Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's worth re-stating every so often just what an excellent deal was offered to the UK. It would have minimised the effects of leaving the EU while giving some pretty big advantages to the UK over any other non-member. The backstop was proposed by the EU to give NI special status and the UK accepted. It could have been a boon to one of the least performing economies in western Europe. The British asked to extend the backstop and the EU acquiesced. I was annoyed at the time how much the EU gave away and any suggestion of a "better deal" for the UK side be dismissed out of hand.

That's because it was never about the deal. The deal wouldn't allow asset stripping or currency devaluation.


The absolute hilarity of the people who to this day defend snake oil salesmen in brexit party ukip and Tories who are getting paid by private companies whilst also operating in their official political government capacities.


You couldn't write this stuff as it wouldn't make a believable book

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

It's worth re-stating every so often just what an excellent deal was offered to the UK. It would have minimised the effects of leaving the EU while giving some pretty big advantages to the UK over any other non-member. The backstop was proposed by the EU to give NI special status and the UK accepted. It could have been a boon to one of the least performing economies in western Europe. The British asked to extend the backstop and the EU acquiesced. I was annoyed at the time how much the EU gave away and any suggestion of a "better deal" for the UK side be dismissed out of hand.

The WA was an excellent compromise but Brexit is so rooted in fantasy and nonsense that even it was rejected out of hand by many hard Brexiteers.

There has never been any actual plan for Brexit. Therefore, this allows the zealots to dismiss most forms of Brexit as being "impure". They are chasing an ideological pipe dream and don't do compromise.

brickster69

Enzokk wrote: »

No-deal is dead. It was dead 6 months ago when parliament rejected. It has been rejected multiple times. So what options are we left with? The deal on the table is dead, leaving without a deal is dead so revoke is the only viable option open to the UK right now.

I wonder what Brexiters will choose, revoke or the deal?

Only problem with that is that the law of land states the UK leave the EU with or without a deal 31/10/2019

As it stands at the moment the WA is dead, and it is more or less impossible for any party to revoke because in the new session of parliament only the Government will have the power to make new laws.

Only option is to bring the Government down have an election and Corbyn or whoever agrees to stay or whatever.

Kermit.de.frog

Varadkar meeting Johnson tomorrow according to Sky News?

Enzokk

brickster69 wrote: »

Only problem with that is that the law of land states the UK leave the EU with or without a deal 31/10/2019

As it stands at the moment the WA is dead, and it is more or less impossible for any party to revoke because in the new session of parliament only the Government will have the power to make new laws.

Only option is to bring the Government down have an election and Corbyn or whoever agrees to stay or whatever.

I think Johnson's plan for an election is to try and win back the Brexit Party voters that have left the Conservatives. That is why he is talking about no-deal and the WA being dead. I think it is more likely that if there is an election and he is able to achieve a majority he will pivot to accept the WA to get Brexit done if they have not crashed out already.

It is that or he has lost his mind and will go for no-deal. Ivan Rogers predicted this could happen where the UK falls out of the EU without a deal due to politicians mishandling the situation and Johnson is playing with fire.

We are back at the cherry picking for the UK, you can zoom in on the picture and it is relatively easy to read the article on the right. It seems the plan is for the new deal to take the UK out of the EU with a 2 year transition period where they are still in the CU and SM. During this 2 year period they will be able to negotiate a new FTA and there will not be the backstop to secure no border between us and NI.

I wish those camera crews are still following the EU teams and the Brexit negotiations, it will be fascinating to see what they really think of Johnson and his pronouncements and the new negotiators he will send to the EU. Oh, to be a fly on the wall for these meetings.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EAwSHEeXUAAiwm2?format=jpg&name=large

listermint

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Varadkar meeting Johnson tomorrow according to Sky News?

If he is it's Johnson trying to soften his appearance. He's been getting absolute abuse in Scotland and Wales the last two days.

Leonard Hofstadter

listermint wrote: »

If he is it's Johnson trying to soften his appearance. He's been getting absolute abuse in Scotland and Wales the last two days.

Johnson is in Belfast tomorrow, so it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility that himself and Varadkar could meet tomorrow.

FrancieBrady

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

Johnson is in Belfast tomorrow, so it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility that himself and Varadkar could meet tomorrow.

He is schoomzing in the Culloden Hotel near Stormont tonight with Foster, Dodds, and Donaldson. Boris is paying the tab by all accounts.

Seth Brundle

Enzokk wrote: »

No-deal is dead. It was dead 6 months ago when parliament rejected. It has been rejected multiple times. So what options are we left with? The deal on the table is dead, leaving without a deal is dead so revoke is the only viable option open to the UK right now.

I wonder what Brexiters will choose, revoke or the deal?

brickster69 wrote: »

Only problem with that is that the law of land states the UK leave the EU with or without a deal 31/10/2019

As it stands at the moment the WA is dead, and it is more or less impossible for any party to revoke because in the new session of parliament only the Government will have the power to make new laws.

Only option is to bring the Government down have an election and Corbyn or whoever agrees to stay or whatever.

The WA is not dead!
Just because the UK have rejected it in favour of something that can't happen doesn't mean it's gone.
The UK may come to their senses and realise that exiting without a trade plan in place is suicide and will look for the only alternative exit that is out there.
As for the EU, it's the only negotiated plan. It won't be amended with the existing UK demands. However the EU are of the view that it very much alive.

54and56

Leonard Hofstadter wrote: »

Johnson is in Belfast tomorrow, so it wouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility that himself and Varadkar could meet tomorrow.

I really hope Leo doesn't travel north to meet Johnson but that Johnson travels south to meet Leo.

Supplicants need to be seen as supplicants.

Charles Babbage

54&56 wrote: »

I really hope Leo doesn't travel north to meet Johnson but that Johnson travels south to meet Leo.

Supplicants need to be seen as supplicants.

Leo will soon be responsible for the part of Ireland Boris is visiting.

54and56

Charles Babbage wrote: »

Leo will soon be responsible for the part of Ireland Boris is visiting.

Only if BoJo & Co agree to pay their NI divorce bill

Life is getting very expensive for them when you add depreciation of Sterling on top of everything else!!

Christy42

listermint wrote: »

If he is it's Johnson trying to soften his appearance. He's been getting absolute abuse in Scotland and Wales the last two days.

Quite the climbdown from refusing to talk to anyone EU until the backstop was removed.

Mr.Nice Guy

I wonder what Johnson and the DUP were discussing. Perhaps he urged them to go hard on Varadkar when the media descend on Belfast - not that the DUP need much encouraging on that front. We'll find out shortly.

Expecting plenty of "it's up to Dublin to stop playing hardball" etc.

An Claidheamh

54&56 wrote: »

I really hope Leo doesn't travel north to meet Johnson but that Johnson travels south to meet Leo.

Supplicants need to be seen as supplicants.

Agree, I'd have hoped Leo would have more sense, it wasn't long ago they were expecting our government to report on how the border would work.

Britain/Tories need to stop being treated as children.

Let them travel to us if they want to discuss solutions to their problem.

54and56

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I wonder what Johnson and the DUP were discussing. Perhaps he urged them to go hard on Varadkar when the media descend on Belfast - not that the DUP need much encouraging on that front. We'll find out shortly.

Expecting plenty of "it's up to Dublin to stop playing hardball" etc.

Added to plenty of "Dublin are overplaying their hand" type comments which ironically is a backhanded compliment to how well the govt are playing their cards.

An Claidheamh

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I wonder what Johnson and the DUP were discussing. Perhaps he urged them to go hard on Varadkar when the media descend on Belfast - not that the DUP need much encouraging on that front. We'll find out shortly.

Expecting plenty of "it's up to Dublin to stop playing hardball" etc.

I doubt Johnson and Co think much of the DUP, or even allow in their house, they're useful idiots

reslfj

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The WA is not dead!

The UK may come to their senses and realise that exiting without a trade plan in place is suicide...

As for the EU, it's the only negotiated plan......the EU are of the view that it <is> very much alive.

Why do we so often need to use 'deadly explicit' phrases when it comes to describing the consequences of a 'No Deal' Brexit?

It seems necessary before many Brexiters will even begin to understand?

Using words like 'suicide, 'bloody below the cliff', 'the UK economy will be killed', 'UK politics will be destroyed' etc etc or even 'The EU27 will kill the UK economy if ....'

Sane persons with just a little understanding of economy and how size matters in negotiations - should not need such words.

Lars

reslfj

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Expecting plenty of "it's up to Dublin to stop playing hardball" etc.

The backstop will happen on the island of Ireland - but the freeze on the WA is not an Irish decision nor will it ever be.

It's an all EU27 decision taken by all 27 PMs in Brussels - and it will continue that way.

Very many EU27 countries have their own vivid memories and some even present day experiences with non open borders.

The SM is the shinning star of the EU and will be fiercely protected.

Lars

An Claidheamh

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/leo-varadkar-looks-like-an-adult-because-the-uk-is-acting-like-a-spoilt-toddler-1.3972180?mode=amp


"It now appears to be British policy that Ireland will, at some point, balk at the UK’s threat of destroying itself in front of them. Whether they realise it or not, this amounts to the hope that Ireland cares more about Britain’s wellbeing than the British government does. Considering the venal cabal of disconnected toffs in power, on that last point they may be right."


We'll worth reading this article

rob316

It's already started on sky news, putting the backstop back on Ireland saying the economic impact on Ireland will be worse than England.

careless sherpa

An Claidheamh wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/leo-varadkar-looks-like-an-adult-because-the-uk-is-acting-like-a-spoilt-toddler-1.3972180?mode=amp


"It now appears to be British policy that Ireland will, at some point, balk at the UK’s threat of destroying itself in front of them. Whether they realise it or not, this amounts to the hope that Ireland cares more about Britain’s wellbeing than the British government does. Considering the venal cabal of disconnected toffs in power, on that last point they may be right."


We'll worth reading this article

Is like the scene in blazing saddles where the sheriff puts a gun to his own head in order to prevent being lynched

Peregrinus

brickster69 wrote: »

Only problem with that is that the law of land states the UK leave the EU with or without a deal 31/10/2019

As it stands at the moment the WA is dead, and it is more or less impossible for any party to revoke because in the new session of parliament only the Government will have the power to make new laws.

Not sure what this is about; rules in the new session of parliament will be the same as the rules now. It will, as always, be difficult for non-government bills to make it through and become law, but it can happen.

More to the point, however, it will not be any easier for government bills to become law. The present government has more or less admitted that it cannot get any Brexit-related legislation through Parliament, even uncontroversial measures, and it's not going to try. That's because it has a majority of 2, and certainly more than 2 of its backbenchers loathe its Brexit policy sufficiently to vote against it. The mathematics here are not going to change in a new session of parliament.

They might, or might not, change after a general election; it depends on the outcome of the election.

Can the backstop not be changed to "Any border in Ireland immediate ends all deals between the UK and the EU?" It removes the EU's "say" and changes it to a hard rule. No more rhetoric about being trapped.

There is no way they'd start negotiating a trade deal with the EU after Brexit, and then forfeit everything for a deal with the US.

Jizique

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's worth re-stating every so often just what an excellent deal was offered to the UK. It would have minimised the effects of leaving the EU while giving some pretty big advantages to the UK over any other non-member. The backstop was proposed by the EU to give NI special status and the UK accepted. It could have been a boon to one of the least performing economies in western Europe. The British asked to extend the backstop and the EU acquiesced. I was annoyed at the time how much the EU gave away and any suggestion of a "better deal" for the UK side be dismissed out of hand.

Indeed, as outlined by the Telegraph’s Nick Gutteridge

https://mobile.twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1154450133372866560

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

Can the backstop not be changed to "Any border in Ireland immediate ends all deals between the UK and the EU?"

No, it can't.

You're falling into the Brexiter error of treating a decision about a hard border like, say, a decision about whether to draw the curtains - as in, you can make that decision without regard to how light or dark it is outside.

A border is the place where one legal regime gives way to another; one set of tax obligations stops and another starts. Border controls are inherent in the nature of borders; if the rules on the other side of the border are different, then when you cross the border the different rules will be enforced on you - the taxes you are now liable to will be collected from you, the goods regulations you now have to comply with will be enforced against you, etc, etc. The controls are simply the impact of the enforcement of these rules. If you have no controls, you're not enforcing your rules, in which case, are they rules at all?

So, border controls are the norm, the default, for borders. The only way you can avoid border controls is by entering into arrangements for common rules on both sides of the border, for mutual recognition of rules and mutual acceptance of rules, etc, etc. By definition, this can only be done by agreement between the people on both sides of the border. It's impossible to do it unilaterally. You can unilaterally withdraw from an agreement that avoid border controls - and by brexiting the UK is doing precisely that - but you can't unilaterally take measures that will avoid border controls. Even if, hypothetically, the UK decided to Brexit on terms that it would not enforce UK tax or regulatory rules on anyone entering the UK across the Irish border (and they would have to be astonishingly stupid to make such a decision) that would not avoid border controls, because Brexit means withdrawing from the arrangements which avoid border controls operated by either side, and the EU is not going to make the same astonishingly stupid decision.

So, if the UK's no-hard-border guarantee means anything at all, it means a commitment to enter into the agreed arrangements that are needed if a hard border is to be avoided. If, by the time Brexit happens, the UK hasn't reached agreement with the EU on these arrangements then there will be a hard border. We can't pretend, at that point, that a hard border is something that might or might not happen in the future depending on how the UK decides to behave; it is something that will happen, and soon, unless the UK makes an agreement with the EU as to how it is to be avoided.

woohoo!!!

Shacking up with the DUP, so much for heeding Varadkars advice and upholding impartiality and the GFA. Ignore the clown and point him in the direction of Brussels.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it can't.

You're falling into the Brexiter error of treating a decision about a hard border like, say, a decision about whether to draw the curtains - as in, you can make that decision without regard to how light or dark it is outside.

A border is the place where one legal regime gives way to another; one set of tax obligations stops and another starts. Border controls are inherent in the nature of borders; if the rules on the other side of the border are different, then when you cross the border the different rules will be enforced on you - the taxes you are now liable to will be collected from you, the goods regulations you now have to comply with will be enforced against you, etc, etc. The controls are simply the impact of the enforcement of these rules. If you have no controls, you're not enforcing your rules, in which case, are they rules at all?

So, border controls are the norm, the default, for borders. The only way you can avoid border controls is by entering into arrangements for common rules on both sides of the border, for mutual recognition of rules and mutual acceptance of rules, etc, etc. By definition, this can only be done by agreement between the people on both sides of the border. It's impossible to do it unilaterally. You can unilaterally withdraw from an agreement that avoid border controls - and by brexiting the UK is doing precisely that - but you can't unilaterally take measures that will avoid border controls. Even if, hypothetically, the UK decided to Brexit on terms that it would not enforce UK tax or regulatory rules on anyone entering the UK across the Irish border (and they would have to be astonishingly stupid to make such a decision) that would not avoid border controls, because Brexit means withdrawing from the arrangements which avoid border controls operated by either side, and the EU is not going to make the same astonishingly stupid decision.

So, if the UK's no-hard-border guarantee means anything at all, it means a commitment to enter into the agreed arrangements that are needed if a hard border is to be avoided. If, by the time Brexit happens, the UK hasn't reached agreement with the EU on these arrangements then there will be a hard border. We can't pretend, at that point, that a hard border is something that might or might not happen in the future depending on how the UK decides to behave; it is something that will happen, and soon, unless the UK makes an agreement with the EU as to how it is to be avoided.

But you can, presumably, just refuse to implement border controls on your side of the border - isn't that how the UK/Irish CTA came about, when the newly-independent Irish state simply refused to participate in the type of border controls the British government wanted to enforce?

DOCARCH

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Another strong, en pointe performance by an Irish diplomat, former ambassador Par McDonagh on Newsnight.
Spelling it out clearly and camly.

He was excellent. Said it like it is. Maitlis could not argue or challenge him.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

But you can, presumably, just refuse to implement border controls on your side of the border - isn't that how the UK/Irish CTA came about, when the newly-independent Irish state simply refused to participate in the type of border controls the British government wanted to enforce?

Well, Country A can decide not to bother with any border controls on its side of the A\./B border. But:

1. This doesn't avoid a hard border, since it doesn't stop country B implementing controls. If I'm subject to controls when travelling from country A to country B, that's not an open border.

2. This has undesirable side effects for country A, and represents a substantial diminution of its sovereignty. On migration, say, if country A operates no controls at the A/B border, then country A is open to (a) all citizens of country B, plus (b) citizens of any country who are admitted to country B. Which effectively leaves country B deciding who will, and who will not, be admitted to country A. And on the same reasoning country A is effectively conceding control of its its tariff policy, its regulations of goods, etc to country B.

Is this how the CTA got started? No, I don't think it is. The UK didn't want to operate migration controls at the Free State/NI border because they recognised that, given the nature of the border, it would be next to impossible to do so effectively. And the Irish authorities weren't fussed because they didn't have a problem of people trying to immigrate to the Free State; then and for decades later their problem was the opposite: too much emigration. They also didn't want border controls for obvious political reasons.

In short, it suited both sides not to operate migration controls at the Free State/NI border. This left the UK with a problem which could be resolved if the Irish would agree to enforce UK rules on landing rights - i.e. if the Irish would turn away from the Free State anyone who wouldn't be admitted to the UK. The Irish were happy to do this provided it was reciprocal - the UK agreed to turn away anyone who wouldn't be admitted to Ireland. The UK were happy with that, and that's the basis on which the CTA has operated since then (if we overlook the wee gap between 1939 and 1952 when there were movement controls between Ireland (the island) and Great Britain).