Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

VinLieger

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don't have all the answers and neither does anyone else,despite claiming they do-the EU is using the back stop in an attempt to bring the UK to heel-the UK is using the GFA against Ireland-both are wrong imo.

The UK created the idea of the backstop, the EU suggested it just be applied to NI and May asked for it to be extended to the entire UK due to pressure from the DUP, THATS the issue and its entirely created by May and the UK.



The EU isnt using the backstop to do anything they are simply asking for the UK to follow through on something they agreed to over a year ago.

kuro68k

The issue is that May set up unrealistic expectations, the famous "cake and eat it", on the back of other idiots saying stuff like "they need us more than we need them" and "easiest negotiation in human history". Now that reality is setting in everyone is angry about it, and she wasted all the available negotiation time so it's too late to many any significant changes.

Now May is just trying to desperately get something through to secure her legacy, before she disappears and lets some other fool pick up the poison chalice.

fash

VinLieger wrote: »

The UK created the idea of the backstop, the EU suggested it just be applied to NI and May asked for it to be extended to the entire UK, THATS the issue and its entirely created by May and the UK.


The EU isnt using the backstop to do anything they are simply asking for the UK to follow through on something they agreed to over a year ago.

It should also be noted that the backstop has been the only workable solution suggested by anyone and it had involved the EU moving twice in its red lines in order to achieve it (benefit of SM without 4 freedoms for NI, UK in customs Union).
How on earth would the UK have achieved its promises if the EU had not been so flexible?

briany

briany wrote: »

I don't think the UK understand the controversial nature of a hard border from an Irish perspective. I think they just expect Ireland to reluctantly bend and accommodate theirs whims, like every other time in history.

It's even stupider than that. While it's an issue for everyone it's more of an issue for those North of the border. Ya know, the UK? I'm constantly impressed with how our politicians are handling the whole thing and are doing what they can for people up North rather than leaving them by the wayside. But it's the controversial nature of the border for people in the UK that the UK government really doesn't get.

MrMusician18

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

ANPR and surveillance will work so well around the border won't they:rolleyes:.... sweet suffering Jesus!

It's only a trial, so it's not ready by 29 March in any case.

Look at all the paperwork it would involve even if it was to get through, one really does have to ask is the whole thing worth it?

It's really just an evolution of trusted trader, the cameras and GPS don't really add anything. Such a system would rise and fall on the honesty and accuracy of those submitting forms. Random enforcement would need to be in the order of 10-25% in order to ensure compliance, and if that's the case, what's the point? A key part of making deliveries is knowing what time it will arrive at and if 1 in 4 are going to be held up at the border it will scupper that. And this is only really suitable for imports that do not need SPS checks.

It's a poorer solution than the backstop in every aspect and would be a smuggers dream.

Leroy42

Why has TM stayed so close to the ERG, continually courting them? It seems to have been completely forgotten that JRM attempted a political coup back in December by moving a motion of no confidence in her. There are clearly enough centre ground MP's in the HoC that would enable her to overcome any ERG resistance, particularly since they are more than likely going to fold in order to stick with the party line.

Th reason is very obviously because she is putting party before country. So every decision, every speech she gives, needs to be viewed in that context. Once you understand that you can clearly see that there really is nothing, short of complete capitulation, that the EU can do to satisfy the HoC as TM is clearly completely subordinate to the whims of the ERG and to a lesser extent the DUP.

Even the leak of the proposed 'frictionless' border shows multiple checks, scan, border controls, customs officiers. It is completely against the agreed position of both the UK and the EU and if they are even willing to examine something like that it proves that the backstop os 100% necessary.

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I would agree with you more if we (Ireland), by holding out for the backstop, ensured, by so doing, that a hard border was never put in place.

It seems to me that the strategy of holding out for agreement on the backstop makes a certain amount of sense if we have calculated that the UK will do anything to avoid exiting on no deal. Then, in order to avoid no deal, the UK agrees to the backstop before the deadline and the hard border is never put in place. There is still a possibility of this happening of course, though it is rather slim at this stage.

You're trying to square a circle by cutting it in half. There was never an answer to the border question that didn't involve border checks in the event of a hard brexit. And the UK are part of the equation. You seem to be suggesting that we forget about the backstop in order to prevent the UK crashing out. By definition that will create a hard border. How do you answer that?

Bit cynical wrote: »

But once the crash out exit occurs, we are in new territory. Now the hard border gets put in place and, what is more, Ireland is seen to be building it. In stead of avoiding the hard border, we are now seeking conditions to have it removed. Sure, the backstop would achieve this, but as time goes on, the more the UK gets used to the situation and therefore the less likely they are to agree to it. If it is to happen, it has happen within the first few months.

And yet again, you are putting the onus on us to make the UK's decision for them. They negotiated a deal, signed off at negotiator level, cabinet and PM. They can't get it through the HoC for the simple reason that there is no such thing as a 'good' brexit that will satisfy everyones's demands for unicorns.

Bit cynical wrote: »

We can certainly blame the UK if we wish and indeed that has been happening at government levels. But at the end of the day it is like two companies trying to secure a deal. If a deal is not reached both have failed. It does not help one party to blame the other. They blame us and we blame them but regardless the strategy has failed. It is then time for a new approach.

It's not a bit like two companies trying to reach a deal. Because in that case, failure to agree just means returning to the status quo. Nobody loses and nobody gains. In this case, failure to agree means that one party ends up in a hell of a worse place than where they started out from and the other party gets some collateral damage.

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think our calculations have been wrong. I don't think we understand the controversial nature of the backstop from the UK perspective. I don't think we appreciate their reluctance to cancel brexit or hold another referendum. These and other issues I think we have miscalculated and therefore we will have to pay a price.

Yes we do understand. It is purely a result of parliamentary arithmetic. The NI only backstop would have been perfectly acceptable to the UK if the DUP hadn't suddenly been thrust into a position of power and saw the opportunity to destroy that thing they have hated since its inception; the GFA. And you're 'answer' to that is to help them achieve this?

Bit cynical wrote: »

However, we have little choice now but to continue down the current road even if there is little chance of success. The only thing I would say is that we should recognise when we have failed and then start thinking of something new. If we don't the EU might end up doing us a favour and overruling us on the backstop.

You continually talk of ''something new' or alternatives to the backstop without advancing the slightest notion of what that would be. This is the same approach of the ERG, who continue to float flat out lies about the border and wave away any issues with 'technology'. Technology that doesn't exist anywhere in the world.

And this is the crux of the matter that exposes their lies. If there is such technology, then there should be no problem with the backstop because they can put that technology in place during the transition period and have it up and running when the final FTA is agreed and thus never once trigger the backstop. Because of course, the backstop is not the problem. It's the WA itself. And they have started making noises about this already as a tweet the other day from Steve Baker confirmed.

Christy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why has TM stayed so close to the ERG, continually courting them? It seems to have been completely forgotten that JRM attempted a political coup back in December by moving a motion of no confidence in her. There are clearly enough centre ground MP's in the HoC that would enable her to overcome any ERG resistance, particularly since they are more than likely going to fold in order to stick with the party line.

Th reason is very obviously because she is putting party before country. So every decision, every speech she gives, needs to be viewed in that context. Once you understand that you can clearly see that there really is nothing, short of complete capitulation, that the EU can do to satisfy the HoC as TM is clearly completely subordinate to the whims of the ERG and to a lesser extent the DUP.

Even the leak of the proposed 'frictionless' border shows multiple checks, scan, border controls, customs officiers. It is completely against the agreed position of both the UK and the EU and if they are even willing to examine something like that it proves that the backstop os 100% necessary.

I have no issue with them searching for more possible solutions. If they find one it will be a reason for the backstop to end. That has already been the natural time limit for the backstop.

I don't think they are there yet so the backstop should stay for that reason but they should feel free to explore other options. Especially as my main issue with their protest against the backstop is that they have not put forward different options.

Enzokk

VinLieger wrote: »

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/irish-government-rejects-brexit-bilateral-talks-with-dup-37785968.html



So the DUP came out and said they were engaging in bilateral talks with the Irish government over Brexit.


Vardakar and Coveney quickly told them where to go thank god.


The stupidity and arrogance of these people just constantly astounds me. Who the hell do they think they are with 27/90 seats in Stormont to be representing NI on anything? Also have they not noticed what happens every time May has tried to do exactly the same over the past 2+ years?

Some very interesting quotes in that article. This is Varadkar speaking yesterday in the Dail.

“While we can certainly have discussions with the UK and discussions with political parties or individuals politicians, the negotiations can only happen with Ireland and the EU on one side of the table and the UK on the other, and we are in a much stronger position in that regard and we will not be departing from that.”

So there we have it, the DUP and UK is trying to divide us from the EU to make their argument when we would be at our most vulnerable. If the argument however is made by the EU for us we are in a strong position to get what we want.

Then this from Arlene Foster,

She added: “We have now narrowed the issue down to the backstop, they know that’s the problem, they have been told that for some considerable time but unfortunately they are turning their face against that and it is time for Brussels to respect Unionism in Northern Ireland.

“We have heard a lot about them understanding the Belfast Agreement, that they don’t want a hard border on the island of Ireland but they are quite content to build a hard border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, thereby interfering with the constitution of the UK.

“That is wrong as well and they need to recognise that.”

She seems to think that the only problem is the backstop, but she will be in for a rude awakening when she goes up against the ERG if their interests diverge. At the moment both want Brexit to happen but unfortunately the ERG would be willing to let NI drift apart when push comes to shove. Luckily for the DUP they are holding the balance of power for Theresa May and they therefor have the appearance of power. We saw yesterday with the quotes from Andrea Jenkins where she didn't want to confirm to Selmayr that if the backstop was removed whether they would vote for the deal, because the backstop on its own is not the problem. It is a convenient excuse for the ERG.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why has TM stayed so close to the ERG, continually courting them? It seems to have been completely forgotten that JRM attempted a political coup back in December by moving a motion of no confidence in her. There are clearly enough centre ground MP's in the HoC that would enable her to overcome any ERG resistance, particularly since they are more than likely going to fold in order to stick with the party line.

Th reason is very obviously because she is putting party before country. So every decision, every speech she gives, needs to be viewed in that context. Once you understand that you can clearly see that there really is nothing, short of complete capitulation, that the EU can do to satisfy the HoC as TM is clearly completely subordinate to the whims of the ERG and to a lesser extent the DUP.

Even the leak of the proposed 'frictionless' border shows multiple checks, scan, border controls, customs officiers. It is completely against the agreed position of both the UK and the EU and if they are even willing to examine something like that it proves that the backstop os 100% necessary.

Because they can break her government. They may not be able to get her out by a vote of no confidence but they can make it very difficult for her by voting against a budget. I think they are saying they won't, but if May rescinds article 50 it is just a matter of time. At the same time the DUP is in the same position so May has to pander to them as well. For the moment both have the same objectives but even with Brexit this could be shown to diverge and the ERG will quickly throw the DUP under the bus if it feels the need.

May is pandering to two fringes of the UK government and history has shown us doing that doesn't work out well.

Seth Brundle

Is rushing through laws ever a good idea?...
Theresa May is about to force through an avalanche of new Brexit laws

• Theresa May's government accused of forcing through hundreds of pieces of Brexit-related legislation without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
• Ministers have so far got over 100 pieces of secondary legislation relating to Brexit through Parliament.
• However, there are well over 400 more statutory instruments left to pass with Brexit day just weeks away.
• The government is using an array of tactics to force this legislation through Westminster without scrutiny, senior MPs tell Business Insider.
• The Treasury is accused of refusing to publish impact assessments and dumping hundreds of pages worth of legislation on MPs who have just hours to assess them.
• "Ministers are seeking to drive through delegated legislation that often they themselves do not fully comprehend" Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell tells Business Insider.

https://www.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-accused-of-secrecy-statutory-instruments-new-brexit-legislation-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

Because they can break her government. They may not be able to get her out by a vote of no confidence but they can make it very difficult for her by voting against a budget. I think they are saying they won't, but if May rescinds article 50 it is just a matter of time. At the same time the DUP is in the same position so May has to pander to them as well. For the moment both have the same objectives but even with Brexit this could be shown to diverge and the ERG will quickly throw the DUP under the bus if it feels the need.

May is pandering to two fringes of the UK government and history has shown us doing that doesn't work out well.

Will they though? They voted confidence in the government a few days after they voted no confidence in TM. That clearly shows that when push came to shove they will place party first.

Will they really vote down their own party in government and raise the possibility of Labour getting in? I don't think so, I think TM should have called their bluff ages ago and the likes of JRM would have mouthed off for a bot but rowed in behind the leader for the sake of the party.

Leroy42

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is rushing through laws ever a good idea?...
Theresa May is about to force through an avalanche of new Brexit laws


https://www.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-accused-of-secrecy-statutory-instruments-new-brexit-legislation-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

Taking back control.

Just not in the way most people thought it meant.

Macy0161

Christy42 wrote: »

I have no issue with them searching for more possible solutions. If they find one it will be a reason for the backstop to end. That has already been the natural time limit for the backstop.

I don't think they are there yet so the backstop should stay for that reason but they should feel free to explore other options. Especially as my main issue with their protest against the backstop is that they have not put forward different options.

But that's the whole idea of the backstop. It's a backstop in case they can't find a solution in the negotiations following the leaving under the terms of the WA!

If there's a workable solution, the backstop will never come in to play, so if they believe they have one, there's no reason to delay the WA.

lawred2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Is rushing through laws ever a good idea?...
Theresa May is about to force through an avalanche of new Brexit laws


https://www.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-accused-of-secrecy-statutory-instruments-new-brexit-legislation-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

I fear that there may be a few laws enacted there that won't be in the common good..

Seth Brundle

Food labelling Instructions announced yesterday
Advice for food producers, manufacturers, retailers and suppliers on the changes to food labels if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Will they though? They voted confidence in the government a few days after they voted no confidence in TM. That clearly shows that when push came to shove they will place party first.

Will they really vote down their own party in government and raise the possibility of Labour getting in? I don't think so, I think TM should have called their bluff ages ago and the likes of JRM would have mouthed off for a bot but rowed in behind the leader for the sake of the party.

If she rescinds article 50, yes I believe they will. Their only purpose right now is to get Brexit through, but not just Brexit a hard Brexit that they never campaigned for. If that is delayed or rescinded they have nothing left to fight for as they cannot get May removed until December, and even then they won't have the votes to remove her as leader of the party. Do you think they will just sit quietly and accept it?

Seth Brundle

lawred2 wrote: »

I fear that there may be a few laws enacted there that won't be in the common good..

I think that may be a tad unfair.
When have the UK ever legislated that wasn't in the common good?

oh wait

Hurrache

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Food labelling Instructions announced yesterday
Advice for food producers, manufacturers, retailers and suppliers on the changes to food labels if the UK leaves the EU without a deal.

I know someone very well who works at a high level in the industry. They told me some time ago about the issues that supermarkets may have with their own brand products.

So for example you may see labelling with something like "Produced and Packed in the UK for Marks and Spencers ". This, according to the the FSAI, will no longer be acceptable and require EU labelling.

Not such a big problem some may think. However some manufacturers will see the changes as too big a cost to change this, they may already have a long run of packaging created or ordered. So unless the retailers stump up for all or some of the cost it won't be economical to sell those products here.

Edit, just read the doc, it appears this is related to the issue they've been aware of for a long time.

Country of origin labels
It will be inaccurate to label UK food as origin ‘EU’. For the UK market, you should display additional information online and on signage in shops to help clarify the origin of the food. For the EU market UK food should not be labelled as origin ‘EU’.
..............
Pre-packaged food and caseins sold in the EU
If you’re exporting food to the EU, you must include an EU address for the food business operator (FBO) or EU importer on your packaging or food label.

Leroy42

Enzokk wrote: »

If she rescinds article 50, yes I believe they will. Their only purpose right now is to get Brexit through, but not just Brexit a hard Brexit that they never campaigned for. If that is delayed or rescinded they have nothing left to fight for as they cannot get May removed until December, and even then they won't have the votes to remove her as leader of the party. Do you think they will just sit quietly and accept it?

To what end? They bring down the government and probably have Labour come in. Say goodbye to a hard brexit, maybe even brexit. But they will never vote to bring down the government. They had the chance a few weeks ago, after the historic defeat of the WA, and fluffed their lines.

The point being, TM hasn't even tried to call their bluff. At every opportunity she has looked for their support, shifting her position to try to get back on their good side. But it is clear to everyone that their is no good side, they will not be happy until, as you say, they get the hard brexit they crave. But the Tories as really the only vehicle that will allow that to happen.

There is the possibility of a Labour government next, or failing that a coalition of Labour, Libs, SNP etc which would be even worse in terms of their Brexit wishes.

prawnsambo

And just to reinforce what I said above, along comes Nadine Dorries to move the goalposts and prove me right

This in response to comments TM the PM made this morning about looking for a time limit. It's ever so elusive this withdrawal agreement isn't it?

breatheme

It's looking pretty clear to me that without some cross-party support, the WA won't pass. TM will not be able to get the ERG on her side, even if she gets the DUP on board.

Imreoir2

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So you see Ireland as being part of a superstate rather than an independent country. It makes me wonder why so many lives were lost in the fight for independence if you don't really want it.

The EU is made up of a collection of member states, of which Ireland is one. The EU is its members. Each of those member states is a free and independant nation. Ireland is as independant as France or Germany or Denmark.

We fought a war of independance to escape a forign power that invaded and occupied our territory and maintained its rule through force or arms. Does that sound like the EU to you? No, the EU has never invaded anywhere, the EU has no occupying forces here and our membership of the EU is dependant on the will of the Irish people, not the EU forces that hold us against our will.

Ireland has had experiance of what it is like to be part of a multi-national empire, and we know what it is like to be part of a multi-national Union of Member States. We know the difference and no amount of faux hand wringing about "Independance" will fool us on that point.

lawred2

prawnsambo wrote: »

And just to reinforce what I said above, along comes Nadine Dorries to move the goalposts and prove me right

This in response to comments TM the PM made this morning about looking for a time limit. It's ever so elusive this withdrawal agreement isn't it?

So there we have the Tories fighting to 'deliver' two positions which are equally not agreeable or achievable

Time limited backstop = no backstop = no deal

Reopen WA without backstop = no deal

Funnily (tragically) enough Dorries says 'no deal' unless backstop removed from the WA but that can't happen so = no deal

It's beyond parody at this stage. These people are not inhabiting the real world. Just some British Empire circle jerk.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

To what end? They bring down the government and probably have Labour come in. Say goodbye to a hard brexit, maybe even brexit. But they will never vote to bring down the government. They had the chance a few weeks ago, after the historic defeat of the WA, and fluffed their lines.

The point being, TM hasn't even tried to call their bluff. At every opportunity she has looked for their support, shifting her position to try to get back on their good side. But it is clear to everyone that their is no good side, they will not be happy until, as you say, they get the hard brexit they crave. But the Tories as really the only vehicle that will allow that to happen.

There is the possibility of a Labour government next, or failing that a coalition of Labour, Libs, SNP etc which would be even worse in terms of their Brexit wishes.

Brexiters know they have one chance for Brexit and it is now. If they cancel it and talk about a plan before triggering article 50 again they will come to the conclusion that the best Brexit option would be a Norway type deal, BRINO. Because there is no way they win the next argument on the economics with the information out there again.

Otherwise they would have called the bluff and been happy with a new referendum. They are scared that this is their only chance and it is why they have gone from an EEA type relationship to a full no deal. There is no other path that I can see for them.

I think a new referendum result will be close but they will need to discuss 2 things they neglected in detail if it were to happen. Firstly they will have evidence of what companies are doing and moving funds away from the UK and it is not project fear. Next they will have to confront the NI question and there is no answer other than an Irish Sea border or single market and customs union to ensure no border.

And lastly, I don't think the Remain camp will fall for the same tricks again. If Hannan says they will be in the single market and Farage says something different they will ask either of them who is going to prevail and which Brexit it will be.

So if there is a new referendum I see a win for remain of at least 55-45 if not more, if you have competent people campaigning for remaining.

Imreoir2

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

England, Scotland and Wales have obligations to the UK because they are all part of one country. Neither Ireland nor the UK is part of a country called the EU because this does not (yet) exist. However, the laws of both countries are subject to the supremacy of EU law. It may be a very bad law, but you still have to accept it.

We have to accept the laws that we ourselves helped to create, oh no, how terrible.

LeinsterDub

James O'Brien to talk about Ireland and brexit now.

judeboy101

German manufacturing is slowing and EU is predicted to go into contraction by year end. With bond buying having failed increase inflation by enough, will pressure come on EU from industry to postpone/amend deal to stage off a German recession?

lawred2

judeboy101 wrote: »

German manufacturing is slowing and EU is predicted to go into contraction by year end. With bond buying having failed increase inflation by enough, will pressure come on EU from industry to postpone/amend deal to stage off a German recession?

What do you think?

Zubeneschamali

judeboy101 wrote: »

will pressure come on EU from industry to postpone/amend deal to stage off a German recession?

No.

Leroy42

prawnsambo wrote: »

And just to reinforce what I said above, along comes Nadine Dorries to move the goalposts and prove me right

This in response to comments TM the PM made this morning about looking for a time limit. It's ever so elusive this withdrawal agreement isn't it?

I thought they wanted a time limit on the backstop?

Isn't that what they were calling for only a few weeks ago? Now they are saying that even that won't be enough, that only a complete removal of the backstop will be enough.

But that goes against what TM said in Belfast yesterday. She stated she wasn't looking to remove the backstop, but to amend it (like putting a time limit or ability of UK to leave it at will).