Brexit Discussion Thread VI

UsedToWait

J Mysterio wrote: »

Ian Dunt is getting pretty blunt https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/1090365295150141442

He pulls no punches, as usual

May had promised something she could not specify and which had already been ruled out. And not only that: she had shot her own deal in the heart. It was No.10 which said the border in Ireland had to be kept open. It was No.10 which asked for it to cover the whole of the UK. Now, after all that negotiation, she is going to go back to the EU and demand that they destroy the accomplishments she herself secured.
It is insane. It is a degree of contortion which would be remarkable if it weren't so ghastly.
But in a way, it was typical May tactics. She prioritised vague promises over content. She sabotaged something - anything - in order to fight another day. She made promises she could not keep on issues she knew to be false. Once again, she said anything, anything at all, to survive just a little longer.
But there are consequences to this lunacy. Britain is now, it is clear to the world, not a serious country. The way it is behaving is simply not rational. Any reputation it had for credibility or sound judgement is gone. It is a basketcase.
That is humiliating enough. But it has significant medium-term implications too. Firstly, it shows why the backstop was needed in the first place. This country has become an unreliable negotiating partner. It will demand something one day then seek to detonate it the next. The events in the Commons today actually had the ironic effect of reaffirming to the EU the need for the backstop insurance policy.
On a broader level, we are about to go around the world asking for trade deals. But we're seen, by everyone, on the largest stage imaginable, to be fundamentally politically insane. We've gone mad and everyone is looking.
This is as bleak a day as we have had in the entire Brexit process. All roads now seem blocked. MPs won't back an extension to Article 50. They won't back May's deal. And they won't back no-deal. They've opted for fairy tales over action. Things are looking very bad indeed.

Edit: for light relief, you could watch this 40 second compilation (Definitely Not Safe For Work!) of presenters making the obvious pitfall when meaning to say 'The Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt '

https://twitter.com/PaulCarmichaelV/status/1089984175963361282

View

Bit cynical wrote: »

But (seeming to) rule out a hard border even in the event of a no deal brexit is Ireland's way of putting a bit of pressure on the EU to be flexible. It is a way of weakening the EU's position in Ireland's favour.

Except that doesn’t work. EU and WTO rules require border checks etc etc which means a hard border on every other one in the world (bar ones with formal customs union arrangements). If we are saying no to a hard border, we are saying no to our honouring the commitments of our EU membership. We are in real danger of damaging our EU membership (and becoming a half-in/half-out member) and being seen as a country utterly dependent on Brexit Britain.

Bit cynical

View wrote: »

Except that doesn’t work. EU and WTO rules require border checks etc etc which means a hard border on every other one in the world (bar ones with formal customs union arrangements). If we are saying no to a hard border, we are saying no to our honouring the commitments of our EU membership. We are in real danger of damaging our EU membership (and becoming a half-in/half-out member) and being seen as a country utterly dependent on Brexit Britain.

That's why I said "seeming to" in parenthesis. The way it is normally phrased is that Ireland "has no plans" to erect the border but, of course, this is not the same as saying that we won't erect it.

In the end, if there's no deal, Ireland will build the border. We will be ordered to.

Paranoid Bob

briany wrote: »

So, to sum up - Parliament can find a majority on a condition that's already been rejected by the EU. What alternative arrangements regarding the border can May propose, with two months to go to get them ready, that the EU would agree to? Are there any? There can't be. The UK would have proposed them by now as the backstop wasn't even something they wanted in the first place (or at least not since the 2017 GE).

Why do you say the condition has been rejected by the EU? The EU and Ireland have always said that the backstop is only required until there is an agreed alternative that does not require a hard border. The Brady amendment is about replacing the backstop with an alternative arrangement that does not require a hard border.
... all the UK govt has to do now is explain the alternative that does not require a hard border and everyone is happy!


Plus, of course, the brexiteers have promised that it would be easy to use 'technology' to avoid a hard border.

downcow

briany wrote: »

The delicious kicker is that the other passing amendment - that the UK must not leave without a deal - is only advisory. And when the UKgovernment reminds us of this on no-deal Brexit day, everyone would do well to remind them it was an advisory referendum that started this whole mess.

There’s no comparison. Both parties said they would abide by what the people said in advisory referendum. No one has said that about the advisory vote tonight. They can’t commit to both as they are opposed to each other.

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Not a numerically significant group, but European Greens press release:

In the 2015 GE they got SIX times as many votes as the DUP. But single seat constituencies so they can be safely ignored.

1,111,603 votes vs 184,260

charlie14

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Why do you say the condition has been rejected by the EU? The EU and Ireland have always said that the backstop is only required until there is an agreed alternative that does not require a hard border. The Brady amendment is about replacing the backstop with an alternative arrangement that does not require a hard border.
... all the UK govt has to do now is explain the alternative that does not require a hard border and everyone is happy!


Plus, of course, the brexiteers have promised that it would be easy to use 'technology' to avoid a hard border.

Isn`t the Brady amendment practically irrelevant as it is only advisory, not binding ?

downcow

Just in and tried to quickly catch up on WM voting. Looks like a better night than I honestly expected.
Now at last it’s over to the EU. I will be very surprised if their position does not shift a little to meet the UK. Not for a while mind. I reckon it could still be a week or two before they begin to move publicly

Scott Tenorman

This section from the Ian Dunt piece quoted above sum up May perfectly

it was typical May tactics. She prioritised vague promises over content. She sabotaged something - anything - in order to fight another day. She made promises she could not keep on issues she knew to be false. Once again, she said anything, anything at all, to survive just a little longer.

All she cares about is clinging on. Leadership? Don't make me laugh!

bob mcbob

The Guardian sums up tonight perfectly.

A pyrrhic success built on fantasy.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/the-guardian-view-on-theresa-mays-victory-a-pyrrhic-success-built-on-fantasy

BorneTobyWilde

Irish Government,
'' no room to move on '' back stop'' it's in deal and deal is not getting reopened, its there to avoid a hard border''

EU
'' Not reopening Brexit deal, it was agreed and signed by all parties, back stop remains to avoid hard border''

But how on earth can they both say this when a No Deal leads to a hard border.
Seems they have no choice, reopen Brexit deal, or it's no deal and a hard border !
Answer is obvious,, reopen deal and work back stop out so that everyone is happy, no one wants a hard border so it can't be difficult to agree something when all parties are on same page and want the same thing.

hotmail.com

blanch152 wrote: »

Which British MP would you take instead of her?

The mess of Brexit doesn't stop us from criticising our own lot every now and then. Obviously Helen has a lot of fans here.

blackcard

downcow wrote: »

Just in and tried to quickly catch up on WM voting. Looks like a better night than I honestly expected.
Now at last it’s over to the EU. I will be very surprised if their position does not shift a little to meet the UK. Not for a while mind. I reckon it could still be a week or two before they begin to move publicly

It is already back to the UK, Tusk has rejected any change to the agreement

briany

View wrote: »

Except that doesn’t work. EU and WTO rules require border checks etc etc which means a hard border on every other one in the world (bar ones with formal customs union arrangements). If we are saying no to a hard border, we are saying no to our honouring the commitments of our EU membership. We are in real danger of damaging our EU membership (and becoming a half-in/half-out member) and being seen as a country utterly dependent on Brexit Britain.

If Ireland is going to get the same result whether pushing for a backstop or accepting border controls, then we may as well go with the option that is at least being seen to lean towards Irish interests, tries to safeguard the Peace Process and doesn't constitute a major U-turn. The GFA and Brexit aren't compatible, and there's no really great outcome for Ireland, save Britain cancelling the thing altogether, and that's something which is looking more and more and more unlikely.

Larbre34

Let them bedamned. Once they've had their civil war and the UK has ceased to exist in its current form, those nations that wish to can come back and join the Union with a clean sheet.

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

There’s no comparison. Both parties said they would abide by what the people said in advisory referendum. No one has said that about the advisory vote tonight. They can’t commit to both as they are opposed to each other.

The same politicians also said before the referendum that no deal was not a possibility and that a second referendum on the deal thats negotiated would make sense.

Its funny the cognitive dissonace you employ to be able to ignore the things politicians have said that you disagree with or dont want to remember

downcow

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Irish Government,
'' no room to move on '' back stop'' it's in deal and deal is not getting reopened, its there to avoid a hard border''

EU
'' Not reopening Brexit deal, it was agreed and signed by all parties, back stop remains to avoid hard border''

But how on earth can they both say this when a No Deal leads to a hard border.
Seems they have no choice, reopen Brexit deal, or it's no deal and a hard border !
Answer is obvious,, reopen deal and work back stop out so that everyone is happy, no one wants a hard border so it can't be difficult to agree something when all parties are on same page and want the same thing.

Excellently put. Common sense

Paranoid Bob

charlie14 wrote: »

Isn`t the Brady amendment practically irrelevant as it is only advisory, not binding ?

Absolutely. The intent was to show the EU that the deal could be agreed if this change was made as a way of giving May a mandate to get the change and give the EU reason to give way.
The thing is that the EU can accept this change without giving away anything. They can agree, in a legally binding addendum, that the backstop will not be applied once the alternative arrangements are in place. This gives Brady and the UK parliament exactly what they asked for while giving away nothing at all.

ARNOLD J RIMMER

downcow wrote: »

Just in and tried to quickly catch up on WM voting. Looks like a better night than I honestly expected.
Now at last it’s over to the EU. I will be very surprised if their position does not shift a little to meet the UK. Not for a while mind. I reckon it could still be a week or two before they begin to move publicly

It was over to the EU for 10min . Now back to the UK for 59 days

Professor Moriarty

Today Juncker, Coveney, Macron and Tusk have said the agreement won't be renegotiated and I'm listening to a Tory minister talking about renegotiating the deal. Hmmm who to believe? So hard...

FrancieBrady

ARNOLD J RIMMER wrote: »

It was over to the EU for 10min . Now back to the UK for 59 days

I counted 4 official statements from the EU today that today in parliament was a massive waste of everyone's time. Tusk answered the vote within 2 minutes - not 10.

charlie14

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Absolutely. The intent was to show the EU that the deal could be agreed if this change was made as a way of giving May a mandate to get the change and give the EU reason to give way.
The thing is that the EU can accept this change without giving away anything. They can agree, in a legally binding addendum, that the backstop will not be applied once the alternative arrangements are in place. This gives Brady and the UK parliament exactly what they asked for while giving away nothing at all.

For that to occur then will NI not have to remain in the CU until such alternative arrangements are in place and are acceptable to the EU would it not ?

hotmail.com

The Daily Mail is telling it's readers that the vote was a Triumph!

Eh ok. I think I'm right in saying that the Mail supported the withdrawal agreement.

prawnsambo

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Absolutely. The intent was to show the EU that the deal could be agreed if this change was made as a way of giving May a mandate to get the change and give the EU reason to give way.
The thing is that the EU can accept this change without giving away anything. They can agree, in a legally binding addendum, that the backstop will not be applied once the alternative arrangements are in place. This gives Brady and the UK parliament exactly what they asked for while giving away nothing at all.

That's already in the agreement. What do you think "Unless and until" was all about?

Paranoid Bob

charlie14 wrote: »

For that to occur then will NI not have to remain in the CU until such alternative arrangements are in place and are acceptable to the EU would it not ?

Yes. If, as the Brady amendment proposes, they want to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements then they will need to get those alternatives agreed.

brooke 2

hotmail.com wrote: »

The Medieval practices within the so called debates is completely ridiculous. Referring to each as the Right honourable etc. Is this democracy?

The whole thing looks bizarre. Positively primitive. :mad:

Paranoid Bob

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's already in the agreement. What do you think "Unless and until" was all about?

That's my point. The whole Brady amendment is entirely consistent with the Withdrawal Agreement as-is. That's why I say that we should enthusiastically embrace it. It gives May and the UK parliament something to crow about while giving up nothing at all.

charlie14

Paranoid Bob wrote: »

Yes. If, as the Brady amendment proposes, they want to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements then they will need to get those alternatives agreed.

So how is that going to be possible under this none binding Brady amendment when exactly the same has already been rejected by the hoc`s ?

J Mysterio

charlie14 wrote: »

Isn`t the Brady amendment practically irrelevant as it is only advisory, not binding ?

The Brexit ref was advisory...

Macy0161

Watching newsnight... Delusional is the word for all brexiters, and Emily Maitlis (and several other BBC reporters/ correspondents over the evening).