Brexit Discussion Thread VI

_Puma_

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I agree with you on all the paragraphs in your post except the one I have put in bold regarding the GFA. That is too dangerous unless they drop NI altogether and with it the DUP MPs as well.

Maybe the DUP would put pressure on May after Brexit to bring back direct rule on NI to please the DUP who never liked to share power with SF anyway. That because May is depending on the back up of her govt by the 10 DUP MPs until 2022. That's no bright prospect for the future, but with Brexit it is bleak anyway.

It truly is a terrifying prospect but as of now, the way I see it is we are letting the British government off the hook regarding their obligations to the GFA. If they are not going to hold up their end then let them impose their will which is contrary to the wishes of the majority of people of these Islands and all that comes with it. The DUP's day in the sun will eventually come to an end, reality will set in for the administration. There are no bright prospects for Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom in the immediate future in any of the current scenarios.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The timetable for a second referendum is almost certainly very long. The legal minimum would be at least 4 months. Even this would require a large and cross-party majority willing to immediately vote it through. In addition, there would have to be no amendments, it would have to be binary i.e. not multi-option, and no legal challenges to the regulatory framework and conduct rules.

Considering the disparate and bitter nature of today's parliament, there is zero chance of a referendum within that time framework. At best, maybe next September. However, with EU elections in May, the EU isn't going to allow an extension to Article 50 without some cast iron guarantees as the last thing they will want is their elections muddied by Brexit infighting. So, a referendum isn't a panacea for all Brexit ills.

I'm convinced that the EU27 will have no problem extending Article 50 to accommodate an informed referendum with Remain on the table.

The issue is with Parliament, as it always was given that most of what the EU gets blamed for is down to elected governments. I think the chances of a referendum on the deal just increased due to the present stalemate. The EU have no incentive to go back to negotiating. All it would take is a few more prominent political figures to back it. Perhaps the leader of the opposition...

murphaph

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The timetable for a second referendum is almost certainly very long. The legal minimum would be at least 4 months. Even this would require a large and cross-party majority willing to immediately vote it through. In addition, there would have to be no amendments, it would have to be binary i.e. not multi-option, and no legal challenges to the regulatory framework and conduct rules.

Considering the disparate and bitter nature of today's parliament, there is zero chance of a referendum within that time framework. At best, maybe next September. However, with EU elections in May, the EU isn't going to allow an extension to Article 50 without some cast iron guarantees as the last thing they will want is their elections muddied by Brexit infighting. So, a referendum isn't a panacea for all Brexit ills.

I think a 2nd ref seems really unlikely given the EUPARL elections would appear to prevent A50 being extended beyond that date.

BRINO seems the likeliest to me as once May caves in on SM & CU the vast majority of the Labour party MPs can be on board with that.

If she doesn't cave then even several of her own ministers will vote to withdraw A50 rather than crash out, including the Chancellor.

EdgeCase

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Back in the 80's people were smuggling 21 inch tv's across the border...

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2018/1206/1015520-smuggling-electrical-goods/

That could end up going either way too - depending on what happens in the UK.

seamus

_Puma_ wrote: »

It truly is a terrifying prospect but as of now, the way I see it is we are letting the British government off the hook regarding their obligations to the GFA.

I think it's quite the opposite tbh.

The UK are trying to insist on having no backstop and instead just an agreement about what next with the border. We know the Brits too well, their insistence on no backstop is so that they can have the freedom to renege on any border agreement without consequence.

The argument over the backstop is essentially the UK looking to be let off the hook over their GFA obligations, and Ireland and the EU insisting that it can't be permitted.

If they leave with no deal, then they will (eventually) be in breach of the GFA. There's not a whole lot we can do to prevent that, but there are machinations available to respond to it.

Thomas_IV

_Puma_ wrote: »

It truly is a terrifying prospect but as of now, the way I see it is we are letting the British government off the hook regarding their obligations to the GFA. If they are not going to hold up their end then let them impose their will which is contrary to the wishes of the majority of people of these Islands and all that comes with it. The DUP's day in the sun will eventually come to an end, reality will set in for the administration. There are no bright prospects for Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom in the immediate future in any of the current scenarios.

This is playing with fire to me. There have to be other ways to hold them on their commitment to the GFA. As you know when looking at this present UK govt, the DUP has indirectly their hands on the leavers of power by May being dependent on them to back up her minority govt. Plenty examples from the past 1 1/2 years how the DUP has used that to hold that UK govt in ransom and the longer this continues the more damage the DUP will do which is quite in the sense of your post.

EdgeCase

What worries me about the GFA is that a lot of its moral authority over the UK Government is in the sensible side of politics in the US. The Dems in particular (due to the Clinton direct involvement) but also the centre of the Republican party, had a major weight to bear on the UK.

I would suspect Trump won't give a flying fiddlers what happens as it's 'overseas'.

Shelga

The more I think about it, the more I think it’s going to be No Deal.

What is the point of an extension? They’ll never agree on anything.

Let them crash out, let them feel the effects of it, it is at least a definitive result. May can also claim a form of success, as the result of the referendum will have been upheld.

_Puma_

seamus wrote: »

I think it's quite the opposite tbh.

The UK are trying to insist on having no backstop and instead just an agreement about what next with the border. We know the Brits too well, their insistence on no backstop is so that they can have the freedom to renege on any border agreement without consequence.

The argument over the backstop is essentially the UK looking to be let off the hook over their GFA obligations, and Ireland and the EU insisting that it can't be permitted.

If they leave with no deal, then they will (eventually) be in breach of the GFA. There's not a whole lot we can do to prevent that, but there are machinations available to respond to it.

I agree 100%. A reset of A50 doesn't change any of the EU stances regarding the withdrawal agreement regarding N Ireland. I fully expect the UK to renege on their GFA commitments. Let them do it plain sight outside this "Red Line" withdrawal nonsense. Letting them leave on March 29th is just handing them a ready made excuse to pull down the GFA prematurely and in the short term will be more harmful to both countries. Not that the DUP care, they just want out and out now to the determent of event the minority of the population they represent now.

Adamcp898

Corbyn speaking at the moment......

Thomas_IV

EdgeCase wrote: »

What worries me about the GFA is that a lot of its moral authority over the UK Government is in the sensible side of politics in the US. The Dems in particular (due to the Clinton direct involvement) but also the centre of the Republican party, had a major weight to bear on the UK.

I would suspect Trump won't give a flying fiddlers what happens as it's 'overseas'.

Sure and for assuming that there are plenty of other examples that just prove your point. Just to think about his attitude towards NATO etc..

bob mcbob

This is whole Brexit fiasco is looking more and more like Liar's Poker.

I still think the only possible option that will pass the HoC is a Norway option and I think everyone knows it but..

Theresa May will not adopt it because it will split the Tory Party
Brexiteers are only interested in replacing TM so they all need to show who has the biggest cojones about leaving the EU
Corbin wants to split the Tory party and / or does not want to alienate his pro-Brexit Northern working class base.

So what do I think will happen next - the senior parliamentarians / grown-ups (Dominic Grieve, Yvette Cooper, etc) will take control. First they will take no-deal off the table then progress a Norway option.

EdgeCase

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Sure and for assuming that there are plenty of other examples that just prove your point. Just to think about his attitude towards NATO etc..

Well he hates multilateralism and seems to have it in for the EU and particularly Germany for some reason. Also, I would suspect he may attempt to roast us on our trade balance with the US, which is distorted as we're a gateway into the single EU market. It would be like the EU taking aim at a particular US gateway state.

However, I think there's a huge problem as the GFA came from an era when the UK had very pragmatic domestic politics under Major and then Blair and when the US was still sane and it's an example of where US diplomacy and foreign policy actually played a very strongly positive role.

It's in a very precarious place right now as the GFA effectively used modern multilateralism to resolve the NI situation by making the differences in identity not matter.

Thomas_IV

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Corbyn speaking at the moment......

Had a quick look at BBC News. It's the usual talk he has, call for a GE. Looks that he's pondering on on this and when he loses that as well, then he should just pack in and resign as leader of the LP cos the result of a snap GE might not go his way and Labour lose more seats than it has now. Just like May was gambling in 2017 and lost her solid majority provided by Cameron. Maybe the LibDems would win on his expence. Worst would be the Tories getting back to their solid majority.

Thomas_IV

EdgeCase wrote: »

Well he hates multilateralism and seems to have it in for the EU and particularly Germany for some reason. Also, I would suspect he may attempt to roast us on our trade balance with the US, which is distorted as we're a gateway into the single EU market. It would be like the EU taking aim at a particular US gateway state.

However, I think there's a huge problem as the GFA came from an era when the UK had very pragmatic domestic politics under Major and then Blair and when the US was still sane and it's an example of where US diplomacy and foreign policy actually played a very strongly positive role.

It's in a very precarious place right now as the GFA effectively used modern multilateralism to resolve the NI situation by making the differences in identity not matter.

All very true.

MrMusician18

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm convinced that the EU27 will have no problem extending Article 50 to accommodate an informed referendum with Remain on the table.

The issue is with Parliament, as it always was given that most of what the EU gets blamed for is down to elected governments. I think the chances of a referendum on the deal just increased due to the present stalemate. The EU have no incentive to go back to negotiating. All it would take is a few more prominent political figures to back it. Perhaps the leader of the opposition...

The EU could let them exit into transition rather than extend article 50 on the basis that they either remain or ratify the withdrawal agreement within say 6 to 9 months.

By having the UK formally outside of the institutions during this period it would be less complicated for the EU elections. It would also mean that they would technically have to rejoin. This would force the UK population to decide if they want to be part of the full EU with no option outs or do their own thing.

Adamcp898

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Had a quick look at BBC News. It's the usual talk he has, call for a GE. Looks that he's pondering on on this and when he loses that as well, then he should just pack in and resign as leader of the LP cos the result of a snap GE might not go his way and Labour lose more seats than it has now. Just like May was gambling in 2017 and lost her solid majority provided by Cameron. Maybe the LibDems would win on his expence. Worst would be the Tories getting back to their solid majority.

Yep, just finished. Not a whole lot has changed. Calling for a people's vote is the very last option

Thomas_IV

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The EU could let them exit into transition rather than extend article 50 on the basis that they either remain or ratify the withdrawal agreement within say 6 to 9 months.

By having the UK formally outside of the institutions during this period it would be less complicated for the EU elections. It would also mean that they would technically have to rejoin. This would force the UK population to decide if they want to be part of the full EU with no option outs or do their own thing.

The UK govt has already announced last year that due to the Brexit process the UK isn't taking part in the EU elections anymore. Whether there would be a change in that because of an extension of the leave date is questionable.

Thomas_IV

Adamcp898 wrote: »

Yep, just finished. Not a whole lot has changed. Calling for a people's vote is the very last option

I presume that the influence Momentum might have on him is already fading away.

Berserker

Thomas_IV wrote: »

Worst would be the Tories getting back to their solid majority.

Why would it be the worst? Would a Tory majority not be an improvement on the current situation?

Thomas_IV

Berserker wrote: »

Why would it be the worst? Would a Tory majority not be an improvement on the current situation?

No it wouldn't cos that would also mean more austerity for the future.

Berserker

Thomas_IV wrote: »

No it wouldn't cos that would also mean more austerity for the future.

And a Labour government post Brexit wouldn't lead to austerity?

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm convinced that the EU27 will have no problem extending Article 50 to
accommodate an informed referendum with Remain on the table.

Agreed - if that was the will of a significant majority in parliament. There isn't a significant majority presently.

The issue is with Parliament, as it always was given that most of what the EU
gets blamed for is down to elected governments. I think the chances of a
referendum on the deal just increased due to the present stalemate. The EU have
no incentive to go back to negotiating. All it would take is a few more
prominent political figures to back it. Perhaps the leader of the
opposition...

His position is interesting. I think he's playing a very dangerous game if he wants to stay as leader and potential PM. Politically, however bad things are presently, they will probably become much worse very quickly. While this will almost certainly lead to a fractured Tory party, it will also expose serious divisions within the Labour party. Considering that a large majority of Labour members and voters are pro EU, Corbyn's closet Eurosceptism, and his dissembling at a time when Labour needs strong leadership that reflects the wishes of the party, will place him in a very precarious position very soon.

Thomas_IV

Berserker wrote: »

And a Labour government post Brexit wouldn't lead to austerity?

Sure it would, but Corbyn tells otherwise cos he's talking abolishing austerity by taxing the rich but the rich are not that stupid to get into that trap and either have already or are about to bring their assets out of the UK.

In 2015, shortly after Corbyn was elected as leader of the LP, I took the bother to read his own written pamphlet of his political agenda. Some suggestions in there were agreeable to me, but this is all based on taxing the rich more in order to make them contribute more financially to the state. I have found it on the internet so you can have a look into it yourself via the link below.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/jeremyforlabour/pages/70/attachments/original/1437556345/TheEconomyIn2020_JeremyCorbyn-220715.pdf?1437556345


This ideas are an old hat and it's never going to work and because of that I didn't give much about his ideas and in the years that followed and he was more in the focus of the daily politics, I came to despise him. Not so much because of his own pamphlet, but because of the way he dealt with Brexit and let the Remain camp down.

Thomas_IV

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Brexit also poses a serious problem for SF here in Ireland come the EU elections, doing their usual anti EU eurosceptic dance copying lines from UKIP wont work this time around

Last time I was looking at them I was more of the Impression that the Shinners aren't anti-EU or eurosceptic as they stood on the Remain side in NI. But well, I know the Janus-headed SF Party under the leadership of Gerry Adams. I would rather think that times have changed since he stepped down and that SF can't afford to associate itself with the far-right and right-wingers.

Adamcp898

Thomas_IV wrote: »

I presume that the influence Momentum might have on him is already fading away.

To be honest I don't think anything is going to change his tack. He's much too far down the road of saying he'll respect the leave vote et al. Arguably so far that if he were to change now, and a GE was held in the next few months, it'd be thrown back at him as another bit of flip-flopping.

Not that I'd be very confident in him if he actually got his wish of a GE being held before a Brexit deal is decided as it is. Any Labour swell of support, as far as I can tell, is actually coming from people who are under the impression that Lb don't want Brexit to happen which just plainly isn't the case. Once the electorate would cop that in any campaign then he'd probably lose more ground.

Anyway, says he'll reveal all of Labour's amendments next week. Brexit "Plan B" vote scheduled for the 29th. Same day as Donald delivers the "State of the Union" ominously enough.

ancapailldorcha

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The EU could let them exit into transition rather than extend article 50 on the basis that they either remain or ratify the withdrawal agreement within say 6 to 9 months.

By having the UK formally outside of the institutions during this period it would be less complicated for the EU elections. It would also mean that they would technically have to rejoin. This would force the UK population to decide if they want to be part of the full EU with no option outs or do their own thing.

Interesting point. A good way for the EU to up the ante perhaps but it might be taken as a slight by the Brexiteers.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Agreed - if that was the will of a significant majority in parliament. There isn't a significant majority presently.

It could be. I think most Parliamentarians are either resigned to Brexit or afraid to speak out for a new referendum for fear of antagonising voters and/or being labelled undemocratic. I know someone who works in Whitehall who's been telling me that Tory MP's are livid about the whole affair and what it means for their personal portfolios. Obviously anecdotal so up to you whether or not that's legit.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

His position is interesting. I think he's playing a very dangerous game if he wants to stay as leader and potential PM. Politically, however bad things are presently, they will probably become much worse very quickly. While this will almost certainly lead to a fractured Tory party, it will also expose serious divisions within the Labour party. Considering that a large majority of Labour members and voters are pro EU, Corbyn's closet Eurosceptism, and his dissembling at a time when Labour needs strong leadership that reflects the wishes of the party, will place him in a very precarious position very soon.

Indeed. If he is seen as enabling economic collapse then we could be back to the problem of identikit politicians depriving the public of real choice such as what we had in 2010 and that led to Brexit.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It could be. I think most Parliamentarians are either resigned to Brexit or afraid to speak out for a new referendum for fear of antagonising voters and/or being labelled undemocratic. I know someone who works in Whitehall who's been telling me that Tory MP's are livid about the whole affair and what it means for their personal portfolios. Obviously anecdotal so up to you whether or not that's legit.

That point was raised by Owen Jones, if Labour would propose a second referendum then only 150-160 would support it in the party. He also mentioned that Labour is wary of upsetting the leave voters as well.

The stupidity is that the current government is handcuffed by 70 ERG members and 10 DUP voters and Labour is handcuffed by the 31% of Labour voters that voted to leave in the referendum. The party is ignoring the majority of voices not to upset the minority in either party and that leads to chaos.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

That point was raised by Owen Jones, if Labour would propose a second referendum then only 150-160 would support it in the party. He also mentioned that Labour is wary of upsetting the leave voters as well.

The stupidity is that the current government is handcuffed by 70 ERG members and 10 DUP voters and Labour is handcuffed by the 31% of Labour voters that voted to leave in the referendum. The party is ignoring the majority of voices not to upset the minority in either party and that leads to chaos.

It will very probably lead to a break up of the Tory and Labour parties. The divisions within those parties reflect the Brexit and referendum divisions simply because both parties were 'pro Brexit'. The Lib Dems and SNP have very little division precisely because they have relative party unity in their anti Brexit policies. Factor in two very incompetent leaders and you have the perfect conditions for party splits.

Thomas_IV

Meanwhile in Scotland:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-nicola-sturgeon-promises-independence-timetable-in-weeks-1-4857393

Nicola Sturgeon has said Theresa May is “deluding herself” by trying to persist with her Brexit red lines, and suggested details of the timetable for a second Scottish independence referendum would be revealed within “weeks”. The First Minister was at Westminster to meet with SNP MPs, and said an extension of Article 50 and a People’s Vote were the only realistic options to break the Brexit deadlock.

However, she added: “I’ll say more about the timing of a referendum in the next matter of weeks. “I want to see the UK stay in the EU, I think that would be best for the whole of the UK... even when Scotland is independent, that serves our interests best as well. That’s why we’re backing the People's Vote, the second EU referendum. “But if that’s not possible, in terms of our wider interests, the chaos and the fiasco of the last couple of years have shown that the worst thing for Scotland is to be thirled to Westminster when it’s making such a mess of things. We’d be far better off in charge of our own affairs.”

...

But Mr Corbyn has only one thing in mind which is to get into No 10 himself.

In the weeks before the meaningful vote was dated to vote before Christmas but has been postponed to 15th January 2019, Ms Sturgeon travelled a couple of times to London to also meet with Mrs May to talk on the Brexit subject and the deal at hand. Apparently it wasn't successful and the result is that what came to be on 15th January.

Ms Sturgeon is very often accused by her opponents to only use this Brexit turmoil as advantage for ther own interests to bring about an IndyRef2 in Scotland with the negative effects of a hard Brexit leading to more support for an independent Scotland.

There is certainly some truth in it and I wouldn't expect Ms Sturgeon to deny that at all. Just when one looks at the way the UK govt has treated the Scottish govt of which Ms Sturgeon is the leader and how many times and how stubborn Mrs May and her govt have ignored the interests of Scotland as one part of the UK that voted in majority for Remain in 2016 and for which the result of the 2014 IndyRef which the SNP lost because it was somehow 'guaranteed' that the UK stays in the EU, it isn't any wonder that Ms Sturgeon is now pressing for a timetable for IndyRef2.

This Brexit will certainly bring the UK to the breaking point and it is just a matter of constitutional obstacles the Scottish govt has to take to put an IndyRef2 to the people of Scotland. This is the way out of the Brexit mess for Scotland and as matters are still worse by now, they are left with no other way than this unless they are to go down the hard no-deal Brexit way which Scotland won't.

Sure, Mrs May will certainly refuse to give her consent to an IndyRef2 in Scotland and give way to such a legislation in the Commons and her allies will also do the same to avoid that. Maybe there are other ways to do it and a snap GE in the next couple of weeks / months might also be a game changer on that one, depending on the result and who's in govt afterwards.

The tensions will certainly grow and become more, not less in the weeks or maybe months that lie ahead until the final exit of the UK from the EU.