Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They want all the benefits of a deal without the backstop, they don't want to have to go into no-deal territory to get away from the backstop.

I get that.

But faced with no deal or deal with backstop they can break and go back to no deal, why not take it?

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

I get that.

But faced with no deal or deal with backstop they can break and go back to no deal, why not take it?

Because their name would then be mud with every other country they want to negotiate a trade deal with.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I get that.

But faced with no deal or deal with backstop they can break and go back to no deal, why not take it?

Because it gives them no leverage.

If they agree to the backstop, then the border can never be used as a political tool to put pressure on the EU.

If the sign up to it, then withdraw from it, the only thing the EU will discuss with the UK before any trade negotiations, is getting the backstop back in place.

They want to be able to threaten the EU with a hard border in Ireland in order to make trade negotiations go their way. The backstop prevents them from doing that.

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

Because their name would then be mud with every other country they want to negotiate a trade deal with.

I think they may already be knee deep in that mud considering the amount of flip flopping and reneging Britain has done over the past two years.

prawnsambo

VinLieger wrote: »

Because their name would then be mud with every other country they want to negotiate a trade deal with.

Including the EU. They'd have to be deluded on a weapon's grade scale to think that they will have a deal completed with the EU before the transition period runs out. Even their own track record in negotiating a withdrawal agreement that has essentially only a few technical aspects, should give them an idea of the complexity of the task ahead of them.

ancapailldorcha

Imreoir2 wrote: »

They want all the benefits of a deal without the backstop, they don't want to have to go into no-deal territory to get away from the backstop.

Seems to me that remaining in the EU solves all of these problems. I get that senior figures in government aren't in favour of it but I see no alternative to no deal.

VinLieger

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think they may already be knee deep in that mud considering the amount of flip flopping and reneging Britain has done over the past two years.

Ohh absolutely but walking away from a signed and sealed deal like the WA would be another level, how could anybody trust them in any realistic way ever again?

RobMc59

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seems to me that remaining in the EU solves all of these problems. I get that senior figures in government aren't in favour of it but I see no alternative to no deal.

That's right but Anna Soubrey put it in a nutshell yesterday,the tory party is controlled by right wing extremists from top to bottom and TM is too scared to challenge them.

Professor Moriarty

VinLieger wrote: »

Ohh absolutely but walking away from a signed and sealed deal like the WA would be another level, how could anybody trust them in any realistic way ever again?

Exactly. One estimate is that Brexit has cost Britain 80 billion in lost income so far. That doesn't include future investment where, no doubt, investors have looked at how Britain is governed, its electoral system and its inherent Eurosceptism, and they've decided that it's going to be a basket case for quite a long time. So they invest elsewhere.

Seth Brundle

Oh dear, it turns out this Brexit malarkey is more difficult than we thought...

https://twitter.com/Doozy_45/status/1098594095323365377

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

That's right but Anna Soubrey put it in a nutshell yesterday,the tory party is controlled by right wing extremists from top to bottom and TM is too scared to challenge them.

Right but the ERG and the hard Brexiteers only have influence because of May's wafer-thin majority. The rest of her party favours staying in for the most part. If she delivers a no deal Brexit, she will almost certainly split the party. How will they fare when US healthcare companies come knocking for their slices of the NHS, the closest thing the British have to a religion? She's using political sticky tape to patch up a crumbling party and it's sucking the lifeblood out of the nation.

ancapailldorcha

Regarding trade, The Economist had this in last Saturday's issue:

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Regarding trade, The Economist had this in last Saturday's issue:

And these are only continuity agreements. The real trade agreements would have to be negotiated (all 69 of them). But look, it's grand. Britain has agreed continuity trade agreements with these 6 countries/regions so nothing to worry about: Switzerland, Chile, the Faroe Islands, eastern and southern Africa, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It's fine, nothing to see here.

10000maniacs

Boy, How things have changed since 1983. Thatcher was a lot of things, but at least she saw the big picture.

1983 Conservative Party General Election Manifesto

Britain in Europe

The creation of the European Community has been vital in cementing lasting peace in Europe and ending centuries of hostility. We came to office determined to make a success of British membership of the Community. This we have done.

Our first priority in 1979 was to cut our financial contribution to the Community Budget to a fairer level. Labour made a song and dance about renegotiating the terms, but had achieved nothing. The bill to British taxpayers soared.

We have stood up for Britain's interests, and substantially reduced our net contribution to the Community Budget. We have tenaciously sought a permanent alternative to the annual wrangles about refunds. Until we secure a lasting solution, we shall make sure of proper interim safeguards for this country. Meanwhile, with the help of Conservatives in the European Parliament, we shall continue to try to shift the Community's spending priorities away from agriculture and towards industrial, regional and other policies which help Britain more.

We shall continue both to oppose petty acts of Brussels bureaucracy and to seek the removal of unnecessary restrictions on the free movement of goods and services between member states, with proper safeguards to guarantee fair competition.

The Labour Party wants Britain to withdraw from the Community, because it fears that Britain cannot compete inside and that it would be easier to build a Socialist siege economy if we withdrew. The Liberals and the SDP appear to want Britain to stay in but never to upset our partners by speaking up forcefully. The Conservatives reject both extreme views.

The European Community is the world's largest trading group. It is by far our most important export market. Withdrawal would be a catastrophe for this country. As many as two million jobs would be at risk. We would lose the great export advantages and the attraction to overseas investors which membership now gives us. It would be a fateful step towards isolation, at which only the Soviet Union and her allies would rejoice.

20silkcut

But would thatcher be a hard Brexiteer if she was on the scene today?

The bruges group of ultra brexiteers seem to deify her anyway.

I reckon she would cause those criticisms she had of the EU in 1983 are probably still valid today.

Quin_Dub

20silkcut wrote: »

But would thatcher be a hard Brexiteer if she was on the scene today?

The bruges group of ultra brexiteers seem to deify her anyway.

I reckon she would cause those criticisms she had of the EU in 1983 are probably still valid today.

I don't think so - The issues of the EU are best resolved from the Inside and I think that Thatcher recognised that the benefits far outweighed the issues. but she kept pushing on those issues and used the relative size and strength of the UK to do that.

She was a very vocal "skeptic" but I don't think she'd have ever countenanced leaving and certainly no in the way that the ERG et al are heading for.

CelticRambler

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but the ERG and the hard Brexiteers only have influence because of May's wafer-thin majority.

That's not exactly true. We're at this point because David Cameron was too much of a chicken to tell the ERG (or whatever they called themselves at the time) to feck off and join UKIP if they didn't want to be moderate Tories in a moderate Tory party. Everything that's happened since then, right up until yesterday's defections has been because he, then TM, went out of the way to cosy up to the hard right, despite an ever thinner majority.

Spanish Eyes

I have no answers, nor does anyone else now.

But if there were to be a few more defections from the Tories to the Tiggers, well who knows?

Does anyone think that might happen?

prawnsambo

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I have no answers, nor does anyone else now.

But if there were to be a few more defections from the Tories to the Tiggers, well who knows?

Does anyone think that might happen?

'Tiggers' I like that. There's talk of a couple more including Dominic Grieve who I would have thought should have been in the original bunch. I think there's probably a bit of rope dispensing to TM and then it'll run out and so will they.

judeboy101

TC on rte just now saying that EU /uk focusing on way to get something legal that Jeffrey cox (AG) can bring back and say that backstop can be temp and remove "unless and until".

Calina

That is what is in the agreement already.

judeboy101

Calina wrote: »

That is what is in the agreement already.

So 'unless and until' has already been removed from the WA? , well TiL.

Spanish Eyes

prawnsambo wrote: »

'Tiggers' I like that. There's talk of a couple more including Dominic Grieve who I would have thought should have been in the original bunch. I think there's probably a bit of rope dispensing to TM and then it'll run out and so will they.

Yes I agree about Dominic Grieve. I had him on my radar for a while there, I always found him to be OK.

Maybe he will jump in the next few days to keep the momentum (sorry not Labour M), going once Anna Soubry and the other two ladies left. Maybe he is trying to fight from within. But it is a flippin hard slog just the same.

There really needs to be a bleed out from the Tories over the next few days I think. But the reality part of my brain says they won't.

I just hope that the defections from the Tories were not in vain. They are all great women of courage. Maybe the men are not so courageous..... we shall see.

An Ciarraioch

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I have no answers, nor does anyone else now.

But if there were to be a few more defections from the Tories to the Tiggers, well who knows?

Does anyone think that might happen?

Depends on what happens with the votes in Wednesday - if/when May blocks attempts to extend Article 50 or rule out No Deal, there may be some defections.

MrMusician18

judeboy101 wrote: »

So 'unless and until' has already been removed from the WA? , well TiL.

"Unless and until" was a phrase that appeared in Cox's legal advice. Don't think it's in the WA.

Enzokk

judeboy101 wrote: »

TC on rte just now saying that EU /uk focusing on way to get something legal that Jeffrey cox (AG) can bring back and say that backstop can be temp and remove "unless and until".

That is one way to report what he said. I thought he said that Geoffrey Cox was in Brussels to meet Barnier to try and get those legal assurances you mention. However Tony Connelly did say that there is still a lot of area between the two sides on this and he doesn't think there will be an agreement before the next vote in the HoC. So nothing new really, other than someone new from the UK Government went to Brussels to try and get some sort of legal text to basically get rid of the backstop.

Capt'n Midnight

Peregrinus wrote: »

We'd have to increase them by an awful lot; 50% of Irish beef exports go to the UK. To make up for the loss of this, the rest of the EU would have to more than double the amount of Irish beef they currently take and, while it would be nice if they did, is their any reason why we should expect them to? They're not going to suddenly start eating more beef; why would they?

We import about half that amount of beef back off the UK so it's more like 25% of nett exports going to the UK.

An Ciarraioch

On the other hand, they might as well just quit now:

http://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1098587751455191041

judeboy101

MrMusician18 wrote: »

"Unless and until" was a phrase that appeared in Cox's legal advice. Don't think it's in the WA.

I'm shocked that the Irish government allowed "unless and until" to be removed from WA. What legal deal have we that prevents the UK from legally leaving backstop?

An Ciarraioch

MrMusician18 wrote: »

"Unless and until" was a phrase that appeared in Cox's legal advice. Don't think it's in the WA.

Absolutely is part of the WA - read fifth paragraph beginning "RECALLING" (after UNDERLINING, for clarity):

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/the-irish-chapter-of-the-draft-brexit-withdrawal-agreement-1.3697971

As for the Cox advice, they want a codicil underlining the temporary nature of the backstop - the actual text of the Protocol will remain unchanged.