Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Tell me how

Infini wrote: »

No deal simply is not an option if there's a referendum it's May's deal or Remain end of story. No Deal won't be counternanced as it literally would be turkeys voting for christmas and cause the ultimate breakup of Britain. The Bullshíteers like Moggles have been put back in their box where they belong if May wants an end to this without a trainwreck that's her only option.

May is adamant her deal is the best deal and that Brexit will happen.

Should she go with the 2 options I mentioned (Current Deal/No Deal) she might appease the Brexiteers and those who think the decision to leave has to be upheld.

Few might like it, but faced with the no deal cliff, this could deliver the following.

Have a peoples vote.
Get her deal accepted.
Deliver Brexit.

Those who would scream loudest would be the ERG.
I wonder if she went this route would Labour try to pull the rug from under her and announce a No Confidence motion in the Government?

Very interesting times.

WomanSkirtFan8

Tell me how wrote: »

May is adamant her deal is the best deal and that Brexit will happen.

Should she go with the 2 options I mentioned (Current Deal/No Deal) she might appease the Brexiteers and those who think the decision to leave has to be upheld.

Few might like it, but faced with the no deal cliff, this could deliver the following.

Have a peoples vote.
Get her deal accepted.
Deliver Brexit.

Those who would scream loudest would be the ERG.
I wonder if she went this route would Labour try to pull the rug from under her and announce a No Confidence motion in the Government?

Very interesting times.

Indeed but I personally would like to see TM grow a spine and tell the ERG to F-off but don't think she will.


"Have a peoples vote.
Get her deal accepted."


Thats pretty much how I see it.:cool:

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Personally, I don't think any open-ended backstop would be agreed by any Parliament. Corbyn, for example, doesn't agree with it. Whoever replaces May won't agree to it. They would agree to rejoin the EU sooner than agree to the backstop and they are not going to rejoin the EU.

Why? Because the backstop is an open-ended commitment that the UK can't get out of unilaterally. Other commitments (such as membership of the EU) only exist while both parties wish them to continue but this goes on forever.

Personally, I don't think a no-deal Brexit would be allowed by any Parliament. Corbyn, for example, doesn't agree with it. Whoever replaces May won't agree to it. They would agree to cancel Brexit sooner than allow a no-deal Brexit and they may well be about to do just that through a second referendum should May's deal be shot down, as seems likely.

Why? Because a no-deal Brexit is an open-ended commitment that the UK can't get out of unilaterally. Other commitments, such as the backstop are clearly defined and in the case of the backstop a cross party commitment is in place to bring it to an end in good time, but a no-deal Brexit goes on unless and untill the EU and other international partners agree some other arangement to bring it to an end, this could take years at best and decades at worst, and would be hugely damaging to the UK in the meantime.

road_high

For all the endless whining from our own useless left here about how terrible our own government are, to my mind they are on a different planet of actual competence compared to the idiots over in England. Never appreciated our own independence as a nation (not part of the UK) as much as I’ve done the past while. Even if the loons take the plunge off that cliff we still will be ok as we are a pretty well run, pragmatic nation with alliances all over the world.
The uk will eventually come to its senses but make take a bit of tough love to get there at this stage

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Personally, I don't think a no-deal Brexit would be allowed by any Parliament. Corbyn, for example, doesn't agree with it. Whoever replaces May won't agree to it. They would agree to cancel Brexit sooner than allow a no-deal Brexit and they may well be about to do just that through a second referendum should May's deal be shot down, as seems likely.

Why? Because a no-deal Brexit is an open-ended commitment that the UK can't get out of unilaterally. Other commitments, such as the backstop are clearly defined and in the case of the backstop a cross party commitment is in place to bring it to an end in good time, but a no-deal Brexit goes on unless and untill the EU and other international partners agree some other arangement to bring it to an end, this could take years at best and decades at worst, and would be hugely damaging to the UK in the meantime.

Nice try I suppose, but Corbyn does not agree with the current deal, the EU have said that there will be no fundamental renegotiation and he's not willing to renegue on the referendum result. That leaves no deal.

Imreoir2

Bit cynical wrote: »

Nice try I suppose, but Corbyn does not agree with the current deal, the EU have said that there will be no fundamental renegotiation and he's not willing to renegue on the referendum result. That leaves no deal.

So he has to choose between three choices he does not agree with. What makes you think that no-deal Brexit, which is by far the worst outcome for the UK, would be his pick for least worst outcome?

road_high

How many more dramatic dashes to Brussels is t May going to do? The EU leaders seem pretty exasperated at this stage- the issue is in the UK parliament not Brussels, just get on with the vote so we can all plan for no deal.

Bit cynical

Imreoir2 wrote: »

So he has to choose between three choices he does not agree with. What makes you think that no-deal Brexit, which is by far the worst outcome for the UK, would be his pick for least worst outcome?

He could just vote against any deal involving a backstop and talk about the deal he would like to have were he in power. He doesn't have to make an explicit choice for no deal. Let the Tories suffer the conseqences of no deal. Not great for us here in Ireland of course.

AlmightyCushion

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Sky news did a report on the Irish governments preparations for Brexit and the information and funding being made available to business so that they can plan, invest in alternative markets, new product lines and logistics to get them "Brexit ready". It was stressed again and again that nothing like that is happening in the UK.

I won't pretend to be an expert on the response to Brexit in the UK business community though from the reports I have read it seems that there is a huge amount of heads being buryed in the sand. Most businesses have done very little to prepare, those that have tried are hampered by the fact that they really don't know what to preare for and even if they did know what a no-deal Brexit would really look like for their business, they can't justify investing in implementing a contengency plan because it would be a huge waste of money should it not happen. While the problems of Brexit can be planned for and mitigated by Irish business in large part by securing alternative supply lines or shifting to alternative markets, these solutions are not really available to business based in the UK. They can't invest in alternative markets because a no-deal Brexit creates new barriers for all of their markets at the same time. They can't sort out alternative supply lines because the roads between their premises and the ports will become the worlds longest truck park. Those UK businesses that are big enough and rich enought to invest in proper contengency plans seem to be focusing on getting out of the UK in part or in some cases compleatly. Their contengency plans look like opening new EU based subsiduaries and moving some staff and operations to EU based branches. Many other businesses, in a no-deal Brexit, will simply cease trading, there is no plan that could save them.

The problem is the companies can't prepare for Brexit because they don't know what to prepare for. It's easier for us in Ireland, we decrease our reliance on trade with Britain by sourcing imports from other EU countries instead of Britain and we try to grow exports to other countries. That's obviously incredibly simplified but you get the jist. What are British companies meant to prepare for? They have no idea what type of Brexit they are getting, it could be no deal Brexit or Brexit in name only or anywhere in between. They can't really prepare because they have no idea what to prepare for.

Imagine your friend told you they were taking you on holiday. They haven't decided where to go yet but when they do they'll tell you. You have no idea where you're going or what the climate will be like. You could be going on a sun holiday in Dubai or a skiing holiday up the alps. Do you pack your bags now and just take a guess on the climate or do you wait until they tell you? That's the conundrum companies are in right now (and it's not just British companies, it's companies that have operations in Britain). They haven't been able to put any significant plans in place because they didn't know what they were planning for.

Christy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Ireland's priority has always been the border. It is the way a lot of trade goes through. It also affects a large number of people very directly on the land as well as inviting back violence to those regions.

As we have seen from the US trade deals are subject to change. A backstop is a far more permanent win.

The UK has already signed up to a soft border I would also point out. They tried to take it back as soon as they were out of the negotiation room but they did. They have promised technological solutions which should assure them the backstop is not needed permanently.

Finally you have to wonder if the UK Parliament would accept any serious deal. It is well over two years since the vote and we have not gotten past Brexit means Brexit. If they ever get a position sorted out negotiations could happen.

Personally, I don't think any open-ended backstop would be agreed by any Parliament. Corbyn, for example, doesn't agree with it. Whoever replaces May won't agree to it. They would agree to rejoin the EU sooner than agree to the backstop and they are not going to rejoin the EU.

Why? Because the backstop is an open-ended commitment that the UK can't get out of unilaterally. Other commitments (such as membership of the EU) only exist while both parties wish them to continue but this goes on forever.

Like I said in an earlier post, us wanting something badly does not make it reasonable in the eyes of others.

It is true that the backstop is a permanent win...if it is won. But only if it is won. A trade deal is not permanent but can be achieved. Though its terms may change in time, there's generally a mutual interest in keeping it going.

There is but how much will continue to suit us over time?

How much will we pay for hanging our own out to dry? How much will we pay in blood if violence returns?

We have to try and there is decent odds of the UK giving up given the cliff edge they are on.

Your solution is simply saying the EU will give up everything if you hold out for long enough.

Infini

road_high wrote: »

How many more dramatic dashes to Brussels is t May going to do? The EU leaders seem pretty exasperated at this stage- the issue is in the UK parliament not Brussels, just get on with the vote so we can all plan for no deal.

Believe thats the message May was given in Brussels today. Basically get your house in order because theres no further negotiations. Clarifications are fine but if theres anything to note about the EUs impatience is that theyre taking put the nicety language and making it explicit and to the point.

Capt'n Midnight

The UK’s former representative to the EU, Full speech: Sir Ivan Rogers on Brexit

Good read.

Cato the Elder

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Crassus and his fire fighting scam is probably the role model for JRM & Co.

Furthermore, I consider that free movement must be destroyed.

10000maniacs

road_high wrote: »

For all the endless whining from our own useless left here about how terrible our own government are, to my mind they are on a different planet of actual competence compared to the idiots over in England. Never appreciated our own independence as a nation (not part of the UK) as much as I’ve done the past while. Even if the loons take the plunge off that cliff we still will be ok as we are a pretty well run, pragmatic nation with alliances all over the world.
The uk will eventually come to its senses but make take a bit of tough love to get there at this stage

The only difference between them and us is that we elected to embrace Europe. Imagine the cluster if we decided to leave the EU in 2010 as a lot of people were suggesting at the time. You had all sorts of waffle like "See how Iceland have bounced back" and such.
Our cluster would have been a lot worse if we went down that path.

Bit cynical

Christy42 wrote: »

There is but how much will continue to suit us over time?

I'm not saying a trade deal would suit Ireland forever but it may be all we can resonably expect in the long run. It may be that an agreement that effectively permanently binds the UK into a backstop may not be realistic.

How much will we pay for hanging our own out to dry? How much will we pay in blood if violence returns?

The open border isn't the only thing preventing violence. Measures such as prisoner release, Ireland's relinquishment of its claim to the North played a part in gaining peace. A border which is no longer open but provides reasonably free movement may put a strain on the GFA, but less so, I would argue than a no deal which would impose the hardest of borders.

We have to try and there is decent odds of the UK giving up given the cliff edge they are on.

So long as we recognise that this is the calculation we are making. If we genuinely believe that there is a good chance either of the May deal being accepted or A50 being revoked, then the current strategy is correct.

If on the other hand, there is not such a good chance, then the strategy is incorrect and we are actually doing more harm to the prospects of peace as well as economic prosperity.

Your solution is simply saying the EU will give up everything if you hold out for long enough.

Although the member states will go along with the current May deal, they would be reasonably happy with a comprehensive trade deal if it is also acceptable to Ireland. My view is that it is primarily the EU leadership which is using Ireland and the backstop as a means of forcing the UK to choose between no deal on the one hand or humiliation on the other with Ireland taking the hit in the case of no deal.

briany

Bit cynical wrote: »

The open border isn't the only thing preventing violence. Measures such as prisoner release, Ireland's relinquishment of its claim to the North played a part in gaining peace. A border which is no longer open but provides reasonably free movement may put a strain on the GFA, but less so, I would argue than a no deal which would impose the hardest of borders.

In peace time we have seen a gradual straining of relations between the main political parties in Northern Ireland, such that Stormont collapsed. Any hardening of the border is going to further the political polarisation in NI, and Brexiteers seem to be of the opinion that this is a worthy sacrifice. It is a most regressive development in their attitude.

fash

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not saying a trade deal would suit Ireland forever but it may be all we can resonably expect in the long run. It may be that an agreement that effectively permanently binds the UK into a backstop may not be realistic.

Firstly, so what. Worst case scenario, the UK doesn't agree, falls of the EU and eventually comes back looking for some form of deal - likely within months.
At that point of time, Ireland can soften its stance if it really needs to - which is unlikely as a crash out will mean a change in UK government and likely a government with a strong mandate.
So what if we take a temporary economic hit -
Some things are more important than economics - if it has taught us anything, brexit should have taught us that.

Bit cynical wrote: »

So long as we recognise that this is the calculation we are making. If we genuinely believe that there is a good chance either of the May deal being accepted or A50 being revoked, then the current strategy is correct.

If on the other hand, there is not such a good chance, then the strategy is incorrect and we are actually doing more harm to the prospects of peace as well as economic prosperity.

Although the member states will go along with the current May deal, they would be reasonably happy with a comprehensive trade deal if it is also acceptable to Ireland. My view is that it is primarily the EU leadership which is using Ireland and the backstop as a means of forcing the UK to choose between no deal on the one hand or humiliation on the other with Ireland taking the hit in the case of no deal.

Don't forget that Theresa May and all of the UK government signed off on stage 1 of the WA discussions and were happy with it and this followed months of guarantees to the same effect that no border would be allowed - it was only afterwards that they changed their minds. Aside from anything else, why should we show them to back out of the "political" commitment?

I think you are wrong about the EU insofar as I think that insofar as the UK says no border, Ireland says no border, the EU won't be the first to move to say "ha, ha - border". Only if the UK openly said "actually we need a border", and Ireland said "that's ok" would the EU move forward on that basis. But the time for that discussion was during phase 1 of the WA process- not now when the WA is drafted.
Instead what the border issue is to the EU is and was was the rock of reality upon which the delusions of Brexit would crack open in one direction or another. At that point, the UK chose "no border" (or more correctly preferred to keep the delusion afloat a little longer and the nearest rock was the border issue due to sequencing by Ireland and the EU).

Watching Blair talk about Brexit there.. That man is tarnished by Iraq, but there is a pragmatism in Blair and Major that is totally lacking in British politics nowadays. Maybe it's their position now that allows them to speak like this, but the UK really needs one, just politician who could be a PM who can lead.

When I watch the Commons, I see various faces who speak well and seem sensible. I don't understand the nuances enough to see how Boris could ever be above them politically.

Has it been too easy for the last 20 years? Those two men dealt with serious issues (perhaps badly) and it seems to have grounded them in reality.

Kermit.de.frog

Crazy a few years a go to think we would be where we are.

Let's assume Brexit proceeds and Britain leaves.

It strikes me that the leverage Ireland has now is not temporary - it's permanent.

If Ireland remains part of the EU that would seem to imply that (as Channel 4 puts it) Ireland is the more "powerful" of the islands simply due to being in the EU. The whole dynamic is completely changed.

I expect a lot more UK PM visits to Ireland rather than Taoisaigh having to go to London all the time.

If you had suggested this 3 years a go it would have been absurd.

So how does it change the dynamics between London and Dublin?

It's fascinating.

zapitastas

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Watching Blair talk about Brexit there.. That man is tarnished by Iraq, but there is a pragmatism in Blair and Major that is totally lacking in British politics nowadays. Maybe it's their position now that allows them to speak like this, but the UK really needs one, just politician who could be a PM who can lead.

When I watch the Commons, I see various faces who speak well and seem sensible. I don't understand the nuances enough to see how Boris could ever be above them politically.

Has it been too easy for the last 20 years? Those two men dealt with serious issues (perhaps badly) and it seems to have grounded them in reality.

I would say that Blair played his part in the brexit referendum being passed. The immigration crisis that engulfed Europe around the time of the vote certainly had its genesis in the second gulf war.

Water John

Major was a good PM, Was a good friend of Ireland always. Did not come from the Tory/Eton elite.

I see Lb need to table their no confidence vote. Then 2nd Ref, May's Deal or Remain, with the main Parties in Parliament agreeing to abide by the result.
Has the big adv of sidelining the DUP.

Podge_irl

Bit cynical wrote: »

Personally, I don't think any open-ended backstop would be agreed by any Parliament. Corbyn, for example, doesn't agree with it. Whoever replaces May won't agree to it. They would agree to rejoin the EU sooner than agree to the backstop and they are not going to rejoin the EU.

Why? Because the backstop is an open-ended commitment that the UK can't get out of unilaterally. Other commitments (such as membership of the EU) only exist while both parties wish them to continue but this goes on forever.

Well they can get out of it unilaterally insofar as they can always back out of whatever deal they have with the EU. But that would signal the end of whatever WA or FTA they are in at the time.

Bit cynical wrote: »

My view is that it is primarily the EU leadership which is using Ireland and the backstop as a means of forcing the UK to choose between no deal on the one hand or humiliation on the other with Ireland taking the hit in the case of no deal.

Yes, but why. Given every single public pronouncement by both Ireland and EU leaders has implied Ireland is driving the decision-making on the backstop, why do you think they are all lying?

ancapailldorcha

zapitastas wrote: »

I would say that Blair played his part in the brexit referendum being passed. The immigration crisis that engulfed Europe around the time of the vote certainly had its genesis in the second gulf war.

What I think is worse is that Blair and his successors legitimized the idea of dismissing things as fakes news. Imagine if someone dismissed the following as fake news:

• Tony Blair says that we must go to war in Iraq because they have WMD's
• Nick Clegg promises to prevent tuition fees from rising
• David Cameron promises no top-down reorganizations of the NHS

They'd be proven right.

breatheme

Bit cynical wrote: »

A border which is no longer open but provides reasonably free movement may put a strain on the GFA, but less so, I would argue than a no deal which would impose the hardest of borders.

Someone needs to raise this. The border is binary. There is one or there isn't one. And if there is one, then the CTA may be honoured by not requiring that people have a passport when crossing the border, but all goods MUST be checked, and with no backstop there is no "softening" of said hypothetical border.

Christy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

There is but how much will continue to suit us over time?

I'm not saying a trade deal would suit Ireland forever but it may be all we can resonably expect in the long run. It may be that an agreement that effectively permanently binds the UK into a backstop may not be realistic.

How much will we pay for hanging our own out to dry? How much will we pay in blood if violence returns?

The open border isn't the only thing preventing violence. Measures such as prisoner release, Ireland's relinquishment of its claim to the North played a part in gaining peace. A border which is no longer open but provides reasonably free movement may put a strain on the GFA, but less so, I would argue than a no deal which would impose the hardest of borders.

We have to try and there is decent odds of the UK giving up given the cliff edge they are on.

So long as we recognise that this is the calculation we are making. If we genuinely believe that there is a good chance either of the May deal being accepted or A50 being revoked, then the current strategy is correct.

If on the other hand, there is not such a good chance, then the strategy is incorrect and we are actually doing more harm to the prospects of peace as well as economic prosperity.

Your solution is simply saying the EU will give up everything if you hold out for long enough.

Although the member states will go along with the current May deal, they would be reasonably happy with a comprehensive trade deal if it is also acceptable to Ireland. My view is that it is primarily the EU leadership which is using Ireland and the backstop as a means of forcing the UK to choose between no deal on the one hand or humiliation on the other with Ireland taking the hit in the case of no deal.

You have not addressed the issue of people on the border taking a massive hit with a hard border even with a trade deal. The Irish government would be amiss to abandon those people so easily.

It really is saying just keep holding out and the EU should eventually fold. In this case the EU and Ireland is being offered a relatively minor benefit despite being the stronger party but because the opposition is being stubborn the EU should give in to all demands. That so silly and sets a terrible precedent. The following week May would be back saying we want a better trade deal or we crash out. Rinse and repeat.

Finally the open border is a pretty big part of the lack of violence. British troops on the border will not be taken well and they couldn't police it the last time.

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

A UK crash out no deal would be a small problem if it followed a two year transition where new customs facilities were built and staffed, new procedures for customs documentation were put in place at exporters by extensive training and additional staff. New facilities were provided for stock keeping to cover for loss of JIT deliveries of needed production inventory. Of course, it would increase cost of production, increase staff costs, and reduce flexibility for the economy, but it would be doable - costly but doable.

That would be less damaging than a crashout, but the truth is that given enough time, manufacturers in car and aviation sectors would simply leave for the EU where JIT could continue as is rather than jump back 50 years into the past.

Ellian

Christy42 wrote: »

Finally the open border is a pretty big part of the lack of violence. British troops on the border will not be taken well and they couldn't police it the last time.

When I attended the People's Vote march, I got chatting to a nice old boy who was a retired Economics lecturer. He made a good point to me that not only would a hard border in and of itself be a catalyst for a re-commencement of violence, but that it would produce exactly the set of economic circumstances that would be a Petri dish for pushing dis-enfranchised angry young men in that direction.

judeboy101

Cabinet reportedly split between
Norway plus, referendum and no deal.

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Crazy a few years a go to think we would be where we are.

Let's assume Brexit proceeds and Britain leaves.

It strikes me that the leverage Ireland has now is not temporary - it's permanent.

If Ireland remains part of the EU that would seem to imply that (as Channel 4 puts it) Ireland is the more "powerful" of the islands simply due to being in the EU. The whole dynamic is completely changed.

I expect a lot more UK PM visits to Ireland rather than Taoisaigh having to go to London all the time.

If you had suggested this 3 years a go it would have been absurd.

So how does it change the dynamics between London and Dublin?

It's fascinating.

I'm not to sure the longterm power balance will be too different, beyond Brexit Ireland will be just one of 27. As long as the border remains then Irish concerns will be up there when the UK is dealing with the EU, which may well push the UK establishment into a reconsideration of just how precious the Union really is. Outside of this though, I think the change in the overall relationship will be one of greater distance and less convergant interests than a change in the power dynamic.

ancapailldorcha

The BBC news has reported that while Britons will not have to apply for visas to visit EU countries, they will have to apply for a €7 ETIAS document which allows for infinite entries and exits within a 3-year period for short stays.

Story here:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46564884