Brexit discussion thread IV

Nate--IRL--

City of London would be my guess given the context..

EDIT:- Too slow....

Nate

Peregrinus

Rjd2 wrote: »

A pretty important trade union and solid Labour ally has called today for a second referendum. Corbyn may loath the idea, but its a brave man who would bet against a second vote been official Labour policy by the end of the year.

Too late.

trellheim

Text of Raab's statement to the HoC last night

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2018-09-04/debates/3F1F8363-0A4B-4DB6-B8C0-CC8D64DBF150/BrexitNegotiationsAndNoDealContingencyPlanning

as with much these days, theres a lot of good stuff in the comments

McGiver

Leroy42 wrote:

Election fraud is a non runner. Lack of any plan is a non runner.

And a collusion with a foreign hostile power (Kremlin) is a non runner.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Any feasible Brexit (other than no-deal) requires at least one red line to be moved. So the working assumption, when we speculate about any Brexit deal, is that there will be some movement on the red lines. That's kind of taken for granted in all discussions of the topic.

Any consideration of a feasible Brexit has to start from two fundamentals.:

1. No version of Brexit enjoys majority support in the UK.

2. No version of Brexit is feasible which does not secure EU assent, except no-deal Brexit.

(By "feasible" here I don't mean that it would work well, or have acceptable or tolerable outcomes. I just mean that it's possible to do it.)

Right. If you're in the UK and you favour any version of Brexit other than no-deal, you'll be aware that your favoured version of Brexit does not enjoy majority support. You'll be aware that no deal will prevail unless a majority can be built in the UK in support of some other version of Brexit. This means you have an incentive to compromise and support a Brexit version which, if not your favoured version, is more like your favoured version than no-deal would be.

But you'll also be aware that this only works if the compromise Brexit is one that will be acceptable to the EU. So the points you should contemplate compromising on are the points which are most problematic for the EU.

Compromising on "no British government could agree to an Irish sea border!" may piss off the DUP, but it won't bother the EU in the least.

Obviously there's a risk, to put it no higher, that the DUP would vote against that. But that's a domestic problem. Every possible version of Brexit presents a domestic problem, for the reason already pointed out - none enjoys majority support - so the fact that this particular version presents a domestic problem can't be fatal; if it is, you might as well just save your breath and head straight for no-deal. Domestic problems are, in principle, manageable.

One way this one might be managed is for HMG to sign up to a backstop (which, remember, doesn't actually take effect until the end of the transitional period) while insisting that it will never take effect because another solution will be found in the meantime, through a future agreement or whatever. That's a hard sell, but not necessarily an impossible one. The DUP has an incentifve to believe this, or to pretend to believe it, because if they are seen to have caused a no-deal Brexit, by the time the next election comes round NI will be in a world of pain, and their constituency will crucify them. But there may be other ways - e.g. get the Scots Nats to abstain on the final deal, for instance. (After all, they'd quite like the precedent of an internal border in the UK, wouldn't they?)

This assumes that the only options open to parliament are No-deal or deal. If parliament cannot agree on a deal: extending A50 is the next best option. This would require a referendum.

Labour would have to leave this option open and Anna Soubrey would have to garner the required number of Tory MPs (16) to back extension/referendum. She has 4 already.

Just to display how unprepared the UK is for Brexit:

There was an amendment passed to the withdrawal Bill which makes it illegal to install a hard border on the Island of Ireland.
To get favourable WTO rules countries must check at borders for Country of Origin, Tarrifs and record quantities to respect quotas. Every country in the world does this. If the UK did not do this in Ireland it would be forced to trade with other countries under unfavorable rules (max tarrifs).
Under no deal, the only legal way for the UK to trade under WTO rules is under full tariffs. This would undermine the UKs ability to make 'good' trade deals with other countries in an extremely strong legal position and starting point.
And what block would the UK want to deal with first? The EU.....
It could be repealed: or they could just repeal that part of the law using powers under Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or EU Withdrawal Act.

Would they get the numbers though to effectively vote FOR a no deal?
If it comes to the crunch and MPs must Vote for pulling the trigger and no-deal or vote for A50 extension surely there is only one choice?

That's why I think the choice is now between Deal or A50 extension/referendum.

The Government is spending a lot of time publicly denying this. As well as adding to the chatter, this means they view it as a creditable challenge (one they need to repeatedly public put down)

Edit: Remain:Leave is now 59:41 in latest poll.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-04/u-k-would-vote-against-brexit-in-second-referendum-study-says

Water John

Yes it's the responsibility of Parliament. MPs have to each individually exercise that responsibility. They cannot hide behind Party, or slogans. Each has to stand for what they fully believe is in the best interests of their country.
If each cannot undertake for themselves that basic and fundamental self analysis, then they shouldn't be in Parliament.

Leroy42

My understanding is that No deal is the default, unless a deal is passed by Parliament. Currently the only deal being brought forward by TM is chequers, which both the EU and many in the UK parliament (ERG, Davies, Boris etc) have stated is not a runner.

So its not a that a no deal needs to be passed, just that whatever deal is put forward isn't.

That is why the likes of JRM are pushing the notion that a no deal is better, and even TM is pushing the line that a no deal is not a failure, simply a different outcome.

In terms of the 2nd vote, it is telling that TM dealt with that specifically in the Telegraph article. This tells you that she is getting serious pressure in terms of holding one, and this is her attempt to try to put her stamp on it and stop the pressure. So very much a 2nd vote is being talked about, not just in parliament or the cabinet, but within TM's own team.

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understanding is that No deal is the default, unless a deal is passed by Parliament. Currently the only deal being brought forward by TM is chequers, which both the EU and many in the UK parliament (ERG, Davies, Boris etc) have stated is not a runner.

So its not a that a no deal needs to be passed, just that whatever deal is put forward isn't.

That is why the likes of JRM are pushing the notion that a no deal is better, and even TM is pushing the line that a no deal is not a failure, simply a different outcome.

In terms of the 2nd vote, it is telling that TM dealt with that specifically in the Telegraph article. This tells you that she is getting serious pressure in terms of holding one, and this is her attempt to try to put her stamp on it and stop the pressure. So very much a 2nd vote is being talked about, not just in parliament or the cabinet, but within TM's own team.

Barnier has also rubbished the Chequers deal (though diplomatically). No deal based on WTO rules and tariffs is the default. To avert this, a deal is needed. However, this deal needs to be ratified by both Westminster and EU national (and some regional) parliaments. Remember the trouble with cuddly Canada, CETA and the Walloons? I see an EU-UK deal being much rougher given the disparate interests of the EU27 and the fact that the UK is still, somehow negotiating with itself.

I do think that the idea of a second vote is gaining traction. There is still too much to lose by too much of the population for it not to be. The question is whether or not it happens before the end of March 2019 or the transition period. May is likely posturing for the benefit of the ERG and hardline Tory Eurosceptics. The question is how much longer the current government can survive as it has rebels on its whig side to deal with as well as the DUP. Given that they want mutually contradictory outcomes, the government is sure to sunder itself at some point.

CelticRambler

demfad wrote: »

This assumes that the only options open to parliament are No-deal or deal. If parliament cannot agree on a deal: extending A50 is the next best option.

To what end? Extending A50 would still conclude with either a deal or no deal. Revoking A50 might achieve something, perhaps founded on a decision to put a second referendum to the people, but extending it would only prolong the silliness we've seen from UK politicians since A50 was invoked.

Panrich

demfad wrote: »

There was an amendment passed to the withdrawal Bill which makes it illegal to install a hard border on the Island of Ireland.

I think the amendment actually makes it illegal for a border in the Irish sea so it severely curtails the UK position and unless overridden virtually guarantees a hard border here.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/theresa-may-i-will-never-accept-eus-ideas-on-irish-brexit-border

Extract

Her opposition to a border in the Irish Sea was cemented on Monday when a last-minute , tabled by the Labour MP Kate Hoey, was nodded through, making it illegal to have a barrier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

My understanding is that No deal is the default, unless a deal is passed by Parliament. Currently the only deal being brought forward by TM is chequers, which both the EU and many in the UK parliament (ERG, Davies, Boris etc) have stated is not a runner.

That is my understanding also.
However after this default happens and unless they repeal the amendment making any hard border in Ireland illegal, then they wont be able to trade under favourable terms (most favoured nation) with ANY country and wont be able to make any trade deals.(Ive explained why in my previous post).

So they must real this amendment somehow to be able to do ANY trade under no deal.
This means that the default option is a guaranteed cataclysmic no-deal (no exageration) and they would have to vote and pass an amendment for the bog standard disastrous no-deal.
That would be an interesting debate eh?:(

I can't see a majority passing that if there was any other choice. There is: an extension of A50.
Ergo I believe the only options now are a deal or an extension to A50.

If A50 is extended then the EU would have to have certainty about what would happen after a referendum as in what shape a deal might be if NO won again.

prawnsambo

demfad wrote: »

If A50 is extended then the EU would have to have certainty about what would happen after a referendum as in what shape a deal might be if NO won again.

Doesn't an A50 extension require unainmous agreememt of the EU27? And wouldn't that unainmity require that a concrete way forward be committed to by the UK?

demfad

Panrich wrote: »

I think the amendment actually makes it illegal for a border in the Irish sea so it severely curtails the UK position and unless overridden virtually guarantees a hard border here.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/19/theresa-may-i-will-never-accept-eus-ideas-on-irish-brexit-border

Extract

Her opposition to a border in the Irish Sea was cemented on Monday when a last-minute , tabled by the Labour MP Kate Hoey, was nodded through, making it illegal to have a barrier between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0229/CompleteCMPBilltoAct.pdf

10Continuation of North-South co-operation and the prevention of new border arrangements
(1)In exercising any of the powers under this Act, a Minister of the Crown or devolved authority must—
(a)act in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and
(b)have due regard to the joint report from the negotiators of the EU and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.
(2)Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which—
(a)diminish any form of North-South cooperation provided for by the Belfast Agreement (as defined by section 98 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998), or
(b)create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU.[/B].[/I]

Edit: Changes link/text from Bill to actual Act

demfad

prawnsambo wrote: »

Doesn't an A50 extension require unainmous agreememt of the EU27? And wouldn't that unainmity require that a concrete way forward be committed to by the UK?

Yes and Yes. Way forward would be REF 2. YES = Status Quo. No = predefined way forward. I would guess Norway + (timelimited eg 10 years).

EdgeCase

demfad wrote: »

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0229/CompleteCMPBilltoAct.pdf

Badly drafted.

She should have said "that are not already in existence"

A tarrif border existed between Britian and Northern Ireland as late as the 1950s. That was before Exit Day and the legislation, as written, would seem to allow the recreation of any border that existed prior to March 2019.

This is what happens when you rush through legislation.

Panrich

demfad wrote: »

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0229/CompleteCMPBilltoAct.pdf

So no border in the Irish sea or no border on the island of Ireland by law.

prawnsambo

demfad wrote: »

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0229/CompleteCMPBilltoAct.pdf

That's the bill you've linked to. I was confused because the North/South section in the act is Section 10, not Section 12.

Act of Parliament is here. Passed into law on 26th June. Section 10 was commenced immediately.

Zubeneschamali

Panrich wrote: »

So no border in the Irish sea or no border on the island of Ireland by law.

They can't leave the SM without changing one or the other.

prawnsambo

Poor old Gibralter is wondering how it can garner this sort of attention. The people there are absolutely screwed. Literally stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Strazdas

prawnsambo wrote: »

Doesn't an A50 extension require unainmous agreememt of the EU27? And wouldn't that unainmity require that a concrete way forward be committed to by the UK?

There would have to be signs of a major breakthrough. Perhaps a deal already agreed and now being put to the electorate for ratification. If the haggling was still going on, there's not a chance of an extension.

J Mysterio

prawnsambo wrote: »

Literally stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Brilliantly put! Unfortunately for them, they are just another part of the UK that aren't afforded any respect or attention by May as she just blunders along. They should take heed and seek to join Spain, as NI will look to join Ireland and Scotland will seek Independence.

All civilizations rise and fall and this truly is the endpoint of what was once the British Empire. It will be just England and Wales in the not too distant future. So no more UK and no more Britain as a political entity.

I wonder does the 'commonwealth' hold any value now too. We have seen how the Windrush generation have been treated, and these were UK citizens, at least untill their documents were purposefully destroyed.

I don't see why Canada or Australia should maintain the link with the UK or with the Queen any longer, it's archaic and serves no purpose. Why doff the cap to a backward, insular UK?

trellheim

As someone pointed out in the Commons yesterday, a border still exists NI/ROI, though . What level of Border controls would breach GFA ?

Strazdas

trellheim wrote: »

As someone pointed out in the Commons yesterday, a border still exists NI/ROI, though . What level of Border controls would breach GFA ?

Virtually anything that requires physical checks and trucks or cars being stopped.

An open border is one where you simply drive through and aren't even aware you have crossed a border.

J Mysterio

Just had an aul google to see what Newspaper Gibraltar might have - the Gibraltar Chronicle. Article from them on this issue here:

http://chronicle.gi/2018/07/too-soon-to-tell-if-spain-will-seek-to-block-gibraltar-from-brexit-transition-borrell-says/

It seems the current Spanish Foreign Minister is not quite so hardline as the previous incumbent and they will not 'use Brexit to push for sovereignty over Gibraltar'.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They can't leave the SM without changing one or the other.

They can and will leave the SM by default on March 29th either way.

If they leave without an agreement with the EU, their own Laws makes trade with the rest of the world virtually impossible. What we thought was the hardest of hard Brexit will get harder x 10 if they don't repeal the amendment.

CelticRambler

trellheim wrote: »

As someone pointed out in the Commons yesterday, a border still exists NI/ROI, though . What level of Border controls would breach GFA ?

I read that in the transcript, and it's yet another example of a Brexiteer trying to justify an impossibly impractical proposal based on circumstances that depend entirely on the UK's current membership of the EU.



In the preamble to the updated "where are we now" report linked here a couple of days ago, the author pointed out that hard Brexiteers consistently argue their case based on a no-deal exit that starts from where we are now, when the reality is that a no-deal/chaotic Brexit means everything changes and barriers go up on Day 1 of the Empire's New Dawn.

LeinsterDub

J Mysterio wrote: »

Just had an aul google to see what Newspaper Gibraltar might have - the Gibraltar Chronicle. Article from them on this issue here:

http://chronicle.gi/2018/07/too-soon-to-tell-if-spain-will-seek-to-block-gibraltar-from-brexit-transition-borrell-says/

It seems the current Spanish Foreign Minister is not quite so hardline as the previous incumbent and they will not 'use Brexit to push for sovereignty over Gibraltar'.

As Napoleon (allegedly) said

Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself

Why push for sovereignty when you can see how this whole mess plays out. If it doesn't lead to sovereignty nothing lost. If it does potentially you can play the we have open arms but aren't trying to twist your arm card.

Folkstonian

J Mysterio wrote: »

prawnsambo wrote: »

Literally stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Brilliantly put! Unfortunately for them, they are just another part of the UK that aren't afforded any respect or attention by May as she just blunders along. They should take heed and seek to join Spain, as NI will look to join Ireland and Scotland will seek Independence.

All civilizations rise and fall and this truly is the endpoint of what was once the British Empire. It will be just England and Wales in the not too distant future. So no more UK and no more Britain as a political entity.

I wonder does the 'commonwealth' hold any value now too. We have seen how the Windrush generation have been treated, and these were UK citizens, at least untill their documents were purposefully destroyed.

I don't see why Canada or Australia should maintain the link with the UK or with the Queen any longer, it's archaic and serves no purpose. Why doff the cap to a backward, insular UK?

Gibraltar is not part of the U.K. and never has been. There is also absolutely no appetite among the people there to become a part of Spain, regardless of Brexit.

Obviously they would prefer, as I would, for a second vote on the matter but hundreds of years of Spanish aggression hostility them has not weakened their resolve to remain a British Overseas Territory.

The British Empire ended, in most people’s eyes, in 1997 when control Hong Kong was ceded to the Chinese.

The commonwealth is growing in size, not contracting. It’s future as a forum for governments to discuss matters of trade, democracy and development etc actually looks quite healthy.

Scottish independence and/ or Irish unity would not signal the ‘endpoint of a Civilization’. England alone would still command enough hard and soft power to be an impactful player on the world stage.

I don’t like Brexit. I wish it wasn’t happening. I still remain hopeful it can be reversed or at least achieved in a softer and more sensible manner than May is currently gunning for.

I love this thread, though I don’t post much, because it allows me a really interesting window into what people over here make of things, which is often wholly different to what people at home think.

But your posts, so often, are of a tabloidesque and hyperbolic nature, as if you were pulling yourself off the whole time at the thought of Britain’s current hardships

Anthracite

Folkstonian wrote: »

England alone would still command enough hard and soft power to be an impactful player on the world stage.

England is heading towards South Korea levels of hard and soft power. As Brexiteers so gleefully point out, Europe is shrinking as a percentage of the global economy (and population). England and Wales will be nothing more than a historical footnote on the world stage within a century. What do you know of the Khmer Empire? Isn't it funny how such a small and currently insignificant part of the world used to hold such sway?

Of course, the Brexiteers will then point to their nukes and their seat on (what they will tell you on a different day is) the completely irrelevant UN Security Council. What do they plan to do with the nukes? What use are they, exactly?

Folkstonian

demfad wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They can't leave the SM without changing one or the other.

They can and will leave the SM by default on March 29th either way.

If they leave without an agreement with the EU, their own Laws makes trade with the rest of the world virtually impossible. What we thought was the hardest of hard Brexit will get harder x 10 if they don't repeal the amendment.

It was wholly pointless putting it into law anyway seeing as, if it wanted to, parliament can just amend or repeal it.

It was more a show of defiance against the type of Brexit hardliners perceived May to be dragging them towards than a demonstration of unity with Northern Ireland. I can’t imagine the likes of Rees-Mogg and Redwood spent a whole lot of time thinking about NI before Brexit appeared on the horizon. It’s all just a slow but deliberate discrediting of the PM.