Brexit discussion thread IV

First Up

flatty wrote:

The main reason corbyn got elected was that he wasn't Tony Blair.

Corbyn got elected because he wasn't Ed Miliband.

Enzokk

First Up wrote: »

Corbyn got elected because he wasn't Ed Miliband.

His policies are mainly good though. I don't think there are many that will disagree with what he says. If you put his policies to people without telling them it is for Labour or him most would agree that his policies are good.

As with any politician though it is the action that says more than the words. Theresa May in her speech when she was took over as PM promised to look after the little guy, how did that work out? His actions at this conference says a lot about him and his followers and its not that he his special, he is just another politician who will say what he can to get in power to do what he thinks is right.

Enzokk

As a distraction to the disaster that is the Labour conference, Theresa May feels she has to remind people that we are where we are because she is in charge.

https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1044618107648704514

So there we have it, she is doubling down hard on Chequers. She has shot down all other plans and seems intent on going with the plan that has been shot down not just by the EU and Labour but her own party.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

Corbyn got elected because he wasn't Ed Miliband.

Corbyn got eiected because the wrong Milliband got eiected.

flatty

First Up wrote: »

flatty wrote:

The main reason corbyn got elected was that he wasn't Tony Blair.

Corbyn got elected because he wasn't Ed Miliband.

That was sort of my point really. The milli bands were tied up with new Labour, and in truth, tore each other apart.

First Up

BonnieSituation wrote:

Corbyn got eiected because the wrong Milliband got eiected.

And a lot of crap happened, including Brexit.

fash

This is now a farce:
Theresa may: no deal better than Canada deal!

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/25/no-deal-brexit-better-than-canada-style-deal-theresa-may?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/25/no-deal-brexit-better-than-canada-style-deal-theresa-may

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

if the EU came out and said that Art 50 could be withdrawn there would be an outcry that the EU were trying to bully the UK into staying.

The EU cannot control what is going on in the UK, it is not their responsibility to try to manage the media and government information services in the UK.

How would clarifying the status on article 50 be bullying the UK?

briany

fash wrote: »

This is now a farce:
Theresa may: no deal better than Canada deal!

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/25/no-deal-brexit-better-than-canada-style-deal-theresa-may?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2Fsep%2F25%2Fno-deal-brexit-better-than-canada-style-deal-theresa-may

So, May has had her proposals rejected by the EU, and is in turn rejecting proposals from her party in favour of the ones that have already been rejected by the EU. Am I surmising this correctly?

Seth Brundle

briany wrote: »

So, May has had her proposals rejected by the EU, and is in turn rejecting proposals from her party in favour of the ones that have already been rejected by the EU. Am I surmising this correctly?

At least she's consistent!

fly_agaric

fash wrote: »

This is now a farce:
Theresa may: no deal better than Canada deal!

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/25/no-deal-brexit-better-than-canada-style-deal-theresa-may?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2Fsep%2F25%2Fno-deal-brexit-better-than-canada-style-deal-theresa-may

Very odd. I wonder (if things continue as they are, no change of leadership in Conservatives, no election) will UK just try and act the bully + brazen it out after Brexit day, pretend nothing whatsoever has happened at same time as they set about departing from the EU regs & directives where it suits, setting up trade deals etc. They sit on their hands, dare the EU to fully implement logical consequences of their Brexit & then blame the EU for any problems. It is dangerous and insane, but most of the politicians in power in the UK seem to have totally gone off the deep end.

BonnieSituation

First Up wrote: »

And a lot of crap happened, including Brexit.

Well, with David in charge, Labour would likely have won the 2015 election for a start.

Ed never really got to lay a hand on Cameron at any point.

Labour win that election and the Brexit ref doesn't happen. Along with Corbyn staying as an insignificant backbencher.

Let us not forget that, Red Ed was a favourite with the Unions. To say he was tarnished as New Labour misses what was actually happening at the time.

Imreoir2

fly_agaric wrote: »

Very odd. I wonder (if things continue as they are, no change of leadership in Conservatives, no election) will UK just try and act the bully + brazen it out after Brexit day, pretend nothing whatsoever has happened at same time as they set about departing from the EU regs & directives where it suits, setting up trade deals etc. They sit on their hands, dare the EU to fully implement logical consequences of their Brexit & then blame the EU for any problems. It is dangerous and insane, but most of the politicians in power in the UK seem to have totally gone off the deep end.

They might Brazen it out for a day or two, but when the trade deals fail to materialse because they will take years to negioatiate, and the reality of Brexit hits home with transport and customs chaos, industry reliant on JIT grinding to a halt, and mounting shortages of imported fuel, food and medicine, I think they will be tossed out fairly quickly regardless of who they try to blame.

fash

briany wrote: »

fash wrote: »

This is now a farce:
Theresa may: no deal better than Canada deal!

https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/25/no-deal-brexit-better-than-canada-style-deal-theresa-may?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fpolitics%2F2018%2Fsep%2F25%2Fno-deal-brexit-better-than-canada-style-deal-theresa-may

So, May has had her proposals rejected by the EU, and is in turn rejecting proposals from her party in favour of the ones that have already been rejected by the EU. Am I surmising this correctly?

I'd summarise it as:
May has had her proposals rejected;
Rejected the 2 EU options put on the table;
One of these rejected options was however half agreed / acceptable (except for the backstop) to her people and the EU (the other option was strongly opposed by her people and her);
She has shot it down because of the backstop but also wanting to keep the UK more aligned with Europe?
Unless this is some calculated politics to cave into a Norway, things will get comedic...

Inquitus

fash wrote: »

Unless this is some calculated politics to cave into a Norway, things will get comedic...

You couldn't have mixed a mess like this if you tried:

6 Parts ill conceived Referendum
2 Parts losing your majority
4 Parts paying off the DUP to the tune of 1bn to prop you up
3 Parts clown mix (Bojo, JRM, Fox and Davis)
2 Parts Corbyn's Labour
5 Parts undemocratic FPTP system

fly_agaric

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They might Brazen it out for a day or two, but when the trade deals fail to materialse because they will take years to negioatiate, and the reality of Brexit hits home with transport and customs chaos, industry reliant on JIT grinding to a halt, and mounting shortages of imported fuel, food and medicine, I think they will be tossed out fairly quickly regardless of who they try to blame.

That's true alright. Laying blame on "the EU" is not going to save any UK govt. in a real disaster. I suppose if that scenario does come to pass, just how quickly things get very bad for them depends on how rigidly the other countries deal with them. The EU is a very rules-based organisation that is at risk of falling apart if the members start flaunting the regulations, so cannot see any period of ambiguity lasting long after a no agreement exit.

Taking ourselves & the NI border, I get the impression in a no withdrawal agreement scenario our government are just not going to enforce the new EU border initially & pretend nothing has happened (e.g. Varadkars' [somewhat rash imo] statements that "there will be no border" with the north etc).

For example, they may instruct companies to follow new procedures given the change of UKs status, but they are not going to actually enforce anything.
That turn a blind eye situation can't last forever obviously.

Capt'n Midnight

Skelet0n wrote: »

Can anyone answer, what happens if the U.K. does just decide to back out of it? Surely there must be a huge amount of European time and money gone into preparing for this, who foots the bill?

Sam Russell wrote: »

I reckon the Dept for Exiting the EU costs a billion a year to run (if that is the right word). The EU costs might be a lot less, but not zero. The UK costs are higher because it was a thrown together dept that was basically chasing round in circles and had a high churn rate.

The EU side was diverted from other tasks.

Each pays its own costs, but remembers.

The EU countries delegated the negotiations off to a team. On the continent no EU politician is wasting much time or loosing sleep over Brexit.

If there's no deal then the EU don't have to change any rules or regulations other than to say the UK isn't a member so from now use the default rules for third parties

If the UK don't pay the divorce bill then they won't get a good trade deal and will probably pay more in tariffs over the years.


The UK has already dropped 2.1% of GDP in lost growth.
So £22Bn a year in lost tax revenue. £440m a week , more than was on the Bus.

Borrowing is up

First Up

BonnieSituation wrote:

Well, with David in charge, Labour would likely have won the 2015 election for a start.

Would have been a Tory/Lib Dem coalition more likely, which would also have binned the Brexit referendum. Labour were as unelectable under Ed Milliband as they are under Corbyn.

Imreoir2

fly_agaric wrote: »

That's true alright. Laying blame on "the EU" is not going to save any UK govt. in a real disaster. I suppose if that scenario does come to pass, just how quickly things get very bad for them depends on how rigidly the other countries deal with them. The EU is a very rules-based organisation that is at risk of falling apart if the members start flaunting the regulations, so cannot see any period of ambiguity lasting long after a no agreement exit.

Taking ourselves & the NI border, I get the impression in a no withdrawal agreement scenario our government are just not going to enforce the new EU border initially & pretend nothing has happened (e.g. Varadkars' [somewhat rash imo] statements that "there will be no border" with the north etc).

For example, they may instruct companies to follow new procedures given the change of UKs status, but they are not going to actually enforce anything.
That turn a blind eye situation can't last forever obviously.

I don't think that is will happen. Ireland will have to enforce the EU's external frontier just as Greece and Estonia must. I think the Government would atempt to implement enforcement of the border slowly, with emphasis on temporary checkpoints on an emergency basis rather than investing in permenant infastructure. Ireland will probably get away with a bare minimum approch initially, but a policy of abandoning entirely our obligation to control our border would be a terrible mistake.

An Ciarraioch

One thought - the October summit occurs after the third budget, meaning supply and confidence is officially over, so could FF threaten a GE if Varadkar agrees a deal fudging the backstop?

Achernar

If there is not a significant shift in the UK's position after the party conferences are over, and a general election is not called (which may possibly remove the nefarious influence of the DUP - not just in the Brexit negotiations, but also in how their bribed political support is interfering in the re-establishment of a functioning assembly in NI), I think we need to be very very concerned that things may rapidly deteriorate.  Not just in terms of a crash-out Brexit and the economic and social dislocation this will cause.  I mean more in terms of the severe damage this will do to European peace and security.  The objective of outside geopolitical influences in breaking up the EU and fomenting instability in European countries across the continent will have achieved a huge victory.  This is very dangerous territory and for the twits currently in leadership positions in the UK not to see the hazard in this respect and how things can very quickly escalate out of control is foolish in the extreme.  The time is ripe for a 'saviour' to emerge to lead the people out of chaos - and we all know where that has led in the past...

Sam Russell

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I don't think that is will happen. Ireland will have to enforce the EU's external frontier just as Greece and Estonia must. I think the Government would atempt to implement enforcement of the border slowly, with emphasis on temporary checkpoints on an emergency basis rather than investing in permenant infastructure. Ireland will probably get away with a bare minimum approch initially, but a policy of abandoning entirely our obligation to control our border would be a terrible mistake.

I think they will use mobile inspection units away from the border.

First goods requiring inspection will be obliged to use specified cossing points and routes. Some shippers will get 'Trusted Trader' status and may be allowed more freedom - for example liquid milk.

Much of the surveillance will be intellgence led from NI, both PSNI and Northern Customs.

However the real ****show will be going on in Dover and Calais, Folkstone, and Heathrow. How long that lasts will determine how long the Irish border lasts.

Peregrinus

Basically this. In a no-deal Brexit both the UK and RoI will need to police the Irish border, one way or another. But neither will want to be seen to be the first to introduce border controls, so both will delay for as long as possible, will start with light-tough, away-from-the-border measures, etc, etc.

The Irish will need some understanding and indulgence from the EU for this, but I think they will get it, at least for a period. No-deal Brexit is not a stable end-state, so the hope will be that other pressures on the UK will bring them back to the table sooner rather than later, and ideally sooner than serious border controls have to be introduced in Ireland. To be honest, I cannot say how well-founded this hope is. I think the situation will be fluid, and quite unpredictable. Much will depend on internal developments in the UK over which Ireland and the EU have neither control nor influence.

Simply not policing the border, even if pursued as a policy by both sides, doesn't resolve the problems. Essentially both governments would ill be saying that, as a matter of policy, they do not collect tariffs at the Irish border, do not enforce regulatory standards and do not object to smuggling. That's not a business environment in which any serious business wishes to operate, not least because it's clearly not a state of affairs that is likely to prevail for very long. "Your business is illegal but, just for now, we are not going to do anything about it." Petty smuggling may thrive, but cross-border agribusiness will be badly hit, and investment will dry up completely until the situation is resolved.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Would have been a Tory/Lib Dem coalition more likely, which would also have binned the Brexit referendum. Labour were as unelectable under Ed Milliband as they are under Corbyn.

Except they're not actually unelectable under Corbyn, are they?

True, they haven't actually been elected, but that's not the same thing as being unelectable. At the one one general election they fought under Corbyn, the one where the press united in dismissing him as unelectable, Labour secured 40% of the vote. This is definitely a level of support that, if the cards fall right, can win an election. Labour governments - Labour majority governments - have been returned at previous general elections on lower percentages of the vote than that. It all depends on how the chips fall in the UK's quaintly crapulous electoral system. And, remember, the Conservative party that Corbyn will be opposing this time around is a bad joke.

So, yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is so 2016, FirstUp. I'm not saying that he will win the next election, but he is very electable.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Labour have 257 MPs in Westminster. 210 of them voted for A50. When asked why, they say it is the wish of their constituents.

It is cloud-cuckoo land stuff to think the party under the pro-Brexit Corbyn's leadership (or anyone likely to be elected to replace him) will mount an election campaign based on reversing Brexit.

They don't need to. It's enough that they mount an election campaign based on a second referendum.

Which, admittedly, they are not committed to doing. (They only want a referendum if they can't have an election.) But if they did have an early election, and thought they had a chance of winning, and realised they were going to have to wear the consequences of Brexit for the UK, their present strategy of not interrupting the Tories while the Tories are making a mistake would evaporate. If they win the election, and follow it up with a Brexit that has painful outcomes for the UK, they're the ones who have made a mistake.

And, remember, do not imagine that pro-Brexit Labourites think for a moment that Brexit will be painless. They are acutely aware that it will be very painful, but they consider the pain worth bearing for The Cause. They are revolutionary socialists, remember, and you don't get to be a revolutionary without a steely resolve to break a few eggs so you can make an omelette. So they'll be thinking, not "Brexit will be a doddle!" or "Brexit will be painful, so we must cancel it." but "Brexit will be painful, so we have to think about how to get people to buy into the pain, and not punish us for it".

From this point of view a second referendum, if you think it can be won for Brexit, has its attractions. A variety of things that we have discussed extensively on this board have tended to delegitimise the result of the first referendum, plus people now have much better information about options whose parameters are much better defined and understood than they were in 2016. If Labour negotiates its own Brexit deal, and thinks it can get that endorsed in a referendum, getting it endorsed might seem like an attractive course of action in a number of respects. Obviously that has to be balanced against the risk of not getting it endorsed, but if the 210 Labour MPs you mention were sincere in their proclaimed assessment of what their constituents wanted, then unless things have changed dramatically they must reckon their chances of getting a Brexit deal approved in a referendum are pretty good.

Seth Brundle

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

One thought - the October summit occurs after the third budget, meaning supply and confidence is officially over, so could FF threaten a GE if Varadkar agrees a deal fudging the backstop?

FF are still remembered by many as the ones who ruined the economy. They gradually are making a comeback (:( ) but by forcing a GE now would drop them back into the abyss (hopefully).

Peregrinus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

One thought - the October summit occurs after the third budget, meaning supply and confidence is officially over, so could FF threaten a GE if Varadkar agrees a deal fudging the backstop?

First, a nitpick: SFAIK the confidence-and-supply deal commits FF to supporting the government through the passage of three budgets. The Budget for 2019 is due to be presented on 9 October, but I'm not sure when it's considered to have been passed. When the Finance Act amendments are through? Whatever the relevant event is, it may happen well after the October Council.

Parking that point, I don't see Varadkar agreeing a deal fudging the backstop, or being pressed to do so by the EU. All the signals have been that the EU is open to fudging the future agreement to some extent, but not the backstop. And that impression has been reinforced by their reaction to May signalling an attempt to fudge the backstop when she suggested she might not be ready with her backstop suggestions by the October summit.

Still, run with the hypothetical. IF Varadkar were pressed to yield on the necessity of the backstop, and IF he did yield, how would FF react?

I've said before that, to my mind, Ireland over the past two years has had a much better quality of political leadership than the UK has, and that this would still be true if there were a change of government in one or both countries. FF have displayed a commendable willingness not to make Brexit a point-scoring partisan issue as between themselves and the government. I have no doubt that if the backstop were compromised FF would be gravely concerned, but rather than a knee-jerk reaction of trying to bring down the government I think they'd look at the situation and the options open to Ireland. They might then conclude that they had to oppose the government; on the other hand, they might not. It's impossible to say without knowing the details of the fudge, the context in which it is made and the alternatives facing us if it is not made.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

So, yeah, "Corbyn is unelectable" is so 2016, FirstUp. I'm not saying that he will win the next election, but he is very electable.

Labour can't win without the soft middle. Corbyn alienates it.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

And, remember, do not imagine that pro-Brexit Labourites think for a moment that Brexit will be painless. They are acutely aware that it will be very painful, but they consider the pain worth bearing for The Cause. They are revolutionary socialists, remember, and you don't get to be a revolutionary without a steely resolve to break a few eggs so you can make an omelette. So they'll be thinking, not "Brexit will be a doddle!" or "Brexit will be painful, so we must cancel it." but "Brexit will be painful, so we have to think about how to get people to buy into the pain, and not punish us for it".

The red end of Labour's whole strategy is based on Brexit being a disaster. They see that as the platform for the revolution and overthrow of capitalism. They don't want Brexit reversed. That includes Corbyn.

If it comes to an election (and it might) the Tories will campaign on preserving the British way of life. Labour under Corbyn won't campaign on re-joining the EU; they will scare the sh%t out of the soft centre with talk of a socialist solution.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Labour can't win without the soft middle. Corbyn alienates it.

That depends on where the soft middle goes. If they stay at home, Corbyn can win. If they defect en masse to the Lib Dems (though I concede there is little sign of this) Corbyn could be in a position to form a minority government. If they vote Tory, he's toast.

IOW, this could be an election that's decided by turnout. Corbyn is good at getting his devotees to turn out. Despite the unpopularity of the 2017 general election, turnout was up by 2.5%. I think that reflects Corbyn's pulling power, and I think Corbyn was the beneficiary of that. Sure, it's not a power that he exerts over the soft middle, but if they're not going to vote for him then them not turning out is a positive advantage.