Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

the public vote is a lottery where progress towards a softer Brexit could be entirely lost...

I don't get the clamour for it

The public vote offers a real possiblity of remaining. Remainers would like that.

And, if the options in a public vote are (a) a Brexit which, while not as soft as possible, is still softer than May's Brexit or (b) Remain, that looks like a win-win for Remainers. Even if they lose the referendum, it's still a better outcome than supporting May's deal.

mickoneill31

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are absolutely definitely not going to pressure the government over the backstop.

They are going to pressure the government over border controls. No-deal brexit and no backstop means border controls. They may be introduced gradually and stepped up over time, and there may be some forbearance and much sympathy and a good deal of supportive measures for Ireland, but the integrity of the Single Market must be assured. That's what Angela and Emmanuel are meeting Leo to discuss.

Why do they need to pressure the government over border controls? All of the grown ups in the room know what no deal means.

To the UK if no deal happenss they'll go to the EU looking for a deal. So the EU will just say "about that backstop, take your time lads, no rush on the EUs side".

Imreoir2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Regarding hard brexit (looking more and more likely now) our government has one card to play, which no one on this thread yet thought of.

They can call a referendum (we have one in May already right?) asking people to chose between a border in Northern Ireland or border on Irish Sea between us and EU.

Whatever the outcome then they can simply quote the "will of the people" when putting up the infrastructure.

That would be utterly self defeating. Firstly asking the population if maybe they might like to cut off their own legs (erecting a border with the rest of the EU) is what got the UK into this mess in the first place, why on earth would we want to take that risk?

Secondly, why should we vote on a border with NI? It is the setteled will of the Irish people that there be no border, there is no reason to revisit that question now. We have an international agreement with the UK to keep that border open and we are doing nothing to break that deal, they on other hand are. Why should we hold a referendum to either take responsibility for their bulls**t, or erect a barrier with our biggest trading partner, the EU, so that they can get away with their bulls**t without having to suffer the consequences.

Thirdly, you can't have a referendum that does not allow the public to choose the status quo, it cant be a choice between border with NI or border with EU. It would have to be Border with NI, Yes or No, and seperatly, border with EU - Yes or No. The only rational choice would be a resounding NO to both, which would then leave is exactly where we are and looking foolish for bothering with a couple of pointless referendums in the first place.

Infini

Imreoir2 wrote: »

No-deal has moved from worst case scenario to most likely scenario, as Ireland is on the front line so to speak, this is hardly surprising. The idea that the EU are going to pressure the government over the backstop at this stage is laughable. One wonders if even a few years after Brexit and the backstop is in force people will still be suggesting that the EU is just about to throw Ireland under the bus.

While some attempt's will be made to make sure the single market isnt compromised possibly by monitoring what goes through Dublin Port for example what will happen is massive pressure will be brought on the UK to agree to a proper trading relationship in the EU and Ireland's favour. Simple truth is Ireland wont be thrown under the bus for Westminster's utter incompetence and lack of judgement. The EU also know's of the border situation not being your normal one since this is one violence will easily flare up on if not handled carefully.

It should be said though that if there's a Hard Brexit the border will likely only be a short to mid term problem. I'd expect a significant surge in support for reunification if NI is utterly wrecked economically by the Brexit Bullshítters and likely the fact that the government in Dublin actually cared and had more concern for those in the North than the government in Westminster will not be lost on people. Let's not forget the Scottish factor either if they get a 2nd indyref and leave the 2nd time round, Irish reunification wont be long behind it.

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

The public vote offers a real possiblity of remaining. Remainers would like that.

And, if the options in a public vote are (a) a Brexit which, while not as soft as possible, is still softer than May's Brexit or (b) Remain, that looks like a win-win for Remainers. Even if they lose the referendum, it's still a better outcome than supporting May's deal.

Yeah and it also offers the exact opposite

maynooth_rules

SNIP. No more talk of SF abstentionism please.

Anteayer

Sadly, it just shows the level of awareness or care that British politics has for Northern Ireland and if also shows exactly what the DUP really think.

Their MPs voted down a customs union option yesterday entirely. So clearly they're not just worried about being cut off from the UK, they are willing to vote down the only thing that would maintain the status quo too.

I think people need to stop being so gentle and careful about how they describe the DUP and the Tories. They've absolutely wrecked prospects for Northern Ireland.

As far as I'm concerned this is the DUP's border. They say they don't want it but they just do absolutely everything possible to ensure the damn thing happens but will then try and blame someone else.

They never subscribed to the GFA and it's pretty clear that this is just their opportunity to completely wreck it, undermine the institutions that it setup and probably cozy up to the idea of direct rule.

The Tories have some degree of excuse in the sense they're self absorbed and basically an English party but the DUP should and do know better than this. It's bloody mindedness that's driven this to where it is now.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Regarding hard brexit (looking more and more likely now) our government has one card to play, which no one on this thread yet thought of.

They can call a referendum (we have one in May already right?) asking people to chose between a border in Northern Ireland or border on Irish Sea between us and EU.

Whatever the outcome then they can simply quote the "will of the people" when putting up the infrastructure.

So in other words you're looking for an Irexit vote?

BobbyBobberson

Just something on Mark Francois. I had never heard of him before he ripped up that Airbus letter live on air and started ranting about his old man in the army. Now I never see nor hear the end of him.

The British media's insistence on propping up mouth pieces who know sweet FA is part of the reason we are in this mess now.

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

Yes, hoping the options are narrowed down. I presume a lot of work goes on, behind the scenes between those backing various indicative options.
I know it's been said often before, but hopefully Wed.

Professor, long extension isn't an option, it's a process to deliver something else.
It's needed if any option outside of WA + CU is chosen. So, No Deal has been rejected by over 400 MPs, should be declared dead.
Choices WA
WA + CU
WA + CU + some SM
Confirmatory vote on any of the above.
Extension needed for 3 & 4.

I know, but they can't agree on what sort of Soft Brexit they want or whether they want to remain. So that's why I suggest three options. If May puts up No Deal, WA or long extension, then it essentially becomes binary as No Deal won't be supported.

So Brexiteers now have a choice. The WA or a long extension with strings attached. And it shouldn't be indicative, it should be binding and a free vote. In that case, she might have a slim chance of getting the WA through. A long extension should be good news for Remainers/Soft Brexiteers. May won't do any of this but it's what she should do in the country's interest.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

If I am the leader of a dissident Republican group, I am rubbing my hands with glee when I hear this. Border controls = Target practice.

The controls won't be actually at the border, for the most part.

Plus, not to be brutal, but the dissident republicans will have a preference for attacking UK government targets; most of them have a standing policy against direct attacks on Irish government targets. I think they might foment protests, obstruction, etc against Irish government measures to control the border, but for actual direct armed attacks they'll wait for the UK to do something attackable. They won't have to wait for long.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

The public vote offers a real possiblity of remaining. Remainers would like that.

And, if the options in a public vote are (a) a Brexit which, while not as soft as possible, is still softer than May's Brexit or (b) Remain, that looks like a win-win for Remainers. Even if they lose the referendum, it's still a better outcome than supporting May's deal.

Where is the confidence that Remain would even be on the ballot?

It is likely that a confirmatory ref wil be tagged on to MV4 and it will get passed, but it will have to be quite descriptive to avoid TM simply making it WA or No Deal. Sure the Mp's will complain, but at this stage TM will be offering this as the only alternative to No Deal. Vote for TM deal to at least increase the possibility to avoid No deal, and with it get a longer extension from the EU.

TM has never shown any inclination to have any thoughts about Remain. None. But if they try to remove No deal from the MV4 motion (thus WA or remain) then all those in ERG etc will vote against it anyway.

ancapailldorcha

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Just something on Mark Francois. I had never heard of him before he ripped up that Airbus letter live on air and started ranting about his old man in the army. Now I never see nor hear the end of him.

The British media's insistence on propping up mouth pieces who know sweet FA is part of the reason we are in this mess now.

He was in the Territorial Army which is a volunteer reserve force. Bit like comparing Dr. Pepper to a properly trained medical professional.

Akrasia

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah and it also offers the exact opposite

People make judgements based on the potential outcomes. There is a reason why brexiteers are all so opposed to a 2nd referendum. They know that there is a very very good chance they'll lose

BobbyBobberson

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He was in the Territorial Army which is a volunteer reserve force. Bit like comparing Dr. Pepper to a properly trained medical professional.

Ha, he wasn't trained to lose you know!

funkey_monkey

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Thats twice that Sinn Feins vote would have got the Customs Union vote across the line in Westminster. They can hide behind abstention all they want, their inaction could cost N. Ireland so much

I'm not fan of SF, but it should be taken into consideration that 89 MPs abstained on the Customs Union vote.

Also 66 abstained on Referendum, 95 abstained on Common Market and 155 abstained on Parlimentary Supremency.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

The controls won't be actually at the border, for the most part.

Plus, not to be brutal, but the dissident republicans will have a preference for attacking UK government targets; most of them have a standing policy against direct attacks on Irish government targets. I think they might foment protests, obstruction, etc against Irish government measures to control the border, but for actual direct armed attacks they'll wait for the UK to do something attackable. They won't have to wait for long.

Indeed they will attack UK targets. Which is exactly what they are waiting for - targets. Labour's Shadow Minister for NI, Stephen Pound, put it very well:

“If you look at the border, 302 miles long, if you think that a camera up a pole can actually provide a border security alert – that will become a target.

If you have a target, you have to defend the target. If you have a defender, you have to have someone to actually protect the defender. Before you know where you are, you’ve got uniformed UK [Border Agency] or customs officers on the border.

If you do that – and I’m not being hysterical about this – then the peace process is finished, the minute you have uniformed troops on that border. If the peace process is finished, then peace on the island of Ireland is under huge threat."

BobbyBobberson

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm not fan of SF, but it should be taken into consideration that 89 MPs abstained on the Customs Union vote.

Also 66 abstained on Referendum, 95 abstained on Common Market and 155 abstained on Parlimentary Supremency.

Exactly. Do we honestly think that MP's would have voted the same if Sinn Fein had been there?

There is no way that the Conservative and Unionist Party propped up by the Democratic Unionist Party would have allowed Sinn Fein to dictate the UK's exit from the EU.

mikep

Thinking about the hard border, I heard someone from Dublin port on the radio saying they had infrastructure in place for inspections etc including space for extra storage if required. One can assume that the same is happening in Cork and Rosslare.
According to people from the border areas there have been Gardai redeployed to stations and the OPW and Customs have been inspecting border crossings.
Is it possible that plans are being put in place to carry out inspections here, but at such a pace, that the added costs (Quay rent, fresh produce spoilage, inspection costs etc) to business in the UK would have them up in arms about it fairly quickly and put whoever is negotiating the trade deal on notice that something similar to the current situation would have to be agreed quickly??

Peregrinus

mickoneill31 wrote: »

Why do they need to pressure the government over border controls? All of the grown ups in the room know what no deal means.

Mmm. Varadkar has tried hard not to acknowledge, or lead Irish public opinion towards an acceptance of, the fact that a no-deal Brexit will lead to border controls from the Irish side.

mickoneill31 wrote: »

To the UK if no deal happenss they'll go to the EU looking for a deal. So the EU will just say "about that backstop, take your time lads, no rush on the EUs side".

There is rush. No-deal will be incredibly painful for Ireland. In some ways its the worst of both worlds - growing levels of border control in Ireland, plus our trade with the EU-26 is disrupted because our routes through the UK, which are important to us, are gummed up. You're looking at shortages; you're looking at job losses; you're looking at business closures. We may blame the UK for this, but we will still be anxious to bring it to an end ASAP.

Our hope is, basically, that however bad it is for us it will be much, much worse for the UK, and therefore they will cave sooner rather than later, and come looking for a deal - hopefully before the cumulative effects on Ireland have got very far. But we will be very, very keen to see that deal completed becuse, the longer no-deal continues, the worse for us, and the harder to recover.

Imreoir2

Peregrinus wrote: »

They are absolutely definitely not going to pressure the government over the backstop.

They are going to pressure the government over border controls. No-deal brexit and no backstop means border controls. They may be introduced gradually and stepped up over time, and there may be some forbearance and much sympathy and a good deal of supportive measures for Ireland, but the integrity of the Single Market must be assured. That's what Angela and Emmanuel are meeting Leo to discuss.

Of course. The whole arguement that the backstop is unnecessary because Ireland won't enforce a border is bogus. Ireand is not planning to implement a border because Ireland is planning on holding the UK to it's obligations under the GFA even under a no-deal scenario. Ireland will insist that the UK implement the backstop, or provisions very like the backstop so that border infastructure is not required. If the UK fail to honor their obligations under the GFA, then Ireland will have no choice but to implement border checks.

These meetings are probably as much about preparing strategy for pressuirng the UK in a no-deal scenario to live up to its obligations, and the mechanics of making whatever ad-hoc arangements are necessary between the EU and UK to facliltate that, as they are about Irelands preparations for what it will have to do should the UK fail to meet its obligations.

The looking the other way, forebarance and symapthy in the initial months will not be aimless, they will be the public face of an intense diplomatic effort to hold the UK's feet to the fire, to make sure the gradual hardening of the border never needs to get off the ground.

BobbyBobberson

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're looking at shortages; you're looking at job losses; you're looking at business closures.

Yup. If i remember correctly Tony Connelly's book referred to mushroom closures post referendum result in the Republic simply due to a drop in the pound.

gormdubhgorm

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Exactly. Do we honestly think that MP's would have voted the same if Sinn Fein had been there?

There is no way that the Conservative and Unionist Party propped up by the Democratic Unionist Party would have allowed Sinn Fein to dictate the UK's exit from the EU.

If Sinn Fein REALLY wanted to make a difference they would go through the motions of taking the oath of allegiance while crossing thier fingers.
But no they want to do nothing even in Stormont and pretend to really want an Irish language act.
I think Sinn Fein really missed a trick as regards Brexit they could have entered the commons. Then they could be as obstructionist as they like.

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

Yeah and it also offers the exact opposite

No, it doesn't. The only possible outcomes are the two options in the referendum, which would be (a) Remain, or (b) softer brexit than May's.

Kermit.de.frog

Barnier this morning confirming what everyone suspects. Even in no deal from the UK comes looking for a trade deal the same issues will be waiting....

[After no-deal] there won’t be many months passing before the UK will start asking for negotiations on a free trade agreement or other issues, like transport.

The topics of Brexit will still be there - Ireland, the financial resolution, the legal obligations of the UK, the issues of citizens and citizens’ rights. These are questions we will put again and again.

If there is no deal and the UK wants to discuss trade or other subjects, we will put the same subjects back on the table.

Tell me how

There is an interesting programme on a key part of all this on BBC 4 tomorrow night at 21:00

Link

https://twitter.com/earlofantrim17/status/1112847617946476545

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

Where is the confidence that Remain would even be on the ballot?

It is likely that a confirmatory ref wil be tagged on to MV4 and it will get passed, but it will have to be quite descriptive to avoid TM simply making it WA or No Deal. Sure the Mp's will complain, but at this stage TM will be offering this as the only alternative to No Deal. Vote for TM deal to at least increase the possibility to avoid No deal, and with it get a longer extension from the EU.

TM has never shown any inclination to have any thoughts about Remain. None. But if they try to remove No deal from the MV4 motion (thus WA or remain) then all those in ERG etc will vote against it anyway.

If parliament can dictate one of the options on the ballot, it can dictate the other. You are correct that Parliament's decision would have to be very prescriptive, but I think at this stage Parliament understands that very well.

There's a weakness with the indicative vote process, which is that it's not binding. No matter what Parliament approves in an indicative vote, May can simply decline to go to the EU and ask for a long extension to implement it. And, if May does that, as far as I can see it's game over.

So everything crucially depends on May not regarding no-deal as an acceptable outcome.

If she regards it as an acceptable outcome, then it's game over even now; regardless of the outcome of the indicative vote process, May will ignore it and no-deal will ensue.

If she doesn't, then if May has to choose between:

- (a) go to the EU and ask for an extension to implement a plan approved by Parliament, which is May's WA plus a political declaration oriented towards a customs union or single market or both, coupled with a confirmatory referendum, or

- (b) no-deal

she'll choose (a).

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it doesn't. The only possible outcomes are the two options in the referendum, which would be (a) Remain, or (b) softer brexit than May's.

Say what now?

I obviously missed where the options on this confirmatory referendum were already defined...

If those are the options then it's no wonder Tories are so concerned..

lawred2

Tell me how wrote: »

There is an interesting programme on a key part of all this on BBC 4 tomorrow night at 21:00

Link

https://twitter.com/earlofantrim17/status/1112847617946476545

I expect that to have a certain leaning towards one section of NI society

looksee

Sinn Fein person (I was driving and can't recall who it was) being interviewed on RTE yesterday said that having a hard border would be 'dangerous'. It sounded more like a threat than an opinion, but it wasn't clear who was being threatened.