strange.

A couple of observations, when has twitter ever been nice in the last few years? And when has the BBC not been biased in the same period? On a slightly more serious note, the BBC seemed to have had an agenda on Brexit for a while now. Their coverage of Labour has been interesting as well. It's almost like they want to please the party that has threatened their funding a few years ago. An argument can be made that it has worked very well for the Tories. If they don't like the coverage they are receiving you will find some prominent politician piping up about funding for the national broadcaster.

If either of the leaders of the two main parties had any backbone or didn't want Brexit to occur the revelations of the past few weeks is enough to at least be talking about the referendum and the influence that was put on by outside forces.

I think it is clear that Theresa May is no remainer, seeing as she has so many advisers on her staff from the leave campaign. I am sure I read that she uses her advisers for advice a lot so having that many from the official Leave campaign tells you a story. Jeremy Corbyn is on his own mission. He sees this as an opportunity to create a socialist UK and will gladly add some pain for the country to realize his vision. Certain EU rules will get in the way of nationalizing a lot of public utilities if they are taken back by the government from private hands as there will need to be subsidies to give it a chance to work.

So here we are, with widespread evidence of law breaking during the election. We have 2 spineless leaders who has their own agendas that go against trying to save the UK from economy from Brexit. To top off all of this madness the DUP is the power broker in parliament and they are the maddest of the bunch.

Roanmore

It's good to see the British media finally get worked up about this cheating it's a pity it's cricket we're talking about and not Brexit.

They have the cricket story which, doesn't involve England ahead of the CA story.
If it wasn't for the Spain / Catalonia story the cricket would have been top story on Sky:eek:

Water John

Cricket was the top story on BBC. Pity they don't apply the same ethical standards to politics.

Econ_

It’s not that the BBC are pro Brexit, it’s more accurate to say they have let themselves be intimidated by the Tory hard right. The second they report/comment something that reflects badly in Brexit, you will have Iain Duncan Smith, Reed-Mogg, Boris Johnson et all shout ‘TYPICAL BBC BIAS’

The BBC reporters would also fear being hung out as an ‘enemy of the people’ in the right wing press.

The BBC, Pro EU MPs, Businesses etc. have essentially been subordinated by the British hard right. I believe it’ll be described as a fascist-like coup in the history books.