Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Water John

The 3 red lines are what keeps the WA closed. If the UK softens on those then basically you're looking at WA 2, negotiated over the next 10 months or so.
in one sense you're even not opening WA 1 as moving the red lines may for example remove the need for the backstop.

Laois_Man

Leroy42 wrote: »

So it appears that they will go with the TM deal on the basis that it buys them time, keeps them in power and with the hope that stronger resolve and a stronger leader/negotiating team will make up for any set backs.

But if MV3 were to somehow pass without DUP support, the confidence and supply agreement is finished and the Government is therefore finished also.

Water John

May not, they simply set that outcome to one side. It would be for the DUP to live with it rather than a problem for the Tory Party. MPs have been capable of some very gymnastic manouveres in recent times.
The DUP simply back TM in a confidence vote.

Professor Moriarty

Eod100 wrote: »

''Yet, I am now willing to support it if the Democratic Unionist Party does''. Ah there we go so he won't be.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6853609/JACOB-REES-MOGG-Im-ready-Theresa-Mays-deal.html

In that article, he tears into May in a particularly nasty way. Which is typical of Jacob, especially when he's trying to worm his way out of admitting that he is wrong. At the end of the article, as a by the way, he reaffirms that he is happy to throw the GFA under the bus. He really is the epitome of a Little Englander.

Eod100

Shelga wrote: »

How, HOW can JRM show his face in public if he backs May’s deal. He has said repeatedly that it’s worse than remaining. What he meant was, “the pointless exercise in self-harm that is leaving the EU (on paper), even though we will be a rule taker, is still better than being part of an organisation I despise purely because I am a Tory headcase and I went to Eton and was brought up being told I can have whatever I want, whenever I want it.”

His rowback is an extension risks no Brexit or a very watered down version of Brexit, so he has no choice but to support May's deal over those worse alternatives.

Have to say EU's idea of extension (dunno if May had any input, as they seemed to set the timetable) may have worked in focusing minds.

Laois_Man

Water John wrote: »

May not, they simply set that outcome to one side. It would be for the DUP to live with it rather than a problem for the Tory Party. MPs have been capable of some very gymnastic manouveres in recent times.
The DUP simply back TM in a confidence vote.

Wouldn't happen! The only thing the DUP care about, even a hell of a lot more than whatever money is still due to be invested in NI as part of the 2017 agreement, is the protection of Northern Ireland's union with the UK. Once the WA has been passed and they have been totally shafted on it, I don't think there's any question of them having any interest in continuing to support the Tory's.

serfboard

Eod100 wrote: »

''Yet, I am now willing to support it if the Democratic Unionist Party does''. Ah there we go so he won't be.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-6853609/JACOB-REES-MOGG-Im-ready-Theresa-Mays-deal.html

Didn’t he say this a few weeks ago too, that he was willing to support the deal if it was OK with the DUP?

Except that it’s not OK with the DUP because the deal contains the backstop. The DUP will not support any deal containing an NI backstop, so Jacob’s stance is pointless.

Shelga

Eod100 wrote: »

His rowback is an extension risks no Brexit or a very watered down version of Brexit, so he has no choice but to support May's deal over those worse alternatives.

Have to say EU's idea of extension (dunno if May had any input, as they seemed to set the timetable) may have worked in focusing minds.

Any reasonable and sane person would now apologise and say sorry, but Brexit is far more complicated than anyone realised, and staying in the EU would be better overall. Refusal to see reality and/or admit mistakes is a key reason the UK is in this mess.

But, ERG members are far from reasonable, and I’m starting to question their sanity too at this stage.

Eod100

Shelga wrote: »

Any reasonable and sane person would now apologise and say sorry, but Brexit is far more complicated than anyone realised, and staying in the EU would be better overall. Refusal to see reality and/or admit mistakes is a key reason the UK is in this mess.

But, ERG members are far from reasonable, and I’m starting to question their sanity too at this stage.

Yes and I think that applies to everyone pushing for any sort of Brexit so May included. I don't know politically how revoking could be done without another ref though

Spanish Eyes

Shelga wrote: »

Any reasonable and sane person would now apologise and say sorry, but Brexit is far more complicated than anyone realised, and staying in the EU would be better overall. Refusal to see reality and/or admit mistakes is a key reason the UK is in this mess.

But, ERG members are far from reasonable, and I’m starting to question their sanity too at this stage.

Isn't there some EU tax bill coming through very soon that might impact on the so called "elites" who want nothing to do with it. Timing is everything as they say.

So it will be interesting to see what Mogg's tactics are here. After all, Brexit was never going to be for the common man/woman, but for those who might benefit really.

In fairness we have to ask qui bono from No Deal, and then you have your answer. Look at the proponents of No Deal and fewer EU interventions. The ordinary man/woman is being duped big time IMO.

ArmaniJeanss

serfboard wrote: »

Didn’t he say this a few weeks ago too, that he was willing to support the deal if it was OK with the DUP?

Except that it’s not OK with the DUP because the deal contains the backstop. The DUP will not support any deal containing an NI backstop, so Jacob’s stance is pointless.

Meh, he is clearly setting up 'I went back on my word to the DUP for the good of the country - that I was willing to take such a personally difficult step for the greater good is a sign of my incredible integrity' as a potential get-out if needs must after tomorrows votes.

Spook_ie

Correct me if I'm wrong or if someone's already asked,

If they went for Norway or Swiss type deals there is still the border issue aka backstop, there is no deal that doesn't incur the backstop thus a no vote is inevitable to prevent the constitutional crisis of a part of the UK being sold off to Ireland and the EU, and before people say they'll throw NI under the bus they didn't with Gibraltar or The Falklands so don't see them doing it on their own doorstep without the requisite referendum

Joe_ Public

Spook_ie wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong or if someone's already asked,

If they went for Norway or Swiss type deals there is still the border issue aka backstop, there is no deal that doesn't incur the backstop thus a no vote is inevitable to prevent the constitutional crisis of a part of the UK being sold off to Ireland and the EU, and before people say they'll throw NI under the bus they didn't with Gibraltar or The Falklands so don't see them doing it on their own doorstep without the requisite referendum

I think the Norway plus option, or common market 2.0, is the one that avoids any issue with the backstop by keeping the uk in the customs union and single market. Whether it gets the necessary support in parliament is another matter.

Laois_Man

Spook_ie wrote: »

there is no deal that doesn't incur the backstop

The motions tabled today for consideration include a permanent UK-EU customs union and even the revocation of the Article 50

Bercow will probably select both of these for voting (although there's no chance of the latter getting anywhere)

sabat

I think only the absolute dimmest brexiteers like Mark Francois haven't realised what way the wind is blowing and that Mogg et al are prepping themselves for the greatest reverse ferret in British political history. Maybe they have some nefarious plans to undermine the EU from within by getting a bunch of europhobic loonies elected as MEPs but given their delusion and ineptitude, the prospect does not worry me one bit. The very uninformed plebeians they tried to use are now turning on them angrily whereas latent pro-European sentiments have been ignited throughout the rest of the population.

Eod100

sabat wrote: »

I think only the absolute dimmest brexiteers like Mark Francois haven't realised what way the wind is blowing and that Mogg et al are prepping themselves for the greatest reverse ferret in British political history. Maybe they have some nefarious plans to undermine the EU from within by getting a bunch of europhobic loonies elected as MEPs but given their delusion and ineptitude, the prospect does not worry me one bit. The very uninformed plebeians they tried to use are now turning on them angrily whereas latent pro-European sentiments have been ignited throughout the rest of the population.

What do they think will happen come next election though? Although probably won't be til 2022 unless something unusual happens so lot of water will have passed under bridge by then I guess

sabat

Eod100 wrote: »

What do they think will happen come next election though? Although probably won't be til 2022 unless something unusual happens so lot of water will have passed under bridge by then I guess

I think there will be an election within the next few months and that the prospect of either being expelled from the party/deselected or being permanently booted to the political wilderness by vengeful tactical remain voters might have focused their minds.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong or if someone's already asked,

If they went for Norway or Swiss type deals there is still the border issue aka backstop, there is no deal that doesn't incur the backstop thus a no vote is inevitable to prevent the constitutional crisis of a part of the UK being sold off to Ireland and the EU, and before people say they'll throw NI under the bus they didn't with Gibraltar or The Falklands so don't see them doing it on their own doorstep without the requisite referendum

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the Norway plus option, or common market 2.0, is the one that avoids any issue with the backstop by keeping the uk in the customs union and single market. Whether it gets the necessary support in parliament is another matter.

Couple of thoughts:

1. There’s no deal that doesn’t prevent the backstop in this sense: All the options that are being debated now are about the long-term relationship. (Customs Union? Single Market? Norway? Switzerland?) But no option for the long-term relationship is going to be locked in for some years; at this point the UK is merely trying to decide what long-term relationship it will aspire to and negotiate towards. Until it’s locked in to a treaty it’s not locked in. So the Withdrawal Agreement will have to contain a backstop (a) to deal with the situation that will prevail until the long-term treaty is negotiated, signed and ratified, and (b) to deal with the possiblity that the long-term treaty might not, in the event, contain what the UK decides now it would like to target.

2. Yes, targetting Customs Union + Single Market, say, might take a lot of heat out of the backstop, since the backstop would then only be committing the UK to doing things it wants to do, or at any rate things it says it wants to do. But it would still be there, and it would still be a commitment, and the UK would still be committed to it before the rest of the desired long-term relationship was locked in.

3. But this doesn’t mean that no-deal is inevitable. Spook frames this as “a no vote is inevitable to prevent the constitutional crisis of a part of the UK being sold off to Ireland and the EU”. But of course this particular framing of the issue was cooked up by ultra-Brexiteers as a way of opposing the backstop, and so May’s deal. If Parliament is minded to accept May’s deal, that means they don’t buy the absurd DUP/ERG notion that the backstop amounts to “selling off a part of the UK” or that it’s a “constitutional crisis”. It’s neither of these things; this is a complete beat-up. And in accepting the backstop parliament would not be throwing Northern Ireland under a bus; it would be accepting an option which enjoys wide support in Northern Ireland, and is politically and economically beneficial for Northern Ireland. (And, surprise, surprise, these two facts are not unconnected.)

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

But no option for the long-term relationship is going to be locked in for some years; at this point the UK is merely trying to decide what long-term relationship it will aspire to and negotiate towards. Until it’s locked in to a treaty it’s not locked in. So the Withdrawal Agreement will have to contain a backstop (a) to deal with the situation that will prevail until the long-term treaty is negotiated, signed and ratified, and (b) to deal with the possiblity that the long-term treaty might not, in the event, contain what the UK decides now it would like to target.

I agree with your (b), the backstop is needed just in case (what if Boris is leader after the next election and before the Future Agreement is ratified, for example).

But in your (a), I think that when the Future Relationship is not ratified at the end of the Transitional Period it will be a practical necessity that the Transitional Period gets extended.

They are hardly going to crash out to WTO terms with all the associated mayhem and then, 6 months later, agree to join the Single Market or whatever. After the utter failure of May's My Deal or No Deal brinksmanship, I really hope they have learned not to threaten to injure themselves in this fashion as leverage again.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I agree with your (b), the backstop is needed just in case (what if Boris is leader after the next election and before the Future Agreement is ratified, for example).

But in your (a), I think that when the Future Relationship is not ratified at the end of the Transitional Period it will be a practical necessity that the Transitional Period gets extended.

They are hardly going to crash out to WTO terms with all the associated mayhem and then, 6 months later, agree to join the Single Market or whatever. After the utter failure of May's My Deal or No Deal brinksmanship, I really hope they have learned not to threaten to injure themselves in this fashion as leverage again.

The transitional period can be extended once only, and for a maximum of 1 or 2 years. It's entirely possible that the long-term relationship won't be nailed down by then.

I agree, they won't crash out - probably move to some interim or provisional arrangement based on the long-term relationship towards which they are still negotiating. And we'll want the backstop to kick in at that point, in case the interim/provisional arrangement doesn't include everything needed to keep teh border open. That magic technology could prove elusive, you know!

Enzokk

I have been critical of Labour but you can see they have taken steps to protect themselves if there is a general election soon. They had probably taken notice of the polls that if Labour were complicit in the UK leaving with no-deal and most likely even a bad deal their support would disappear. They have now set themselves up as supporting a BRINO deal, which if they want to respect the referendum result and cause the least harm is the best option.

They are putting their manifesto out there in the case of a new election. You have to ask, what would the Tory manifesto say about the EU and the future. I cannot see a working plan from the Tories that will mean they will not leak votes, either to UKIP or Labour/Libdems for a softer Brexit.

But as with anything Brexit related we seem to have confusion from inside Labour on what they actually support and the Lexit side is still vocal.

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1110814428377874432

And Donald Tusk has tweeted this,

https://twitter.com/eucopresident/status/1110818745474314240

That should be a wake up for a lot of people, the EU is not your enemy but they are you and looking to make the best for all of us. Sadly this will not be what people read.

LuckyLloyd

Headshot wrote: »

If Chuka was the labour leader they would steam roll the next GE. He certainly would be alot higher in ratings than May.

Meh, Chuka’s politics was roundly rejected by the electorate in 2015.

Peregrinus

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, Chuka’s politics was roundly rejected by the electorate in 2015.

Perhaps. But the electorate has learned a good deal since then.

Russman

Apologies if this has been asked already, but, for the sake of argument, lets say TM somehow gets her deal through without DUP support, will they (the DUP) accept it as being the will of the UK parliament as a whole, in the same manner as they argue the referendum result to leave is for the UK as a whole and it doesn't matter that NI voted remain, or is there much else they can do apart from not supporting the Tories and bring down the government ? I think they're getting dangerously close to that small space between a rock and a hard place.

LuckyLloyd

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps. But the electorate has learned a good deal since then.

I don’t personally think Brexit changes the Overton window for British politics generally. There’s still the same positions on NHS, workers rights, social provision, etc that produced a 40% vote for #forthemanynotthefew. Very easy to lose sight of that - austerity continues with Tory politicians talking about employment stats while more slip into poverty.

Unless Chuka has substantively changed his politics since 2015, he’s not winning an election.

Cryptopagan

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Meh, Chuka’s politics was roundly rejected by the electorate in 2015.

He has also accepted a donation from a city banker who held a senior role at Lehman Bros, and who has given something like £500k to the Tories. Some alternative.

prawnsambo

Here's the ful list of indicative votes that are up for selection today. Some amount of unicorns in there.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

I'm not sure I see any of those getting through today to be honest. Will be another monumental waste of time.

PokeHerKing

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps. But the electorate has learned a good deal since then.

That seems to be general theme running through this thread amongst the most frequent posters. The UK public were duped, they've come to their senses now, they're all up for remaining now etc etc....

I don't see it personally. Ill believe it if there's another referendum and remain wins with a 10%+ majority. And even that's setting the bar low. Realistically any nation with a bit of cop on at this stage should be returning a 20%+ majority for remain.

Cryptopagan

Russman wrote: »

Apologies if this has been asked already, but, for the sake of argument, lets say TM somehow gets her deal through without DUP support, will they (the DUP) accept it as being the will of the UK parliament as a whole, in the same manner as they argue the referendum result to leave is for the UK as a whole and it doesn't matter that NI voted remain, or is there much else they can do apart from not supporting the Tories and bring down the government ? I think they're getting dangerously close to that small space between a rock and a hard place.

Why would they bring down the government? Once the deal has passed parliament, there's nothing they can do about it. By continuing to prop up the Tory government, they may still be able to influence the shape of the future relationship.