Brexit discussion thread IV

Awesomeness

lawred2 wrote: »

and what are actively doing about it?

Some of them have been protesting. A lot of them live abroad so unfortunately are just looking on at the car crash.

I think there is a lot of people that want a re-vote but I am not sure what the mechanism to force that could be.

LuckyLloyd

So demfad, you read yesterday as an attempt to move towards a conclusion of this process, even if it's a negative conclusion initially? As in, continued negotiations that fail to tie down any outcomes prevent an essential redefinition of the EU / UK relationship?

lawred2

Awesomeness wrote: »

Some of them have been protesting. A lot of them live abroad so unfortunately are just looking on at the car crash.

I think there is a lot of people that want a re-vote but I am not sure what the mechanism to force that could be.

well if enough people in each constituency contacted their representative in parliament - they would see some movement. Nothing motivates a parliamentarian more than self preservation.

Zubeneschamali

demfad wrote: »

But he does not say this at all

He literally says of the EU side: dangerous complacency and an absence of much serious thinking about the “British question” on the EU side of the table.

Barnier famously put out a slide last December with the options, from Norway through Switzerland, Ukraine and Turkey, down to Canada, with the final option of No Deal. The EU really doesn't have any further thinking to do on the subject, it is up to the UK to state what new relationship they want.

9 months after that slide, we are still waiting.

swampgas

demfad wrote: »

He is simply saying that the EU needs to be looking at where it wants the UK-EU relationship to be in a few decades time. We all know that economic cooperation was vital in ensuring peace and stability in Europe over the last 70 years. That does not mean that the UK gets to have it's cake and eat it. It should mean that the EU prizes a close relationship with the UK.
A continued running battle with the UK over decades or a UK economically tied to the USA is not in the EUs interest.

The EU is about more than trade after all.

I've read the full article, and while I can see the argument, it does seem to be a claim for exceptional treatment for the UK because of its importance to European stability in the long term.

He seems to ignore the fact that EU is a set of treaties binding a large group of countries, and that there is no way for the EU to "cut a deal" with the UK without detroying the legal framework on which the EU is based.

Again it seems to be another case of failing to really understand the nature of what the EU is. The UK is leaving a rules-based organisation. It still hasn't accepted that. It still wants special treatment because it is the UK, and it wants the rules bent or broken to suit itself.

To be frank, what else can the EU do? They can't force the UK to do anything, and they cannot undermine the structures that bind and protect the remaining 27 members. If the UK want to commit suicide, the EU may well be forced to stand and watch while they do.

ancapailldorcha

Awesomeness wrote: »

Some of them have been protesting. A lot of them live abroad so unfortunately are just looking on at the car crash.

I think there is a lot of people that want a re-vote but I am not sure what the mechanism to force that could be.

The People's Vote campaign is probably the best example. Also, there have been various petitions including this one from The Independent which garnered over 390,000 signature.

In addition, 100,000 people marched in London last June for an anti-Brexit march. People's Vote have another march in October.

Then there are the smaller groups like Scientists for EU and the like pushing as well. Are they likely to succeed? I don't know but I hope so as the longer this goes on, it gets ever more farcical and damaging. Unfortunately, British politics is designed to alienate the electorate as much as possible to protect the biggest parties from the democratic will of the people that is supposed to hold them in check. Even the existence of a functional opposition might have made a significant dent in how things have gone since the Tories would have the prospect of being turfed out to galvanise them. Alas.

Imreoir2

demfad wrote: »

He is simply saying that the EU needs to be looking at where it wants the UK-EU relationship to be in a few decades time. We all know that economic cooperation was vital in ensuring peace and stability in Europe over the last 70 years. That does not mean that the UK gets to have it's cake and eat it. It should mean that the EU prizes a close relationship with the UK.
A continued running battle with the UK over decades or a UK economically tied to the USA is not in the EUs interest.

The EU have been acting in exactly this way for months and months. Barnier has been offering an FTA with added unprecidented cooperation in areas such as security. The UK rejected this offer instead opting to push a totally unrealistic cake and cherry proposal and using the political cover the EU has offered so that the UK can move to a reasonable position to run down the clock in an atempt to scare the EU into accepting the unreasonable position.

It was always a question of when, not if, the wheels came off the cart with this strategy from the UK. How much longer could anyone have expected the EU to continue putting up with this nonsence? What would have been gained from allowing the UK to continue with this farce into October?

Call me Al

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm afraid any hope that the next Tory leader would have any common sense or decency isn't shared by the bookmakers. Johnson, Mogg, Javid and Gove are the favourites.

Its obviously not ideal. But in some ways it's good in that they will have to take responsibility for the fallout of the mess they've made.
I can't now see anyway around a hard brexit unfortunately.

Clare in Exile

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/21/brexit-chequers-salzburg-irish-sea-customs-union

Good article in today's Guardian...

ancapailldorcha

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU have been acting in exactly this way for months and months. Barnier has been offering an FTA with added unprecidented cooperation in areas such as security. The UK rejected this offer instead opting to push a totally unrealistic cake and cherry proposal and using the political cover the EU has offered so that the UK can move to a reasonable position to run down the clock in an atempt to scare the EU into accepting the unreasonable position.

It was always a question of when, not if, the wheels came off the cart with this strategy from the UK. How much longer could anyone have expected the EU to continue putting up with this nonsence? What would have been gained from allowing the UK to continue with this farce into October?

I'm just wondering how much longer the public will believe the arbitrary nonsense promises about Brexit restoring sovereignty and making people better off. Given what has happened or hasn't happened in the last two years, it is nothing shorting of baffling that the turnaround in public opinion has been anything short of brobdingnagian. Too many people still continue to not engage with Politics though not entirely unreasonably given the limited opportunities for doing so. The result is that many think that it's either going well or that because it was voted for in 2016, the UK must adhere to that course no matter how ruinous it may be.

Winters

Should the UK leave the EU, single market and customs union next March without either a withdrawal agreement or a new trade deal would that mean Ireland and NI will be required under WTO rules to erect a hard border?

There doesnt seem to be any solution to Brexit and the Border. Its either soft (CU and SM) or hard (no deal). Unicorns.

demfad

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

So demfad, you read yesterday as an attempt to move towards a conclusion of this process, even if it's a negative conclusion initially? As in, continued negotiations that fail to tie down any outcomes prevent an essential redefinition of the EU / UK relationship?

I think the EU realises that May cannot domestically secure a deal. This won't be resolved while the domestic status quo exists. Something needs to change. The Party conferences are an arena where this can happen. It is vital therefore that these conferences have a realistic view of the situation and the representative parties and MPs can act with full information. The consequences of no-deal need to be ironed out. The falshood that a 'deal' no-deal with several mini deals would work needs to be eliminated.


The EU could easily have pottered on (there had been progress on the backstop), and worked towards a fussy declaration to help May get the deal through. The result would have been transition extensions of up to a decade with constant rangling and with a vital geo-political ally alienated or a proxy for US trade and political interests in Europe.

The conferences will be fascinating. This whole Brexit outcome could come down to if Labour can persuade Corbyn to go with a second ref/A50 extesnion if needed or if Labour can remove him if not.
I could see Keir Starmer successfully leading the parliament that direction if he was leader, even opposition leader.

Not some of May's first words after Salzburg was about Labour's position on a referendum.

LuckyLloyd

Winters wrote: »

Should the UK leave the EU, single market and customs union next March without either a withdrawal agreement or a new trade deal would that mean Ireland and NI will be required under WTO rules to erect a hard border?

There doesnt seem to be any solution to Brexit and the Border. Its either soft (CU and SM) or hard (no deal). Unicorns.

Yes, in that scenario there will be a hard border between Ireland and NI.

robinph

It was clear before any of this happened that it is impossible for the UK to leave the EU.

It is possible for other countries to up sticks and leave, but for the UK and Ireland they are so closely tied together through other agreements, geography and history that it is impossible for one to leave without the other. I just can't understand why it has taken two years for anyone in Westminster to realise this. Either drop NI or the UK can't do anything regarding the EU without Ireland. There is just no acceptable way to separate the current UK from Ireland.

The daft bit is that until Mays surprise election last year I think that Westminster would have been delighted to drop NI and be shot of the hassle it causes them.

demfad

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The EU have been acting in exactly this way for months and months. Barnier has been offering an FTA with added unprecidented cooperation in areas such as security. The UK rejected this offer instead opting to push a totally unrealistic cake and cherry proposal and using the political cover the EU has offered so that the UK can move to a reasonable position to run down the clock in an atempt to scare the EU into accepting the unreasonable position.

It was always a question of when, not if, the wheels came off the cart with this strategy from the UK. How much longer could anyone have expected the EU to continue putting up with this nonsence? What would have been gained from allowing the UK to continue with this farce into October?

Stability. You get the thing over the line and the UK into the transition eliminating the chance of no-deal. The caveat is that the future relationship (trade and political) will be poor and a transition extending a decade with the resultant uncertainty in UK and EU.

mrbrianj

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm just wondering how much longer the public will believe the arbitrary nonsense promises about Brexit restoring sovereignty and making people better off. Given what has happened or hasn't happened in the last two years, it is nothing shorting of baffling that the turnaround in public opinion has been anything short of brobdingnagian. Too many people still continue to not engage with Politics though not entirely unreasonably given the limited opportunities for doing so. The result is that many think that it's either going well or that because it was voted for in 2016, the UK must adhere to that course no matter how ruinous it may be.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die.
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

demfad

robinph wrote: »

It was clear before any of this happened that it is impossible for the UK to leave the EU.

It is possible for other countries to up sticks and leave, but for the UK and Ireland they are so closely tied together through other agreements, geography and history that it is impossible for one to leave without the other. I just can't understand why it has taken two years for anyone in Westminster to realise this. Either drop NI or the UK can't do anything regarding the EU without Ireland. There is just no acceptable way to separate the current UK from Ireland.

The daft bit is that until Mays surprise election last year I think that Westminster would have been delighted to drop NI and be shot of the hassle it causes them.

Just to note also that the backstop if it ever came into force would almost certainly mean an eventual United Ireland:

As NI would be inside the EU customs Union it would be excluded from all future trade deals GB might negotiate.

This a process of slow and increased integration into EU (Ireland).

Sassygirl1999

robinph wrote: »

It was clear before any of this happened that it is impossible for the UK to leave the EU.

It is possible for other countries to up sticks and leave, but for the UK and Ireland they are so closely tied together through other agreements, geography and history that it is impossible for one to leave without the other. I just can't understand why it has taken two years for anyone in Westminster to realise this. Either drop NI or the UK can't do anything regarding the EU without Ireland. There is just no acceptable way to separate the current UK from Ireland.

The daft bit is that until Mays surprise election last year I think that Westminster would have been delighted to drop NI and be shot of the hassle it causes them.

its not impossible for the UK in its present to leave the EU, it's impossible for the UK in its present to leave the EU with a future trade deal

Nody

kowtow wrote: »

It is an ambush in so far as it is a failure of diplomacy (on both sides, I suspect). Both the EU offer and Chequers have been well publicised, they could have been rejected quietly behind the scenes without grandstanding on the day or having an aide stage photographs of Donald Tusk attempting to press pieces of cake on a diabetic in order to make a point.

You mean like when Tusk told her no ala carte access to the single market in February and that the UK plan were delusional? Or perhaps back in July when Michael Barnier rejected it? Or how about the Economist telling her the same thing? Or when Raab was told to his face that the Chequeres deal was dead? I mean I can keep going on posting showing how May was told the deal was dead months before this meeting and you claim it is some kind of ambush to tell her this at the meeting? Only way May was not aware of the deal being dead is that either she's at Trump's level of comphrension of reality (i.e. what ever is in her head is the truth) or she would have to have failed to read every single article and info slip on Brexit since presenting it.

She did the next best thing upon her return which is to call attention to the atmospherics, and present the bunch of EU suits as a load of automaton robots engaged in an ambush.

What ambush? She was told it would not fly, before presented, after presentation, by Tusk, By Barnier, by various EU members publically and in private. They told her diplomatically that it was a starting point to build on and tried to accomedate her by changing the language on the backstop. May then throws a hissy fit about it and you claim she was not told in advance and they ambushed her. Sorry but being told months in advance your plan does not fly and then having it repeated publically from July to the meeting and have the same message at the meeting is not an ambush; it's an attempt to drive home a point in May's thick skull that her deal is not good enough.

To add The Independent was kind enough to write their own list of all the dates where May was told publically that the Chequers deal is not going to work; worst ambush ever...

trellheim

Right

So no change really.

TM seems to be betting it all on pressurizing in the run up to Oct/Nov , either one side or the other moves or a fudge/kick of NI down the line ( how , though ? ) or its a hard border 1/4/2019


Restate current position : No deal agreed, Hardest of Brexits 1/4/19 , no backstop AND hard border with passports for all between Newry and Dundalk.

joeysoap

A conservative MP said on QT last night that he voted renain but would now vote leave. And only 1/3 of the audience when asked for a show of hands on whether they wanted a 2nd referendum or people’s vote as they are calling it put up their hands. Nothing is going to stop Brexit, we really are relying on the EU to standby the backstop. Uk would dump it in a heartbeat.

An Ciarraioch

One thing the Brexit negotiations have brought to the fore is the clear contrast between British and Irish political cultures - the former deal predominantly in black and white terms, as shown by Grayling's statement today that it was either complete acceptance of the UK position, or no deal. By contrast, Helen McEntee's openness to whatever document follows the Tory conference highlights the shade of grey characteristic of Irish horse-trading: i.e. that so long as an objective is reached, the means and interpretation of terms are open to leeway.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

Restate current position : No deal agreed, Hardest of Brexits 1/4/19 , no backstop AND hard border with passports for all between Newry and Dundalk.

A day after people in London believe this is going to happen, Sterling will be trading below parity with the Euro and Dollar. The City will fall apart. May will be gone in a week, and the Tories will be gone in a month.

Shortly after that, when he is in charge of Brexit, Keir Starmer will beg the EU for more time and start real negotiations.

mrbrianj

trellheim wrote: »

Right

So no change really.

TM seems to be betting it all on pressurizing in the run up to Oct/Nov , either one side or the other moves or a fudge/kick of NI down the line ( how , though ? ) or its a hard border 1/4/2019


Restate current position : No deal agreed, Hardest of Brexits 1/4/19 , no backstop AND hard border with passports for all between Newry and Dundalk.

At this stage, it seems like that's what they really want. Gives the Brexit they want and the DUP would be delighted with that outcome. A large % of NI would not be happy - but they dont even go to westminster, so what matter

fash

I would have thought a good solution to Northern Ireland that allows a diverging FTA between the UK and EU would have been a referendum in NI - to either have a hard border with the Republic or the sea border. It breaks the December 2017 agreement, but it would be hard for the Republic/EU to say "no hard border" when Northern Ireland says yes- likewise in the UK, it would be hard to complain about "no prime minister could accept" when the people there voted to do so and GB says "frankly we don't care".

kowtow

joeysoap wrote: »

A conservative MP said on QT last night that he voted renain but would now vote leave. And only 1/3 of the audience when asked for a show of hands on whether they wanted a 2nd referendum or people’s vote as they are calling it put up their hands. Nothing is going to stop Brexit, we really are relying on the EU to standby the backstop. Uk would dump it in a heartbeat.

I was over in the UK a few times in the summer with extended family. There was a noticeable increase in frustration with May et. al. - significant anger directed at Cameron etc. but even among the trendier London media types no appetite with one obvious exception for a second referendum. There was a certain resignation that there could be a Brexit "In Name Only".

Leaving aside the bankers and lawyers, from the people I came across outside London there was if anything increased animosity towards the EU and an increased determination to leave - even a "bring on a second referendum and I'll go out and vote Leave this time" attitude.

Among those of my family that live in London part of the year and in Europe for other parts I detect a certain amount of irritated concern.

The only really pro-remain parts of the party this summer was those members of the family who live in Dublin full time (and among those particularly the younger - under 40 - generation). They simply can't get their head around the English attitude, in many ways they reflect the sentiments to be found in this thread. In particular they can't make sense of the degree to which the argument is a non-economic one.

The best proxy I can think of for it, perhaps, is to turn it on it's head and consider what the reaction of the Irish electorate would be if someone were to suggest that Ireland become part of the UK. Even if persuasive economic arguments could be found - and I'm not going to make them - it is obvious that as a nation we would take virtually any other course available to us, notwithstanding economics, to ensure that this didn't happen. Just as England is the ould enemy for us, so France and Germany are the ould enemy for the English. At one level this is just a sort of harmless national banter - the English and the French are the best of enemies - but once the economic arguments are over, or an impasse is reached, the cards tend to fall along these old cultural lines.

Every time a roadblock appears which makes Brexit look more stupid, from an Irish perspective, from an English point of view the EU looks even less like a place they would rather be.

enda1

kowtow wrote: »

I was over in the UK a few times in the summer with extended family. There was a noticeable increase in frustration with May et. al. - significant anger directed at Cameron etc. but even among the trendier London media types no appetite with one obvious exception for a second referendum. There was a certain resignation that there could be a Brexit "In Name Only".

Leaving aside the bankers and lawyers, from the people I came across outside London there was if anything increased animosity towards the EU and an increased determination to leave - even a "bring on a second referendum and I'll go out and vote Leave this time" attitude.

Among those of my family that live in London part of the year and in Europe for other parts I detect a certain amount of irritated concern.

The only really pro-remain parts of the party this summer was those members of the family who live in Dublin full time (and among those particularly the younger - under 40 - generation). They simply can't get their head around the English attitude, in many ways they reflect the sentiments to be found in this thread. In particular they can't make sense of the degree to which the argument is a non-economic one.

The best proxy I can think of for it, perhaps, is to turn it on it's head and consider what the reaction of the Irish electorate would be if someone were to suggest that Ireland become part of the UK. Even if persuasive economic arguments could be found - and I'm not going to make them - it is obvious that as a nation we would take virtually any other course available to us, notwithstanding economics, to ensure that this didn't happen. Just as England is the ould enemy for us, so France and Germany are the ould enemy for the English. At one level this is just a sort of harmless national banter - the English and the French are the best of enemies - but once the economic arguments are over, or an impasse is reached, the cards tend to fall along these old cultural lines.

Every time a roadblock appears which makes Brexit look more stupid, from an Irish perspective, from an English point of view the EU looks even less like a place they would rather be.

A well considered and interesting perspective on the situation, thanks for sharing.

robinph

fash wrote: »

I would have thought a good solution to Northern Ireland that allows a diverging FTA between the UK and EU would have been a referendum in NI - to either have a hard border with the Republic or the sea border. It breaks the December 2017 agreement, but it would be hard for the Republic/EU to say "no hard border" when Northern Ireland says yes- likewise in the UK, it would be hard to complain about "no prime minister could accept" when the people there voted to do so and GB says "frankly we don't care".

But Ireland would have to have a say in that as well as NI so as not to break the GFA, or get the whole island to agree to rip it all up essentially.

breatheme

JRM has already stated something akin to a customs border in Ireland not being a big deal nor affairs the GFA.

Leroy42

kowtow wrote: »

Every time a roadblock appears which makes Brexit look more stupid, from an Irish perspective, from an English point of view the EU looks even less like a place they would rather be.

Not going to repost it all, a good post and highlights many of the underlying issues at play within the UK and why the arguments about economics, or border issues etc don't seem to be making any difference.

It is also why a crash out really is the only option. No matter what the EU concede to the UK, there will be a sizable amount of the UK unhappy with the EU.

Once any deal is done, they will simply start to pick away at that as well. Simply look at how they have dealt with both the December agreement and the divorce settlement. For both, the UK are more than happy to use any compromise to drive to get even more, even going as far as to threaten to withhold payment of legal obligations.

In Ireland, whilst we see many problems with the EU there isn't that hatred that there is in the UK. Maybe it comes from the fact that in essence we have been conquered for so long that we are more open to the fact that as a small country we will always be reliant on others, be that economically or simply open to invasion. There is no the pyhsce here of being conquerors and many in the UK do really feel that in spite of them winning the war, Germany and France have effectively invaded and taken control. That is a serious image to have and very hard to argue against.