Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to news talk at the minute with Dan O’Brien from the Irish independent. His opinion is that the backstop is a tactical mistake, the Irish government should’ve agreed a time limit, there’s a massive miscalculation by the EU and Irish government that the UK aren’t really serious about no deal. In other words, no one is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head.

Is this a narrative developing in the media in Ireland now? It’s a few time I’ve heard both guests and hosts comment on how much of a mistake the backstop is.

O'Brien has been of that view for some time. (In fact, I don't rembember him ever not being of that view, but that could be just my faulty memory.) And there are a couple of other Irish commentators who are also dubious about or sceptical of the backstop - Eoghan Harris leaps to mind.

But I don't know that I would say that this is a "developing narrative", in the sense of a trend of commentators changing their minds, moving from support of the backstop to criticism of it.

Nor, to be honest, do I anticipate much of a shift, at least in the short term. In a sense the Brexiters have done Varadkar a favour here, since it's abundantly clear that any compromise on the backstop is highly likely to result in a hard border. Requests for a time limit are, basically, requests to trust the UK, within the period of the time limit, to develop and commit to mechanisms that will be effective to avoid a hard border. But all the signals from Brexit-land for the past three years have made it very clear that they have no appetite for making the kind of choices needed to avoid a hard border; it would be madness to trust them to do so. Agreeing a time-limit on the backstop is basically agreeing that a hard border will be introduced after a stay of execution; nobody in Ireland would find that a remotely attractive option.

And, if anything, the position has become even clearer recently, with prominent Brexiters insisting that the backstop must be not merely time-limited but dropped completely, and with some going further and saying that, even if the backstop is dropped completely, the UK will still not agree to the Withdrawal Agreement. Such a stance removes any incentive at all to agree to any compromise on the backstop, since compromising will acheive nothing.

That's not to say that there might not be pressure on Varadkar after a no-deal Brexit, when the country is reeling under the economic shock that will result. People might then press for a weakening of the Irish position, not because they think the border can be kept open by other means, but because they think that trying to keep up pressure on the UK to honour its no-hard-border guarantee is not worth the economic pain involved.

Borderhopper

VinLieger wrote: »

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to news talk at the minute with Dan O’Brien from the Irish independent. His opinion is that the backstop is a tactical mistake, the Irish government should’ve agreed a time limit, there’s a massive miscalculation by the EU and Irish government that the UK aren’t really serious about no deal. In other words, no one is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head.

Thats a contradictory argument, if the UK aren't serious about No Deal then how is the backstop a tactical mistake? Agreeing a time limit to stop the UK doing something they don't would be pointless.

With respect, it’s not a contradictory argument. Read it again. The EU and Irish government have miscalculated and the UK are serious about a no deal. ‘In other words’ is my comment on it

VinLieger

Borderhopper wrote: »

With respect, it’s not a contradictory argument. Read it again. The EU and Irish government have miscalculated and the UK are serious about a no deal. ‘In other words’ is my comment on it

Yes sorry i misread that part

First Up

brickster69 wrote:

Less than 3% of goods entering the EU get physically checked. Huge ramifications if one nations goods are singled out as opposed to others under WTO regs.

That doesn't mean that the other 97% are waved through. All goods entering the EU are checked for compliance and elaborate systems are in place to manage that electronically. UK traders have been exempt from those requirements for almost 50 years and now have to install them.

Besides, few goods enter the EU as part of fast-moving supply chains, where they move between EU and non-EU countries over a week or less. Those supply chains can only operate with free movement.

brickster69 wrote:

The WTO's job is to ensure the free flow of trade between nations.

The WTO's job is to ensure that trade is conducted in an orderly and rules based manner.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

It is true that there has been one Scottish election, but there has been 2 Westminster elections and the European elections as well. It would be naive to think that her performance did not have some influence in voters minds when they went to the polls in those.

If you look at the results in those it is mixed at best. She did well in the 2017 election but you wonder if that was a response to the SNP surge from 2 years before and whether she still had momentum from the results in the 2016 Scottish elections. Since then her performance as leader has had time to be analyzed and the results in the election of the EU Parliament the Conservatives came 4th, behind the SNP, Brexit and the Lib Dems.

It will be interesting to see what the results are in the next election as she is not being helped by the Conservatives in the England, but at the same time she has not been vocal in opposition to their stance on Brexit.

This is hardly fair. Davidson is not responsible for the outcome of the other elections in the obvious sense that she was not in charge of them - she didn't lead the campaign, set the manifesto, select the candidates, anything. And while her performance as Scottish leader could have been a factor influencing Scottish voters in Westminster and EP elections, there's no reason to think that it was or, to the extent that it was, that it was more than a marginal factor.

And it's absolutely unfair to say that her performance in the 2016 election for which she was responsible was simply "a response to an SNP surge from two years before". That election represents, by a considerable measure, the Scottish Tories best performance ever in a Scottish Parliament election; it was a new high, and by a large margin. It also represents the only time they ever took second place in a Scottish Parliament election, and so the first and only time they ever became the Scottish official opposition. As already mentioned, at the 2016 election the Tories took 31 seats. At previous elections the Tories took 15, 17, 18, 18 seats respectively. There is no way you can present this performance as a reversion to a norm.

Zubeneschamali

Borderhopper wrote: »

VinLieger wrote: »

Borderhopper wrote: »

Dan OBrien: The EU and Irish government have miscalculated and the UK are serious about a no deal.

I don't think so, the French opposed an extension to try and force No Deal, since they think it will bring the UK back to the table in a position of weakness if not desperation.

A Dub in Glasgo

Peregrinus wrote: »

There has only been one Scottish election since she took over as leader of the Scottish Conservative Party and, in that election, the Tories under Davidson substantially increased their vote and nearly doubled their representation in the Scottish Parliament, from 15 seats to 31, with the result that (a) the SNP lost their majority, and (b) the Tories overtook the Labour Party to become the official opposition. If that's a loss, it's a loss a lot of parties would be thrilled to have.

Yes she has taken over Labour, she still lost the election and by some distance. The media have constructed her as a future First Minister of Scotland... just not going to happen. The Tories decry the AM electoral system in place for the Scottish Parliament as it allows the Green Party and the SNP to have a majority pro-independence parliament. They need to be reminded that they won the vast majority of their seats as part of the top up list, the same system they decry the Greens getting theirs.

The voting system in pace in Scotland was specifically designed to prevent one party getting an overall majority so the 2011 result for the SNP was an outlier and it is the only time one party won the devolved elections

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is hardly fair. Davidson is not responsible for the outcome of the other elections in the obvious sense that she was not in charge of them - she didn't lead the campaign, set the manifesto, select the candidates, anything. And while her performance as Scottish leader could have been a factor influencing Scottish voters in Westminster and EP elections, there's no reason to think that it was or, to the extent that it was, that it was more than a marginal factor.

And it's absolutely unfair to say that her performance in the 2016 election for which she was responsible was simply "a response to an SNP surge from two years before". That election represents, by a considerable measure, the Scottish Tories best performance ever in a Scottish Parliament election; it was a new high, and by a large margin. It also represents the only time they ever took second place in a Scottish Parliament election, and so the first and only time they ever became the Scottish official opposition. As already mentioned, at the 2016 election the Tories took 31 seats. At previous elections the Tories took 15, 17, 18, 18 seats respectively. There is no way you can present this performance as a reversion to a norm.

What I don't know is how much local issues impact voters in national elections in Scotland. I am trying to put myself in their position and if I see on my TV at night, "Ruth Davidson, Leader of Scottish Conservatives", when I have to vote for a Conservative candidate in an election in Scotland I would think of her before I think of May or Johnson. So my view on this is entirely on what I suspect happens.

My comment on the surge from 2 years before was to do with the UK general election in 2017. During the 2017 general election the Conservatives lost seats yet in Scotland they increased their share. Are you willing to say that this was not due to Davidson but due to May? Did the fact that May proposed a tax on elder voters if they have dementia and having them pay for care particularly appeal to Scottish voters?

What is also clear is that when a party has been in charge for a while there is some fatigue that creeps in and any new leader that is fresh will seem like a good alternative. This surely played a role for the SNP during both the 2016 Scottish Elections and the subsequent 2017 general election. The difference between then and now is that people has had a chance to evaluate Ruth Davidson as a leader and seeing that most Scottish voters would like to remain in the EU the fact that Conservative MPs from Scotland are voting for Brexit and she is the leader of the party in Scotland will have an impact. That she has been quiet has not helped, party over country.

The argument on her influence on elections other than Scottish elections in nuanced. Yes she is not in control over candidates or the message, but to say she has no influence over those results is false as May didn't appear in the debate on the election in Scotland, but Davidson did. And if you credit her for that result you have to admit her part in other elections where her party did not do well in Scotland.

brickster69

First Up wrote: »

That doesn't mean that the other 97% are waved through. All goods entering the EU are checked for compliance and elaborate systems are in place to manage that electronically. UK traders have been exempt from those requirements for almost 50 years and now have to install them.

True, but a large % of importers / exporters are already familiar with these systems as they currently use them with the rest of the world. Fair enough, some of these will trade solely with the EU and need to adapt to new procedures.

Saying that, they should have had enough time by now to have that in place.

Enzokk

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yes she has taken over Labour, she still lost the election and by some distance. The media have constructed her as a future First Minister of Scotland... just not going to happen. The Tories decry the AM electoral system in place for the Scottish Parliament as it allows the Green Party and the SNP to have a majority pro-independence parliament. They need to be reminded that they won the vast majority of their seats as part of the top up list, the same system they decry the Greens getting theirs.

The voting system in pace in Scotland was specifically designed to prevent one party getting an overall majority so the 2011 result for the SNP was an outlier and it is the only time one party won the devolved elections

How many seats would the SNP have had in 2016 if FPTP was in operation? Surely with 40%-45% of the vote compared to 25% of the opposition means they would have had a massive majority.

A Dub in Glasgo

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is hardly fair. Davidson is not responsible for the outcome of the other elections in the obvious sense that she was not in charge of them - she didn't lead the campaign, set the manifesto, select the candidates, anything. And while her performance as Scottish leader could have been a factor influencing Scottish voters in Westminster and EP elections, there's no reason to think that it was or, to the extent that it was, that it was more than a marginal factor.

And it's absolutely unfair to say that her performance in the 2016 election for which she was responsible was simply "a response to an SNP surge from two years before". That election represents, by a considerable measure, the Scottish Tories best performance ever in a Scottish Parliament election; it was a new high, and by a large margin. It also represents the only time they ever took second place in a Scottish Parliament election, and so the first and only time they ever became the Scottish official opposition. As already mentioned, at the 2016 election the Tories took 31 seats. At previous elections the Tories took 15, 17, 18, 18 seats respectively. There is no way you can present this performance as a reversion to a norm.

Davidson portrays the Conservative party in Scotland as not being the same as the Conservative party in the rest of the UK therefore all the campaign documents / leaflets for all elections has her face on the front and concentrating on saying no to a 2nd Scottish independence referendum. All the material is designed to compete with the SNP therefore it is very fair to look a the results in Scotland for the Tories and pin it on the 'leader' in Scotland

The media do this as well and Davidson used to work for BBC Scotland and uses her friendships/contacts in the media to get the message out that it is Ruth Davidsons Party

Leroy42

Did Dan give an alternative to the backstop.

Because on Brexit day the UK is no longer part of the EU and thus needs a border. The backstop is designed to enable them to leave but avoid a border.

It is 3 years since the ref and the UK have nothing to offer to solve the problem. But another 5 years, after they already got what they wanted, is going to work?

Brexiteers love telling everyone how negotiations work, but seemingly want the EU to drop all their demands prior to a future negotiation.

The border is a result of Brexit vote. 100% at the feet of the UK. Any avoidance of the border is entirely down to concessions by the EU to their own rules. UK will have given nothing.

This narrative that the UK are looking to avoid a border is wrong. They voted to create a border and the EU have tried to rescue NI from the consequences of that decision.

A Dub in Glasgo

Enzokk wrote: »

How many seats would the SNP have had in 2016 if FPTP was in operation? Surely with 40%-45% of the vote compared to 25% of the opposition means they would have had a massive majority.

The electoral system uses FPTP constituency votes topped with with the Additional Member portion. In the FPTP part, the seats were

SNP 59
Tory 7
LLib Dem 4
Labour 3

lawred2

Borderhopper wrote: »

Just listening to news talk at the minute with Dan O’Brien from the Irish independent. His opinion is that the backstop is a tactical mistake, the Irish government should’ve agreed a time limit, there’s a massive miscalculation by the EU and Irish government that the UK aren’t really serious about no deal. In other words, no one is stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head.

Is this a narrative developing in the media in Ireland now? It’s a few time I’ve heard both guests and hosts comment on how much of a mistake the backstop is.

Dan O'Brien is a dose.

Did you mean "no one is NOT stupid enough to shoot themselves in the head."

Either way - that's not exactly a credible basis from which to set out a negotiation position is it? That you need to prepare and cater for the lunatic excesses of your counter negotiating party?

At the end of it all - while no deal Brexit is bad for Ireland - it's infinitely worse for the UK and the Tories are on record as saying even without a backstop they still wouldn't vote for the WA so why does Dan think Ireland and the EU should compromise everything for nothing in return?

What was his alternative?

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

Did Dan give an alternative to the backstop.

Because on Brexit day the UK is no longer part of the EU and thus needs a border. The backstop is designed to enable them to leave but avoid a border.

It is 3 years since the ref and the UK have nothing to offer to solve the problem. But another 5 years, after they already got what they wanted, is going to work?

Brexiteers love telling everyone how negotiations work, but seemingly want the EU to drop all their demands prior to a future negotiation.

The border is a result of Brexit vote. 100% at the feet of the UK. Any avoidance of the border is entirely down to concessions by the EU to their own rules. UK will have given nothing.

This narrative that the UK are looking to avoid a border is wrong. They voted to create a border and the EU have tried to rescue NI from the consequences of that decision.

Yes, but, you are writing that from a position and for people in a position who don't want Brexit because they see it ultimately will lead to acrimony, conflict, and trouble.

But Brexiteers simply want their sense of being top dog more than they fear any of these outcomes. So they don't care or want to convince someone who's responsible for what, they just want Brexit.

They told us from the very start. Brexit means Brexit and we thought they didn't understand the implications when actually they just didn't care.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

What I don't know is how much local issues impact voters in national elections in Scotland. I am trying to put myself in their position and if I see on my TV at night, "Ruth Davidson, Leader of Scottish Conservatives", when I have to vote for a Conservative candidate in an election in Scotland I would think of her before I think of May or Johnson. So my view on this is entirely on what I suspect happens.

I don't think Scottish voters are so thick as to vote in an election primarily based on their perception of someone who isn't a candidate in the election, and cannot play any role in the government which will emerge from that election. I admit I have never lived in Scotland but I have lived in other democracies where there are separate national and regional/state elections, and generally the voters seem to have no difficult at all in distinguishing the issues and personalities that are relevant to the different elections.

Enzokk wrote: »

My comment on the surge from 2 years before was to do with the UK general election in 2017. During the 2017 general election the Conservatives lost seats yet in Scotland they increased their share. Are you willing to say that this was not due to Davidson but due to May? Did the fact that May proposed a tax on elder voters if they have dementia and having them pay for care particularly appeal to Scottish voters?

False dichotomy; it doesn't have to be due to either May or Davidson.

For the reasons already given I doubt that Davidson has much to do with the Tory success in Scotland in the 2017 general election. And, for reasons which are obvious, I also doubt that May had to do with it.

So what did? Well, I think it's notable that the swing to the Tories, 13.7%, almost exactly matched the swing away from the SNP, 13.1%. I think the factor was Brexit. Some former supporters of Scottish independence felt that it was a less attractive prospect if rump UK would be outside the EU, and so abandoned the SNP. But pro-EU unionists did not switch to the SNP; they prioritised the British union over the European Union. And of course it was not at that stage clear what a complete pig's breakfast May and the Tories were about to make of the Brexit project.

First Up

brickster69 wrote:

Saying that, they should have had enough time by now to have that in place.

We'll see.

IAmTheReign

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Have you ever studied the UK's FIRs?

https://www.nats.aero/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/UKFIRs2-1.png

Have you? Because if you had you'd know Shanwick is not UK airspace. It's international airspace and is controlled in a joint operation between Ireland and the UK. Shanwick is a contraction of Shannon and Prestwick in Scotland.

lawred2

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think Scottish voters are so thick as to vote in an election primarily based on their perception of someone who isn't a candidate in the election, and cannot play any role in the government which will emerge from that election. I admit I have never lived in Scotland but I have lived in other democracies where there are separate national and regional/state elections, and generally the voters seem to have no difficult at all in distinguishing the issues and personalities that are relevant to the different elections.


False dichotomy; it doesn't have to be due to either May or Davidson.

For the reasons already given I doubt that Davidson has much to do with the Tory success in Scotland in the 2017 general election. And, for reasons which are obvious, I also doubt that May had to do with it.

So what did? Well, I think it's notable that the swing to the Tories, 13.7%, almost exactly matched the swing away from the SNP, 13.1%. I think the factor was Brexit. Some former supporters of Scottish independence felt that it was a less attractive prospect if rump UK would be outside the EU, and so abandoned the SNP. But pro-EU unionists did not switch to the SNP; they prioritised the British union over the European Union. And of course it was not at that stage clear what a complete pig's breakfast May and the Tories were about to make of the Brexit project.

Would find it very hard to believe that the above still holds given the utter disregard and disdain shown to Scotland since the Brexit vote..

Stop moaning ffs

Direct Rule to be implemented in no deal scenario.
So that’ll just be great

lawred2

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Direct Rule to be implemented in no deal scenario.
So that’ll just be great

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-northern-ireland-direct-rule-dominic-raab-boris-johnson-a9024801.html

And we're back 50 years. DUP will be dancing for joy and ensuring that Stormont never reconvenes.

Sickened

Peregrinus

lawred2 wrote: »

Would find it very hard to believe that the above still holds given the utter disregard and disdain shown to Scotland since the Brexit vote..

I think you may well be right. While the strong Tory performance in Scotland in teh 2017 General election was a contrast with the rest of the UK, in the EP elections in May the Tory performance was as dismal in Scotland as it was everywhere else.

Beechwoodspark

The reality is if no deal happens the Eu can tighten the screws in many ways.

which after a period of chaos (length of time at the UKs choosing) will end up with the UK Back knocking on the door in Brussels asking for this that and the other.

Ppl seem to be of a view (possibly because we receive their media coverage) that the UK are the stronger hand in this. They are not.

IAmTheReign

lawred2 wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-northern-ireland-direct-rule-dominic-raab-boris-johnson-a9024801.html

And we're back 50 years. DUP will be dancing for joy and ensuring that Stormont never reconvenes.

Sickened

Direct rule in the north was inevitable if a no deal Brexit happened and Stormont still wasn't sitting. Someone needs to manage the carnage at the border.

KildareP

lawred2 wrote: »

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-no-deal-northern-ireland-direct-rule-dominic-raab-boris-johnson-a9024801.html

And we're back 50 years. DUP will be dancing for joy and ensuring that Stormont never reconvenes.

Sickened

Not necessarily

The amendment that passed in the last fortnight effectively said direct rule will happen if Stormont is not up and running by October 21st.

However, this also come with a provision of normalising the laws regarding same-sex marriage and abortion in line with mainland UK.

It puts the DUP in what must be a horrific conundrum - get their dream scenario of the UK having ultimate say over NI, or maintain their strong stance against SSM and abortion rights?

And in the longer term gain, it presents a huge risk to them.
Once Westminster is in ultimate control the DUP suddenly become very small fish in a very big pond. Johnson in an election scenario can aim to squeeze the DUP out, thereby reducing the need to bend to their will - Irish Sea backstop here we come!

Tell me how

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The reality is if no deal happens the Eu can tighten the screws in many ways.

which after a period of chaos (length of time at the UKs choosing) will end up with the UK Back knocking on the door in Brussels asking for this that and the other.

Ppl seem to be of a view (possibly because we receive their media coverage) that the UK are the stronger hand in this. They are not.

Once they are out, I fear we are going to see a wider propaganda war. Any difficulties experienced in UK will most definitely be blamed on EU intransigence and, more significantly, the UK will encourage others to join them.

I bet French nationalists will start to talk about an Anglo-Franco alignment which would be much better for French citizens than what the EU is (or so they'll say).

Nigel launched 'Global Brexit' last week in NY. The big players in this want the EU destroyed (or at a minimum, severely distracted) I fear and they have a plan to do it.

It is v worrying, not least because it's preventing coordinated action on climate change. French had record heat temp last week, and on the same day, a hail storm forced the cancellation of a stage in the Tour de France.

KildareP

Tell me how wrote: »

Once they are out, I fear we are going to see a wider propaganda war. Any difficulties experienced in UK will most definitely be blamed on EU intransigence and, more significantly, the UK will encourage others to join them.

I bet French nationalists will start to talk about an Anglo-Franco alignment which would be much better for French citizens than what the EU is (or so they'll say).

Nigel launched 'Global Brexit' last week in NY. The big players in this want the EU destroyed (or at a minimum, severely distracted) I fear and they have a plan to do it.

It is v worrying, not least because it's preventing coordinated action on climate change. French had record heat temp last week, and on the same day, a hail storm forced the cancellation of a stage in the Tour de France.

The French *hate* the British, in some cases even more than the Irish are perceived to. I can't see it being even slightly popular in France.

The difference between being largely ignored and met with French-only dialogue, and being warmly welcomed with near-fluent English, is letting them know you're "Irlandais" and not "Anglais".

lawred2

IAmTheReign wrote: »

Direct rule in the north was inevitable if a no deal Brexit happened and Stormont still wasn't sitting. Someone needs to manage the carnage at the border.

Someone like the British Army? We could go full 1970s on it.

Tell me how

KildareP wrote: »

The French *hate* the British, in some cases even more than the Irish are perceived to. I can't see it being even slightly popular in France.

Agree completely.
But it doesn't have to make sense. It just has to sound like it does.

It would have nothing to do with nationalists wanting to join with the UK but just to say 'we could do it if we were free of the ties of the EU' and here's the catchphrase 'it would be on our terms'.

Like both UK and Trump are talking about a trade deal between a former Empire and colony like it's going to be the best thing ever.

KildareP

Tell me how wrote: »

Like both UK and Trump are talking about a trade deal between a former Empire and colony like it's going to be the best thing ever.

True that!

I'm just waiting for the moment of realisation that Trump will be approaching this entirely with his/America's interests to the fore, not the UK's... It's going to be something to behold.