Brexit Discussion Thread VI

FreudianSlippers

robinph wrote: »

I can't see her saying anything other than her plan is now to go back to the EU and ask for some reassurances of the reassurances of the reassurances over the backstop. That of course being a totally different plan to the previous one where there wasn't the extra reassurances.

She's had a week to get those reassurances; if she was going to get them and/or those reassurances were going to be sufficient, it would have been done by now.

FreudianSlippers

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In fairness, this is not some polish nobody, but their foreign minister.

His boss is singing from a different hymn sheet though and, given his boss is President of the European Council (Donald Tusk), I'll take the Polish views from the horse's mouth.

demfad

My take is that the chances of No-deal now are very narrow indeed.

Look at it this way.

These are the possible options that might come out of the UK or in other words that have MPs support in Westminster:

Ratify Withdrawal Agreement, Change the WA, Referendum, Revoke, no-Deal crashout (Default).

The WA got only 202 (against 432) in the Commons. It was described as an historic defeat, and technically it is.

In reality this was the popularity of one option against sum of the popularity of 4 others. In truth on a first past the post vote the WA would win easily.
In a PR system if MPs could rate 1-5, the WA again wins easily.

The PR analogy is not bad: As each option is eliminated MPs favouring that would transfer to another option. But there is another rule: If the full time is used up TWO options will always last the distance. The first is the default the "no-deal" catastrophe, the approaching Mincer, the laser closing in on Bond's manhood, the grim reaper. If nothing else happens the UK is kicked out with little preparation. A catastrophe.
The 2nd option is the Negotiated withdrawal agreement. This is ready, it is signed, and will only be extinguished at grim reaper time. Even when Remainers and Brexiteers were toasting it's demise it was rising Terminator like in the background.
Unless something can be done to stop it the Terminator will out survive all opposition. And when the Grim Reapers icy breath is felt on frightened MP's shivering cheeks, they will back the Terminator 500 V 100 (ish).

No matter which way you looked at it the final battle was going to be down to these two, as long as May could delay and sabotage and scupper alternatives. A battle she was bound to win.

But the first chink of danger occurred when her time wasting on her plan B was cut down to 3 days. And worse, Grieve looks likely to set it up so that revoke will kick in before the UK gets minced on March 29th.
The effect of this if successful would be that Revoking A 50 would be the new default, the grim reaper would disappear. And everything would change.

The ERG would immediately row in behind her deal.
The DUP would be left with the unholy choice of the Deal versus no Brexit.
Would May finally have to soften Brexit, (declare a commitment to a CU?) to get a deal through?
Could we see a Brexiteer putting an amendment to such a vote asking for a Referendum should her Deal not pass?

What we are seeing now: the bilateral deal and rewrite GFA nonsense/deflection; the vicious attacks on Grieve; on Commons Clerks; this is May wasting time and sabotaging.

Who will win? May's deal is still a slight favourite overall.

snailsong

Reading this thread it would seem rather unlikely that Article 50 will be extended beyond March 29. However, a leading online bookmaker has an extension of A50 priced at 1/4. In other words they give an extension as being 80% likely. A little less allowing for their margin. Are we missing something?

steddyeddy

The long and short of it is that there's too many nut jobs in the Tory party right now to go for the sensible option.

Hurrache

So it's not the first time the Polish foreign minister made such a suggestion. Last time it was after he was in London, mmm
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1087366982566100992

Strazdas

MrMusician18 wrote: »

In fairness, this is not some polish nobody, but their foreign minister.

With our exposure to British press, it's easy to forget that this is not an all consuming issue on the continent, and something that could become a bit of a political football. It's somewhat surprising that it hasn't already.

In any case, fracturing the EU position won't help the UK. The issues are entirely domestic and it's not the backstop that is the problem with the right of the Tory party, but the idea of a compromise with the EU.

I would read very little into the intervention of the Polish foreign minister. He has just lobbed a couple of soundbites into the debate and probably isn't even fully versed in the details of the backstop or the Irish border.

A European Law Professor suggests on Twitter that the Polish guy might be mischief making and may be secretly sympathetic to May and the Brexiteers.

FreudianSlippers

snailsong wrote: »

Reading this thread it would seem rather unlikely that Article 50 will be extended beyond March 29. However, a leading online bookmaker has an extension of A50 priced at 1/4. In other words they give an extension as being 80% likely. A little less allowing for their margin. Are we missing something?

TM now in HoC and Home Office Questions coming to a close shortly (EDIT: TM is starting now) - depending on what TM says today we might see a shift. As far as I am concerned the only rational purpose of extending the time under Art 50 is to hold a GE or another referendum; at the moment both of those look unlikely as options, but if there is genuinely nothing there today of merit that shows that there is room for movement on the deal then those two options become more likely.

FreudianSlippers

TM: I've engaged in cross-party discussions with everyone except Corbyn (who won't meet) and outlined key issues:

UK leaving without a deal - the right way to rule out no deal is to approve the deal with EU and Gov is seeking to proceed; alternative is to revoke Art 50; others think we should extend Art 50, but that's kicking the can down the road and EU unlikely to agree unless we can show them a plan to actually approve the deal that's on the table.

Revoking Art 50 would nullify referendum result and we should not do this. Duty is to implement decision of first one and second referendum would undermine referenda in the UK and strengthen hand of those looking to break up the UK. If Labour thinks second referendum is the option they would have put it to HoC to a vote (and TM believes they'd lose).

TM making it absolutely clear that her government will not re-open Belfast Agreement and will not allow a hard border either in Ireland or in Irish Sea. Meeting with DUP this week to discuss how to proceed.

TM creating a new negotiation team from multiple disciplines and areas to go back to negotiate with EU (????)

Other than those points, speech is a bit of a nothing-burger.

FreudianSlippers

TM seems to basically have also said that where EU environmental laws are better environmentally than UK laws, the UK will implement the crux of those laws into legislation.

So... what's the point of Brexit again?

Oh... sounds like they're also waiving the £60 fee for EU nationals to apply to remain in the UK; people who have paid will get refunds.



Another vote on 29th to vote on whatever deal TM can get before then. :rolleyes:

Christy42

So she wants to renegotiate within 2 months?!?

And obviously all preparations should be done in the week after as well.

That seems nuts. I wonder if she thinks we will give everyone who shows up a different deal because I am not sure what changing the negotiation team will do.

We don't even have any confidence about what would pass the HOC. The negotiation team is toothless.

Panrich

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

TM seems to basically have also said that where EU environmental laws are better environmentally than UK laws, the UK will implement the crux of those laws into legislation.

So... what's the point of Brexit again?

Oh... sounds like they're also waiving the £60 fee for EU nationals to apply to remain in the UK; people who have paid will get refunds.



Another vote on 29th to vote on whatever deal TM can get before then. :rolleyes:

29th of what month. I'm at work so can't watch this. She surely can't have a new deal in 8 days so that rules out January and 29th March is too late.

FreudianSlippers

Panrich wrote: »

29th of what month. I'm at work so can't watch this. She surely can't have a new deal in 8 days so that rules out January and 29th March is too late.

Apologies - a "neutral vote" on the 29th of January; TM says this is not another vote on her deal from last week (not clear on exactly what it is though). TM is responding to Corbyn and clarifying a few things now, so if it makes sense I'll post it.

demfad

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf

Here is some extracts from the WA on Ireland and what will be protected.

ARTICLE 1
Objectives and relationship to subsequent agreement

1. This Protocol is without prejudice to the provisions of the 1998 Agreement regarding the constitutional status of Northern Ireland and the principle of consent, which provides that any change in that status can only be made with the consent of a majority of its people.
2. This Protocol respects the essential State functions and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom.
3. This Protocol sets out arrangements necessary to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, maintain the necessary conditions for continued North-South cooperation, avoid a hard border and protect the 1998 Agreement in all its dimensions.
4. The objective of the Withdrawal Agreement is not to establish a permanent relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Protocol are therefore intended to apply

Point 3 sets out why the backstop is necessary. This is about more than the GFA. That said the bolded section is hugely significant. This is another safety lock on the GFA. The entirety of the GFA is locked into another International Agreement between UK and EU. This applies until something equal or better comes along and could be permanent. the GFA is protected from ALL FUTURE DANGERS not just the trade deal.
(Some have argued that this makes the GFA the pre-eminent document in the British State. Above the Magna Carta).

RECALLING the commitment of the United Kingdom to protect North-South cooperation and its guarantee of avoiding a hard border, including any physical infrastructure or related checks and controls, and bearing in mind that any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements,

Expanding on the border.

RECALLING that the Joint Report from the negotiators of the European Union and the United Kingdom Government on progress during phase 1 of negotiations under Article 50 TEU on the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal from the European Union of 8 December 2017 outlines three different scenarios for protecting North-South cooperation and avoiding a hard border, but that this Protocol is based on the third scenario of maintaining full alignment with those rules of the Union's internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement, to apply unless and until an alternative arrangement implementing another scenario is agreed,

This defines what North-South cooperation and avoiding a hard border actually means. It de Facto means NI stays in SM and CU.

RECOGNISING that Irish citizens in Northern Ireland, by virtue of their Union citizenship, will continue to enjoy, exercise and have access to rights, opportunities and benefits, and that this Protocol should respect and be without prejudice to the rights, opportunities and identity that come with citizenship of the Union for the people of Northern Ireland who choose to assert their right to Irish citizenship as defined in Annex 2 of the British-Irish Agreement "Declaration on the Provisions of Paragraph (vi) of Article 1 in Relation to Citizenship"

NI Irish Citizens must have Full EU rights. The only way for this to happen is that NI is in CU/SM (I cant see another).

This talk about technical solutions for the border replacing the backstop even if possible misses the point:
The backstop also maintains current and allows for future cooperation, guarantees Irish citizens rights in NI, and protects the GFA by locking it into this massive International agreement.

There can be no movement on this.

Panrich

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Apologies - a "neutral vote" on the 29th of January; TM says this is not another vote on her deal from last week (not clear on exactly what it is though); TM clarifying now, so if it makes sense I'll post it.

To be honest, there is zero chance she will have something substantially different to the deal that lost by 230 votes last week in 8 days time. It's total denial at this stage.

FreudianSlippers

TM just admitted that any deal with require regulatory alignment with EU on goods/services and regulatory legislation surrounding that.

The Brexit that people voted for is pointless and impossible.

Captain Obvious

Sky News Twitter poll shows 26% believe a no deal Brexit means they stay in EU

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1087061534596055040

FreudianSlippers

TM now throwing shade on SNP and Scotland in general saying (effectively) that the idea that Scotland would be better off outside the UK is economically wrong.

devnull

So just listening to what Theresa May is saying and it sounds a little like Groundhog Day once again.

It's really rather pathetic, it's not Plan B, it's Plan A all over again with the smallest changes

I don't know how many times she has to be told by the EU about the backstop, she just doesn't get the message.

Savage Tyrant

Plan B smells an awful lot like Plan A....

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Apologies - a "neutral vote" on the 29th of January; TM says this is not another vote on her deal from last week (not clear on exactly what it is though). TM is responding to Corbyn and clarifying a few things now, so if it makes sense I'll post it.

UPDATE: I'm still none-the-wiser what they are going to be voting on in 8 days - it does sound like TM and the new negotiation team are going to try to (finally) figure out what works for the HoC and then bring that to the EU.

Spoiler alert: not gonna work.

Panrich

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

Plan B smells an awful lot like Plan A....

Just a kick of the can a week down the road being the only difference.

FreudianSlippers

Ah I finally get it. Neutral motion will be TM's plan again, but amendable by motion to all members of HoC - so people can motion to seek a customs union (etc.) as part of the deal.

Basically, TM has given up and is just saying to HoC "vote on whatever you want that'll pass HoC and then I'll bring that to the EU" - I only have one word for this mess: insane.

demfad

Panrich wrote: »

To be honest, there is zero chance she will have something substantially different to the deal that lost by 230 votes last week in 8 days time. It's total denial at this stage.

She just has to waste time. If it comes down to the negotiated deal Vs No-Deal with time nearly up she wins 500-100.

Panrich

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ah I finally get it. Neutral motion will be TM's plan again, but amendable by motion to all members of HoC - so people can motion to seek a customs union (etc.) as part of the deal.

Basically, TM has given up and is just saying to HoC "vote on whatever you want that'll pass HoC and then I'll bring that to the EU" - I only have one word for this mess: insane.

I reckon this is the best outcome for us. There's no majority for no deal and the ERG headbangers and the DUP will be outvoted. I can see a Customs union and perhaps even a single market amendment getting passed by Tory/Labour alliances.

robinph

So if it's a neutral vote does that mean she loses the 100+ ministers who voted for the deal last week because they are on the payroll?

Sir Oxman

Or FG agreeing to something akin to the Poles idea.
The pressure/threat is being put on Ireland

Hurrache

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Or FG agreeing to something akin to the Poles idea.
The pressure/threat is being put on Ireland

FG agree to nothing, it's the EU they're dealing with.

FrancieBrady

Sir Oxman wrote: »

Or FG agreeing to something akin to the Poles idea.
The pressure/threat is being put on Ireland

Why would there be pressure if No Deal is off the table? Theresa's deal suits us fine as does revoking Art 50

BorneTobyWilde

If they leave with no deal then surely the first thing they do the next day is form a free trade deal with EU? This goes without saying, that a free trade deal will be in place pretty fast.
This whole backstop makes no sense, as of course the UK will want a trade deal with EU so no border will be needed. A free trade agreement avoids tariffs and some non-tariff barriers.
Brexiters want out of EU, out of Custom Union, but a free trade deal put in place instantly?
The whole thing has none of the benefits of being in EU, and many many drawbacks of being out. The hardcore Brexiters want nothing to do with EU, they seem to want to be the next North Korea, makes no sense. The simply fact is deal or no deal Britain will have a trade deal with EU, and align most if not all regulation with the EU's so that a trade deal can be put in place fast, so the Brexiters dream is but that, a dream, a fantasy. Britain deal or no deal will be very much aligned with EU on trade and policy .