Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Junkyard Tom

Johnson and Davis and Raab should be the ones who lead Britain if there must be a crash-out Brexit so that, in the future, their utter incompetence can be exposed and the Conservative party can be torn asunder.

Leroy42

You have to wonder why TM stays on? After that massive loss she really shpuld have stood aside.

Hurrache

The sadly ironic thing about the story the Telegraph is carrying is that May thinks it's anti democratic to have another vote on what was a non binding referendum in the UK but has no issue with suggesting a change to a legally enforceable referendum involving Ireland.

EdgeCase

Hurrache wrote: »

The sadly ironic thing about the story the Telegraph is carrying is that May thinks it's anti democratic to have another vote on what was a non binding referendum in the UK but has no issue with suggesting a change to a legally enforceable referendum involving Ireland.

Quite simply : nobody else matters. Never has. Never will. That's what the problem with supremacists. They'll always think they're better than everyone else.

Ireland's simply either a problem or a possession to them. In their minds it's not a real country and certainly not an equal partner in anyway. The same goes for how they interact with the EU. They can't operate in a group where they have to be an equal member. It's always exceptionalism and notions of superiority. They don't do team sports. They take the ball and run away with it.

How is anyone going to be able to sign agreements with them on anything? They seem to not even understand what an agreement is.

I would give May some leeway as a big chunk of British press basically reports whatever it wants to happen as opposed to what's actually happening and this could a be utter waffle and speculation.

However, it shows how little this particular cohort (and it's not all of English politics) cares about anything other than themselves.

The idea that anyone would dismantle the GFA doesn't even bear thinking about. It's utter lunacy.

I suspect Anglo-Irish relations could become a lot less warm in the coming years if this is the route they really intend to take.

Also I suspect that the lack of a sane US president isn't helping either as the Americans have actually played a very major role in ensuring the GFA had the diplomatic backing make the British pay attention to it.

With Trump, who knows? I doubt he'll be that bothered although his cabinet is full of Irish American right wingers.

It'll be very unlikely that they'll back it like it would have been stood up for under Obama, Clinton or even GW Bush.

Peregrinus

Hurrache wrote: »

The sadly ironic thing about the story the Telegraph is carrying is that May thinks it's anti democratic to have another vote on what was a non binding referendum in the UK but has no issue with suggesting a change to a legally enforceable referendum involving Ireland.

Amendments to the GFA don't necessarily require referendums in Ireland (or NI). After all, the St. Andrew's agreement amended the GFA; no referendums were involved.

To say whether a particular amendment to the GFA would or would not require a referendum it is necessary to know exactly what amendment is being proposed. And the honours students will have noticed that the briefing to the newspapers has been distinctly light on such details.

Similarly with the (absurd) suggestion that the backstop in the WA would be replaced with a bilateral UK/IRL treaty which would reassure the Irish government to such an extent that they would agree to the backstop being dropped. What would, or even conceivably could, be included in a UK/IRL treaty that could possibly provide this degree of reassurance? Again, there is no hint of an answer to this pretty obvious question in the stories given to the newspapers.

All of which leads me to the unworthy suspicion that these stories are designed to give the appearance of movement, of action, of flexiblity, without there being any corresponding reality. Which means:

(a) the UK government still has no clue what it is going to do; or

(b) they are laying a smokescreen to buy time for/distract attention from some quite different move.

Option (a), if I'm honest, is much more likely, but option (b) is at least a possibility.

murphaph

EdgeCase wrote: »

Also I suspect that the lack of a sane US president isn't helping either as the Americans have actually played a very major role in ensuring the GFA had the diplomatic backing make the British pay attention to it.

That's an excellent point. I can't imagine Clinton or Obama sitting idly by during this. The Irish government would make approaches and ensure a quiet word was had in London's ear about this. With Trump that would appear unwise as he's likely to just blurt it out if anything and he's no particular friend of either Ireland or the UK.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Amendments to the GFA don't necessarily require referendums in Ireland (or NI). After all, the St. Andrew's agreement amended the GFA; no referendums were involved.

To say whether a particular amendment to the GFA would or would not require a referendum it is necessary to know exactly what amendment is being proposed. And the honours students will have noticed that the briefing to the newspapers has beein distinctly light on such details.

Similarly with the (absurd) suggestion that the backstop in the WA would be replaced with a bilateral UK/IRL treaty which would reassure the Irish government to such an extent that they would agree to the backstop being dropped. What would, or even conceivably could, be included in a UK/IRL treaty that could possibly provide this degree of reassurance? Again, there is no hint of an answer to this pretty obvious question in the stories given to the newspapers.

All of which leads me to the unworthy suspicion that these stories are designed to give the appearance of movement, of action, of flexiblity, without their being any actual reality. Which means:

(a) the UK government still has no clue what it is going to do; or

(b) they are laying a smokescreen to buy time for/distract attention from some quite different move.

Option (a), if I'm honest, is much more likely, but option (b) is at least a possibility.

I agree here. They have been pushing stories all weekend, there is something afoot. I go option B

Gerinspain

I was just reading Gove’s views about the GFA after a discussion in another forum. It wouldn’t be good for peace in NI if he was PM.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/11/the-price-of-peace/amp/

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I agree here. They have been pushing stories all weekend, there is something afoot. I go option B

I'm struggling to think, though, what the "quite different move" could be.

The problem facing May - or one of the problems, anyway - is that her government is widely perceived to be losing authority, control, relevance. Since the bizarre sequence of events that started with the voting down by the Commons of the Withdrawal Agreement, there's a growing sense that she and her government do not have the capacity to lead the way to any resolution of the questions facing the UK - that it matters less and less what she does, because some grown-ups (or some relatively grown-up people, anyway) are going to have to step in to fix that. Some alliance of Tory remainers and the Labour party will intervent to take no-deal off the table, for example.

May desparately needs to counteract that narrative, or she could be toast within days. But floating these batsh1t-insane detached-from-elementary-reality proposals, far from counteracting the losing-control narrative, can only reinforce it. Of those offering ways forward, you'd bracket people offering this kind of stuff along with Raab, currently telling anyone who will listen that a no-deal Brexit will bring the EU whingeing back to the negotiating table to give the UK the Brexit it deserves.

In short, May does such colossal reputational damage to herself and what remains of her government with this sh!te that either (a) she must be about to unveil some really super absolutely brilliant game-changing plan that will totally make people forgive and forget this kind of stupidity, or (b) she really has lost the plot. And I can't think of what that plan might be; nor can I think of her government as the kind of government that can produce such a plan.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm struggling to think, though, what the "quite different move" could be.

The problem facing May - or one of the problems, anyway - is that her government is widely perceived to be losing authority, control, relevance. Since the bizarre sequenc of events that started with the voting down by the Commons of the Withdrawal Agreement, there's a growing sense that she and her government do not have the capacity to lead the way to any resolution of the questions facing the UK - that it matters less and less what she does, because some grown-ups (or some relatively grown-up people, anyway) are going to have to step in to fix that. Some alliance of Tory remainers and the Labour party will intervent to take no-deal off the table, for example.

May desparately needs to counteract that narrative, or she could be toast within days. But floating these bat****-insane detached-from-elementary-reality proposals, far from counteracting the losing-control narrative, can only reinforce it. Of those offering ways forward, you'd bracket people offering this kind of stuff along with Raab, currently telling anyone who will listen that a no-deal Brexit will bring the EU whingeing back to the negotiating table to give the UK the Brexit it deserves.

In short, May does such colossal reputational damage to herself and what remains of her government with this sh!te that (a) she must be about to unveil some really super absolutely brilliant game-changing plan that will totally make people forgive and forget this kind of stupidity, or (b) she really has lost the plot. And I can't think of what that plan might be; nor can I think of her government as the kind of government that can produce such a plan.

Jeffery Donaldson being very conciliatory about 'talks' with the Irish Gov. on RTE right now. I mean, really conciliatory.

I think option B may be a kick to touch strategy. 'Ongoing talks' etc etc. An attempt to isolate and pressure Dublin maybe. Divide and conquer.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jeffery Donaldson being very conciliatory about 'talks' with the Irish Gov. on RTE right now. I mean, really conciliatory.

I think option B may be a kick to touch strategy. 'Ongoing talks' etc etc. An attempt to isolate and pressure Dublin maybe. Divide and conquer.

But it's pointless. Trade, market regulation, etc are EU competences. Dublin lacks the legal competence to make a treaty with the EU which could contain the kinds of measures needed to keep the border open. HMG knows this. The Irish government knows this. HMG knows that the Irish government knows this. They might as well try to make a "lets keep the border open" agreement with Monaghan County Council for all the good it could do.

At a guess, Donaldson is being positive about the "talks" because he knows the Irish government will decline opportunity to engage in such talks, and he wants to be in a position to say "Look! It's Irish government intransigence and inflexibility that is causing a hard border!"

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's pointless. Trade, market regulation, etc are EU competences. Dublin lacks the legal competence to make a treaty with the EU which could contain the kinds of measures needed to keep the border open. HMG knows this. The Irish government knows this. HMG knows that the Irish government knows this. They might as well try to make a "lets keep the border open" agreement with Monaghan County Council for all the good it could do.

At a guess, Donaldson is being positive about the "talks" because he knows the Irish government will decline opportunity to engage in such talks, and he wants to be in a position to say "Look! It's Irish government intransigence and inflexibility that is causing a hard border!"

I can see the EU (Dublin will find it hard to rebuff this approach) allowing talks between Dub-London and DUP-Dublin in their own effort to be seen as being 'positive'. I think they will find it very hard to finally shut the door.
I sense they are looking for good reasons to allow more time.

I agree it is all pointless unless red lines disappear, but May is more interested in survival and the survival of her party.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can see the EU (Dublin will find it hard to rebuff this approach) allowing talks between Dub-London and DUP-Dublin in their own effort to be seen as being 'positive'. I think they will find it very hard to finally shut the door.
I sense they are looking for good reasons to allow more time.

I agree it is all pointless unless red lines disappear, but May is more interested in survival and the survival of her party.

But, remember, the EU has its own interests here, quite apart from solidarity with member states and protection of the GFA. The EU is also concerned about the integrity of the single market. They are not going to let Ireland make arrangements that could threaten that, still less encourage us to do so.

(And, make no mistake; we would do that in a heartbeat, if we were let.)

There's a precedent; when Poland acceded to the EU, they wanted to negotiate their own border arrangements with the Ukraine (to preserve an existing visa-free access arrangement the two countries had). That request got short shrift.

Ireland will not attempt to persuade the EU to let us make a bilateral deal with the UK that would keep the border open and, if we did ask, the EU would not agree. And HMG knows all this. The most likely explanation for HMG's stance here is that it's an attempt to play to the gallery.

(But, if so, for reasons already given it's a very ill-judged attempt.)

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, remember, the EU has its own interests here, quite apart from solidarity with member states and protection of the GFA. The EU is also concerned about the integrity of the single market. They are not going to let Ireland make arrangements that could threaten that, still less encourage us to do so.

(And, make no mistake; we would do that in a heartbeat, if we were let.)

There's a precedent; when Poland acceded to the EU, they wanted to negotiate their own border arrangements with the Ukraine (to preserve an existing visa-free access arrangement the two countries had). That request got short shrift.

Ireland will not attempt to persuade the EU to let us make a bilateral deal with the UK that would keep the border open and, if we did ask, the EU would not agree. And HMG knows all this. The most likely explanation for HMG's stance here is that it's an attempt to play to the gallery.

(But, if so, for reasons already given it's a very ill-judged attempt.)

It is a kick to touch excercise. Stall the whole end date. Everyone knows it will achieve and can't achieve anything but that.

It is the only sense I can see from the weekend developments. It will be interesting to see if Dublin will strongly rebuff the efforts.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jeffery Donaldson being very conciliatory about 'talks' with the Irish Gov. on RTE right now. I mean, really conciliatory.

That struck me too actually when I heard him and was expecting his usual bluster. Reality may be dawning. He did talk about how good the GFA is, but weren't the DUP not in favour?

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It is a kick to touch excercise. Stall the whole end date. Everyone knows it will achieve and can't achieve anything but that.

It is the only sense I can see from the weekend developments. It will be interesting to see if Dublin will strongly rebuff the efforts.

Coveney and Helen McEntee have already knocked them back. No point in wasting time at this stage of the game.

Incidentally, Jim Pickard (who is Chief Political Corr for the FT) is tweeting that his Downing Street sources are telling him that the Telegraph story (on the proposal to rewrite the GFA) is "nonsense". But it's a racing certainty that the Telegraphs story also comes from Downing St sources, so it seems that Downing St is planting these stories to see what kind of reaction they get and, if the reaction is unfavourable, is then denying them.

Peregrinus

Hurrache wrote: »

That struck me too actually when I heard him and was expecting his usual bluster. Reality may be dawning. He did talk about how good the GFA is, but weren't the DUP not in favour?

Still aren't. The DUP have never signed the GFA, and are not parties to it.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Ireland will not attempt to persuade the EU to let us make a bilateral deal with the UK that would keep the border open and, if we did ask, the EU would not agree. And HMG knows all this. The most likely explanation for HMG's stance here is that it's an attempt to play to the gallery.

Almost certainly it is aimed at the UK audience but to hear Raab spout such nonsense with a straight face doesn't inspire confidence.

But it seems that there is still a consituency in the UK that still doesn't get the whole point of the EU and the single market. The real worry is that some of them are in Westminster - and in cabinet.

Leroy42

Lets try to follow this 'bi-lateral talks' idea. So UK and Ireland have talks, aimed at coming to a specific arrangement which removes the need for a backstop. But even if the EU, through the prize of continued peace in NI, allowed this to happen, they are no going to allow it to be the agreement for the entire EU.

So in effect it will be limited to NI and possibly trade with Ireland/UK. So in effect the UK are saying that they are opening to treating NI differently than the rest of the UK, which if I am not mistaken is the entire basis for the DUP raging against the deal.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

Almost certainly it is aimed at the UK audience but to hear Raab spout such nonsense with a straight face doesn't inspire confidence.

But it seems that there is still a consituency in the UK that still doesn't get the whole point of the EU and the single market. The real worry is that some of them are in Westminster - and in cabinet.

It is quite extraordinary that everytime Raab comes on spouting some other idea that he isn't immediately simply asked why he didn't do that when he was Brexit minister and how he allowed it to get to this mess. He will of course try to shift the blame to TM, at which point ask him how he backed her in the NC motion when she stabbed him in the back.

Instead he is allowed talk about what should/could happen as if he has never been involved. He is now a hurler on the ditch, complaining about how terrible the manager is, when he has just been sent off after giving away the winning penalty!

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is quite extraordinary that everytime Raab comes on spouting some other idea that he isn't immediately simply asked why he didn't do that when he was Brexit minister and how he allowed it to get to this mess. He will of course try to shift the blame to TM, at which point ask him how he backed her in the NC motion when she stabbed him in the back.

Instead he is allowed talk about what should/could happen as if he has never been involved. He is now a hurler on the ditch, complaining about how terrible the manager is, when he has just been sent off after giving away the winning penalty!

Well he did take over from David Davis and there is enough stories out there on how much he worked on Brexit when he was in charge. Is it any wonder Theresa May took over the negotiations? In saying that even if he was given more responsibility there is no way he would have made any difference, positively, to the talks.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

Coveney and Helen McEntee have already knocked them back. No point in wasting time at this stage of the game.

Donaldson's appeal for talks?

franglan

There is an agreement on the table - the EU has said it's the only deal there will be and perhaps surprisingly I don't think they'll budge on this! May went to Europe looking for amendments in the past month and returned with nothing. Even some of the British media coming out that she'll go to Europe again. I simply cannot fathom why they are not getting this.

Hurrache

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I can see the EU (Dublin will find it hard to rebuff this approach) allowing talks between Dub-London and DUP-Dublin in their own effort to be seen as being 'positive'. I think they will find it very hard to finally shut the door.

Dublin won't go for it.

Call me Al

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Jeffery Donaldson being very conciliatory about 'talks' with the Irish Gov. on RTE right now. I mean, really conciliatory.

I think option B may be a kick to touch strategy. 'Ongoing talks' etc etc. An attempt to isolate and pressure Dublin maybe. Divide and conquer.

Beware the Greeks, even those bearing gifts.

We all know the DUP aren't supporters of the GFA.

They've actively lobbied against it, are vocal in their support of Brexiteers who believe it has outlived its use, and would be as well pleased to see the back of it.
If we start down the path of opening this can of worms it will not end well.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of which leads me to the unworthy suspicion that these stories are designed to give the appearance of movement, of action, of flexiblity, without there being any corresponding reality. Which means:

(a) the UK government still has no clue what it is going to do; or

(b) they are laying a smokescreen to buy time for/distract attention from some quite different move.

Option (a), if I'm honest, is much more likely, but option (b) is at least a possibility.

If you look at this through the prism of what's gone before, it can only be more of the same. I.e, all internally focused and designed to get May's deal through parliament. So it's continual kite flying to see what will persaude the rest of her party to support her deal. It's just more of the UK negotiating with itself and whether or not it's deliverable doesn't matter.

Leroy42

Any response from Leo, and IMO he shouldn't even bother, should be to simply say that if they are wanting talks to agree on how exactly to implement that December agreement, entered into by the PM, then he is open to that as they need to work together to aid the transfer.

But talks can only start on the basis that that agreement is adhered to.

Although, I think even something like will only be used against the EU and Leo so probably better to simply stay out of it as clearly the UK are flailing around looking for anything and wil drag the nearest person under with them to try to save themselves.

Peregrinus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Donaldson's appeal for talks?

Not Donaldson's appeal in particular. Newspaper reports of a plan to make a bilateral UK/IRL agreement as an alternative to having a backstop in the WA.

First Up

Leroy42 wrote:

Lets try to follow this 'bi-lateral talks' idea. So UK and Ireland have talks, aimed at coming to a specific arrangement which removes the need for a backstop. But even if the EU, through the prize of continued peace in NI, allowed this to happen, they are no going to allow it to be the agreement for the entire EU.

The UK has always seen Ireland as a source of leverage in negotiations with the EU. The hope is that the desire for a borderless Ireland will outweigh everything else and "force" the EU to concede a free trade deal without strings attached. This means mutual recognition of standards and allow the UK strike its own deals elsewhere - a sort of "honorary membership" of the bits of the EU they like.

This was seen a mile off and years ago in Brussels and across the 27.

Dyr

I think if we've seen anything it's that May has no plan other than carry on regardless and hope that someone, anyone at this stage, will blink.

She's tried it with the DUP, she's tried it with the ERG, she's tried it with the EU and now she's trying it with us.