Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Laois_Man

I haven't got a clue what the logic is behind all of this Brexit Plan B lark. It's nonsense!

There are 5 options

1. No deal Exit
2. Accept May's deal

An extension to Article 50 on the basis of......

3. A second referendum
4. A UK offer to renegotiate, but with the red lines now on the table
5. Parliament withdraws article 50 and remains indefinitely

Option 1 might happen by default - and not beyond possibility that it all becomes so disastrous, that there could be a referendum to re-join after they have left - or at least to rejoin the SM and CU in some way.

Option 2 obviously can never happen now

Option 3: The only way May would ever agree to a second referendum would be if the options on the ballot paper were both (or all) different forms of Brexit - i.e. no "Remain" option presented, as it has already been defeated. However, the EU will not grant an article 50 extension on the basis of that - So I don't see how a second referendum could happen under May's Tenure.

Option 4 would probably be too close to a second referendum with a "remain" victory than would be acceptable to May.

Option 5 could arguably happen is defiance of May, but probably wouldn't, arguably.


So, like it or not, the only thing that is really likely to happen is 1 or 4 - They are the only so-called "Plan B" options possible. And the only way option 4 won't just lead back to option 1 all over again is if they do it the right way around at the second attempt and agree the trade deal before exiting, thus removing any mention of the word "backstop" from the WA - which is what should have been done in the first place.

That leads to the real possibility that it would all drag out to beyond the 2022 election and beyond May's time in office, which she also wants to avoid as she sees this as her place in history.

But the thing that was conspicuous by its absence from her speech last night was - when she asked others to set aside self interests, she should have said she is prepared to do the same. She didn't - because she isn't.

In conclusion - IMO, whether it's option 1 or option 4, it is all heading for a no deal Brexit for as long as Teresa May is PM - and possibly as long as any Tory is PM for that matter.

lawred2

Laois_Man wrote: »

I haven't got a clue what the logic is behind all of this Brexit Plan B lark. It's nonsense!

There are 5 options

1. No deal Exit
2. Accept May's deal

An extension to Article 50 on the basis of......

3. A second referendum
4. A UK offer to renegotiate, but with the red lines now on the table
5. Parliament withdraws article 50 and remains indefinitely

Option 1 might happen by default - and not beyond possibility that it all becomes so disastrous, that there could be a referendum to re-join after they have left - or at least to rejoin the SM and CU in some way.

Option 2 obviously can never happen now

Option 3: The only way May would ever agree to a second referendum would be if the options on the ballot paper were both (or all) different forms of Brexit - i.e. no "Remain" option presented, as it has already been defeated. However, the EU will not grant an article 50 extension on the basis of that - So I don't see how a second referendum could happen under May's Tenure.

Option 4 would probably be too close to a second referendum with a "remain" victory than would be acceptable to May.

Option 5 could arguably happen is defiance of May, but probably wouldn't, arguably.


So, like it or not, the only thing that is really likely to happen is 1 or 4 - They are the only so-called "Plan B" options possible. And the only way option 4 won't just lead back to option 1 all over again is if they do it the right way around at the second attempt and agree the trade deal before exiting, thus removing any mention of the word "backstop" from the WA - which is what should have been done in the first place.

That leads to the real possibility that it would all drag out to beyond the 2022 election and beyond May's time in office, which she also wants to avoid as she sees this as her place in history.

But the thing that was conspicuous by its absence from her speech last night was - when she asked others to set aside self interests, she should have said she is prepared to do the same. She didn't - because she isn't.

In conclusion - IMO, whether it's option 1 or option 4, it is all heading for a no deal Brexit for as long as Teresa May is PM - and possibly as long as any Tory is PM for that matter.

thought the trade deal was not up for discussion until Britain left - during the transition phase

Laois_Man

lawred2 wrote: »

thought the trade deal was not up for discussion until Britain left - during the transition phase

That has to change! And I don't see why it can't!

lawred2

Laois_Man wrote: »

That has to change! And I don't see why it can't!

the presumption in doing that then is that a trade deal can be done during the period of extension...

not sure how feasible that is..

unless the 'extension' is to be deemed indefinite..

that won't go down too well with the same crowd that nothing goes down too well with

Leroy42

Laois_Man wrote: »

That has to change! And I don't see why it can't!

It has to change? Why?

How can the EU hold trade talks with a country that is still a member? Country look for trade talks when they want to increase trade, not reduce it. And you can possibly have UK reps working on the EU side in a negotiation with the UK, with UK MEP's having a vote on any EU deal?

It makes no sense.

And all because the UK cannot face up to their own responsibilities

Water John

There isn't a lot to be got by talking to TM ATM, she rules out any CU or 2nd Ref.
She's adding to her red lines not dropping them.

Brussels Sprout

Just listening to Corbyn give a speech somewhere this morning. Reading in between the lines it looks like he's going to ignore his party's request at their conference to go for another public vote if his attempts at forcing another general election failed. It sounds like his strategy is to wait it out and hope that things get so chaotic that the Tories or DUP cave and another election happens.

What an utterly deluded and nakedly self-serving strategy. So much for giving his party grass roots more say in party policy which was his whole shtick to get elected as leader in the first place.

Thomas_IV

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Just listening to Corbyn give a speech somewhere this morning. Reading in between the lines it looks like he's going to ignore his party's request at their conference to go for another public vote if his attempts at forcing another general election failed. It sounds like his strategy is to wait it out and hope that things get so chaotic that the Tories or DUP cave and another election happens.

What an utterly deluded and nakedly self-serving strategy. So much for giving his party grass roots more say in party policy which was his whole shtick to get elected as leader in the first place.

I always had him down as some sort of a 'Little Stalin'. Nothing surprises me what comes from this man.

Tell me how

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Just listening to Corbyn give a speech somewhere this morning. Reading in between the lines it looks like he's going to ignore his party's request at their conference to go for another public vote if his attempts at forcing another general election failed. It sounds like his strategy is to wait it out and hope that things get so chaotic that the Tories or DUP cave and another election happens.

What an utterly deluded and nakedly self-serving strategy. So much for giving his party grass roots more say in party policy which was his whole shtick to get elected as leader in the first place.

Evidenced by the hypocrisy of suggesting that the people voted to leave and so the referendum must be respected while simultaneously saying that they will keep tabling motions of no confidence in the government until they are successful in forcing an election.

ancapailldorcha

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.

Good point.

However, this schism needs to be addressed. Say if Corbyn got into power by the end of next month with say 375 seats. What happens? The EU refuse to negotiate. What does he do? He can reject the deal which he'd probably have to do given the lack of support for it as we saw on Monday, offer concessions to the EU for a Norway-type deal which would include free movement which would antagonise both sides, particularly the Brexiteers or go and call a People's Vote which would antagonise one side.

The situation with Labour is unsustainable. The Conservative party has the same internal strife and it caused Brexit. A general election won't solve anything but overturning this fell project would yield a starting point for a transition to a more representative voting system. A fantasy I know but something has to change.

Water John

Certainly both Corbyn and May stand accused of putting their party's before country. For May this is a more major mistake as per primary role is that of Prime Minister of the country.

Thomas_IV

Water John wrote: »

There isn't a lot to be got by talking to TM ATM, she rules out any CU or 2nd Ref.
She's adding to her red lines not dropping them.

More reason for the EU to do nothing but sit and wait until the hard no-deal Brexit kicks in.

Tell me how

Water John wrote: »

Certainly both Corbyn and May stand accused of putting their party's before country. For May this is a more major mistake as per primary role is that of Prime Minister of the country.

I'm inclined to say Corbyn is more at fault as May at least has been steadfast in trying to deliver Brexit which was her mandate (as much as was possible) when she became PM.

robinph

They need to suspend all parties temporarily.

The speaker give them the different options of the May Deal Party, The Rees Mogg Jump off a Cliff Party, the 2nd Ref party and the Call the whole thing off party. Get everyone lined up in the different groups and see if the May Deal Party and Mogg Cliff Party can come up with a better compromise to work together than the 2ndRef and Cancel it Parties. Then see whos got the most MP's, they get to be PM for a day and can tell the EU what the UK is actually going to do.

Then they can all go back to doing what they were doing before under the banners of their preferred original party again and with limited impact on any party in the next GE as the decision was not carried out on party lines.

ToBeFrank123

Hard border or backstop?

It looks like we are heading for hard border.

I think if the DUP could they would tear up the Good Friday Agreement. They seem to be against all forms of progress and would happily drag this island back 50 years at least.

Brussels Sprout

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think if the DUP could they would tear up the Good Friday Agreement. They seem to be against all forms of progress and would happily drag this island back 50 years at least.

Absolutely. Let's not forget that they were not the unionist party who negotiated that agreement. They would happily take a hard border despite all of the detrimental economic affects that would have for Northern Ireland.

tuxy

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I think if the DUP could they would tear up the Good Friday Agreement. They seem to be against all forms of progress and would happily drag this island back 50 years at least.

The DUP was the only major party in the north to oppose the GFA so no suprise there.
Arlene Foster now claims that Ireland never had a hard border only a few checks here and there to detect criminal activity.

An Ciarraioch

France launches its no-deal plans - translated, the main investment will be in ports and airports, hiring of customs officers and vets will be stepped up, and reciprocal guarantees for citizens' rights are also prioritised:

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/01/17/la-france-declenche-son-plan-lie-a-un-brexit-sans-accord_5410404_3210.html

Bit cynical

Leroy42 wrote: »

It has to change? Why?

How can the EU hold trade talks with a country that is still a member? Country look for trade talks when they want to increase trade, not reduce it. And you can possibly have UK reps working on the EU side in a negotiation with the UK, with UK MEP's having a vote on any EU deal?

It makes no sense.

And all because the UK cannot face up to their own responsibilities

Well it is too late now, but I think the EU and the UK could have discussed future trade during the two years of A50. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if the UK reps were also on the EU side in the negotiation,but what would happen is that in order for talks to proceed, the UK would extricate itself from the EU side for the purposes of trade talks (this would include trade talks between the EU and other countries). This has already happened in other areas of the process where you have had the EU27 leaders meeting without the UK.

Seth Brundle

tuxy wrote: »

Arlene Foster now claims that Ireland never had a hard border only a few checks here and there to detect criminal activity.

So effectively what she is saying is that the bad times were nothing in comparison to what she and the DUP are hoping is introduced.

Seth Brundle

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well it is too late now, but I think the EU and the UK could have discussed future trade during the two years of A50.

No they couldn't have. You can't make deals with a current member.
How could a trade deal be agreed when the UK didn't and still doesn't know what kind of relationship it wants to have with the EU?
How will NI be treated in any trade deal?

Bit cynical wrote: »

This has already happened in other areas of the process where you have had the EU27 leaders meeting without the UK.

What meetings were held without the UK being offered an invite?

Leroy42

And, given that the UK could not, and would not agree to anything in isolation (nothing is agreed until everything is agreed) how would adding the massive additional complexity of a trade deal to the mix have helped?

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric of the MP's claiming that it is all amount the backstop and the integrity of NI within the Union. No doubt that is part of it, but hey hate the linking of regulations, some don't like the transition period, the payment of settlement dues. The Backstop is merely the most concise way of making the point.

Professor Moriarty

tuxy wrote: »

The DUP was the only major party in the north to oppose the GFA so no suprise there.
Arlene Foster now claims that Ireland never had a hard border only a few checks here and there to detect criminal activity.

This needs repeating. She is lying and she knows she is lying.

demfad

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.

Conservative 317
Labour 256
Scottish National Party 35
Liberal Democrat 11
Democratic Unionist Party 10
Independent 8
Sinn Féin 7
Plaid Cymru 4
Green Party 1
Speaker 1
Total number of seats 650
Working Government Majority * 0

Labour have 71 MPs who NOW want a referendum. (I'm assuming a GE is out)

Here are the current numbers.

May's Deal =202
Referendum=126 (71+35+11+4+4+1)
No Deal 70.
Revoke ?
Soft Brexit ?

IMO opinion A50 could be extended for Referendum, or Soft Brexit. or even to finsih enacting legislation around the Deal.

Sample scenarios final parliamentary numbers after eliminations with 2 options left. (Note Government may still be able to unilateral drive off no-deal cliff in all scenarios)

Case 1: A50 NOT extended. It goes to wire

Choices are: no-deal OR Revoke

Revoke wins a majority 540-70. No work required for no-deal that work was done triggering A50 two year ago. Legally revoking A50 should be straight forward: a simple act, declaration (megaphone from cliffs of dover)

Case 2: A 50 not extended Deal V no-Deal (Deal wins similar result) may need A50 extended to finish legislation.

Case 3: Remain Vs Deal (Too close to call)

Case 4: Referendum Vs no-Deal (ref wins big)

Case 5: Soft Brexit Vs Ref -- extension then referendum.

I don't see May's deal as dead yet. It is currently the most popular option.
For May to get her deal through, she probably should do as Corbyn suggests and eliminate no-deal politically at least.
It then comes down to her deal, Soft or remain.
She is scuppering Soft as we speak.
If she can get it down to her Deal Vs referendum she could yet prevail.
With a losing 2nd chance in a referendum.

An extension would be her enemy until a shoot-out Vs a referendum in the commons.

FrancieBrady

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

They didnt campaign to leave as it was not on offer, but they are/were very anti EU, especially last Lisbon referenda, doing everything to pull us in the other direction away from EU

My point still stands the EU has done more to help people of this island in this Brexit mess than SF who are cribbing and moaning from sidelines and not performing their democratic duty of democratically representing the people of this island

Here are some anti EU gems from SF
https://imgur.com/a/qet0JFi





Swap SF for UKIP and same arguments being made with an Irish twist, hell even same colours

Pure nonsense and you have contradicted yourself neatly. UKIP members were actively campaigning to leave long before a ref was allowed
SF have never advocated leave but are self admittedly sceptics at times. That's part of any healthy democracy.
I voted against Lisbon 1 myself and would also be sometimes critical but would never advocate Leave

MrMusician18

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Pure nonsense and you have contradicted yourself neatly. UKIP members were actively campaigning to leave long before a ref was allowed
SF have never advocated leave but are self admittedly sceptics at times. That's part of any healthy democracy.
I voted against Lisbon 1 myself and would also be sometimes critical but would never advocate Leave

Sceptical at times?! Understatement if I've ever heard one! SF have been dead set against all European treaties that I can remember. Cut from the same cloth as Corbyn, they have traditionally seen the EU as standing in the way of socialist part the 32 county socialist Utopia they want to create.

FreudianSlippers

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Sceptical at times?! Understatement if I've ever heard one! SF have been dead set against all European treaties that I can remember. Cut from the same cloth as Corbyn, they have traditionally seen the EU as standing in the way of socialist part the 32 county socialist Utopia they want to create.

My personal view on the SF anti-EU stance of the past was more of a case of doing the opposite of whatever FF/FG/LAB were doing. I don't think, as with most SF policies (other than the North), that they have a real core stance on anything.

EdgeCase

Their official line over recent decades has been "critical engagement" with the EU rather than Euroscepticism. It looks to me that as SF engaged more in Europe they found there were parties with similar outlooks and they could work from within the system, rather than adopting a UKIP style of nationalism.

At the end of the the day, SF are a nationalist party so it's going to follow that they've ideologies that are nationalist which would tend to include being quite critical of multilateralism and globalisation.

To be fair to SF, they've come a long way even since the 90s and came through the whole GFA process, which is a lot more than could be said for the DUP.

I'd tend to adopt a similar stance with them : critical engagement, rather than just writing them off though.

They're broad & hard to categorise.

RobMc59

EdgeCase wrote: »

Their official line over recent decades has been "critical engagement" with the EU rather than Euroscepticism. It looks to me that as SF engaged more in Europe they found there were parties with similar outlooks and they could work from within the system, rather than adopting a UKIP style of nationalism.

At the end of the the day, SF are a nationalist party so it's going to follow that they've ideologies that are nationalist which would tend to include being quite critical of multilateralism and globalisation.

To be fair to SF, they've come a long way even since the 90s and came through the whole GFA process, which is a lot more than could be said for the DUP.

I'd tend to adopt a similar stance with them : critical engagement, rather than just writing them off though.

I've said before that SF should take their seats in Westminster as there will never be a chance like this again to have a major say in proceedings-as it is the DUP proping up TM could be the reason for a hard brexit.

Leroy42

RobMc59 wrote: »

I've said before that SF should take their seats in Westminster as there will never be a chance like this again to have a major say in proceedings-as it is the DUP proping up TM could be the reason for a hard brexit.

I don't agree.

Simply look at the two recent votes. On TM's deal she lost by 230 votes. Then a day later she wins a vote of No confidence in the government. To do that it required that many of those that voted down her deal, and I would hazard were against Chequers, suddenly thought that TM and the Tories were still the best team to handle Brexit.

Basically, narrow self interest won the day. Were SF to be seen to have the balance of power you can be sure that many would cross the floor just to avoid having them have any actual impact.