Brexit discussion thread IV

Zubeneschamali

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Judging by the Guardian's live thread, it's increasingly unlikely that there will be any backstop proposal by the October summit

As soon as the EU said there could be a November summit, they made that into the real deadline. May cannot agree a deal until the very last minute, so expect nothing but posturing and a deferral in October.

swampgas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As soon as the EU said there could be a November summit, they made that into the real deadline. May cannot agree a deal until the very last minute, so expect nothing but posturing and a deferral in October.

I understand May's reasons for doing that, but it's a high risk strategy. Especially as she can't guarantee that she will get whatever deal is on offer through her own parliament. She's not the only one waiting until the last minute to try and force through a desired outcome.

IMO if May succeeds in October/November it will be more by luck than anything else.

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

I understand May's reasons for doing that, but it's a high risk strategy. Especially as she can't guarantee that she will get whatever deal is on offer through her own parliament.

Agreeing something with the EU now is pointless - Parliament will certainly reject it.

If she waits until the very last minute and agrees to something like Canada+++, Parliament will be faced with accepting it, or rejecting it and risking a Mad Max no deal crashout.

It is high risk, but it is the only way that might get anything through Parliament.

swampgas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Agreeing something with the EU now is pointless - Parliament will certainly reject it.

If she waits until the very last minute and agrees to something like Canada+++, Parliament will be faced with accepting it, or rejecting it and risking a Mad Max no deal crashout.

It is high risk, but it is the only way that might get anything through Parliament.

Agreed, and the hard part for everyone is evaluating that risk. If you're looking at contingency planning for a hard Brexit, and can't wait until November before action needs to be taken, then what do you do? Right now it looks (to me) like there's maybe a 50/50 chance of hard Brexit, and if my business depended on it, I'd be tempted to pull the trigger now rather than wait any longer.

Gerry T

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Agreeing something with the EU now is pointless - Parliament will certainly reject it.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

If she waits until the very last minute and agrees to something like Canada+++, Parliament will be faced with accepting it, or rejecting it and risking a Mad Max no deal crashout.

Zubeneschamali wrote:

It is high risk, but it is the only way that might get anything through Parliament.

We're at the very last moment, correct me if I'm wrong but the EU are trying to agree the withdrawal agreement and the UK are trying to negotiate a future relationship. There might be a gentleman's agreement on the future relationship but it's the withdrawal agreement that will be formally agree pre next April.
To get to April, uk parliment and all 27eu countries need to ratify it. This months talks, around the withdrawal agreement is the last meeting if the UK show up with an empty hand regarding NI.
To me the problem is the UK are using the NI issue as leverage against the EU to gain a better future relationship, but it's this positioning that will force a hard brexit, they seem blinded to such a simple situation they've placed themselves in.

Dyr

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As soon as the EU said there could be a November summit, they made that into the real deadline. May cannot agree a deal until the very last minute, so expect nothing but posturing and a deferral in October.

The numbers are there for a soft Brexit so long as MPs are willing to defy whips, May's problem is getting that sort of deal before the house and then accepting that she's probably dead to her party.

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Agreeing something with the EU now is pointless - Parliament will certainly reject it.

If she waits until the very last minute and agrees to something like Canada+++, Parliament will be faced with accepting it, or rejecting it and risking a Mad Max no deal crashout.

It is high risk, but it is the only way that might get anything through Parliament.

I still don't know how she gets anything through parliament though, not unless she goes back on her statements of leaving the customs union and the single market and not giving up free movement of people.

That is the only deal that Labour will vote for otherwise they will vote against it. If there is too much soft flesh on a WA but not enough to get Labour to vote for it then the ERG will vote against it and she loses her vote, and they get what they want which is a hard Mad Max Brexit. If it is too hard I don't think the likes of Soubry or Grieve will collapse the government for their principles. They will put party before principle so I struggle to see any deal other than hard Brexit or no deal if May is in charge.

Leroy42

She is purposefully leaving it until the last minute so that it can't be discussed in parliament. It will be a deal or no deal vote. Which given that that there are so many different opinions within the parliament is probably the only way they could have attempted it.

Now, it creates a double edged sword. TM is going into a summit on the basis that if the EU don't give her want she wants (or makes enough concessions) that regardless of her plan the deal won't be voted through in parliament and thus will fall. She only has to shown the damage done after Cameron came back without the full deal previously.

On the other hand, the EU know this and knows that TM cannot afford a no deal, so they can push so less concessions and tell her to face the music and drag her parliament with her.

I think the advantage is very much with the EU. The ERG, Boris etc will find it very hard to vote down a deal from their own PM. It effectively admits that the Tories were incapable of doing a deal. Hence the subtle change away from Chequers. It is not mentioned anymore. They cannot be seen to vote for Chequers, but Canada +++ is totally different (at least in terms of optics).

There is always the real risk that no matter the deal it will be voted down. As this is true there is very little incentive for the EU to bend as so far it seems that no matter what the UK have got a red line (which the EU can't match) and anything less will be rejected.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think the advantage is very much with the EU. The ERG, Boris etc will find it very hard to vote down a deal from their own PM. It effectively admits that the Tories were incapable of doing a deal. Hence the subtle change away from Chequers. It is not mentioned anymore. They cannot be seen to vote for Chequers, but Canada +++ is totally different (at least in terms of optics).

There is always the real risk that no matter the deal it will be voted down. As this is true there is very little incentive for the EU to bend as so far it seems that no matter what the UK have got a red line (which the EU can't match) and anything less will be rejected.

Chequers was dead a ling time ago. Both the EU and the ERG has said they will not accept Chequers so we can forget about it. That is why it is not being mentioned any longer. Any new deal will have to be a lot different or it will be pointed out to whoever caves and accepts it that they just did that.

The problem here is that May has set out her stall already and laid her red lines. If she was sensible she could have said she has changed her mind after receiving the projections on what no-deal will look like and after looking at the research provided that EEA migrants doesn't cost the taxpayer any money.

But she has her red lines and she chose the most drastic line on the research on migrants. Instead of focusing on migrants helping the tax payer she has decided she will go along with the line that EEA migration has to end.

As I said, unless someone high profile changes their mind I find it hard to see anything but a hard Brexit or no deal as this is the only deal she can get through parliament with the DUP and ERG. Her rebels will not bring the government down.

trellheim

All this talk of a Canada +++, my understanding is that no trade deal will actually be agreed. At most the transition period will come into effect. UK has a bit of leverage at the moment and the EU has steadfastly refused to engage in trade talks until the withdrawal is completed.

There needs to be a watertight backstop . Since the UK is being fudgy ( and being seen to be so ) it will need to be

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

I still don't know how she gets anything through parliament though, not unless she goes back on her statements of leaving the customs union and the single market and not giving up free movement of people.

That's how she does it, of course, she accepts a Canada++ deal with a carve-out for NI, and dares parliament to reject it.

swampgas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's how she does it, of course, she accepts a Canada++ deal with a carve-out for NI, and dares parliament to reject it.

Doesn't that assume everyone else will accept that it really is her deal or no deal at that point? Could it be the case that Labour (for example) think they can reject the deal, force an election, and ask the EU for an extension to A.50 if they get a majority?

Zubeneschamali

swampgas wrote: »

Could it be the case that Labour (for example) think they can reject the deal, force an election, and ask the EU for an extension to A.50 if they get a majority?

They'd want to be very confident that they can get the extension, or they crash out with no deal and take the blame.

The EU does not really care if the UK public blame the EU for stuff after brexit, but both Labour and the Tories are rightly very worried about who will be blamed, which is why Labour have been saying very little, making sure the Tories own this.

When the actual deal comes before parliament, that will no longer work. If they vote down May's negotiated deal, they will be blamed for whatever happens later. Since whatever happens is going to be bad, (even if better than a Mad Max crashout), they will want to avoid that.

trellheim

OK so same drums coming from LauraK, AdamFleming and Tony Connelly now .... real slow news beat here to stop the herd charging lol

Enzokk

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They'd want to be very confident that they can get the extension, or they crash out with no deal and take the blame.

The EU does not really care if the UK public blame the EU for stuff after brexit, but both Labour and the Tories are rightly very worried about who will be blamed, which is why Labour have been saying very little, making sure the Tories own this.

When the actual deal comes before parliament, that will no longer work. If they vote down May's negotiated deal, they will be blamed for whatever happens later. Since whatever happens is going to be bad, (even if better than a Mad Max crashout), they will want to avoid that.

Well Labour has been very clear on their objectives for Brexit so you cannot actually blame them if things go wrong and it is not what they envisaged. I still feel Corbyn could pull a fast one on Starmer and renege on the six tests if they are in charge though, but that is for the future and if Labour gets in on those six tests being part of their election manifesto I don't see how he reverses that either.

I think it still makes the most sense to have Canada+++ with NI on its own with the EU, just because that is the simplest objective that can be achieved that honours the Brexit vote. NI did vote Remain and seeing that they are the only country with a EU border and slightly sensitive recent past they get to eat their cake and have it as well. Scotland will get screwed but that will give the SNP, who is in charge in Scotland, exactly what they want and a chance to go for another referendum on their independence. So they will cause a ruckus, the PM (whoever it is at that stage) will rebuff them and point out the realities but privately they will be thrilled if that happens and the UK suffers economically.

On the other hand if they do well outside of the EU then Scotland will win as well. The only losers I see, unless the UK thrives outside the EU, is the Conservatives and the DUP. It would be poetic if the two parties that have campaigned for this would be the ones that suffer the consequences, but then again the way the world has gone the past few years where possible sex offenders get the highest offices I would not be so sure of this.

Enzokk

Japan has offered the UK access to the TPP. This would be huge for the UK, the EU already has or is busy negotiating deals with 9 of the 11 nations in the TPP and the UK will not have access to the EU if they can join the TPP, but a win is a win no matter how small I suppose.

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1049219680550969345

demfad

Enzokk wrote: »

Japan has offered the UK access to the TPP. This would be huge for the UK, the EU already has or is busy negotiating deals with 9 of the 11 nations in the TPP and the UK will not have access to the EU if they can join the TPP, but a win is a win no matter how small I suppose.

https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1049219680550969345

Abe had a meeting with Trump 12 days ago. I would be suprised if these remarks are not the result of a request by Trump.

It's just words by Abe, a few breaths. It has the word 'Pacific' in it for a reason. UK should be in the trade pact with the word 'European' in it for obvious reasons.

Zubeneschamali

Enzokk wrote: »

Well Labour has been very clear on their objectives for Brexit so you cannot actually blame them if things go wrong and it is not what they envisaged.

If they torpedo May's deal, force an election and win, then they own brexit.

If it is a disaster (and it will be) they will get the blame. Not from you or me or the EU, our opinions won't matter; the British public will blame them.

The Tories and the UK press will scream non-stop that Corbyn sabotaged the wonderful Tory Brexit which May negotiated, and that this new Labour Brexit is an abomination.

So they would want to be very, very careful about bring may down at the last minute of brexit talks.

EdgeCase

How long before they’re demanding their sovereignty from the evil TPP ?!

trellheim

If they torpedo May's deal, force an election and win, then they own brexit.

If it is a disaster (and it will be) they will get the blame. Not from you or me or the EU, our opinions won't matter; the British public will blame them.

The Tories and the UK press will scream non-stop that Corbyn sabotaged the wonderful Tory Brexit which May negotiated, and that this new Labour Brexit is an abomination.

So they would want to be very, very careful about bring may down at the last minute of brexit talks.

Whoa there. The EU has stated publicly that a change of government would be grounds for an A50 extension, give them two years, do a deal without FOM and it would be in a better place in my view.

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

The EU has stated publicly that a change of government would be grounds for an A50 extension

They'd have to ask for an A50 extension - cue the Tory/Press/Brexiteer screaming on betraying the Will of the People etc. etc.

Imreoir2

swampgas wrote: »

Doesn't that assume everyone else will accept that it really is her deal or no deal at that point? Could it be the case that Labour (for example) think they can reject the deal, force an election, and ask the EU for an extension to A.50 if they get a majority?

Labour by themselves can't force an election though. There is nothing to say that if the deal was rejected, that May could not continue on into a no-deal Brexit, blaming Labour all the way.

First Up

trellheim wrote:

Whoa there. The EU has stated publicly that a change of government would be grounds for an A50 extension, give them two years, do a deal without FOM and it would be in a better place in my view.

Have they?

I've seen EU comments that an A50 extension would need a major re-alignment of UK politics. That may or may not mean a change of government but it definitely needs a parliamentary majority to ask for it. Given that both the Tories and Labour are split over Brexit there is no guarantee that a change of government would deliver that.

There is also the small matter of the unanimous agreement of the 27 member states for any A50 extension and there is precious little time left for even that.

Akrasia

The EU might agree to an extension of A50 on the condition that there is a referendum on the deal that includes the option of calling the whole brexit thing off.

First Up

Akrasia wrote:

The EU might agree to an extension of A50 on the condition that there is a referendum on the deal that includes the option of calling the whole brexit thing off.

Don't think so. The EU will not get involved in internal UK politics.

charlie14

Infini wrote: »

Thing is with these dinosaurs is if you give them enough rope they'll hang themselves eventually. The parties down here wont deny claims of looking for a UI in the long run they just wont look at using Brexit to cause it but rather look for it to happen as a way of a way out for NI for westminsters incompetence.

All people up there need is reassurance that they'll be looked after in a UI and that rejoining the rest of the Island has far more advantages both economically and politically than sticking with a dysfunctional, poisonous and broken UK. The only ones who will cause trouble will be the headbangers but they'll have to wake up and realise the worlds changing, they failed to adapt and the DUP helped cause this and if they really cant stand living in a UI they can go to the UK if they want instead.

Being from a border county and having lived there through the worst of the troubles, and while favouring a UI, I have no wish to seeing a return to those times. I realise that it was most likely just a throw-away remark, but like Foster`s "blood red lines" suggestions that those that cant stand living in a UI can go to the UK are not helpful in ensuring those times do not return.


As I said,with being a supporter of a UI I have no problem with any party here stating that they favour the same in the long ru,n but I just though it tactless of Varadkar with so much emphasis on the border issue at the moment, to come out with a comment that the DUP can, (and I`m sure will have no problem doing), sell to unionist voters as the Republic`s main aim with the border issue being nothing more than a land-grab. Something imho that will not be a help where future unification is concerned.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

Don't think so. The EU will not get involved in internal UK politics.

Yeah. The most they have said, iirc, is that if the British wanted to hold another referendum, they'd try and accommodate them by giving them more time.

swampgas

charlie14 wrote: »

Being from a border county and having lived there through the worst of the troubles, and while favouring a UI, I have no wish to seeing a return to those times. I realise that it was most likely just a throw-away remark, but like Foster`s "blood red lines" suggestions that those that cant stand living in a UI can go to the UK are not helpful in ensuring those times do not return.


As I said,with being a supporter of a UI I have no problem with any party here stating that they favour the same in the long ru,n but I just though it tactless of Varadkar with so much emphasis on the border issue at the moment, to come out with a comment that the DUP can, (and I`m sure will have no problem doing), sell to unionist voters as the Republic`s main aim with the border issue being nothing more than a land-grab. Something imho that will help where future unification is concerned.

While I mostly agree with you, isn't it a bit strange that we seem to think that we need to tip-toe around the DUP all the time? It's the same with the UK - don't say anything to upset the Brexiteers in case they freak out.

I think there is a case to be made for pushing back against the DUP and against the Brexiteers, and that means making statements that they simply won't like - and that's the whole point, to let them know we're serious.

charlie14

swampgas wrote: »

While I mostly agree with you, isn't it a bit strange that we seem to think that we need to tip-toe around the DUP all the time? It's the same with the UK - don't say anything to upset the Brexiteers in case they freak out.

I think there is a case to be made for pushing back against the DUP and against the Brexiteers, and that means making statements that they simply won't like - and that's the whole point, to let them know we're serious.

Don`t take me up wrong where the DUP are concerned.

I believe rather than tip-toeing around them what the need and deserve is a good and regular kicking.

What the don`t need is comments from a Taoiseach that makes their claim that this is all about the Republic pushing a UI agenda under the guise of the Brexit border issue look credible to unionist supporter and pushes more of them into their camp.

briany

swampgas wrote: »

While I mostly agree with you, isn't it a bit strange that we seem to think that we need to tip-toe around the DUP all the time? It's the same with the UK - don't say anything to upset the Brexiteers in case they freak out.

I think there is a case to be made for pushing back against the DUP and against the Brexiteers, and that means making statements that they simply won't like - and that's the whole point, to let them know we're serious.

There's no point in being needlessly antagonistic. All that's doing is playing into the DUP and Brexiteers' hands. If they can't have everyone thinking their way, then the current division is a pretty good consolation prize as it will, by default, lead to them getting pretty much what they want.

There may be no happy ending here, but if there isn't one, then at least we could say we weren't the ones wilfully stoking the flames on all this.