Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

judeboy101

Water John wrote: »

Well Judeboy, TM and others have been trotting back and forth to Brussels over the past few months and have always returned empty handed but you have always seen a glass half empty. Just waiting and not even waiting for the EU or our Govn't to betray us.

Cox hasn't. Unlike the rest he actually knows his legal stuff both the EU and UK laws. If he gets a legal guarantee outside the WA he can pull out of backstop legally post withdrawal period even without a new deal. We were told by leo and Simon and EU that political declaration had no legal standing etc... But now comes this "legal declaration" which , and I stand to be corrected would have to be agreed to by the 27 governments, in our case by the Dail.

Water John

Seems Cox will have to leave NI behind him on that. Back to the point we were 3 months ago, before the UK insisted all the UK had to be governed by the backstop.

ancapailldorcha

briany wrote: »

It's one of the most damning things in Brexit that many British MPs have clearly chosen to put their party above the interests of their country. That's what should not be forgotten by the people of the UK whether they be Leave or Remain supporters. Not all British MPs have behaved this way of course, but enough have to completely paralyse the decision making process.

Shocking as it may be, there could be more important things in politics than remaining an MP or keeping your party together. There could be the very good of your country at stake.

If the UK breaks up over this whole thing, but the Conservative and Labour parties remain largely together, would currently sitting MPs look back and consider it a good day's work? If they take any satisfaction in the latter at the expense of the former, that's really just sick.

But those parties aren't really parties. They're coalitions held together by the FPTP system. Blairites and Socialists shouldn't be in the same party any more than One Nation Tories and Disaster Capitalists.

These parties might be about to fall apart depending on how this Independent group thing pans out. If MP's think that this is a way to avert disaster, more of them may yet depart their parties and might even end up sinking the government though that could mean anything in relation to Brexit.

prawnsambo

judeboy101 wrote: »

Cox hasn't. Unlike the rest he actually knows his legal stuff both the EU and UK laws. If he gets a legal guarantee outside the WA he can pull out of backstop legally post withdrawal period even without a new deal. We were told by leo and Simon and EU that political declaration had no legal standing etc... But now comes this "legal declaration" which , and I stand to be corrected would have to be agreed to by the 27 governments, in our case by the Dail.

Also the EuroParl.

54and56

Gintonious wrote: »

The delusion from the DUP is something a science fiction writer would be proud of.

The DUP can't bear the fact that the ROI Govt is treated as an equal amongst the EU 27 and is using that strength to stand strong against the ERG/DUP who aren't used to not getting their way when they shout loud and bang their fists like the right wing rump they are.

It must be killing Sammy Wilson, Paisley & Co that Coveney and (in particular) Varadkar, who they have a particular dislike for because he's a gay foreign blow in in their eyes, are refusing to lower themselves to engage with them in any manner whatsoever and simply repeat that the Brexit negotiation process is between the UK Govt and the EU27 not between the UK and ROI Govts and certainly not between the ROI and the Deee Youuu Peeee

Imreoir2

Deleted User wrote: »

There doesn't seem to have been a poll on the topic since early December, but excluding don't knows and refused to answer it's 53% to 47% in favour of no.

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask#line

I would be surprised if the impact of a no-deal Brexit could not produce a 4% swing.

Water John

Great to watch Emily Sheffield taking Brendan O'Neill to task on Sky News Press Preview. Calling him out every time he states some thing as fact when it's only his opinion.

Akrasia

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.

We need Grieve to stay in Labour to push through the sensible policies that Corbyn is too ideologically hamstrung to propose himself.

Whatever symbolic power the IG have, the official opposition party have the ability to get amendments tabled and voted on

darem93

Deleted User wrote: »

There doesn't seem to have been a poll on the topic since early December, but excluding don't knows and refused to answer it's 53% to 47% in favour of no.

http://whatscotlandthinks.org/questions/how-would-you-vote-in-the-in-a-scottish-independence-referendum-if-held-now-ask#line

Yeah I've noticed the polls haven't been in favour of independence. However with all the antics in Westminster at the minute and the threat of a no deal Brexit looming over the UK, I could see things changing.

Plus this is all before a campaign has even started. The polls were in the low 30s before the campaign started last time, but the Yes side ended up climbing to 45% when the actual results came in.

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

Great to watch Emily Sheffield taking Brendan O'Neill to task on Sky News Press Preview. Calling him out every time he states some thing as fact when it's only his opinion.

Watching Question Time, but I assume Brendan mentioned his mandatory 17.4 million voters...
His arguments are always the same.

Popeleo

Akrasia wrote: »

We need Grieve to stay in Labour to push through the sensible policies that Corbyn is too ideologically hamstrung to propose himself.

Whatever symbolic power the IG have, the official opposition party have the ability to get amendments tabled and voted on

He's a Tory. For now, anyway.

mafc

Akrasia wrote: »

We need Grieve to stay in Labour to push through the sensible policies that Corbyn is too ideologically hamstrung to propose himself.

Whatever symbolic power the IG have, the official opposition party have the ability to get amendments tabled and voted on

Grieve is a Tory MP

He did say last night that if no deal went through that he would resign from the Conservative Party

Call me Al

Akrasia wrote: »

We need Grieve to stay in Labour to push through the sensible policies that Corbyn is too ideologically hamstrung to propose himself.

Whatever symbolic power the IG have, the official opposition party have the ability to get amendments tabled and voted on

Dominic Grieve is a Tory.

Spanish Eyes

Akrasia wrote: »

We need Grieve to stay in Labour to push through the sensible policies that Corbyn is too ideologically hamstrung to propose himself.

Whatever symbolic power the IG have, the official opposition party have the ability to get amendments tabled and voted on

Grieve is a Tory.

But hopefully he may become a Tigger!

Spanish Eyes

mafc wrote: »

Grieve is a Tory MP

He did say last night that if no deal went through that he would resign from the Conservative Party

Well that is not right. He needs to stop a No Deal by any means at his disposal before the event.

Wimp if so, I expected more from him.

Strazdas

Water John wrote: »

Great to watch Emily Sheffield taking Brendan O'Neill to task on Sky News Press Preview. Calling him out every time he states some thing as fact when it's only his opinion.

The guy is a political extremist, probably further out to the edges than Nigel Farage. I haven't the faintest clue why Sky News would invite a person like that to review the papers.

boggerman1

Strazdas wrote: »

The guy is a political extremist, probably further out to the edges than Nigel Farage. I haven't the faintest clue why Sky News would invite a person like that to review the papers.

He's dunphy's new go to guy on his podcasts.once I saw Andrew Maxwell tare him a new one on the politics show on the beeb I know he was nuts

MrMusician18

mafc wrote: »

Grieve is a Tory MP

He did say last night that if no deal went through that he would resign from the Conservative Party

I think what he said was that if the government were going to pursue no deal then he would resign the whip to oppose it.

Enzokk

Strazdas wrote: »

The guy is a political extremist, probably further out to the edges than Nigel Farage. I haven't the faintest clue why Sky News would invite a person like that to review the papers.

He does go on and on about how taking no-deal off the table will be a blow to the negotiations. But surely they have ended the negotiations already and there really is no reason why they should be keeping it as an option?

I will say that he was shown to be very sneaky when he supposed that no-deal should be on there as a negotiation tactic and it shouldn't be removed for that reason, when in fact he is of the opinion that leaving without a deal is the preferred option and not a lot of bad things will happen if they do leave without a deal. So it is in his interest to not have it taken off the table by MPs and he is thus only using the excuse of it still being a negotiation as a reason not to get rid of it instead of it being his preferred option.

Here is a link for youtube for the live feed, you can scroll back to when the paper review started and have a look.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrX6ktLg8WQ

downcow

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Seen Grieve on Newsnight (I think) last night and he was non committal on defecting to the Independent Group.

I love their name. ‘Independent Group’ It’s like a ‘married bachelor’.

FrancieBrady

downcow wrote: »

I love their name. ‘Independent Group’ It’s like a ‘married bachelor’.

Well it does make sense. They are not a political party (Soubry is pro austerity while the Labour people would be very anti it)
They are together as a group of independents with a single issue grouping them together - Stopping Brexit.

pauldla

downcow wrote: »

I love their name. ‘Independent Group’ It’s like a ‘married bachelor’.

'Independent group' is hardly an oxymoron, surely...?

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

darem93 wrote: »

I couldn't understand why many people in Scotland wanted independence back in 2014. This whole Brexit fiasco however has completely changed my mind and I genuinely think it would be the best option for them now. It will be a tight campaign but I can see it happening this time around if there is an indyref2. The Yes side would have to answer people's worries about currency etc. but I definitely think their arguments will be a lot stronger now than in 2014.

It's just a shame Scotland don't have a direct route into the EU in the same way the North does if they ever voted for Irish unity.

Scotland becoming independent would be bad for Ireland. They line up way too similarly to us and would end up being a direct competitor. Roughly the same size population, on the periphery of Europe, English speaking, 'free' third level support ect. They would take away anything Ireland has as a USP within the EU.

Having said that, I do hope for their own sake they get divorced from London.

Peregrinus

downcow wrote: »

I love their name. ‘Independent Group’ It’s like a ‘married bachelor’.

pauldla wrote: »

'Independent group' is hardly an oxymoron, surely...?

Well, if you can have the United Kingdom Independence Party, I don't see why you can't have an Independent Group.

"Independent of what?" is the question you have to ask in each case. In UKIP's case, the mean independent of the commitments and obligations that go with membership of the European Union. In the case of the Independent Group, it's a groups of MPs who are independent of political parties. This isn't an oxymoron because the group itself is not a political party and does not act as a political party, either in Parliament or outside.

At least one member of the group - Umana - hopes to form a political party in the future. That party may or may not have "Independent" in its name but, if it does, it won't be unprecedented (or necessarily oxymoronic); apart from UKIP, already mentioned, there is precedent in the Independent Labour Party, represented in Parliament from 1931 to 1948, and the Independent Irish Party, represented in Parliament from 1952 to 1859 (with a high of 40 MPs).

fash

Podge_irl wrote: »

This is always an option for the UK no matter what.

It's not under the current WA- as in the current WA they could only do that by breaching the WA. Under the current WA, the GFA is elevated to an EU-UK thing - and the border obligation spelled out in black and white - in that way, it is different and further to the GFA.
So for the UK to later cause a border to be erected, it would now be a breach of an express term of the agreement with the EU as well as of an implied term perhaps of the GFA - where at present it would be only the GFA.
It was something I was thinking about a few weeks ago too as an option - effectively have a new Article 50 - the consequences of which are that you go to no deal.
Of course that is worse for Ireland and should only be conceded if at all at the very end.

Peregrinus

fash wrote: »

It's not under the current WA- as in the current WA they could only do that by breaching the WA. Under the current WA, the GFA is elevated to an EU-UK thing - and the border obligation spelled out in black and white - in that way, it is different and further to the GFA.
So for the UK to later cause a border to be erected, it would now be a breach of an express term of the agreement with the EU as well as of an implied term perhaps of the GFA - where at present it would be only the GFA.
It was something I was thinking about a few weeks ago too as an option - effectively have a new Article 50 - the consequences of which are that you go to no deal.
Of course that is worse for Ireland and should only be conceded if at all at the very end.

Well, the point about "no deal" is that it's not something that gets "conceded" by either side. It's just what happens if they fail to make a deal.

But Pappa Dolla does ask an interesting question:

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it an option to give them their temporary backstop, but if the UK pull out of it without EU agreement, they break all ties and are back where they would be with no deal?

In one sense, that's exactly what's on offer now. The UK could accept the deal now on offer, but at the end of the transition period, if there's no agreement on "altenative measures", simply welch on their commitment to maintain full regulatory alignment between NI and RoI. What, we ask ourselves, would happen in that situation?

The UK would be in breach of the Withdrawal Agreeement, and the rest of the Withdrawal Agreement would presumably collapse at that point. But most of the provisions of the WA are temporary. The UK will already have had the benefit of the transition period, and will already have paid over the bulk of the divorce bill. So it's not clear that they would be greatly harmed by the cancellation of the remaining aspects of the WA.

Obviously, there would be serious damage to NI and to the peace process. But those in the UK who call for this largely don't care about that, or are in denial about it.

But there'd be a huge loss of goodwill and trust from the EU. It would put the kibosh, obviously, on any prospect of a free trade agreeement between the EU and the UK and, the bleatings of Brexiters notwithstanding, that's a much bigger problem for the UK than it is for the EU. (Though it would be a big problem for Ireland too.) There'd be a generally very frosty relationshiop between the UK and the EU which would be felt in many ways other than absence of a Free Trade Agreement. And it's a frost that wouldn't thaw until the UK took effective steps to restore trust and reopen the Irish border.

There'd also be a huge loss of international standing and credibility. The UK wouldn't necessarily have a dispute over this with third countries, but third countries would definitely read the message about how much obligation the UK feels to honour its treaty obligations.

So the bottom line is that the UK could do this, in the sense that nobody would send in an army to stop them, but they would pay a huge practical and political price for doing so.

If, as Pappa Dolla suggests, we include a clause in the WA which says that the UK can do this, if they forfeit the benefits of the WA, that changes the picture completely. If the WA says that, then the UK in acting that way would not be in breach of the WA. As noted, by then giving up the benefits of the WA would not be a big deal for the UK - the benefits would largely have been exhausted. There wouldn't be the damage to trust, credibilty, standing, etc associated with breaching treaty obligations. So it's something that it would be relatively easy and cost-free for the UK to do. And, since we very much don't want the UK to do it (remember why we want an open border in the first place) it would be madness to include such a provision in the WA.

Zubeneschamali

judeboy101 wrote: »

Cox wouldn't be in Brussels unless the EU were willing to throw them a bone.

Really? May must have had at least 10 such meetings by now, telling the UK public she is negotiating, and afterwards the EU folks saying she brought no new asks or proposals. They are just tapdancing until the prospect of No Deal forces Westminster to take the WA and move on to fighting about the future relationship.

Zubeneschamali

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So in recent days the UK has managed a diplomatic faux-pas with Germany. And China. And Japan.

That's actually impressive.

Especially when their faux-pas specialist, Boris, is still on the sideline. Wait til he gets stuck in again.

downcow

I have little doubt most on here will take different view but there is definitely a sense up here that UK and Eu have held fairly firmly to thier lines but that the roi has now blinked. The expectation was that either Eu or UK would blink first.
The public info on roi preparations for no deal has def lowered concern of no deal and has demonstrated that much of the talk up to now has been project fear.
I think this will be helpful in oiling negotiations for both Eu and UK.
I think it demonstrates goodwill and more of a spirit of cooperation from roi. Fair play to them. A bit more of this from all parties involved will make a no deal and a border much less likely.
I have more confidence this morning that we will navigate our way through this

EDit

downcow wrote: »

I have little doubt most on here will take different view but there is definitely a sense up here that UK and Eu have held fairly firmly to thier lines but that the roi has now blinked. The expectation was that either Eu or UK would blink first.
The public info on roi preparations for no deal has def lowered concern of no deal and has demonstrated that much of the talk up to now has been project fear.
I think this will be helpful in oiling negotiations for both Eu and UK.
I think it demonstrates goodwill and more of a spirit of cooperation from roi. Fair play to them. A bit more of this from all parties involved will make a no deal and a border much less likely.

Can you point to this public info you mention? RTE site simply says it will be published today