Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Peregrinus

Bambi wrote: »

I'm basing it on the wording RTE used, which is probably straight from the Government Press Office.

Nope. Tony Connelly's source on what's in the settled text is Brussels, not Dublin.

Bambi wrote: »

Tomorrow will tell. The backstop detail is crucial. Arbitration, mutual review etc. can be utterly meaningless by design. I suspect the EU blinked massively or watered down the backstop in return for something that they really wanted.

The backstop detail is crucial, but as regards the review mechanism all we have from Tony Connelly is "there is a review mechanism". No detail at all. So your suspicions that the EU "blinked massively" here, contrary to what you say, don't seem to be based on the wording RTE used.

The EU blinked a couple of weeks back, when they acceded to the UK request for a UK-wide backstop [that didn't involve accepting free movement]. That was the big blink. At this point I see no particular reason to expect another. Far more likely that any blinking has been done by the UK.

judeboy101

Nobody has walked overnight. That's not a good sign as it means the brexiteers on cabinet see something that allows them to weasel out of deal in 21 months.

Zubeneschamali

Of course we must wait to see the detail, but this is a more abject capitulation by May than even I was expecting. I was predicting May would bluff until December and fold just in time for a December summit and agree to Canada++ with a NI backstop.


But this is a closer relationship than that, with the whole UK in a Customs Union, staying aligned closely enough to avoid checks in the Irish Sea, and swallowing a tonne of EU regulations to ensure a level playing field across the CU. No bonfire of workers rights, regulations and food standards, no Global Britain trade deals.


I think what I missed was that Gove and others in the Conservative party are actually quite Unionist - I thought May would just toss the DUP under the bus, instead she has tossed Global Britain under the bus to keep unionists in her own party on board.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

Nobody has walked overnight. That's not a good sign as it means the brexiteers on cabinet see something that allows them to weasel out of deal in 21 months.

Always with the cheerfulness, Judeboy!

I very much doubt this means what you think it means. This is a 500-page document of (by all reports, deliberately) dense, dense text. And the brexiters in the cabinet include those who have only just learned that Great Britain is an island and those who signed the (much shorter, much clearer) Joint Report last December without having understood it. The notion that in the hours since this document was delivered to Downing Street they have mastered its detail and are justifiably confident that it guarantees the outcome they want is not a very plausible one.

A much more likely explanation for why they haven't resigned overnight is that they haven't yet digested it and do not know if it meets whatever tests they are minded to set for it.

The likelihood, I suggest (without having read the text, of course) is that it will not meet their tests, since their tests are basically unreasonable, from the EU's point of view. There's no reason to expect the EU to meet them.

If I am right in this, that will give the cabinet brexiteers a choice:

1. Walk.

2. Swallow hard and stay put, justifying this either by choosing to accept the assurances of others that the text gives them what they want (as happened last December) or by persuading themselves that no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic, while Brexit on this deal is at least Brexit, and provides a base from which to work for further taking-back-of-control. (The Michael Collins gambit, as it were. And we know how that worked out for Big Mick, don't we?)

There are some straws in the wind which suggest that some of them at least are considering option #2. About a week ago Liam Fox stopped attaching free trade deal hashtags to all his tweets, suggesting he's expecting to accept a WA that leaves the UK unable to make trade deals. Raab's humiliating claim to have just discovered the economic significance of the Dover-Calais link looks pretty clearly like an attempt to clear the way for a volte-face.

None of this means that no Brexiteer will walk from cabinet. But if they didn't do so in the past months, they are clearly not keen to, so if they can persuade themselves that remaining in cabinet is consistent with Brexity honour, they will probably stay in cabinet. And the (reportedly) complex and cryptic text of the draft agreement probably makes it easier to persuade themselves of that.

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

Always with the cheerfulness, Judeboy!

I very much doubt this means what you think it means. This is a 500-page document of (by all reports, deliberately) dense, dense text. And the brexiters in the cabinet include those who have only just learned that Great Britain is an island and those who signed the (much shorter, much clearer) Joint Report last December without having understood it. The notion that in the hours since this document was delivered to Downing Street they have mastered its detail and are justifiably confident that it guarantees the outcome they want is not a very plausible one.

A much more likely explanation for why they haven't resigned overnight is that they haven't yet digested it and do not know if it meets whatever tests they are minded to set for it.

The likelihood, I suggest (without having read the text, of course) is that it will not meet their tests, since their tests are basically unreasonable, from the EU's point of view. There's no reason to expect the EU to meet them.

If I am right in this, that will give the cabinet brexiteers a choice:

1. Walk.

2. Swallow hard and stay put, justifying this either by choosing to accept the assurances of others that the text gives them what they want (as happened last December) or by persuading themselves that no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic, while Brexit on this deal is at least Brexit, and provides a base from which to work for further taking-back-of-control. (The Michael Collins gambit, as it were. And we know how that worked out for Big Mick, don't we?)

There are some straws in the wind which suggest that some of them at least are considering option #2. About a week ago Liam Fox stopped attaching free trade deal hashtags to all his tweets, suggesting he's expecting to accept a WA that leaves the UK unable to make trade deals. Raab's humiliating claim to have just discovered the economic significance of the Dover-Calais link looks pretty clearly like an attempt to clear the way for a volte-face.

None of this means that no Brexiteer will walk from cabinet. But if they didn't do so in the past months, they are clearly not keen to, so if they can persuade themselves that remaining in cabinet is consistent with Brexity honour, they will probably stay in cabinet. And the (reportedly) complex and cryptic text of the draft agreement probably makes it easier to persuade themselves of that.

But we have been constantly fed a line by leo and EU that 1. No cherry picking of 4 pillars of sm
2. Ni only
3. Ni specific backstop to backstop
4. Decision to leave backstop will multilateral (now an independent non eu panel) will decide.

This is all coming from tony Connelly leaks.

It would take 10 seconds to flick to page on NI in a 500 page document same for exit clause page.

No one walked, doubt anyone will.
No riots by unionists because they know the Irish have been sold another pup, shades of Collins in Whitehall springs to mind.

zapitastas

judeboy101 wrote: »

Nobody has walked overnight. That's not a good sign as it means the brexiteers on cabinet see something that allows them to weasel out of deal in 21 months.

The worrying thing is that the agreement reached in December to allow the movement to phase 2 contained an element that didn't limit the CU to the north. How could the EU negotiators not tie that down and leave such a gaping hole in the initial agreement. Any crack will be exploited so hopefully they will be a little more thorough this time. Vague agreements make poor agreements

LeinsterDub

judeboy101 wrote: »

But we have been constantly fed a line by leo and EU that 1. No cherry picking of 4 pillars of sm
2. Ni only
3. Ni specific backstop to backstop
4. Decision to leave backstop will multilateral (now an independent non eu panel) will decide.

This is all coming from tony Connelly leaks.

It would take 10 seconds to flick to page on NI in a 500 page document same for exit clause page.

No one walked, doubt anyone will.
No riots by unionists because they know the Irish have been sold another pup, shades of Collins in Whitehall springs to mind.

Why do we care if the backstop is UK wide as long as it applies to NI? Our main goal was to avoid a hard border. This looks to have been achieved. Remember it looked likely just this week that attempting to ensure no hard border was going to result in a hard border

FrancieBrady

'Unless and until' formulation still in there according to Connelly.

Rhineshark

I think there is a bit too much panicky buying into the British line, that Ireland is destined to get shafted by the Evil Empire. Enough that measures to soothe the UK is freaking out Irish people and I don't think it is neccessary.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1010690/ -Connolly
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1062440275958816768?s=19 - Robert Peston analysis.

We don't have to be too wedded to the precise form as long as the essentials are the same. Caveat on not having read the thing yet (and I will be once it's publically available) but the essentials appear to be present and likely to draw the DUP like enraged sniffer dogs.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

But we have been constantly fed a line by leo and EU that 1. No cherry picking of 4 pillars of sm
2. Ni only
3. Ni specific backstop to backstop
4. Decision to leave backstop will multilateral (now an independent non eu panel) will decide.

This is all coming from tony Connelly leaks.

It would take 10 seconds to flick to page on NI in a 500 page document same for exit clause page.

No one walked, doubt anyone will.
No riots by unionists because they know the Irish have been sold another pup, shades of Collins in Whitehall springs to mind.

You're a little ray of sunshine, aren't you?

We haven't seen the text yet.

There are reports that the NI specific provisions have, for optical reasons, been disaggregated and distributed among the wider text so that May can present herself has having avoided a "backstop to the backstop", while the deal still provides NI-specific terms, but just doesn't trumpet the fact. This, if true, is precisely the kind of "dedramatisation" that Barnier has been urging on the UK for months now.

You say that an "independent, non-EU panel" will decide if and when the UK can leave the backstop. Again, I haven't seen the text and neither (I presume) have you. What do you base this on? Certainly not (as you claim) Tony Connelly leaks; literally the full extent of what he has tweeted about this is "a review mechanism is understood to be part of the text".

And your assertion that unionists know that Ireland have been sold a pup also seems premature. Unionists can't know that; they haven't seen the text yet.

You seem to have decided a priori that the EU will cave, and to read all news reports through that filter. I prefer to wait for the publication of the text, and for commentary by people who have studied it.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why do we care if the backstop is UK wide as long as it applies to NI? Our main goal was to avoid a hard border. This looks to have been achieved. Remember it looked likely just this week that attempting to ensure no hard border was going to result in a hard border

Far from caring about a UK-wide backstop, we love it. The more closely integrated GB is with the EU, the less damage to IRL/GB trade. If keeping the border open was our first priority, our second would definitely be minimising barriers to trade between Irl and GB. If we get both of these . . . well, maybe it is possible to have your cake and eat it, after all!

Rhineshark

Peregrinus wrote: »

Far from caring about a UK-wide backstop, we love it. The more closely integrated GB is with the EU, the less damage to IRL/GB trade. If keeping the border open was our first priority, our second would definitely be minimising barriers to trade between Irl and GB. If we get both of these . . . well, maybe it is possible to have your cake and eat it, after all!

As a note of caution even so, it is entirely possible that May will try get this through as "it's only so we can get to the negotiations later on", "We don't have to actually uphold any of this" and/or "This cannot be binding on a future Parliament".

The one thing that the Tories can do is unilaterally renage on whatever they sign up to, by incompetence or maliciousness to try break it later, not least since they don't have the imagination to consider European reaction. Normally this would not be a consideration in a multilateral agreement but...

But this would be a potential peril of any agreement with the UK gov.

Mc Love

JRM saying on LBC this morning, that its a terrible deal. Same as Ian Duncan Smith saying its not what they signed up to.

Tell me how

Total hypothetical question here.

If for some bizarre reason, the Irish population had to vote on whether this deal was acceptable to proceed, would you vote for it or against? (Still with the best interest of Ireland at heart).

Would you think this is enough to limit damage and see how we get on so let's do it?
Or would you chance that the threat of a No Deal will ultimately be enough to force a 2nd referendum with the string possibility the UK would vote to remain at that point.

Enzokk

Here we have Bloomberg on deal.


Theresa May's Brexit Deal: What We Know So Far

According to the piece if after the transition the UK stays in the deal then they will contribute £10b per year to be part of the customs union and single market.

The Money
Toward the end of the transitional period in 2020, the U.K. will be able to choose between extending these existing status quo trade terms -- at a price of continuing its annual payments of about 10 billion pounds ($13 billion) to the EU -- or dropping out of the single market and customs union and into the Irish border backstop.

That would mean no need for such payments, but it would also mean committing to keeping inside the EU’s customs regime indefinitely.

Future Partnership

The 600-page divorce deal also contains a far shorter blueprint for the future relationship between the U.K. and the EU.

This draft makes clear that the backstop arrangement for Northern Ireland will set the baseline for friction-free trade across the Irish border for the long term. Any future trade deal must provide as a minimum the same open border on the island of Ireland.

The draft text holds out the prospect -- which Brexit backers crave -- of a slimmed down, Canada-style free trade agreement. But it will only be for mainland Britain. If the government chooses such a deal, Northern Ireland will have to remain inside the backstop customs regime of the EU while the rest of the country goes its separate way.
Such an outcome will be unacceptable to Tories who value the union of the United Kingdom, and those DUP politicians who prop up May’s minority government

At least according to this article it seems the only compromise from the EU was to allow a all UK customs union but the UK has agreed to the NI backstop. The compromise of an all UK customs union is actually a positive for the EU as well.

seamus

Mc Love wrote: »

JRM saying on LBC this morning, that its a terrible deal. Same as Ian Duncan Smith saying its not what they signed up to.

Of course, I doubt any of these people have even seen the text.

These individuals should just be starved of oxygen; they provide no useful input to the debate, they have their position and it is immune to any new facts or deals. There is nothing further to be gained by interviewing them.

BonnieSituation

Tell me how wrote: »

Total hypothetical question here.

If for some bizarre reason, the Irish population had to vote on whether this deal was acceptable to proceed, would you vote for it or against? (Still with the best interest of Ireland at heart).

Would you think this is enough to limit damage and see how we get on so let's do it?
Or would you chance that the threat of a No Deal will ultimately be enough to force a 2nd referendum with the string possibility the UK would vote to remain at that point.

Well having not seen it I would be a bit reticent to vote for it. That being a shocking demonstration of the Irish to bother to better inform themselves before making decision of such gravity.

UsedToWait

Tell me how wrote: »

Total hypothetical question here.

If for some bizarre reason, the Irish population had to vote on whether this deal was acceptable to proceed, would you vote for it or against? (Still with the best interest of Ireland at heart).

Would you think this is enough to limit damage and see how we get on so let's do it?
Or would you chance that the threat of a No Deal will ultimately be enough to force a 2nd referendum with the string possibility the UK would vote to remain at that point.

I'd like to read it first, and listen to the analysis of the Referendum Commission before making a decision on such a fundamental constitutional issue.

Just like the British population didn't.

LeinsterDub

Enzokk wrote: »

Here we have Bloomberg on deal.


Theresa May's Brexit Deal: What We Know So Far

According to the piece if after the transition the UK stays in the deal then they will contribute £10b per year to be part of the customs union and single market.



At least according to this article it seems the only compromise from the EU was to allow a all UK customs union but the UK has agreed to the NI backstop. The compromise of an all UK customs union is actually a positive for the EU as well.

Interesting. And as if to illustrate how much is unknown that report claimed the document is 600 pages long, the majority I've seen claim it 500 and others have said 700. We simply don't know anything but rumour yet.

FrancieBrady

Any comments coming from Barnier yet?

Peregrinus

Rhineshark wrote: »

As a note of caution even so, it is entirely possible that May will try get this through as "it's only so we can get to the negotiations later on", "We don't have to actually uphold any of this" and/or "This cannot be binding on a future Parliament".

The one thing that the Tories can do is unilaterally renage on whatever they sign up to, by incompetence or maliciousness to try break it later, not least since they don't have the imagination to consider European reaction. Normally this would not be a consideration in a multilateral agreement but...

But this would be a potential peril of any agreement with the UK gov.

Yes, absolutely.

But I think the key to managing this is to ensure that the deal does give the UK something valuable. Then, if they welch on the deal, they lose something of value to them, so the cost of welching goes up, so they have less incentive to do it.

That's one of the attractions (from our point of view) of the compromise that allows the UK a UK-wide backstop without accepting free movement. If they welch on the deal, that means significant barriers to trade between the UK and the EU-27 go up.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Any comments coming from Barnier yet?

Pas encore. My guess is that he'll keep schtumm until Teresa says something, and then he'll say something positive but bland.

judeboy101

"You're a little ray of sunshine, aren't you?"

Exactly what the EU would write into WA in order to dedramatise it. But wait, here comes the UK "well actually, there are no 'rays of sunshine' as the sun emits visible light as photons which have a dual particle/wave nature" so we have a loop hole.

joe40

It appears that labour seem to be rejecting this deal, (as speculated on) in order to get a closer customs union arrangement, or a new vote for some labour members but not Corbyn. Their position on this is not clear.

Is there time for a new general election for labour to win and then negotiate their own deal, or new vote or whatever they decide.

Basically can the March deadline be extended, or is this the only option before a no deal exit in march

LeinsterDub

judeboy101 wrote: »

"You're a little ray of sunshine, aren't you?"

Exactly what the EU would write into WA in order to dedramatise it. But wait, here comes the UK "well actually, there are no 'rays of sunshine' as the sun emits visible light as photons which have a dual particle/wave nature" so we have a loop hole.

If the UK are going to be disingenuous or in fact simply outright deceitful there is nothing the EU can do except refuse to deal with them at such a time that it becomes clear that is their agenda.

No trade deal, no cross border cooperation and as such hard border. Until such time we negotiate it good faith.

Peregrinus

joe40 wrote: »

It appears that labour seem to be rejecting this deal, (as speculated on) in order to get a closer customs union arrangement, or a new vote for some labour members but not Corbyn. Their position on this is not clear.

Is there time for a new general election for labour to win and then negotiate their own deal, or new vote or whatever they decide.

Basically can the March deadline be extended, or is this the only option before a no deal exit in march

The March deadline can be extended with the unanimous consent of the EU-27, which is only likely to be given if it creates the likelihood of a materially better outcome (for the EU-27) than not extending it.

If the EU endorses this deal then I expect the would not agree to any extension to facilitate a possible UK attempt to get a harder deal. They might agree to an extension if a new Labour government wanted to seek a softer deal, or to run a second referendum with a "remain" option offered.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1062608192327372800

Nicola: Throw this on the giant pile marked kindling for indy ref 2!

AdamD

Mc Love wrote: »

JRM saying on LBC this morning, that its a terrible deal. Same as Ian Duncan Smith saying its not what they signed up to.

Except they never signed up to anything :pac:

seamus

joe40 wrote: »

Basically can the March deadline be extended, or is this the only option before a no deal exit in march

Article 50 specifically allows for the deadline to be extended, once such an extension is approved by all member states.

Realistically the UK will have to prove that the reason it's asking for an extension is to give more time to pursue tangible actions rather than, "We need more time to work out a deal". If we are no further along in March 2019 than we were in March 2017, then at least one member state will veto any extension request because it's clearly just pointless time wasting.

barry181091

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/NicolaSturgeon/status/1062608192327372800

Nicola: Throw this on the giant pile marked kindling for indy ref 2!

You actually cannot blame her at all! One section of the country getting a massive benefit. This could see massive investment in NI as they have their finger in both pies, if it worked out this way of course. :pac:

It's almost as if the best deal is staying in the EU! Why did they leave again?