Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

lawred2 wrote: »

Exactly. It won't be seen as Ireland making brotherly concessions to the UK.. it'll be seen as another chest thumping victory over little ol Paddy.. Ireland folding under the 'they need us more than we need them' Brexiteer reality.

There is no upside for Ireland in such a move. Diplomatic relations with other EU members would be in tatters.. individuals and countries that have staked a lot personally and professionally in supporting the Irish backstop would find it very hard to reconcile any Irish solo run that threw the last three years back in their faces..

And all for what? Emboldening the likes of Mark Francois... No thanks

Well, we can stick to our guns and stick it to Francois and his pals. When they crash out it will make us feel good for about five minutes. Nor would it be a solo run. this could be carefully orchestrated with the EU who could very reluctantly agree. If we smooth things along, I think Britain will agree a soft Brexit in about three years time once the Tory party implodes.

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No. Back up the thread, I made it clear I was being Devil's advocate. Mind you, I'm beginning to convince myself.

I think you are the only one you are convincing.

Even if we made a silly decision like that, there will be another issue found.

Ultimately, parliament is supposed to make the decision on what happens, and Parliament can't agree. Parliament can't even agree on an approach.

Labour is split with people leaving for anti semitism/ Corbyn leadership/ Brexit approach.

Tories are split with people drifting to ERG elements or the Brexit party. They are in a face off of incompetent potential leaders who haven't made any sense in 3 years and have no plan.

UK is an absolute disaster right now, and there is no point offering them anything. The WA as hashed out over a few years - with the UK - is a very agreeable offer with unnecessary concessions in it for the UK. They are on their second extension.

They should take the deal. If they dont like that, they can crash out or revoke a50.

The EU might grant a further extension for a GE or a second referendum. That is it.

Professor Moriarty

KildareP wrote: »

Ah, follow you now

I don't think it will help matters in any way, though, sadly.

Most of the Leave campaign has been shown to be a lie yet look at the huge support for the Brexit Party in the recent EU elections.

And if we concede on the backstop now, then we'll be seen to have committed to it now and forever more (even though the UK can opt in/out of prior agreements at will).

Personally I'm inclined to just walk away, take it or leave it lads, and accept ourselves what is coming and try our best to deal with any outcomes. We're in a better position then they are so if it's a case of who can hold out longest, I think we're fairly OK - not pain free by any means, but "OK". Our country is relatively stable - economically and politically.

The UK has shown itself not to be a party to negotiation acting in good faith, open to compromise or willing to stand by its commitments. They've scant regards for themselves, never mind anyone else. Any attempts at goodwill from EU side is met with jeers and abuse.

I think if we take a giant step back and look objectively at our long term interests then stepping out of the way might be best. Also, it has been a Tory party in thrall to the DUP and ERG that has been intransigent. Thanks to FTPT it might be rinse and repeat after a next GE but who knows.

KildareP

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, we can stick to our guns and stick it to Francois and his pals. When they crash out it will make us feel good for about five minutes. Nor would it be a solo run. this could be carefully orchestrated with the EU who could very reluctantly agree. If we smooth things along, I think Britain will agree a soft Brexit in about three years time once the Tory party implodes.

I'd strongly suspect if we agreed to offer a smoother ride, this would be announced as a great victory by the Tory party.

Tory party would then be handsomely rewarded at the next General Election by the voting public for delivering Brexit and showing it to those EU bullies.

Three years time we're looking at the same caustic group of MP's, now with even more arrogance and British bulldog spirit of victory, thinking they can have whatever they please from the EU. The EU always blinks you see!!!

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

I think you are the only one you are convincing.

Even if we made a silly decision like that, there will be another issue found.

Ultimately, parliament is supposed to make the decision on what happens, and Parliament can't agree. Parliament can't even agree on an approach.

Labour is split with people leaving for anti semitism/ Corbyn leadership/ Brexit approach.

Tories are split with people drifting to ERG elements or the Brexit party. They are in a face off of incompetent potential leaders who haven't made any sense in 3 years and have no plan.

UK is an absolute disaster right now, and there is no point offering them anything. The WA as hashed out over a few years - with the UK - is a very agreeable offer with unnecessary concessions in it for the UK. They are on their second extension.

They should take the deal. If they dont like that, they can crash out or revoke a50.

The EU might grant a further extension for a GE or a second referendum. That is it.

So, 50,000 jobs, 6 billion deficit and instability in the North rather than easing the pressure on Britain?

J Mysterio

lawred2 wrote: »

Exactly. It won't be seen as Ireland making brotherly concessions to the UK.. it'll be seen as another chest thumping victory over little ol Paddy.. Ireland folding under the 'they need us more than we need them' Brexiteer reality.

There is no upside for Ireland in such a move. Diplomatic relations with other EU members would be in tatters.. individuals and countries that have staked a lot personally and professionally in supporting the Irish backstop would find it very hard to reconcile any Irish solo run that threw the last three years back in their faces..

And all for what? Emboldening the likes of Mark Francois... No thanks

Exactly.

We put a lot effort in schmoozing around European capitals and drumming up support. We did an unbelievably good job of it and our standing is very good. Our soft power is impressive. Should we go on some bizarre solo run for our British friends now, we would be just like them - untrustworthy.

Professor Moriarty

KildareP wrote: »

I'd strongly suspect if we agreed to offer a smoother ride, this would be announced as a great victory by the Tory party.

Tory party would then be handsomely rewarded at the next General Election by the voting public for delivering Brexit and showing it to those EU bullies.

Three years time we're looking at the same caustic group of MP's, now with even more arrogance and British bulldog spirit of victory, thinking they can have whatever they please from the EU. The EU always blinks you see!!!

Perhaps. Or the lie that the backstop is the issue is exposed and the Tories go into meltdown because they can't agree on what happens next? Maybe Labour finally dump Corbyn and gets a leader who can unite the pro Europe voters?

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

So, 50,000 jobs, 6 billion deficit and instability in the North rather than easing the pressure on Britain?

Are you for real? This madness is not our doing, we've always tried to mitigate it. We found a good (and extremely generous from the EU) solution for the North, which has popular support there. It's not our fault the DUP are mental and the Tories are propped up by them. Their situation is untenable.

kunst nugget

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well, we can stick to our guns and stick it to Francois and his pals. When they crash out it will make us feel good for about five minutes. Nor would it be a solo run. this could be carefully orchestrated with the EU who could very reluctantly agree. If we smooth things along, I think Britain will agree a soft Brexit in about three years time once the Tory party implodes.

I don't understand how limiting the backstop to appear to be the better fellow in negotiations is going to help us at all if you still think they are going to fook us over anyways. We'd probably do irreparable damage to the peace process in the meantime and the nationalists (and the unionists that want the benefit of access to the single market) would have lost all faith in the Republic of Ireland fighting for a good deal for the North.

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But that's my point. An elitist, English populist like Johnson doesn't give a damn about Ireland, NI or the GFA. Any backstop agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on anyway. So why not use the opportunity to expose the Brexiteers with a magnanimous gesture.

Keep in mind too that the backstop is not the only issue the Brexiteers have with the EU. Even if the backstop didn't exist, they'd probably still be at loggerheads and on the verge of No Deal.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

Are you for real? This madness is not our doing, we've always tried to mitigate it. We found a good (and extremely generous from the EU) solution for the North, which has popular support there. It's not our fault the DUP are mental and the Tories are propped up by them. Their situation is untenable.

I'm as real as you can get. Yourself?

So if we have a chance to prevent a catastrophic crash out we should do nothing because DUP are mental and prop up the Tories? Or should we be pragmatic and appear magnanimous while possibly preventing the loss of 50,000 jobs, a 6 billion hole in public finances and instability in the North?

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

Keep in mind too that the backstop is not the only issue the Brexiteers have with the EU. Even if the backstop didn't exist, they'd probably still be at loggerheads and on the verge of No Deal.

But I agree. They'll find something else. But this will destabilise the Tory party further when they reject the WA leading to a probable GE.

Strazdas

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

But I agree. They'll find something else. But this will destabilise the Tory party further when they reject the WA leading to a probable GE.

Didn't the ERG say or hint they would vote down May's deal even if Ireland conceded on the backstop?

People are nearly forgetting the Brexiteers are deeply divided among themselves.

Russman

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yes but 50,000 jobs? 6 billion hole in public finances? Instability in the North? We have a lot to lose.

Its potentially a big hit, and I don't want to downplay it at all.

If we were to agree to a 10 year backstop, they'd want 5, if we said 8 they'd want 4 etc. The UK has been so disingenuous for the last 3 years the EU can't really put any stock in what they say. Aside from it being painted as a great victory for Boris where May couldn't get anything (probably even increasing his popularity), our partners would be less than impressed if we changed our tune. I'd rather have some sympathy from the bloc if we are seen as an unfortunate victim of the UK's decade of madness, rather than an untrustworthy member who goes whatever way the wind is blowing.

Nothing will ever be enough anyway, when essentially what they want is all the current benefits of membership with none of the obligations. The backstop should, in theory, never be needed anyway. I know that can be spun either way, but when a single country is negotiating with a much larger bloc, the big dog gets his way. The UK is choosing to learn this the hard way, and maybe in the long run it'll be the best thing for them to learn their place in the world and end their exceptionalism.

Professor Moriarty

kunst nugget wrote: »

I don't understand how limiting the backstop to appear to be the better fellow in negotiations is going to help us at all if you still think they are going to fook us over anyways. We'd probably do irreparable damage to the peace process in the meantime and the nationalists (and the unionists that want the benefit of access to the single market) would have lost all faith in the Republic of Ireland fighting for a good deal for the North.

I don't think any backstop will be worth the paper it's written on. It's become this fantastic guarantee that we must cling on to at all costs. But you're dealing with English nationalism now. A nationalism that's prepared to crash out of the EU to "take back control". Given the subsequent political and economic chaos, staying faithful to a backstop wouldn't even cross their minds. we should step aside, sit on the sidelines and watch Brexiteer Britain tear itself apart.

Professor Moriarty

Strazdas wrote: »

Didn't the ERG say or hint they would vote down May's deal even if Ireland conceded on the backstop?

People are nearly forgetting the Brexiteers are deeply divided among themselves.

Exactly. Expose the lie and let them cannabalise each other.

Dytalus

J Mysterio wrote: »

Are you for real? This madness is not our doing, we've always tried to mitigate it. We found a good (and extremely generous from the EU) solution for the North, which has popular support there. It's not our fault the DUP are mental and the Tories are propped up by them. Their situation is untenable.

It doesn't matter whose fault it is. If our economy takes such an enormous hit, who cares who's to blame? People will still lose their jobs, and our economy will still take a multi-billion euro hit.

However, I do think the 'not-blinking' strategy is our best one long term. Sure if we convince the EU to blink now, we save ourselves the initial painful hit of a no-deal. But what comes afterwards?

+ A faint promise of a border solution (even though we have received no hints of one 3 years down the line)?
+ Likely a catastrophic loss in goodwill of the other member states for convincing them to back down after spending three years fighting in our corner? Spending time and energy to back us up on something we swore was crucially important only to go "actually, it's not that big a deal". What might the rest of the EU think of us then?
+ And lastly, the EU will be shown to be the type of organisation who 'blinks'. Even if it's only once in the EU's history, it will be enough to convince future powers who come to the table that if you squeeze on member hard enough, the entire organisation will fold. If we do it when we effectively hold (almost) all the cards, why wouldn't we do it when we're in a less powerful position?

kunst nugget

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm as real as you can get. Yourself?

So if we have a chance to prevent a catastrophic crash out we should do nothing because DUP are mental and prop up the Tories? Or should we be pragmatic and appear magnanimous while possibly preventing the loss of 50,000 jobs, a 6 billion hole in public finances and instability in the North?

Say we concede and then they move onto something else that they are at loggerheads about and still crash out? We still have the catastrophe but now the backstop no longer forms any part of future negotiations and we lose out on any possibility of a frictionless border.

Professor Moriarty

Okay. I'm done being the Devil's advocate for removing the backstop.

Russman

lawred2 wrote: »

Exactly. It won't be seen as Ireland making brotherly concessions to the UK.. it'll be seen as another chest thumping victory over little ol Paddy.. Ireland folding under the 'they need us more than we need them' Brexiteer reality.

There is no upside for Ireland in such a move. Diplomatic relations with other EU members would be in tatters.. individuals and countries that have staked a lot personally and professionally in supporting the Irish backstop would find it very hard to reconcile any Irish solo run that threw the last three years back in their faces..

And all for what? Emboldening the likes of Mark Francois... No thanks

Absolutely agree with this. A GE in the UK where, in all likelihood the DUP won't hold the balance of power, solves all this. Even if the Brexit Party were in power they'd get rid of the north in a heartbeat to deliver Brexit.

All this because Cameron gambled and then May doubled down with her snap GE. Madness.

J Mysterio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I'm as real as you can get. Yourself?

So if we have a chance to prevent a catastrophic crash out we should do nothing because DUP are mental and prop up the Tories? Or should we be pragmatic and appear magnanimous while possibly preventing the loss of 50,000 jobs, a 6 billion hole in public finances and instability in the North?

I dont think kicking the can down the road for 10 years is being pragmatic. I also wouldn't view that as 'magnanimous', but foolhardy.

I also dont think that the jobs in the North are - or would be - protected by a 10 year backstop. Remember, business wants certainty. Its precisely because of the risk to NI that we have insisted on the backstop anyway.

Whatever happens, their economy will still be a basket case, with all the public jobs, and will still need subvention. More uncertainty is less helpful, not more. NI needs stability, not can kicking.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

I dont think kicking the can down the road for 10 years is being pragmatic. I also wouldn't view that as 'magnanimous', but foolhardy.

I also dont think that the jobs in the North are - or would be - protected by a 10 year backstop. Remember, business wants certainty. Its precisely because of the risk to NI that we have insisted on the backstop anyway.

Whatever happens, their economy will still be a basket case, with all the public jobs, and will still need subvention. More uncertainty is less helpful, not more. NI needs stability, not can kicking.

Sorry, one last point that I should have made clear. The 50,000 job losses are in Ireland (ESRI suggests possibly 80,000). 40,000 is the estimate for NI.

kunst nugget

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Okay. I'm done being the Devil's advocate for removing the backstop.

Can't see the problem with playing devil's advocate in regards to the backstop. Reading the different replies and thinking about it a bit more helps to sharpen the mind in terms of its importance.

Professor Moriarty

kunst nugget wrote: »

Can't see the problem with playing devil's advocate in regards to the backstop. Reading the different replies and thinking about it a bit more helps to sharpen the mind in terms of its importance.

Indeed it certainly does inform - but it's tiring.

sink

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

To be frank, climate change will change everything. British and EU politics included. Brexit will be relatively unimportant in ten years time. But either way, IMO, they will end up with a soft Brexit that includes FoM and the CU. It's what the majority would settle for. Current bluff and bluster is about being elected PM by Tory party members. Also, if Britain were to dump the GFA unilaterally then we only have to look at history to understand that conflict in the North isn't confined to the North.

You seem to betting a lot on not much. You're voluntarily placing your head on the guillotine on the assumption that they won't drop it when you give them the rope in 10 years. You believe they won't drop because they either wont care enough to let go, or will have bigger problems to think about. Remember all they have to do is let go (i.e. nothing) for it to fall on our heads and they can walk away with their trade deal. We have to rely on them actively pursuing a replacement to the back stop when they have shown little interest to date.

jm08

Dytalus wrote: »

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.

On this point - Scotland is already an EU member so are well up to speed on EU membership standards, criteria etc.



I also think that Scotland's vast fishing grounds and natural resources will make a lot of countries very happy to welcome them back into the fold, though I think they may prefer to join Norway's club to protect these resources.

First Up

The Irish government has made the strategic decision that our future is unequivocally, unamiguously and unwaveringly as part of the EU.

Everything else follows from that; we advance our interests within the EU institutions and the other 26 members through negotiation and diplomacy, not with tantrums or threats and we have shown that we have the skills and self-confidence to make that work.

We have made that the cornerstone of our economic and political strategy and the world knows it.

It would be our policy anyway but the evident risks of depending on a chaotic, UK for anything makes it easier.

Sam Russell

The current UK Gov has a majority of, what, 3 of which the DUP is 10. There are at least 30 Tory MPs who are threatening 'bring BoJo down' if he tries to prorogue parliament, and, presumably, if he tries to go foe a No Deal exit.

There is also significant cries against BoJo for throwing the ambassador under the bus, including TM who has to recommend him the Her Maj to be the next PM.

I think we should keep planning and keep mum about the border. If it is needed, we will implement it, but only if it is needed, and we will have enough time to do so. I think Phil Hogan said the EU are prepared to back Ireland if it goes No Deal - which I take to be financial support. A No Deal is a declaration of trde war.

Remember, it is not Dover till the fat lady screams.

KildareP

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Perhaps. Or the lie that the backstop is the issue is exposed and the Tories go into meltdown because they can't agree on what happens next? Maybe Labour finally dump Corbyn and gets a leader who can unite the pro Europe voters?

A Tory meltdown will have The Brexit Party lined up and ready to take their seats.

(Well, I assume, perhaps it's saying something that the UK public is happy to send Farage & Co to the EU but not so willing to send them into Westminster)

I don't think a Tory meltdown will make the UK see sense and put in a non-Leave government.

I think the most difficult thing about all of this is trying to make sense out of something where, maybe, just maybe, there just isn't actually any sense to be made of it?

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed. But only Ireland has a land border with Britain.

It has a land border with the United Kingdom. And that distinction is very important.