Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Stop moaning ffs

20silkcut wrote: »

The Brexiteers wont mention it because the scots will want the back stop extended to them I reckon.

If that prevented them going for independence I could see that getting the snp on side to shore up the votes lost from the DUP to get it through

Peregrinus

20silkcut wrote: »

The Brexiteers wont mention it because the scots will want the back stop extended to them I reckon.

The EU has not offered an NI + Scotland backstop, and is unlikely to. It has stated all along that the backstop is possibly only because of the unique circumstances that prevail in NI.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU has not offered an NI + Scotland backstop, and is unlikely to. It has stated all along that the backstop is possibly only because of the unique circumstances that prevail in NI.

Then... Indy Ref 2 ?

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Then... Indy Ref 2 ?

Very much a live issue, I would have thought.

Two possibilities:

1. Agains the odds, PM Johnson gets parliament to approve a WA including the NI backstop. Scotland is pissed since, despite voting against Brexit by an even bigger margin than NI, it doesn't get insulated from some of the worst effects of Brexit in the way NI does. But UK can reasonably say "EU wouldn't allow that." To which Scotland can reasonably say "How do you know that? You never asked."

Net result is that decision which is bad for Scotland has been imposed on Scotland against its expressed will. I don't think it really aggravates matters to observe that same decision has not be imposed in full-blooded form on NI. Truth is there are reasons why special treatment of NI was possible that don't apply with respect to Scotland.

But Scotland will observe (a) that lousy UK decision was not imposed on Ireland, and (b) that Ireland benefitted from strong support of EU in seeking to ensure, so far as possible, that adverse consequences of lousy UK decision did not end up being imposed on Ireland. Contrast between advantages of Irish independence within supportive EU versus disadvantages of Scottish dependence within oppressive UK is obvious, and striking. So political and popular case for Scottish independence is strengthened.

2. More likely, PM Johnson does not get any WA approved and (if we believe what he has been saying) result is that UK leaves without a deal on 31 October and of course with no NI backstop. Much pain, inc. for Scotland, but at least they do not see NI getting protections which are denied to them.

Still, contrast with Ireland's situation is just as obvious, and just as striking, so I would think there is a similar fillip to the case for Scottish independence.

But . . .

If UK leaves with a deal, consequence is not just that there is a backstop in NI. There is also a transitional period and (it is to be hoped) in due course a transition to a trade deal of some kind. Much less disruption and dislocation; much maintaining of equivalence, mutual recognition of standards, etc.

Whereas if no deal, big economic shock, and hard border not just in Ireland but between UK and EU at every level.

The big economic shock gives a big fillip to the case of for Scottish independence, but no-deal Brexuit also greatly increases the cost of Scottish independence, since if Scotland becomes independent there will then be a hard border between Scotland and the rump of the UK, and a huge chunk of Scottish trade passes over that border.

So you'd have a very unhealthy dynamic in which Scotland's reasons for dissatisfaction with the UK would be maximised, which would tend to encourage them to leave, but the cost to Scotland of leaving the UK would also be maximised, which would tend to encourage them to stay. Who is to say how that would balance out? The end result might be Scotland staying in the UK, but increasingly angry and bitter about it. It certainly doesn't make for a healthy UK.

20silkcut

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU has not offered an NI + Scotland backstop, and is unlikely to. It has stated all along that the backstop is possibly only because of the unique circumstances that prevail in NI.

The EU should really push this as the only negotiable option between now and October. In light of the obviously unique circumstances in Northern Ireland and the fact that the Irish Sea is as natural a border as there is and causes the absolute least disruption. The scots should be given money from both EU and UK as part of the deal to shut up.
It worked before in the time of William Wallace.

Stop moaning ffs

Latest IT politics podcast is worth a listen.
Talk of nationalising the government here in case of a crash out.
First I’ve heard mention of that.
Fintan O Toole saying we’ve been doing really well on consensus and we must continue that at all costs and any party breaking out to score political points can’t and won’t be forgiven.
He’s not wrong.

LuckyLloyd

I would be strongly in favour of a national government (i.e. all parties contribute) in the event of Britain crashing out. We will have to treat the situation as a national crisis and act accordingly.

McMurphy

Simon Coveney has been on the airwaves non stop as past few days warning us about the Armageddon scenario that a no deal Brexit will bestow upon us.

The govt presumably are going to cancel their 2 month summer recess break then, yeah?

If engineers warned me that my house was about to collapse in on its own foundations, obviously my first thoughts would be, it'll be grand, I'll deal with it when I get back from the all inclusive in Kalamaki.....

Stop moaning ffs

As far as I know all parties are briefed regularly on the state of play. The FF brexit spokesperson was saying as much. She also very strongly said there’s just no way there’ll be a GE in the middle of all this and FF certainly won’t be pushing for one. She then went on to accuse SF of calling for one. But of course.
Don’t know we’d need to nationalise but we don’t know how bad or not the crash out scenario will be just yet.
I do hope the consensus continues though. It would be insanity to have them at each other’s throats. Brits would see that as cracks in the defence and come for it

Peregrinus

I don't know that we would need a national government. The problem with a national government is that there's no opposition to hold it to account. I think we are probably better off with a responsible and public-spirited opposition than with a national government.

(Yes, the UK had a national government during the war. But, then, they also suspended general elections. Nearly 10 years passed between the 1935 election and the 1945 election, and the government assumed sweeping powers; the UK was effectively a dictatorship during that period. If you're going to have a dictatorship then, yes, it's a good idea to involve as broad a range of political opinion in it so that there is some critical accountability within the dictatorship. But if you're going to have a government accountable to the electorate through elections then you're better off having an opposition, so that the people have a genuine choice of alternative governments at elections.)

lawred2

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Simon Coveney has been on the airwaves non stop as past few days warning us about the Armageddon scenario that a no deal Brexit will bestow upon us.

The govt presumably are going to cancel their 2 month summer recess break then, yeah?

If engineers warned me that my house was about to collapse in on its own foundations, obviously my first thoughts would be, it'll be grand, I'll deal with it when I get back from the all inclusive in Kalamaki.....

The civil service will be doing the vast amount of heavy lifting re Brexit prep... And always have been. Parliament is for legislating. Even with a politician's summer recess the civil service will be flat out.

Zubeneschamali

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Talk of nationalising the government here in case of a crash out.

We already have a national government in practice: FG supported by FF.

The Independents in government and FF sitting on the opposition benches are just window dressing to keep FF/FG supporters who would balk at an actual coalition quiet.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

2. More likely, PM Johnson does not get any WA approved and (if we believe what he has been saying) result is that UK leaves without a deal on 31 October and of course with no NI backstop. Much pain, inc. for Scotland, but at least they do not see NI getting protections which are denied to them.

2.5: Not on Day One, but we all know that after the Independence Day celebrations, on Day Two Boris will have to open talks with the EU on the future trade relationship.

And item 3 on the list of things the EU want in return for a Free Trade Agreement will be the backstop. As the economic situation worsens, the UK government will come under irresistible pressure to make that deal.

And Scotland will be even worse off, having taken the hit from No Deal dislocation, and then seeing NI rescued by the EU.

Of course once the UK is out (especially on No Deal bad terms), the EU will be free to discuss fast-tracking an independent Scotland's re-entry, which might help the Indyref pass.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

2.5: Not on Day One, but we all know that after the Independence Day celebrations, on Day Two Boris will have to open talks with the EU on the future trade relationship.

Yes, the talks will open, but they are not talks which will close very quickly.

I don't really buy into the belief that no-deal Brexit will be so horrible for the UK that they will do an immediate volte-face and come running to look for the terms which they have so consistently rejected. It's extremely hard for people to admit they have made a mistake, and even harder when everyone pointed out at the time that they were making a mistake and they made it anyway. I think the rigours of no-deal Brexit will, at least for a time, simply entrench the positions people have already adopted and, rather than admit they are the authors of their own misfortune, they will blame the EU, the Irish, remainers, etc. That doesn't make for a climate in which the post-Brexit deal talks proceed smoothly or quickly.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And item 3 on the list of things the EU want in return for a Free Trade Agreement will be the backstop. As the economic situation worsens, the UK government will come under irresistible pressure to make that deal.

I think it may be more resistible than you think, at least for a time. Plus, it's a brand new deal; it's not simply a case of changing the opening paragraphs of the WA and offering it as the post-Brexit deal. Elements of the WA can be copied over, but large chunks will need to be negotiated from scratch.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And Scotland will be even worse off, having taken the hit from No Deal dislocation, and then seeing NI rescued by the EU.

That won't make Scotland worse off. In fact, a post-Brexit deal which effectively recreates the backstop is likely also to do other things which will ameliorate Scotland's plight.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course once the UK is out (especially on No Deal bad terms), the EU will be free to discuss fast-tracking an independent Scotland's re-entry, which might help the Indyref pass.

It might. But if the UK is out on bad no-deal terms, then Scotland seceding from the UK and joining the EU puts a huge barrier between Scotland and what will be far and away its largest import and export market; there'll be a hard border between Scotland and England. As pointed out earlier, a no-deal Brexit rubs Scotland's nose in its dependent condition, but also maximises the economic costs to Scotland of Scottish independence.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus, it's a brand new deal; it's not simply a case of changing the opening paragraphs of the WA and offering it as the post-Brexit deal. Elements of the WA can be copied over, but large chunks will need to be negotiated from scratch.

I must admit that if I were the EUs trade negotiator, I would copy those three paragraphs and tell the UK side that those are a prerequisite for opening talks, that they will be the first three paragraphs of any deal that is agreed with the UK, ever.

Any Free Trade agreed will only begin after Westminster passes those 3 items into law and we see them implementing the backstop on the ground, guaranteeing EU citizens rights and they start paying what they owe.

Free trade will be suspended the day they break any of those conditions.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, the talks will open, but they are not talks which will close very quickly.

I don't really buy into the belief that no-deal Brexit will be so horrible for the UK that they will do an immediate volte-face and come running to look for the terms which they have so consistently rejected. It's extremely hard for people to admit they have made a mistake, and even harder when everyone pointed out at the time that they were making a mistake and they made it anyway. I think the rigours of no-deal Brexit will, at least for a time, simply entrench the positions people have already adopted and, rather than admit they are the authors of their own misfortune, they will blame the EU, the Irish, remainers, etc. That doesn't make for a climate in which the post-Brexit deal talks proceed smoothly or quickly.


I think it may be more resistible than you think, at least for a time. Plus, it's a brand new deal; it's not simply a case of changing the opening paragraphs of the WA and offering it as the post-Brexit deal. Elements of the WA can be copied over, but large chunks will need to be negotiated from scratch.


That won't make Scotland worse off. In fact, a post-Brexit deal which effectively recreates the backstop is likely also to do other things which will ameliorate Scotland's plight.


It might. But if the UK is out on bad no-deal terms, then Scotland seceding from the UK and joining the EU puts a huge barrier between Scotland and what will be far and away its largest import and export market; there'll be a hard border between Scotland and England. As pointed out earlier, a no-deal Brexit rubs Scotland's nose in its dependent condition, but also maximises the economic costs to Scotland of Scottish independence.

Current polls indicate that only 32% of people are in favour of a No Deal Brexit. This fact, along with the fact that No Deal will be an immediate economic disaster, will entrench people but will entrench EU supporters much more that Hard Brexit supporters.

Hurrache

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Simon Coveney has been on the airwaves non stop as past few days warning us about the Armageddon scenario that a no deal Brexit will bestow upon us.

The govt presumably are going to cancel their 2 month summer recess break then, yeah?

If engineers warned me that my house was about to collapse in on its own foundations, obviously my first thoughts would be, it'll be grand, I'll deal with it when I get back from the all inclusive in Kalamaki.....

The dail may stop sitting, but the relevant departments, committees and civil servants won't stop working.

Same way the builders and engineers you employee to fix your house won't stop working just because you take a break and leave your house while they're at it.

Dytalus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course once the UK is out (especially on No Deal bad terms), the EU will be free to discuss fast-tracking an independent Scotland's re-entry, which might help the Indyref pass.

There's only so much the EU can do to fast-track Scottish membership though. Brexit, combined with independence, is going to do a number on Scotland's economy and make it very difficult to fulfill the criteria for EU membership. The EU would be making a very serious misstep to bend the rules to allow Scottish membership with a shaky, possibly imploded economy. It's not like NI and Ireland, where NI would be joining with a nation that's already a member. It would be just like Turkey wanting to join - a 3rd country, starting from scratch to meet the Copenhagen Criteria.

The first step would be an Association Agreement, the EU's tool for beginning the process. It wouldn't be too demanding, since Scotland is already aligned with the EU on market regulations and already (through the UK) is beholden to the ECJ. The main problem facing Scottish membership would be bolstering and stabilising their economy. There's only so much the EU can do there. Free Trade Agreements and trying for some generous investment (unsure what the EU could there - the ESIFunds can't be used for investing in 3rd party countries) would be the extent of it I'd imagine. Try to wean Scotland off its heavy dependence on England for trade and economic reliance.

It'd be a hard enough battle, but easier (and quicker) overall than some accessions. Scotland could effectively skip the political, regulatory, and individual freedom parts of the accession process because it's already in compliance with them. The economic fixing though, is mostly down to Scotland and cannot really be sped up.

Zubeneschamali

Dytalus wrote: »

It would be just like Turkey wanting to join - a 3rd country, starting from scratch to meet the Copenhagen Criteria.

No, it would be very different. Scotland is a nation of EU citizens who were dragged out of the EU by England against their express will.


Once independent, I think a strong case can be made for fast-tracking their re-entry and skipping the usual 3rd country process. East Germany got a pass, NI has been guaranteed a pass in advance if they vote for a United Ireland.


Scotland should get help, not obstacles.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it would be very different. Scotland is a nation of EU citizens who were dragged out of the EU by England against their express will.


Once independent, I think a strong case can be made for fast-tracking their re-entry and skipping the usual 3rd country process. East Germany got a pass, NI has been guaranteed a pass in advance if they vote for a United Ireland.


Scotland should get help, not obstacles.

I agree but will the EU see it to be in its members interests? Will it be seen to encourage others to seek independence? The Catalans spring to mind.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Current polls indicate that only 32% of people are in favour of a No Deal Brexit. This fact, along with the fact that No Deal will be an immediate economic disaster, will entrench people but will entrench EU supporters much more that Hard Brexit supporters.

Only 32% favour a no-deal Brexit but the remaining 68% do not necessarily favour a deal; they are split between those who favour a deal, those who favour remain and the don't-knows.

The ground shifts after Brexit; a WA is no longer possible, obviously. Whether people will favour a post-Brexit deal will depend on the terms of the deal, and they have yet to be negotiated. Remain is also not an option, obviously, and I wouldn't assume that Remainers will seamlessly become Rejoiners, especially as "Rejoin!" will be seen as a long-term political project, not an immediately-available option.

So I think things will be quite up in the air for a time after Brexit, and it would be a foolish pundit who would nail his colours to the mast of any very specific prediction about how things will turn out.

The mainstream Brexiter position is that the UK will wish to move on to negotiating an FTA with the EU. Delusional bolt-ons to this central idea are (a) the EU will miraculously reassess its priorities and decide that it doesn't need a border guarantee after all; (b) the EU will need this FTA more than the UK does; and (c) this will be quick and easy. But when you dismiss this arrant nonsense the core idea - that the next step is for the UK to seek an EU FTA - is basically correct.

But, even if the UK immediately agree to the EU position on financial settlement, citizens rights, no-hard-border, an FTA is going to take some time to negotiate. So Ireland, and hopefully the EU, will be keen to put in place an interim agreement to operate until the FTA is nailed down. All of which is fine and dandy, but it's conditional on the UK agreeing to the EU position on money, citizens, border. And, having just paid a horrible price for not agreeing to that position, it will be hard for the UK to turn around and immediately agree to it. That would mean they had paid a horrible price for no reason at all, which is a very, very hard thing to face up to.

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree but will the EU see it to be in its members interests? Will it be seen to encourage others to seek independence? The Catalans spring to mind.

Independence from a ex-member country that left? I can't see that being a worrying precedent, especially after everyone sees what happens to England.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it would be very different. Scotland is a nation of EU citizens who were dragged out of the EU by England against their express will.


Once independent, I think a strong case can be made for fast-tracking their re-entry and skipping the usual 3rd country process. East Germany got a pass, NI has been guaranteed a pass in advance if they vote for a United Ireland.


Scotland should get help, not obstacles.

East Germany did not join, and NI will not join, as member states in their own right. Scotland will want to do that. Big difference.

Yes, the EU will be keen to support and advance the membership of Scotland. But (a) it won't do anything about that until Scotland is, or is agreed to be about to become, independent. They will do nothing that could be made to look like them encouraging or facilitating the break-up of the UK; they will wait until that happens without any intervention by them. And (b) there's only so far they will compromise on the conditions for membership, which aren't arbitrary but are there for good reasons.

Scotland, if independent, is very well-positioned to become a member state, and will certainly get every encouragement and assistance. But it won't be a shoe-in.

Peregrinus

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I agree but will the EU see it to be in its members interests? Will it be seen to encourage others to seek independence? The Catalans spring to mind.

The EU won't encourage Scotland to seek independence but, once it's independent, will certainly encourage it to pursue EU membership.

Spain, if I'm not mistaken, has already said that it would not oppose or veto a membership application from an independent Scotland.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Independence from a ex-member country that left? I can't see that being a worrying precedent, especially after everyone sees what happens to England.

Fair point.

FrancieBrady

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU won't encourage Scotland to seek independence but, once it's independent, will certainly encourage it to pursue EU membership.

Spain, if I'm not mistaken, has already said that it would not oppose or veto a membership application from an independent Scotland.

To be precise, Rahoy said that there is no legal precedent for them to oppose a Scottish application as Scotland would be legally leaving the UK..
There is in the case of Catalonia for Madrid as they would see independence there as illegal.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

having just paid a horrible price for not agreeing to that position, it will be hard for the UK to turn around and immediately agree to it. That would mean they had paid a horrible price for no reason at all, which is a very, very hard thing to face up to.

Agreed, which is why we may have to wait for them to realize that the horrible price is not a once-off payment - things are going to continue to be horribly expensive in economic terms until they get over it and sign.


It might take as long as 6 months.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, the EU will be keen to support and advance the membership of Scotland. But (a) it won't do anything about that until Scotland is, or is agreed to be about to become, independent. They will do nothing that could be made to look like them encouraging or facilitating the break-up of the UK;

Disagree - if the UK crashes out, the gloves come off. England will have just dragged 5 million Scottish EU citizens out against their will through nationalist hubris and diplomatic incompetence, I see no reason why the EU should give two figs for their national integrity.


Make the Scots an offer on Brexit Day + 1.

Dytalus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it would be very different. Scotland is a nation of EU citizens who were dragged out of the EU by England against their express will.


Once independent, I think a strong case can be made for fast-tracking their re-entry and skipping the usual 3rd country process. East Germany got a pass, NI has been guaranteed a pass in advance if they vote for a United Ireland.


Scotland should get help, not obstacles.

I'm not saying they should get obstacles, but it's also not in the EU's interests to bend the rules too much. If Scotland devolves post-Brexit+Independence into a basket case economically, inviting into the EU is going to do incredible harm to the other Member States. As we've seen with the Brexit negotiations, the EU's loyalty lies (rightfully) with its Members - which Scotland would not be.

NI joining Ireland would not be a wholly independent nation seeking independent membership. Neither was East Germany rejoining West Germany. Scotland would be different to these and more similar to Turkey (or any other third country) joining. The EU would almost certainly take past friendship into account, and there'd be a push from the Parliament and Council(s) to help Scotland join. But we can't allow Scotland to join until:

• It asks to, and
• It's ready

We can do much to help Scotland (as I mentioned, FTA's to facilitate investment and possibly rerouting trade routes as is happening now with Ireland to reduce the need for trade to pass through England), but we can't ignore our own rules. As Brexit has shown, the EU is a rules based organisation - it cannot afford to break any of them or vultures will seek to take advantage of the cracks and bring it down.

We also cannot announce what plans they may have to facilitate Scotland's membership through trade and investment while it's still a member of the UK, because good lord the optics on that would be horrific. We'd have to wait until IndyRef2, or the international community would scream bloody murder.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Disagree - if the UK crashes out, the gloves come off. England will have just dragged 5 million Scottish EU citizens out against their will through nationalist hubris and diplomatic incompetence, I see no reason why the EU should give two figs for their national integrity.


Make the Scots an offer on Brexit Day + 1.

From a personal standpoint I also don't give two hoots about the UK governments opinion. They've failed their citizens in both Scotland and NI in multiple aspects. But could you imagine the international furor if we were seen to be courting the break up of the UK before Scotland made any move itself? Every single nation from China to Russia to America to Middle-Earth would view the EU as aggressively undermining a sovereign nation and use it against us.

And they'd be right too, even if we made the proposal out of genuine concern for the people of Scotland. We'd still be effectively stoking the collapse of a sovereign nation.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Agreed, which is why we may have to wait for them to realize that the horrible price is not a once-off payment - things are going to continue to be horribly expensive in economic terms until they get over it and sign.

It might take as long as 6 months.

It could take much longer, and we might have to do quite a bit of lateral thinking to fashion a fig-leaf with which to hide their climbdown.

It's important not to approach this on the basis that we will grind them beneath our chariot wheels until we hear the lamentations of their women. That would be emotionally satisfying and entirely understandable, but it's probably not the best way to get to where we need to be.