Brexit Discussion Thread VI

FreudianSlippers

Sam Russell wrote: »

If only we knew.

We know what those that voted remain wanted - the status quo.

No-one knows what the Leave voted for because they were fed lies, magic unicorns, fake information, and propaganda.

Some voted because of immigration - from wherever.

Absolutely, I don't dispute that - but across all Brexiteers from various parties, a main point has always been (and currently is) why would we accept a deal that makes us worse off (vis-a-vis EU rules) than just Remaining.

For all of the options I previously quoted, I'd hazard to guess that 80% of Brexiteers would vote remain over those options.

Macy0161

Bit cynical wrote: »

For that reason I could see opting for some sort of CU/EEA thing or requesting an extension of A50 as being more likely.

I think EEA would get through the Commons (and UK) in the morning tbh, but split the Tories, which is why it'd have to come from a non Government group as for all the "National Interest" guff, May is Party ahead of State.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

For that reason I could see opting for some sort of CU/EEA thing or requesting an extension of A50 as being more likely.

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think EEA would get through the Commons (and UK) in the morning tbh, but split the Tories, which is why it'd have to come from a non Government group as for all the "National Interest" guff, May is Party ahead of State.

EEA is all the obligations they have at the moment without any benefits; all free movements, taking EU law. They might be able to make their own third-nation trade deals, but they'd be hindered by single market rules and EFTA.

The only positive for the UK to EEA is... fisheries?

DrumSteve

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Agreed.

Foster has achieved two feats in her short career as leader of DUP - Brought about the indefinite suspension of the Stormont Assembly in her efforts to cling to power. And it looks like she will create a hard border with the south. That's not to mention the disastrous cash for ash scheme she pioneered.

Say what you like about Paisley Sr, but I don't think he would have ended up in this situation.

intellectual dosser

Bit cynical wrote: »

Can you elaborate a little on this please? What would this risk be? What would the countries see?

I'll try, but I'll say up front this is the just the way I look at it.

Lets say there is a general election in Italy, where there is currently some anymosity towards the EU. The opposition party, in a bid to seize power, states in its election manifesto that it will trigger Article 50 and start trade negotiations with the EU and that at the conclusion of those negotiations it will decide if its best for Italy to revoke A50 or go ahead with leaving the EU. The people, looking to stick it to the establishment vote in this party, who now have a democratic mandate to carry out their manifesto putting the EU in direct confrontation with Italian democracy if they were to challenge Italy's strategy.

This discussion, and then any potential trade negotiations are distracting, and tense, with 'stable' EU members feeling like they are getting a raw deal making negotiations as difficult as possible. Chaos ensues creating chasms within the EU.

Call this situation fantasy, but then so is Brexit!

WomanSkirtFan8

EdgeCase wrote: »

The talk of SF taking their seats is absolute nonsense. It's just not going to happen.

There are the numbers there if you could get the Tory Centre, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, SNP and enough labour centrists.

Personally, I think they're all too entrenched. It's not going to go anywhere.

coupled with the fact that there's no leadership being shown by either side too

wiggle16

Sam Russell wrote: »

If only we knew.

We know what those that voted remain wanted - the status quo.

No-one knows what the Leave voted for because they were fed lies, magic unicorns, fake information, and propaganda.

Some voted because of immigration - from wherever.

Some voted for £350 million a week for the NHS - which was a total lie. Some voted to take back sovereignty - but could not explain what particular laws they did not like (not the abolition of roaming charges or credit card charges - they are quite good).

Some voted to take back control of their borders - but are now willing to leave the only border with the EU open.

Some voted leave just because they do not like foreigners - particularly brown ones.

A few might have voted so they could do wonderful trade deals with the rest of the world, and trade under WTO rules - whatever they are. Of course, it would mean turning their back on their largest market and losing over 40 FTA the EU have already done. It might be easier to do trade deals if they had any experience or expertise in trade negotiations.

But they will get blue passports (printed in France).

+++1000% to the above.

The only fair thing to do would be to hold a second referendum (which I cannot see happening, there are too many hurdles to even starting that process) because the current shítshow is not what Britain voted for when they voted to leave. They didn't vote for a hard Brexit. They didn't vote for uncertainty, they didn't vote for backstabbing and the party-before-country political theatre that's been going on.

A huge proportion of the Leave votes were protest votes of one form or another and they were actively and deliberately misled by Boris et al. Boris Johnson being grilled by the Treasury Select Committee (which I believe is the UK equivalent of our PAC) about his carry on during the campaign makes for depressing viewing - all of his claims about the EU and their regulations were demonstrably false and hysterical, and yet he was allowed to continue making them up until the vote. And yet the man was in office until July last.

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/uk-politics-35887003/boris-johnson-v-andrew-tyrie-on-eu-coffin-and-lorry-claims

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2015/eu-referendum-evidence-15-16/

All the clap trap from May about delivering on the referendum result is just that, because what is being delivered is no longer what the referendum referred to or was supposed to refer to. Pushing ahead with this when it became clear that the circumstances had changed and what leaving really meant was profoundly undemocratic. So while there is a part of me that feels the UK will get what it deserves if they crash out, there's a part of me that feels sorry for them for being so thoroughly duped.

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Well, in the opinion of the currently 28 Member States of the EU and the fundamental underpinning of all EU trade negotiations.

Note even the UK isn't asking for what you're suggesting as they know it's ridiculous.

However this is the first time any country is leaving the EU, so I don't think you can suggest that it is an established principle. The EU have simply arbitrarily decided that trade will not be discussed while other aspects of the future relationship are being discussed and, as they are the stronger party, that is that. But there's no underlying principle at work here or, if there is, you haven't pointed it out.

Hurrache

These eternal schoolboys whose “weight is out of all proportion” to their numbers are certainly overrepresented among Tories. They have today plunged Britain into its worst crisis, exposing its incestuous and self-serving ruling class like never before.

Nope, not written since the Brexit vote, but written in the 1940/50s (I think) by E.M. Foster in his essay Notes of the English Character on England's colonial expeditions at the time.

A scathing attack on the British government in the New York Times, written by an Indian essayist.

The Malign Incompetence of the British Ruling Class
With Brexit, the chumocrats who drew borders from India to Ireland are getting a taste of their own medicine.
....
....
Britain’s rupture with the European Union is proving to be another act of moral dereliction by the country’s rulers. The Brexiteers, pursuing a fantasy of imperial-era strength and self-sufficiency, have repeatedly revealed their hubris, mulishness and ineptitude over the past two years. Though originally a “Remainer,” Prime Minister Theresa May has matched their arrogant obduracy, imposing a patently unworkable timetable of two years on Brexit and laying down red lines that undermined negotiations with Brussels and doomed her deal to resoundingly bipartisan rejection this week in Parliament.
...
....
From David Cameron, who recklessly gambled his country’s future on a referendum in order to isolate some whingers in his Conservative party, to the opportunistic Boris Johnson, who jumped on the Brexit bandwagon to secure the prime ministerial chair once warmed by his role model Winston Churchill, and the top-hatted, theatrically retro Jacob Rees-Mogg, whose fund management company has set up an office within the European Union even as he vehemently scorns it, the British political class has offered to the world an astounding spectacle of mendacious, intellectually limited hustlers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/sunday/brexit-ireland-empire.html

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

However this is the first time any country is leaving the EU, so I don't think you can suggest that it is an established principle. The EU have simply arbitrarily decided that trade will not be discussed while other aspects of the future relationship are being discussed and, as they are the stronger party, that is that. But there's no underlying principle at work here or, if there is, you haven't pointed it out.

It just doesn't make sense - how can they negotiate a trade deal before the withdrawal agreement is agreed? Literally nobody credible (including the UK) is suggesting that it's possible or a good idea to do this.

This is all not even mentioning the fact that the UK needs the implementation period in the WA in order to do trade deals with other countries - which they can't do when in the EU.

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

EEA is all the obligations they have at the moment without any benefits; all free movements, taking EU law. They might be able to make their own third-nation trade deals, but they'd be hindered by single market rules and EFTA.

The only positive for the UK to EEA is... fisheries?

However, from the point of view of the UK, this might be attractive in two ways.

1. It complies at least with the letter of the 2016 vote. I think we here sometimes underestimate the weight this has in UK politics compared to referendums in this country.

2. It provides a bridge between total crash out and potential negotiated trade agreements with other countries. Sure these may be limited in scope while the UK is in the EEA, but better than nothing while better arrangements are sought.

It is correct though that they will have little or no say in EU legislation applied to the UK through the EEA. A small country like Norway won't have much say anyway so they are not losing much by not being in the EU. But the UK is a large country in the EU so influence will be lost.

The unfortunate thing for Ireland, in addition to undesired border checks, would be that the influence the UK had within the EU often worked in our favour. That would be lost.

Frank Bullitt

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, from the point of view of the UK, this might be attractive in two ways.

1. It complies at least with the letter of the 2016 vote. I think we here sometimes underestimate the weight this has in UK politics compared to referendums in this country.

2. It provides a bridge between total crash out and potential negotiated trade agreements with other countries. Sure these may be limited in scope while the UK is in the EEA, but better than nothing while better arrangements are sought.

It is correct though that they will have little or no say in EU legislation applied to the UK through the EEA. A small country like Norway won't have much say anyway so they are not losing much by not being in the EU. But the UK is a large country in the EU so influence will be lost.

The unfortunate thing for Ireland, in addition to undesired border checks, would be that the influence the UK had within the EU often worked in our favour. That would be lost.

Can you explain more about this? I wasn't aware of it

johnnyskeleton

Macy0161 wrote: »

I think EEA would get through the Commons (and UK) in the morning tbh, but split the Tories, which is why it'd have to come from a non Government group as for all the "National Interest" guff, May is Party ahead of State.

Does EEA membership not require free movement of persons? I think the European Free Trade Area, which is basically Switzerland less the additional agreements Switzerland has made that makes them effectively a member of EEA in all but name and a few differences in free movement, is probably the only thing that could get through the HoC at the moment.

Infini

Bit cynical wrote: »

However this is the first time any country is leaving the EU, so I don't think you can suggest that it is an established principle. The EU have simply arbitrarily decided that trade will not be discussed while other aspects of the future relationship are being discussed and, as they are the stronger party, that is that. But there's no underlying principle at work here or, if there is, you haven't pointed it out.

This whole WA is meant to be a stepping stone to a post Brexit trade agreement but the simple truth is the English Government can't agree to anything simply because they've allowed this utter farce to go on all the while making ridiculous statements, utter lies at times and threats of various degree's at others. The whole backstop for example isn't just because the EU is trying to make it hard for them to leave it's because they've thrown such ridiculous threats and taunts that the EU simply cannot trust them without it. They want this in legal language and make sure the Brits honor their commitments because they're essentially acting like they can do what they want.

Let's be honest here the way things are going they're gonna be faced with 2 choices in 6 weeks if this keeps up 1) Crash Out or 2) Abandon Brexit in its entirety. One or the other. They've squandered so much time and wasted so much capital on this whole exercise that the simple truth is that the only way this is gonna get solved is being forced to stare down the Barrel of the gun they've pointed at their own heads through their own incompetence.

I could see A50 being cancelled and Brexit cancelled in it's entirety. There would be uproar and humiliation and such in England but to be honest they deserve it for lying, deceiving and basically bullshítting their way through the last 2 and a half years. The Tories are only fit for the trash heap only have to look at Mogg to see a prime example of someone so utterly detached from reality, Boris to see a prime example of human incompetence and oppertunisim and the likes of Arlene who have absolutely no problem speaking for people they dont speak for and are happy to risk 20 years of peace for their narrow-minded ideological shíte.

The other option is they crash out and end up in a situation with no trade agreements, economic chaos and civil disorder that will make the London Riots of a few years ago look like a trial run. I think it will eventually dawn on them at the last minute that crash out ultimately will mean the disintegration of their country within a decade but the simple truth is that only a serious scare and a massive slap to their collective faces will make the majority of Parliament cop on and abandon this. It's only when they're forced to confront the consequences of their folly that they listen but depending on when they act it could be too late for them.

They have an out: Rescind A50 but if they do that's Brexit over with because only a total abandonment will end this.

Bit cynical

Gintonious wrote: »

Can you explain more about this? I wasn't aware of it

Things like corporation tax policy. I'm not suggesting that the UK were helping us, but voted in a way that coincided with Ireland's interests.

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is all not even mentioning the fact that the UK needs the implementation period in the WA in order to do trade deals with other countries - which they can't do when in the EU.

Actually not so that the UK never wanted this.

On the other hand, in her 17 January speech on presenting her government’s overall position on withdrawal, the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, expressed the aim of reaching an agreement on the future EU-UK partnership by the time of the conclusion of the Article 50 process (within the two years stipulated by the Treaty). This broad agreement seen as a single package deal would then be followed by a ‘phased process of implementation’, which would allow both the EU and the UK to adapt to the new arrangements in the many areas of cooperation so as to avoid any instability or legal uncertainty. The UK government also committed itself to put the final deal agreed between the UK and the EU to a ‘take it or leave it’ vote in both houses of the UK Parliament prior to the EP's debate and vote ...

Source: UK withdrawal from the EU - Legal and procedural issues - EU Parliament.

Trade would have been part of this future relationship discussed during the A50 period.

Calina

Bit cynical wrote: »

In your opinion. But I disagree with that. If a country is leaving a trading bloc, there's nothing wrong with discussing future trade arrangements once the country leaves. Yes, there would be a conflict of interest if that country was also on the other side of the table, but like I said earlier, that country could be exempted from representation in matters relating to trade while the talks are taking place. The new trading relationship would only come into force, of course, once the country leaves.


It seems your main argument is "because the EU says so and that's that!".

Actually, they did discuss a framework for future trade arrangements. That was what the political declaration was for. Like a whole pile of Brits, you do not understand the process a) negotiate an orderly exit (withdrawal agreement), outline a framework for future relationship (political declaration) and nail down the details (normally some class of a trade agreement). Too many people seem to fail to recognise the complexity of untangling the UK from any sort of agreement and indeed the complexity of even identifying a starting point for those details.

johnnyskeleton

Gintonious wrote: »

Can you explain more about this? I wasn't aware of it

One example might be that where there is a third pillar issue (e.g. crime, justice etc), the U.K. would raise points that were incompatible with a common law system and then Ireland would adopt the U.K's position. Now we will have to do our own work, and it will be a lot harder politically to have accommodation for our peculiar (from a European perspective) justice system.

Fishing and immigration/visas are two other good examples, where Ireland didn't join Schengen because the U.K. didn't join, and generally Ireland, the U.K. and Denmark have been far less enthusiastic about the common fisheries policy than other E.U. member states.

I'm sure none of this was altruism on the part of the U.K., they were merely protecting their own interests. But it could well be harder for Ireland to press for the interests of a common law, english speaking Island nation with strong ties to the U.S. in an E.U. without the U.K.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

EEA is all the obligations they have at the moment without any benefits; all free movements, taking EU law. They might be able to make their own third-nation trade deals, but they'd be hindered by single market rules and EFTA.

The only positive for the UK to EEA is... fisheries?

It also just popped into my head that if any of the various options mooted i.e. CU/EEA, Norway+, etc. were viable within the UK government then the DUP wouldn't care about the backstop in the WA, as all of those positions in terms of a deal post WA are all benefit to the EU with no negatives.

Therefore the backstop coming into effect would never even be remotely plausible.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Does EEA membership not require free movement of persons? I think the European Free Trade Area, which is basically Switzerland less the additional agreements Switzerland has made that makes them effectively a member of EEA in all but name and a few differences in free movement, is probably the only thing that could get through the HoC at the moment.

Yes, all free movements are required.

FreudianSlippers

Bit cynical wrote: »

Actually not so that the UK never wanted this.

On the other hand, in her 17 January speech on presenting her government’s overall position on withdrawal, the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May, expressed the aim of reaching an agreement on the future EU-UK partnership by the time of the conclusion of the Article 50 process (within the two years stipulated by the Treaty). This broad agreement seen as a single package deal would then be followed by a ‘phased process of implementation’, which would allow both the EU and the UK to adapt to the new arrangements in the many areas of cooperation so as to avoid any instability or legal uncertainty. The UK government also committed itself to put the final deal agreed between the UK and the EU to a ‘take it or leave it’ vote in both houses of the UK Parliament prior to the EP's debate and vote ...

Source: UK withdrawal from the EU - Legal and procedural issues - EU Parliament.

Trade would have been part of this future relationship discussed during the A50 period.

The WA, not a trade deal.

Bit cynical

Calina wrote: »

Actually, they did discuss a framework for future trade arrangements. That was what the political declaration was for. Like a whole pile of Brits, you do not understand the process a) negotiate an orderly exit (withdrawal agreement), outline a framework for future relationship (political declaration) and nail down the details (normally some class of a trade agreement). Too many people seem to fail to recognise the complexity of untangling the UK from any sort of agreement and indeed the complexity of even identifying a starting point for those details.

Very minimal however. I do agree it would probably have continued beyond the two year period. But at the end of it, the UK parliament might have had something they could vote for.

FrancieBrady

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.

There haven't been that many treaties and lets ignore that they have been sending very active MEP's for a long time who have worked on behalf of their voters and Ireland.

Skeptic is not to be confused with against. I would imagine a large amount of Irish citizens are skeptical of the EU, if not all the time, certainly at times. It was never intended to be otherwise, as unquestioning allegiance is not healthy

Bit cynical

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The WA, not a trade deal.

From the text quoted: "agreement on the future EU-UK partnership".

Earlier in the text: "Most experts, therefore, agree that the withdrawal agreement must be concluded first, and an agreement on the future relationship can only be formally concluded and take effect after the withdrawal agreement has entered into force, transforming the withdrawing state into a third state in relation to the EU. 37"

The document later explains that the UK's position was that both of these should ideally be concluded within the A50 period.

Calina

Bit cynical wrote: »

Very minimal however. I do agree it would probably have continued beyond the two year period. But at the end of it, the UK parliament might have had something they could vote for.

The UK parliament could have voted except too many of them did not understand what the process was either. Nothing stopped them from disentangling from the EU. Except thinking they wanted to vote on a trade deal. They effectively wanted to arrive in Dublin before leaving Cork.

Bit cynical

Calina wrote: »

The UK parliament could have voted except too many of them did not understand what the process was either. Nothing stopped them from disentangling from the EU. Except thinking they wanted to vote on a trade deal. They effectively wanted to arrive in Dublin before leaving Cork.

Possibly but voting on the pure withdrawal treaty without a sweetener of trade made the deal less attractive than it could have been and this worked against Ireland's interests.

Seth Brundle

Bit cynical wrote: »

I know the talks recently concluded were labelled the divorce talks but in reality many areas of a future relationship were discussed. The backstop, for example, refers to a future relationship between the UK and the EU.

No reason why trade should not have been discussed also. Had some progress been made on trade other areas of discussion might have been easier.

Many areas may have been discussed but those would have been casual discussions given that the UK has no idea on what position they want to be in when they leave. How can a discussion be held with an uncooperative party who hasn't taken time to consider their position?

As for your view on the backstop, this was put in place because the Irish government asked for it given our understanding of the behaviour of British governments over the years.

Bit cynical wrote: »

Splitting of the talks into two parts, the first of which must conclude with agreement before the next starts was arbitrary and artificial.

What?
How could any kind of meaningful talks be held if one side is uncooperative?

Bit cynical wrote: »

Pretty sure meetings were held fairly early on among the EU27 to determine the EU's position in negotiations.

Fair enough. When and where were these meetings given that youre pretty sure they happened?

1st dalkey dalkey

"While Article 50 governs a country’s departure from the bloc, Article 218 describes how the EU makes agreements with “third countries or international organizations.” So while Article 50 will get the U.K. out the door — the indisputably crucial first step — experts on EU law say an agreement on the future relationship between the U.K. and the EU can only be brokered under Article 218, once Britain returns to third country status."

From an article in 'Politico'.

Discussing any new trade deal can only be done after the UK becomes a Third Country i.e. after it has left.

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It also just popped into my head that if any of the various options mooted i.e. CU/EEA, Norway+, etc. were viable within the UK government then the DUP wouldn't care about the backstop in the WA, as all of those positions in terms of a deal post WA are all benefit to the EU with no negatives.

Therefore the backstop coming into effect would never even be remotely plausible.

I imagine they would still oppose the idea of the backstop as drawing a theoretical distinction between the north and the rest of the UK, no matter how unlikely it was to be triggered.

devnull

Been busy all day and came back to see little has changed.

From what I can see
- May has ruled out a peoples vote
- May has ruled out a customs union
- May has ruled out an extension to Article 50
- May has ruled out withdrawing article 50.

She's also refused to rule out no deal, which seems to be the only other option left on the table, saying there will be a vote on Plan B but has no idea what it will be yet.

Maybe I'm missing something, but is this not yet another case of May once again removing herself from a position which she might have some wriggle room in her position and tying herself ever tighter in her red lines ?

I'm starting to think that she really wants no deal because that might prevent her party splitting and to hell with how that effects the average Joe on the street.

It's beyond a joke, meanwhile I have friends in the UK delivering publicly funded services to people in need that because of the doubts about what is happening they are having to scale back their activities due to lack of certainty of how they will be funded post March caused by all this.

These are the vulnerable people who are going to lose out in No Deal.