Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

LordBasil

It looks like Leo Varadkar is being lined up as the Brexit 'Bogeyman' by the Tories and Brexiteer UK Press because he's not backing down over the backstop. A handy fall guy to blame for No Deal....

BobbyBobberson

LordBasil wrote: »

It looks like Leo Varadkar is being lined up as the Brexit 'Bogeyman' by the Tories and Brexiteer UK Press because he's not backing down over the backstop. A handy fall guy to blame for No Deal....

And the rhetoric is only going to get worse and worse as times goes by and we move closer to a No Deal. I can see it getting seriously nasty.

Bit cynical

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I disagree.
Whilst Westminster rejected the agreement on a number of occasions, not once have they decided what they do want.
The EU have a workable solution on the table. This was formulated in conjunction with the UK government (including current cabinet members).
Don't forget that many members including the PM himself voted in favour of the WA.

As the UK don't really know what they want it would be unfair for the EU to toss the WA away. The UK doesn't really want a no-deal scenario (despite all the bluster) as it would be incredibly damaging to them. The current bravado is simply down to the Tories looking to woo back voters that moved over to the Brexit party.


As for it being sensible, there is absolutely nothing sensible about a no-deal Brexit. Nothing!

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

Itssoeasy

It’s not often I’d agree with Michael Martin but what in the name of jaysus was Timmy Dooley up to earlier ? I know TDs are on holidays but what the hell made him tweet that ? It was more DUP than FF.

Laois_Man

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

The deadlock in Parliament may be different come October 31st! If there isn't an election before it, there will be one soon after! Johnson's barking is a sure sign he knows it too!

brickster69

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is that is irrelevant to the EU. Grand you can have a no deal brexit. But a no deal brexit just increases the EUs bargaining power compared to the UK. The UK can accept that agreement or face the prospect of bargaining from a worse position(look at the movement in sterling with just an increased risk of a no deal never mind an actual no deal situation) and potentially end up having to accept an agreement that is worse for UK than the current withdrawal agreement.

So the UK has rejected the WA and the EU say it will not negotiate it. So now the EU have to accept the UK is leaving on WTA terms and both sides end the negotiations. That needs to happen first before even thinking about what happens afterwards.

brickster69

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

Of course, it is reality.

A Dub in Glasgo

The Times has the following article this evening and the Brexiteers are all over the comments section slating Ireland / Varadkar / EU*

*take your pick

mobil gas near me

A Dub in Glasgo

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

The WA is not toast as it is the only deal on the table

Christy42

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm afraid Brickster is correct though. The WA is toast and it is not in Johnson's power to resurrect it since, as has been pointed out, it has been rejected by Westminster. It would only be rejected again if he tried.

Not only is that WA toast but there will not be another WA as the EU is not open to negotiating another one.

This means that in October the options for Johnson are:
1. Exit with no deal.
2. Ask for an extension.
3. Revoke.

Option 2 is unlikely as it doesn't solve the deadlock of Parliament rejecting the WA and the EU not being open to renegotiation.

Option 3 is unlikely as Johnson has since before the referendum stood for leaving the EU.

The UK is free to remove some of its earlier redlines. Then new things could be discussed. Or they could move the backstop to NI only. Or they could come up with a realistic solution for the border themselves.

brickster69

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The WA is not toast as it is the only deal on the table

You see, this is my point. It was dead 6 months ago and people still think it is alive. even the Eu won't accept it is dead.

It is Dead, finished, Kaput, Finito, Morte ! Accept it and move on.

ShooterSF

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The WA is not toast as it is the only deal on the table

The only way I can see it rising from the dead is if the EU make it clear there will be no further extension. But I don't feel they will take that gamble.

ambro25

brickster69 wrote: »

So the UK has rejected the WA and the EU say it will not negotiate it. So now the EU have to accept the UK is leaving on WTA terms and both sides end the negotiations. That needs to happen first before even thinking about what happens afterwards.

The EU doesn't have to "accept" anything, and couldn't possibly virtue-signal better at the geopolitical level, than to leave the negotiating door open right until 31 October (which I'm highly confident that it will, regardless of the UK's rhetoric and posturing).

The choices and eventual outcome, on 31st October or beyond, are all of the UK's own, sovereign making: the ball has been in the UK court ever since November 2018 or thereabouts, to ratify the agreement negotiated in good faith and at arms' length by the 2 parties.

If the UK, with next to no bargaining power in the balance, wants a change, any change, it has to bring something new to the table, of sufficient interest to the EU27 for engaging negotiating resources afresh.

If the UK won't, it is for the UK, and all who sail on her, to accept that it is wilfully exiting the EU without an agreement.

The EU has had its contingency plans in place since before 29 March 2019, and you can rest assured that the extra 7 months to end October haven't been wasted by anyone else than the UK.

Johnson and the UK are learning their place in our brave new world. Long overdue, and long may it continue.

isohon

ShooterSF wrote: »

The only way I can see it rising from the dead is if the EU make it clear there will be no further extension. But I don't feel they will take that gamble.

They have made explicitly clear that without any substantive change, or the acceptance of the WA as agreed by the last UK government, the exit date will not be extended again.

There was very substantial opposition to offering it in the first place. There will be no possibility of it in the absence of either of the above conditions on 31 October.

If anything, we may see a communique from the Commission to the effect 'regretfully as the newly appointed UK PM has made it his determination not to honor the faithful covenant entered into by his elected predecessor, and does not intend to utilize the extension for the purpose it was granted, we advise all Member States to prepare for the departure of the UK by 06 August'

Roger_007

VinLieger wrote: »

Fair enough lets just imagine the conversation when the UK asks the EU for a trade deal.

UK: Can we have a trade deal please?

EU: Sure thing, first thing on the agenda for discussion will be the 33 billion you owe and the 2nd thing is the Irish border

Uk:..........

This sums up the essence of the problem very well. The EU negotiators know that Boris is bluffing with his no deal rhetoric. How do they know?, because he has told us so. He has said that the chances of the UK exiting the EU without a deal are a million to one, (i.e. no chance).
So, what Boris has done so far is back himself into a corner with his absolute deadline date of 31st Oct. The EU has no such absolute deadline.
Boris absolutely needs a deal and he absolutely needs it within 3 months. The EU have him over a barrel because they can justifiably say that if Boris wants to ditch the current WA proposal and start again, then it will take a considerable length of time to put a new deal together.
There is no way that a new deal could be finalised before the deadline even supposing the EU want to negotiate it at all.
So, if Boris wants to exit the EU on 31st Oct it will have to be with no deal. If he misses the deadline, then he is toast.

PeadarCo

brickster69 wrote:

So the UK has rejected the WA and the EU say it will not negotiate it. So now the EU have to accept the UK is leaving on WTA terms and both sides end the negotiations. That needs to happen first before even thinking about what happens afterwards.

The issue is the UK needs a deal with the EU full stop. That isn't going to change anytime soon.

If they leave on WTA they suddenly face a massive hit to over half their trade. Remember they lose access to all trade agreements that they have through the EU. The only way they get them back is rejoin the EU. Never the fact that the UK says they won't errect a border with Ireland basically means even for the EU there is no real need to be do a trade deal as the EU will have free untarriffed unregulated access to the UK. And that's the EU nevermind other economy's.

So we know what is going to happen in a no deal. The UK will need a trade deal with the EU and continue negotiations. Every other country who might want a trade deal with the UK will want to know the details of the UKs trade agreement with its biggest trade partner.


What the UK has to understand this is not a negotiation of equals. The UK is a medium sized country dealing with an economic superpower. It will be even worse when the UK sits down with other superpowers such as USA, China India etc. The EU unlike them will lose something in a no deal situation. However the WA may be the best agreement the UK can get.

fash

PeadarCo wrote: »

The problem is that is irrelevant to the EU. Grand you can have a no deal brexit. But a no deal brexit just increases the EUs bargaining power compared to the UK. The UK can accept that agreement or face the prospect of bargaining from a worse position(look at the movement in sterling with just an increased risk of a no deal never mind an actual no deal situation) and potentially end up having to accept an agreement that is worse for UK than the current withdrawal agreement.

The reason the WA was rejected is because 35% is the parliament want to remain and another 35% want a labour brexit. When they realise neither of those is likely, they'll be happy with the WA.

First Up

Christy42 wrote:

The UK is free to remove some of its earlier redlines. Then new things could be discussed. Or they could move the backstop to NI only. Or they could come up with a realistic solution for the border themselves.

Correct. The backstop is not an end in itself; if the UK has another way to achieve a borderless Ireland they are welcome to say what it is.

But they better hurry.

Joe_ Public

Good point made by somebody on one of the tv channels this morning, forget which one, but saying about no deal that people who "just want this thing done" somehow imagine that they get no deal on 1 November and its all sorted. But that's only the beginning of the story of years of, at best, uncertainty, and, at worst, total chaos. Not that that will be spelled out in the £100m information leaflet campaign, of course!

isohon

brickster69 wrote: »

I can't, it is a little out of my control. But i'm quite sure life will go on.

So in otherwords, in the sangria stained breath of a pensioner from Slough sitting on an beach-chair on the Costa 'ger it dun Boris'.

BluePlanet

It's pretty clear that BoJo didn't even read the text of the last extension..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-extension-text/text-eu-agreement-to-extend-brexit-idUSKCN1RN01E


4. The European Council reiterates that there can be no opening of the Withdrawal Agreement, and that any unilateral commitment, statement or other act should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement and must not hamper its implementation.

5. The European Council stresses that such an extension cannot be used to start negotiations on the future relationship. However, if the position of the United Kingdom were to evolve, the European Council is prepared to reconsider the Political Declaration on the future relationship in accordance with the positions and principles stated in its guidelines and statements, including as regards the territorial scope of the future relationship.

The entire thrust of BoJo and the Tories is either admitting they aren't reading anything or that agreements they sign don't actually mean what they say.

Ultimate Seduction

Laois_Man wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

That's why I've a lot of time for Micheal Martin.

He could have stirred the pot a lot more over the last 18 months but has recognized the best interests of the country in terms of Brexit necessitated avoiding a GE.

That will change but it's been in stark contrast to the shadow PM's behavior in the UK.

Timmy had some sort of a brain freeze moment this morning.

Absolute bull****!

Martin has been delaying pulling the rug and causing an election until the polls tell him he has a chance of winning!

Obviously. Why would he cause an election if he wasn't going to win?

Joe_ Public

BluePlanet wrote: »

It's pretty clear that BoJo didn't even read the text of the last extension..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-extension-text/text-eu-agreement-to-extend-brexit-idUSKCN1RN01E


4. The European Council reiterates that there can be no opening of the Withdrawal Agreement, and that any unilateral commitment, statement or other act should be compatible with the letter and the spirit of the Withdrawal Agreement and must not hamper its implementation.

5. The European Council stresses that such an extension cannot be used to start negotiations on the future relationship. However, if the position of the United Kingdom were to evolve, the European Council is prepared to reconsider the Political Declaration on the future relationship in accordance with the positions and principles stated in its guidelines and statements, including as regards the territorial scope of the future relationship.

The entire thrust of BoJo and the Tories is either admitting they aren't reading anything or that agreements they sign don't actually mean what they say.

Very strong chance of that i would say. Also, I'd love to ask Johnson why, if it is so obviously anti-democratic for some reason, he still voted for the backstop back in march.

abff

I was impressed with the succinct way the Welsh First Minister summed up his thoughts on BJ on this evening's 6 o'clock news on the BBC.

"I want to impress on the Prime Minister that a campaign of bluff and bluster and a belief that if we simply indulge ourselves in a vacuous sense of optimism, that's not going to get us through this."

I couldn't have put it better myself!

Professor Moriarty

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

With optimism and belief?

More detail please.

A few days ago, Johnson was asked what his economic philosophy is. His one word answer: "Boosterism".

Dictionary.com defines boosterism as: the action or policy of enthusiastically promoting something, as a city, product, or way of life.

So Johnson's economic philosophy is based on enthusiastic promotion. Nothing to do with rich/poor, imports/exports, tax/spending, rural/urban, et cetera. Just enthusiastic promotion.

Water John

Boosterism is BS by another name.
Brickster has undying faith in the great wisdom of Johnson and Raab. Sorry, I'm not joining that club.

listermint

brickster69 wrote: »

As i say, i am not in a position to know what the UK Governments plans are.

Ah but you've all the wisdom to pronounce a dead WA.

What you may have failed to see is that the EU quite frankly don't care anymore. They've got over it.


They don't care , I don't care and most of the electorate are over it too even on the continent.

Adiós ...

Infini

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Obviously. Why would he cause an election if he wasn't going to win?

It's all up in the air IF there is an election the most likely reason being to try and flush the DUP turd down the toilet of course but this requires Labour to agree to one to begin with, there's no guarantee the Tories will even win it but for Boris is may be a win win situation even if they dont win an Election as they arent the one's in charge if theres an exit on the 31st and if they do they potentially get rid of the DUP and can accept the backstop by reverting to the NI backstop only.

For labour if they can get the right message out they can either get a 2nd referendum as part of an agreement with the SNP/Lib dems or get a much softer brexit but at least without Tory stupidity.

Still right now if the Tories remain in charge it will likely be a crash out come Oct 31st with all the consequences of their stupidity but no matter what they say the message from out side will be the same, they choose this we didnt and this is the consequences of their actions not punishment. They'll be in an even worse position after it as well and in no position to reject anything. Likely will be the beginning of the end of the UK too as they'll be unlikely to survive the fallout more than a decade.

Ultimate Seduction

Infini wrote: »

It's all up in the air IF there is an election the most likely reason being to try and flush the DUP turd down the toilet of course but this requires Labour to agree to one to begin with, there's no guarantee the Tories will even win it but for Boris is may be a win win situation even if they dont win an Election as they arent the one's in charge if theres an exit on the 31st and if they do they potentially get rid of the DUP and can accept the backstop by reverting to the NI backstop only.

For labour if they can get the right message out they can either get a 2nd referendum as part of an agreement with the SNP/Lib dems or get a much softer brexit but at least without Tory stupidity.

Still right now if the Tories remain in charge it will likely be a crash out come Oct 31st with all the consequences of their stupidity but no matter what they say the message from out side will be the same, they choose this we didnt and this is the consequences of their actions not punishment. They'll be in an even worse position after it as well and in no position to reject anything. Likely will be the beginning of the end of the UK too as they'll be unlikely to survive the fallout more than a decade.

That was in reply to someone complaining Michael Martin wouldn't call an election because he won't win.

20silkcut

The policy of putting pressure on Varadkar is totally futile when he has the full backing of the EU 27 behind him.
They should be putting the pressure on Brussels.
But they know they are at nothing there.
Therefore they are at nothing.