Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Russman

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

While that would be a hard blow for us and especially for the UK (for as long as there still is a UK), it might be the only thing which will lance the boil and show the UK public what a complete tissue of lies the whole Brexit project is.

I'd tend to agree with this.

But, the confusing thing for me is that, while I can buy the theory that some of the "elite" stand to benefit handsomely from Brexit, I can't really understand how so many, on the face of it, normal, people still think its a good idea. Surely they can't all believe in unicorns after 3 years. I mean I know its ultimately a product of 40 years of anti-EU media spin, coupled with a poor education system, but it just makes no sense at all when viewed objectively.

trellheim

The Dail is now out of session till September. In two weeks time so will the UK Parliament - also till 3 September

When Tusk said "don't waste the extension" The UK seems to have doubled down, went into the bathroom and snorted lines of coke.

Andrew Neil and Portillo on last nights penultimate Week in Politics - next weeks' one should be a dinger - unfortunately seemed to move towards supporting Boris which means I can't understand them now at all .

with Robbins gone and the civ service absolutely fked off with Johnson who will they get that has any credibility at all to go into the negotiating room ?

Stop moaning ffs

How many times does it have to be said and by how many?

Negotiations are closed.

The backstop is going nowhere.

Ireland didn’t get the EU to back it up on the border issue only to ‘cave’ to the Brits simply beciase they haven’t a bulls notion what they’re doing. Then or now.

Or to be ‘nice to them’ because we might need them or it’ll be hard on us too.



Can anyone posting that tripe please do some reading up on it?
Backstop is going nowhere.

Call me Al

Russman wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with this.

But, the confusing thing for me is that, while I can buy the theory that some of the "elite" stand to benefit handsomely from Brexit, I can't really understand how so many, on the face of it, normal, people still think its a good idea. Surely they can't all believe in unicorns after 3 years. I mean I know its ultimately a product of 40 years of anti-EU media spin, coupled with a poor education system, but it just makes no sense at all when viewed objectively.

Viewed objectively you say. But they aren't objective.
Acknowledging the absolute mess in store requires the acceptance of the fact they were and are wrong as to the consequences.
They look with rose tinted glasses to a glorious past, and can't (or choose not to) remember the basket case they were in the 70s when they asked to be admitted.
They aren't comfortable being 1/28th but see themselves as an equal to a whole 27/27.

Objectivity doesn't feature in their analysis.

IAmTheReign

trellheim wrote: »

with Robbins gone and the civ service absolutely fked off with Johnson who will they get that has any credibility at all to go into the negotiating room ?

But the thing is, and what everyone in the UK seems to forget, is that there is no negotiating room anymore. Negotiations on the WA are finished. Under the terms of the last extension the UK agreed that there would be no further negotiation. It doesn't matter who the Torys send over, they'll be politely told they can either sign the WA or not, but signing the WA is a prerequisite for any further negotiations.

Leroy42

Russman wrote: »

But, the confusing thing for me is that, while I can buy the theory that some of the "elite" stand to benefit handsomely from Brexit, I can't really understand how so many, on the face of it, normal, people still think its a good idea. Surely they can't all believe in unicorns after 3 years. I mean I know its ultimately a product of 40 years of anti-EU media spin, coupled with a poor education system, but it just makes no sense at all when viewed objectively.

You simply have to look at the changing argument to see what is going on. There is no longer any argument about the benefits of Brexit, not even Farage is talking that rubbish, the only arguments they make now is that of the "will of the people" and the "sake of democracy".

It also takes account of the desire to not admit to being wrong, and not only wrong, but duped into that position. Rather than accept that they were wrong, people will continue to come up with ever wilder reasons for why they are right.

Hence the recent acceptance that Widdecome had a point in terms of oppression and slavery to the EU, when in fact any discussion will quickly show that none of that is even remotely true. But again, and people like Fintan O'Toole has been saying this since the start, that the EU needs to be painted as this terrible conquerer and oppressor in order for people to accept the significant consequences of leaving the club.

As you mentioned the media has a significant part of blame in all of this. Even apart from the papers like the Express, the BBC has been absolutely terrible in covering the reality. Take Brexitcast for example. No discussion of reality, its all a joke, a bit of a laugh and sure who knows that is going to happen, Johnson might get a deal. Despite all the evidence pointed to the probablility that he won't and the price that such a gamble may have.

It thought it was funny that recently the BBC come under attack for stating that pensioners would lose free TV licence yet the BBC, and others are saying almost nothing in the acceptance of both tory candidates that '0000's of people are going to lose their jobs.

Everyone in the UK thinks that they will be alright, that it will effect the foreigners, the young, the lazy, the uneducated, the educated. Basically everyone but themselves. You can see this is people saying that they don't export to the EU or don't go on holidays to France so no skin off their nose. Seemingly completely unaware that everything around them is based on freedom of movement.

trellheim

IAmTheReign wrote: »

But the thing is, and what everyone in the UK seems to forget, is that there is no negotiating room anymore. Negotiations on the WA are finished. Under the terms of the last extension the UK agreed that there would be no further negotiation. It doesn't matter who the Torys send over, they'll be politely told they can either sign the WA or not, but signing the WA is a prerequisite for any further negotiations.

That is not entirely true - for example the Political Declaration draft is still up for discussion.

In addition if new UK PM said "they were the old red lines. My new negotiating team starts Monday with FOM and CU/SM red lines removed. I've got enough firepower to get another 3 month extension internally through - I'm asking you for the same, what do you say? " then a different story would emerge.

Highly unlikely though.

Leroy42

issue with that is that Johnson has stated, many times, that 31 October is do or die. So even if they move their red lines, which they have given no indication they would and would appear to actually be hardening, they will not have enough time to renogiate.

In addition, the EU would be quite right, IMO, to say that since the red lines have moved, and the WA specifically allows for an transition period, then simply sign the WA and we can discuss the new situation after that. Or alternatively, revoke A50 as clearly the UK position has significantly changed.

At no point does the EU need to change anything.

trellheim

removing certain red lines removes the need for a backstop .... that is one way out of the mess.

Leroy42

But why would the EU believe the UK? Would the changes be included in the WA and what changes could be that would give the assurances of the backstop?

The UK have painted themselves into a corner, what advantage to the EU would be changing the WA to remove the backstop?

trellheim

But why would the EU believe the UK

Because everything HMG has said so far officially - agreeing the WA and so forth, it has done more or less openly and in more or less good faith. Ratification by the House is what the stumbling block is.

Stop moaning ffs

They’re playing for no deal cos both Johnson and hunt know the WA won’t get through Parliament. That’s whats going on so any talk of more negotiations and dropping the backstop is fantasy talk. If they were willing to drop some of the red lines it would reopen but then you have a huge cohort screaming it’s brexit in name only. So it’s a non starter.
They’re going to claim no deal as a victory if it happens. They’ve a general election to get through first though

IAmTheReign

trellheim wrote: »

That is not entirely true - for example the Political Declaration draft is still up for discussion.

In addition if new UK PM said "they were the old red lines. My new negotiating team starts Monday with FOM and CU/SM red lines removed. I've got enough firepower to get another 3 month extension internally through - I'm asking you for the same, what do you say? " then a different story would emerge.

Highly unlikely though.

They would say sign the WA and then we can discuss future trade arrangements. The UK dropping their red lines doesn't change the fact that the EU still need assurances from the UK regarding citizens rights, outstanding payments and the need for the backstop.

trellheim wrote:

removing certain red lines removes the need for a backstop .... that is one way out of the mess.

Removing certain red lines does not remove the need for the backstop. It removes the need to implement the backstop. The UK agreeing to CU and SM membership now doesn't stop them from changing their mind in the future so the backstop will always be needed even if it's never implemented. Even the UK agreeing to a border in the sea wouldn't require reopening the WA, it would simply come under the provision for 'alternative arrangements' to the backstop.

Leroy42

trellheim wrote: »

Because everything HMG has said so far officially - agreeing the WA and so forth, it has done more or less openly and in more or less good faith. Ratification by the House is what the stumbling block is.

True, but TM is gone and being replaced with a either a person that thinks EU is like the Soviet Union or another person that thinks the EU has been terrible for the UK.

And both of them are absolutely sure that the WA is dead and No deal is a very real option. They have not signalled any want to change any red lines. Why would the EU think they can get an updated WA based on new assurances from the new PM through a HoC and their own party they just spent the last 6 weeks lying to?

sandbelter

Russman wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with this.

But, the confusing thing for me is that, while I can buy the theory that some of the "elite" stand to benefit handsomely from Brexit, I can't really understand how so many, on the face of it, normal, people still think its a good idea. Surely they can't all believe in unicorns after 3 years. I mean I know its ultimately a product of 40 years of anti-EU media spin, coupled with a poor education system, but it just makes no sense at all when viewed objectively.

Whilst I understand the notion that "a hard Brexit will make them see sense"...I actually don't think it will, I think that a hard Brexit is being pursued deliberately ensure that the road back is sabotaged. This is only the end of the first chapter.


We are now seeing the emergence of the external enemy narrative now....the EU/Ireland has played such a blinder that I don't think either fits the villain narrative (that may prove to be Theresa May's enduring legacy) but an Trump military adventure in the South China Sea or Iran will see the UK actively participate as much the reaffirm the Union and make the SNP/Irish nationalists appear treasonous ..... This is what happens when elites decide to commit suicide.

Bit cynical

reslfj wrote: »

Without a the backstop or - if it can be found - another equally good solution the UK can not leave the EU at all without breaking the international GFA treaty, which has the US and EU as very 'non forgiving sponsors' (ref. e.g. Nancy Pelosi).

In short, in the end it's the EU that decides (all 27 members).

Which party to the GFA is going to say that the GFA is broken in the event of Brexit?

Bit cynical

sandbelter wrote: »

Whilst I understand the notion that "a hard Brexit will make them see sense"...I actually don't think it will, I think that a hard Brexit is being pursued deliberately ensure that the road back is sabotaged. This is only the end of the first chapter.

Although obviously we in Ireland would like some sort of deal, there are some advantages of no deal from the UK point of view. For example, the divorce payment of 100 billion (or whatever the figure was) no longer exists. The UK and the EU, if they choose to talk, get to start again with a clean sheet without the complexity of pre-existing agreements.

Professor Moriarty

sandbelter wrote: »

Whilst I understand the notion that "a hard Brexit will make them see sense"...I actually don't think it will, I think that a hard Brexit is being pursued deliberately ensure that the road back is sabotaged. This is only the end of the first chapter.


We are now seeing the emergence of the external enemy narrative now....the EU/Ireland has played such a blinder that I don't think either fits the villain narrative (that may prove to be Theresa May's enduring legacy) but an Trump military adventure in the South China Sea or Iran will see the UK actively participate as much the reaffirm the Union and make the SNP/Irish nationalists appear treasonous ..... This is what happens when elites decide to commit suicide.

The elites won't suffer and some (not looking at you, Jacob) will profit. They're throwing the proles under the bus so England can stay white and English. Couldn't be having any more foreigners about the place.

Crashing out will be an eye-opener for all concerned. However, the cost of making the UK "see sense" via a hard Brexit will be 80,000 Irish jobs and a 100 billion hit to the economy over 10 years. Plus an unstable NI.

Bit cynical

BluePlanet wrote: »

Coveney proposing checks away from the border is already being played as a win for Brexit.

https://brexitcentral.com/the-irish-government-has-revealed-the-bad-faith-with-which-the-eu-has-treated-the-border-issue/

The declaration by the Irish Government yesterday that, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, it would not implement a “hard border” and that customs checks would, as has been argued by the UK Government for years, take place away from the border. It has at last admitted that it can live without such a border. This admission has revealed that the EU never actually needed the backstop. In that revelation it has proven itself to have always been in bad faith in its negotiations with the UK.

It's helping them make the case that the border issue is just a ruse.
Basically Coveney is now emboldening the No Deal Brexiteers

However the alternative would be the spectre of we in Ireland having physical infrastructure at the actual border with the UK having theirs some way back. Then the UK could say that we in Ireland were never serious about trying to avoid a hard border; it was just a ploy [they would say] by the EU to make a deal for a leaving country difficult.

Dytalus

Bit cynical wrote: »

Although obviously we in Ireland would like some sort of deal, there are some advantages of no deal from the UK point of view. For example, the divorce payment of 100 billion (or whatever the figure was) no longer exists. The UK and the EU, if they choose to talk, get to start again with a clean sheet without the complexity of pre-existing agreements.

The divorce bill is £39 billion.

And they would absolutely be expected to pay it even with a no-deal scenario. The bill covers outstanding commitments and liabilities to the EU, it is money the UK already owes. The EU could take the UK to the international court of justice for refusing to pay and they'd look very, very unreliable in the eyes of other nations for not paying.

Bit cynical

Dytalus wrote: »

The divorce bill is £39 billion.

And they would absolutely be expected to pay it even with a no-deal scenario. The bill covers outstanding commitments and liabilities to the EU, it is money the UK already owes. The EU could take the UK to the international court of justice for refusing to pay and they'd look very, very unreliable in the eyes of other nations for not paying.

How would the EU take the UK to court? The UK only owe that figure if it is part of a negotiated agreement. In the case of no deal there is no agreement.

Dytalus

Bit cynical wrote: »

How would the EU take the UK to court? The UK only owe that figure if it is part of a negotiated agreement. In the case of no deal there is no agreement.

While it's true that the financial settlement is not legally binding until the WA is signed, the UK has made repeated commitments in the past to paying it. The Joint Report in 2017, for example.

Even bodies within the UK agree the EU would be within its rights to bring the UK before the ICJ - whether we would win the case and get paid or whether the UK gets to keep its money is a matter for the Court to decide.

Whether it is legally bound to paying the bill or not is irrelevant when one takes into account the reputational damage. While part of the EU, the UK agreed to certain financial commitments. It has received the benefits of those commitments (funding, participation in programs, etc) based on that financial commitment. If the UK then refuses to pay what both it and the EU agreed it still owes, then it's going to look unreliable in the eyes of future trading partners and allies.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

Although obviously we in Ireland would like some sort of deal, there are some advantages of no deal from the UK point of view. For example, the divorce payment of 100 billion (or whatever the figure was) no longer exists. The UK and the EU, if they choose to talk, get to start again with a clean sheet without the complexity of pre-existing agreements.

The EU will absolutely not move any talks forward until the UK agrees to pay what the UK have already agreed they owe, 40 billion or so.

BonnieSituation

Bit cynical wrote: »

How would the EU take the UK to court? The UK only owe that figure if it is part of a negotiated agreement. In the case of no deal there is no agreement.

I really don't think you get how any of this works at all.

Bit cynical

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU will absolutely not move any talks forward until the UK agrees to pay what the UK have already agreed they owe, 40 billion or so.

Remember we are talking about the no deal scenario where it is not a case of moving talks forward. The talks have failed and the UK has exited without a deal. There are no existing talks to move forward.

Professor Moriarty

Dytalus wrote: »

While it's true that the financial settlement is not legally binding until the WA is signed, the UK has made repeated commitments in the past to paying it. The Joint Report in 2017, for example.

Even bodies within the UK agree the EU would be within its rights to bring the UK before the ICJ - whether we would win the case or not is a matter for the Court to decide.

Whether it is legally bound to paying the bill or not is irrelevant when one takes into account the reputational damage. While part of the EU, the UK agreed to certain financial commitments. It has received the benefits of those commitments (funding, participation in programs, etc) based on that financial commitment. If the UK then refuses to pay what both it and the EU agreed it still owes, then it's going to look unreliable in the eyes of future trading partners and allies.

Payment of 39 billion would be item Number 1 on the agenda for any future FTA discussions before, during or after a crash out.

Bit cynical

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I really don't think you get how any of this works at all.

How does it work in your opinion?

Zubeneschamali

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Crashing out will be an eye-opener for all concerned. However, the cost of making the UK "see sense" via a hard Brexit will be 80,000 Irish jobs and a 100 billion hit to the economy over 10 years.

For context, Ireland has added 200,000 jobs since mid 2016, so that would be maybe a years, year and a halfs employment growth, not the end of the world.

Bit cynical

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Payment of 39 billion would be item Number 1 on the agenda for any future FTA discussions before, during or after a crash out.

But no court would be involved unless an agreement had been reached that was then subsequently broken by one or other of the parties.

KildareP

Bit cynical wrote: »

Although obviously we in Ireland would like some sort of deal, there are some advantages of no deal from the UK point of view. For example, the divorce payment of 100 billion (or whatever the figure was) no longer exists. The UK and the EU, if they choose to talk, get to start again with a clean sheet without the complexity of pre-existing agreements.

That's basically hoping that the EU will just forget everything that's happened up to now - why would they do that?