Brexit discussion thread IV

ancapailldorcha

Oliver Robbins, the civil servant leading the UK side of the negotiations with Brussels has apparently warned Cabinet that there is now no chance of a bespoke deal with the EU. The choice seems to be a Canada type deal which would harm business but please the Brexiteers or the Norway option which would have the opposite effect but which seems to be the best option at this stage (Source).

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

The timing of this is really strange. JRM has of course been sniping from the long grass for some time but this is a real ultimatum..

If I am reading it correctly, the ultimatum is coming from May - shut up and back a soft Brexit deal or quit and try to oust me.

It was always going to come to a showdown, since what the Brexiteers say they want is madness. The question was always when May would finally call it.

But there is still no real information on what this deal that May wants actually is, or whether the EU will take it seriously. And it is at least possible that the Brexiteers never really wanted a hard Brexit and were only preparing for the post-Brexit whingefest.

Frank Bullitt

Very rational reading here...not really though.

Imreoir2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If I am reading it correctly, the ultimatum is coming from May - shut up and back a soft Brexit deal or quit and try to oust me.

It was always going to come to a showdown, since what the Brexiteers say they want is madness. The question was always when May would finally call it.

I think the big problem is going to be that May will face down the Brexiteers and get the party behind her Brexit plan, only to come out with another cakeist plan in the white paper that the EU will be forced to reject, yet again.

No-deal Brexit hasen't go away you know.

But there is still no real information on what this deal that May wants actually is, or whether the EU will take it seriously. And it is at least possible that the Brexiteers never really wanted a hard Brexit and were only preparing for the post-Brexit whingefest.

Edit: That was the point of the referendum in the first place. They didn't want to win, they wanted to whine about how everything would have been great if only people listened to them. Likelyhood is the no-deal brexit extremists are going to wind up with another unwelcome victory on their hands.

trellheim

I think people are misreading.


1. If Olly Robbins ( it has to be him because David Davis is Mod: NO more name calling please. ) says a deal cant be done -> it cant be done ;

The obvious (* from an Irish point of view(mine, maybe not others) ) next step is to change the red lines ( ECJ or free movement - whatever)

BUT - and this is my point -

with 9 months to go - Why would the ERG/JRM give in - from their point of view the prize is in sight - they have zero, absolutely zero to lose here ( or, its worth the burn to get a clean break )

This is why you are seeing odds on a Hard Brexit going to evens, and soon IMHO it will get more likely

PS very interesting point made up-thread about the hate for Blair, it really has poisoned the middle ground for a generation

Leroy42

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If I am reading it correctly, the ultimatum is coming from May - shut up and back a soft Brexit deal or quit and try to oust me.

It was always going to come to a showdown, since what the Brexiteers say they want is madness. The question was always when May would finally call it.

But there is still no real information on what this deal that May wants actually is, or whether the EU will take it seriously. And it is at least possible that the Brexiteers never really wanted a hard Brexit and were only preparing for the post-Brexit whingefest.

Crossed wires. I am talking about the ultimatum by JRM in the Telegraph today.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Theresa May must keep her Brexit customs union promise or risk revolt by Tory MPs

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/01/theresa-may-risks-collapse-government-fails-deliver-brexit-promised/

listermint

trellheim wrote: »

I think people are misreading.


1. If Olly Robbins says a deal cant be done -> it cant be done ;

The obvious (* from an Irish point of view(mine, maybe not others) ) next step is to change the red lines ( ECJ or free movement - whatever)

BUT - and this is my point -

with 9 months to go - Why would the ERG/JRM give in - from their point of view the prize is in sight - they have zero, absolutely zero to lose here ( or, its worth the burn to get a clean break )

This is why you are seeing odds on a Hard Brexit going to evens, and soon IMHO it will get more likely

PS very interesting point made up-thread about the hate for Blair, it really has poisoned the middle ground for a generation

misreading what ?

May obviously will not want to be known as the PM that threw the UK into a recession of its own making. So there will be a show down, she has to put it down to those two, it may even come down to a throw them out of the cabinet but it has come to a nexus.

FreudianSlippers

trellheim wrote: »

The obvious (* from an Irish point of view(mine, maybe not others) ) next step is to change the red lines ( ECJ or free movement - whatever)

Can you explain how "free movement" can be changed without fundamentally destroying the EU?

Or the ECJ for that matter...

Zubeneschamali

trellheim wrote: »

with 9 months to go - Why would the ERG/JRM give in

If a hard brexit crashout happens, the only smart move by Tory Remainers is to go to the backbenches where the Brexiteers used to live, and let Boris, Gove, JRM and Davis make an absolute balls of everything.

This will be tough on the little people, but Tory politicians never cared about them, the important thing is the power struggle inside the Tory party.

Do the Eurosceptics really have the nerve for this scenario? Or will they grumble and accept soft Brexit and head back to their familiar sniping spot on the backbenches?

Imreoir2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can you explain how "free movement" can be changed without fundamentally destroying the EU?

Or the ECJ for that matter...

I think he means change the UK's red lines on those issues.

FreudianSlippers

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I think he means change the UK's red lines on those issues.

I'm not being silly here, but the UK has "red lines" on those issues? How?

trellheim

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Can you explain how "free movement" can be changed without fundamentally destroying the EU?

Or the ECJ for that matter...

I meant May's red lines, not the EU's.

And as for the Eurosceptics,they've been waiting 40 odd years for this you can be sure they will do whatever to get out.

A simple google will reveal many of them !

Imreoir2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not being silly here, but the UK has "red lines" on those issues? How?

As in they have been saying that they wont accept them being applied to the UK in any deal.

FreudianSlippers

Imreoir2 wrote: »

As in they have been saying that they wont accept them being applied to the UK in any deal.

I mean... I hate to be kind of *shrug* about it, but that's hardly "May's red line" - if the people voted for Brexit for two major reasons, it was the free movement of workers and the perceived consolidation of power and authority outside of the UK (see: ECJ).

Keeping free movement of workers and the ECJ may as well be no Brexit at all.

Zubeneschamali

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Keeping free movement of workers and the ECJ may as well be no Brexit at all.

Hurray!

trellheim

I mean... I hate to be kind of *shrug* about it, but that's hardly "May's red line" - if the people voted for Brexit for two major reasons, it was the free movement of workers and the perceived consolidation of power and authority outside of the UK (see: ECJ).

Keeping free movement of workers and the ECJ may as well be no Brexit at all.

Meh - the referendum was Leave or Remain the EU [that is all that was in it - anything else is makey-uppey so red lines are just negotiating positions

FreudianSlippers

trellheim wrote: »

Meh - the referendum was Leave or Remain the EU [that is all that was in it - anything else is makey-uppey so red lines are just negotiating positions

Leave the EU but keep the fundamental institutions of the EU.

I'm sure that will go down a treat with the Brexiteers.

Zubeneschamali

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Leave the EU but keep the fundamental institutions of the EU.

I'm sure that will go down a treat with the Brexiteers.

Many of the Brexiteers before the referendum are on record admiring the Norwegian setup, and claiming that Nobody Was Talking About Leaving The Single Market in the event of a Leave vote.

ambro25

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I mean... I hate to be kind of *shrug* about it, but that's hardly "May's red line" - if the people voted for Brexit for two major reasons, it was the free movement of workers and the perceived consolidation of power and authority outside of the UK (see: ECJ).

Keeping free movement of workers and the ECJ may as well be no Brexit at all.

That would the next-sweetest bit of Schadenfreude about it all: all that goodwill p***ed up the wall for political and economic disadvantage (ie less than nothing, bar perhaps one of the most spectacular political own goals in democratic history).

The sweetest bit would be all those prominent ERG types (and their mono-grey cell -powered supporters) being made to wear it, one way (crash out Brexit) or the other (Norway Brexit)....and in sufficiently plain and clear fashion, that all but the most ideologically-biased member of the Brexit-voting public can plainly see how they were rolled.

murphaph

Rhineshark wrote: »

If Ireland was not in the EU, we would still need a hard border. This isn't even EU rules - we have not had a hard border because EU rules allow us to drop it. Not the EU are forcing hard borders on us. UK leaves, things reset to an old status quo. But now we are protecting a European market (which ours is part of), not just the Irish market.

Besides, would you just be okay with that risk to, say, our national herd? No checks, no guarantees of same standards, sure it's only the UK and wherever they are importing from. The first foot & mouth outbreak would have the farmers raging.

Ireland *is* EU and is being protected as such. No-one can entirely account for what sovereign UK will do, but I firmly believe we will be assisted if the outcome is poor. And preparations have begun on that.

If we get a hard border, it is 100% on the UK.

Exactly. Even if we foolishly left the EU in an attempt to maintain an open border it would fall short of WTO rules. We would need to join the UK in a customs union. No thanks. Nationalists in the north may feel aggrieved but they should understand the choice is a (maybe) temporary border or generations more of being dependent on our mad neighbours to the east.

Imreoir2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I mean... I hate to be kind of *shrug* about it, but that's hardly "May's red line" - if the people voted for Brexit for two major reasons, it was the free movement of workers and the perceived consolidation of power and authority outside of the UK (see: ECJ).

Keeping free movement of workers and the ECJ may as well be no Brexit at all.

Shrug if you want, you asked if these are the UK's red lines. Now you are asking what would be the point of Brexit if the UK did not have these red lines?

Do we agree that these are in fact the UK's red lines in that case?

Dropping those red lines might give you, at least in some peoples eye's, a pointless Brexit. If the option is a pointless Brexit with a deal, or a hugely damaging but more ideologicly pure no-deal brexit, then you will have to make up your own mind if keeping those red lines is worth it.

ancapailldorcha

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Leave the EU but keep the fundamental institutions of the EU.

I'm sure that will go down a treat with the Brexiteers.

True but any amount of reading about the topic beforehand from something other than a Murdoch/Rothermere/Desmond-owned tabloid would have illuminated the sheer complexity and depth of a member state's links with the EU. At least I don't have to hear about German cars anymore.

mickoneill31

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I mean... I hate to be kind of *shrug* about it, but that's hardly "May's red line" - if the people voted for Brexit for two major reasons, it was the free movement of workers and the perceived consolidation of power and authority outside of the UK (see: ECJ).

Keeping free movement of workers and the ECJ may as well be no Brexit at all.

There's the small matter of the UK citizens in Europe. There's also the fact that the UK wants to be able to continue to be able to sell services to the EU.
Your right though. It's hardly worthwhile brexiting but that's the will off the people.

FreudianSlippers

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Shrug if you want, you asked if these are the UK's red lines. Now you are asking what would be the point of Brexit if the UK did not have these red lines?

Do we agree that these are in fact the UK's red lines in that case?

Dropping those red lines might give you, at least in some peoples eye's, a pointless Brexit. If the option is a pointless Brexit with a deal, or a hugely damaging but more ideologicly pure no-deal brexit, then you will have to make up your own mind if keeping those red lines is worth it.

The UK can't have "red lines" - they're either leaving the EU or not. They're looking for a structured and negotiated Brexit... they either take the deal or they don't.

FreudianSlippers

mickoneill31 wrote: »

There's the small matter of the UK citizens in Europe. There's also the fact that the UK wants to be able to continue to be able to sell services to the EU.
Your right though. It's hardly worthwhile brexiting but that's the will off the people.

That's a matter for the EU, not the UK.

trellheim

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Leave the EU but keep the fundamental institutions of the EU.

I'm sure that will go down a treat with the Brexiteers.

Which has got us to this point - UK has no consensus position on a post A50 scenario . Waiting for it to emerge has not worked, one could confidently say it has allowed the loony fringe ( Farage and JRM plus the poison from Rothermere and Dacre ) to dominate the discussion.

How you get that consensus I think is impossible; only hard leadership - lead follow or get out of the way will work.

PS : If people are coming late to the discussion, the term 'red lines' has been in circulation for a long time with regard to Theresa May and her stance on Brexit - I didn't just make the term up here it was part of an early outline of her position, and has been consistently in use since then.

FreudianSlippers

trellheim wrote: »

Which has got us to this point - UK has no consensus position on a post A50 scenario . Waiting for it to emerge has not worked, one could confidently say it has allowed the loony fringe ( Farage and JRM plus the poison from Rothermere and Dacre ) to dominate the discussion.

How you get that consensus I think is impossible; only hard leadership - lead follow or get out of the way will work.

I totally agree with you, which is why I think it's mental that we'd be saying that the UK has a red line regarding free movement or workers and the ECJ - it feels like, painfully obvious?! Or are we just so far into bizarreo-world that this is what we're negotiating with the UK?!

Imreoir2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The UK can't have "red lines" - they're either leaving the EU or not. They're looking for a structured and negotiated Brexit... they either take the deal or they don't.

Of course they can, and do. They are leaving the EU and won't accept a deal that includes FOM, or being in the Single Market, or juristiction of the ECJ. Those red lines rule out many of the options available for its future relations with the EU. Droping those red lines would allow them to explore other options, like the Norway model, or staying in the customs union.

ambro25

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The UK can't have "red lines" - they're either leaving the EU or not. They're looking for a structured and negotiated Brexit... they either take the deal or they don't.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I totally agree with you, which is why I think it's mental that we'd be saying that the UK has a red line regarding free movement or workers and the ECJ - it feels like, painfully obvious?! Or are we just so far into bizarreo-world that this is what we're negotiating with the UK?!

Respectfully, please inform yourself here (non-exhaustive example on the topic).

The whole kerfuffle about the negotiations over the past 18 months revolves on these, and their inherent (but absolute) incompatibility with the EU’s founding principles.

This late in the day, the U.K. still expects that the EU will compromise on its founding principles, to accommodate the deal which the U.K. wants.

I don’t think I need to waste any (more) bandwidth on why that is as likely to happen by March 2019, as in a month of Sundays.

trellheim

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Of course they can, and do. They are leaving the EU and won't accept a deal that includes FOM, or being in the Single Market, or juristiction of the ECJ. Those red lines rule out many of the options available for its future relations with the EU. Droping those red lines would allow them to explore other options, like the Norway model, or staying in the customs union.

Excellent point - I might add that there is no 'deal' on the table - it hasnt got that far yet - remember, transition is not yet locked

Your daily reminder : As it stands NOW only a crash-out A50 Hard Brexit is on the table there is no other agreement.

FreudianSlippers

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Of course they can, and do. They are leaving the EU and won't accept a deal that includes FOM, or being in the Single Market, or juristiction of the ECJ. Those red lines rule out many of the options available for its future relations with the EU. Droping those red lines would allow them to explore other options, like the Norway model, or staying in the customs union.

Who is trying to impose these on the UK?

This is ridiculous nonsense now. The UK is free to leave the EU however they want - there is literally nobody attempting to push FOM, the Single Market or the ECJ's jurisdiction on the UK.

If, however, the UK wants to push their cake-and-eat-it desires on the EU, the EU is correct in saying that many of the things the UK wants to keep from the EU comes with an obligation - it's not pick-and-mix EU.

FreudianSlippers

ambro25 wrote: »

Respectfully, please inform yourself here (non-exhaustive example on the topic).

The whole kerfuffle about the negotiations over the past 18 months revolves on these, and their inherent (but absolute) incompatibility with the EU’s founding principles.

Honestly, I'm fully aware of the situation and link-dumping a sky article which actually makes the exact point I'm making does nothing to add credibility to the UK's inane and non-existent "red lines" - the UK can't have "red lines" and we shouldn't be entertaining this nonsense.

trellheim

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Who is trying to impose these on the UK?

This is ridiculous nonsense now. The UK is free to leave the EU however they want - there is literally nobody attempting to push FOM, the Single Market or the ECJ's jurisdiction on the UK.

If, however, the UK wants to push their cake-and-eat-it desires on the EU, the EU is correct in saying that many of the things the UK wants to keep from the EU comes with an obligation - it's not pick-and-mix EU.

Yes and thus the last 18 months with Barnier sitting across facing an empty seat that should have David Davis in it. Barnier did a lovely staircase diagram of the available positions - its last appearance isnt too far up-thread.

However the UK want a custom version of this which has us where we are so unless someone blinks its hard and out.

ambro25

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Honestly, I'm fully aware of the situation and link-dumping a sky article which actually makes the exact point I'm making does nothing to add credibility to the UK's inane and non-existent "red lines" - the UK can't have "red lines" and we shouldn't be entertaining this nonsense.

Must be your posting style, then, because your posts suggested otherwise to me.

An Ciarraioch

So, JRM has written another Telegraph article basically calling for a "clean Brexit" at all costs, but it's backfired rather dramatically, with numerous Tory MPs queuing up on Twitter to tell him to shut up:

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1013738296302858240

Meanwhile, leaks on May's "third way" continue, with suggestions it'll be on the softer end of possible options:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/02/may-to-float-third-brexit-customs-model-at-chequers-meeting

FreudianSlippers

ambro25 wrote: »

Must be your posting style, then, because your posts suggested otherwise to me.

Must be. I've only been posting in Politics for years, so I guess you're not used to it yet.

trellheim

Is Mogglodytes a new term ? I am unaware of it before now, but it has a definite ring to it.

Imreoir2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Who is trying to impose these on the UK?

This is ridiculous nonsense now. The UK is free to leave the EU however they want - there is literally nobody attempting to push FOM, the Single Market or the ECJ's jurisdiction on the UK.

If, however, the UK wants to push their cake-and-eat-it desires on the EU, the EU is correct in saying that many of the things the UK wants to keep from the EU comes with an obligation - it's not pick-and-mix EU.

It's not a question of imposing these on the UK. It's a question of both sides engaging in a negotiation and having their position on what they will or will not accept in a deal. The EU wont accept a pick and mix deal that, for example, allows the UK access to the Single Market without following the rules of the single market. The UK will not accept a deal that would give a role to the ECJ. Nether party is being forced to accept a deal, both parties want a deal, which is why a negotiation is taking place.

We can change it to the UK having it's "stated negotiating position" rather than the UK having "red lines" if you like. Red lines is merely the commonly used shorthand. Getting worked up about it seems like pointless nitpicking to me.

Leroy42

Jebus, now they aren't even bothering to wait for the formalities of it being published!

EU sources who have seen drafts of white paper say proposals would never be accepted

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/02/uk-latest-brexit-proposal-is-unrealistic-say-eu-officials

An Ciarraioch

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jebus, now they aren't even bothering to wait for the formalities of it being published!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/02/uk-latest-brexit-proposal-is-unrealistic-say-eu-officials

Presumably virtually the same to the draft Leo rejected, then.

Strazdas

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

So, JRM has written another Telegraph article basically calling for a "clean Brexit" at all costs, but it's backfired rather dramatically, with numerous Tory MPs queuing up on Twitter to tell him to shut up:

https://mobile.twitter.com/faisalislam/status/1013738296302858240

Meanwhile, leaks on May's "third way" continue, with suggestions it'll be on the softer end of possible options:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/02/may-to-float-third-brexit-customs-model-at-chequers-meeting

The backlash is no surprise. Can you imagine a FG backbencher criticising Varadkar or a FF one challenging Martin to this degree, heavily criticising them in newspaper articles and issuing public threats and ultimatums that they better do what they want or else? Nobody would stand for this.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Jebus, now they aren't even bothering to wait for the formalities of it being published!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/02/uk-latest-brexit-proposal-is-unrealistic-say-eu-officials

Looking like talks will fall apart after the white paper is published.

Lemming

trellheim wrote: »

with 9 months to go - Why would the ERG/JRM give in - from their point of view the prize is in sight - they have zero, absolutely zero to lose here ( or, its worth the burn to get a clean break )

The knives have started coming out for Moggy and his ERG from within the Tory back bench ranks. Whether it goes anywhere is another matter, but some of it has been quite public and ... *ahem* forthright. Too little, far too late I suspect as the well has been truly poisoned by now.

Leroy42

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Looking like talks will fall apart after the white paper is published.

According to the BrexitCast podcast, the EU have stressed that any white paper should be the UK actual position and not be driven based on the domestic audience.

They are fed up with getting these pointless positions, which the EU has already made clear they couldn't accept, and have to go through the dance of reviewing them and the rejecting them.

They want to know what it is the UK actually wants. May has made a number of contrary claims and the EU is non the wiser of what the EU actually wants (apart from everything)

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

According to the BrexitCast podcast, the EU have stressed that any white paper should be the UK actual position and not be driven based on the domestic audience.

They are fed up with getting these pointless positions, which the EU has already made clear they couldn't accept, and have to go through the dance of reviewing them and the rejecting them.

They want to know what it is the UK actually wants. May has made a number of contrary claims and the EU is non the wiser of what the EU actually wants (apart from everything)

So same position as two years ago.

FreudianSlippers

Imreoir2 wrote: »

It's not a question of imposing these on the UK. It's a question of both sides engaging in a negotiation and having their position on what they will or will not accept in a deal. The EU wont accept a pick and mix deal that, for example, allows the UK access to the Single Market without following the rules of the single market. The UK will not accept a deal that would give a role to the ECJ. Nether party is being forced to accept a deal, both parties want a deal, which is why a negotiation is taking place.

We can change it to the UK having it's "stated negotiating position" rather than the UK having "red lines" if you like. Red lines is merely the commonly used shorthand. Getting worked up about it seems like pointless nitpicking to me.

That's my point. The UK can't have red line issues because nobody is imposing anything on them; they either accept that what they want comes with obligations or they don't get what they want.

That's the EU's red line issue.

trellheim

Idea

1) EU Budget/CAP figures predicated on X amount of money

2) X amount of money includes UK contribution in post A50 transition

3) Hard Brexit means no contribution

4) Therefore EU will wish to avoid given big hole in budget

5) Thus a solid UK negotiating position.

This is all I can come up with for a lack of engagement in the EUCO last week assuming UK is an intelligent actor. ( And yes before all the posts telling me they are not , I am merely trying to come up with stuff here given a rational outlook )

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

According to the BrexitCast podcast, the EU have stressed that any white paper should be the UK actual position and not be driven based on the domestic audience.

They are fed up with getting these pointless positions, which the EU has already made clear they couldn't accept, and have to go through the dance of reviewing them and the rejecting them.

They want to know what it is the UK actually wants. May has made a number of contrary claims and the EU is non the wiser of what the EU actually wants (apart from everything)

Indeed, what is the point of submitting something to the EU knowing that it is in breach of Single Market rules and hasn't a hope of being accepted? It does smack of a PR stunt aimed at the domestic audience.

FreudianSlippers

Strazdas wrote: »

Indeed, what is the point of submitting something to the EU knowing that it is in breach of Single Market rules and hasn't a hope of being accepted? It does smack of a PR stunt aimed at the domestic audience.

The average person on the street in the UK (and Ireland) doesn't understand the EU at any great level of detail - the single market being but one of the elements that most people haven't got a clue about.

One wonders if the idea that the UK keeps putting unworkable positions to the EU (rightfully rejected) is simply a PR stunt to strengthen the resolve for Brexit is all that crazy - i.e. make the EU look like the unreasonable ones to the average voter.

The alternative is that the UK either doesn't know what it wants or doesn't understand the EU themselves?

Leroy42

I think that is exactly what they are doing. It gives them cover. If its a hard brexit and turns out bad its because the EU were bullies and didn't respect the democratic will of the UK and put unfair conditions on them.

If its a soft brexit and turns out bad, well the EU forced out hand by being bullies and had we only gotten a hard brexit things would have been much better.

If its a soft brexit and turns out grand, well imagine if we had gone full hard brexit and how much better off we would be.

THe likes of JRM and Boris can clearly see this is only going one way and need to prepare the ground for post brexit.