Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

Laois_Man wrote: »

Peter Foster - Europe editor of the Telegraph was a contributor on RTE Prime Time last tonight and reckons BJ's tactic will be to table a motion such that the HoC passes the WA but with an end-date on the Backstop.

Or, to put it more accurately, such that the HoC doesn't pass the WA that has actually been agreed, but instead passes a fantasy WA of its own imagining that hasn't been agreed and that the EU has repeatedly declined to agree.

Laois_Man wrote: »

He could be right up to that point - but even that passing is not a given. But he then goes on to speculate that other member states will put pressure on Leo to accept a 5-7 year time-limit to avoid chaos in 5-7 weeks.;)

I doubt this will work as they hope. Both self-interest and simple self-respect would prevent the EU from rewarding such behaviour as this. They do have other negotiations to conduct with other, grown-up countries. They won't want to give the world the impression that, when you are dealing with the EU, behavour such as this can secure any kind of advantage.

Laois_Man wrote: »

They also speculated that BJ will know his stated intentions will result in an extremely short stint as PM and he will completely change course once he secures the job and head for a second referendum.

That might be a bit more plausible.

murphaph

You would have no sympathy whatsoever for the ERG if Johnson changed his tune completely about a second referendum. They already know he's a self confessed liar. They are voting for a known liar.

Zubeneschamali

Joe_ Public wrote: »

People are just as entitled to anger at the prospect of a no deal for which there isn't and never has been any democratic mandate at all.

They are entitled to it, but I don't see much sign of it. The Remain side seem very passive, resigned to "just getting on with it". There should be a million young people barricading Westminster 24/7 by now if they had a lick of sense.

But even the Remainers seem to believe the British exceptionalist idea that nothing really bad will happen because, well, it's Britain, isn't it. The only talk of unrest is about how Leave voters will rebel if the Will of the People is denied.

maynooth_rules

Laois_Man wrote: »

Peter Foster - Europe editor of the Telegraph was a contributor on RTE Prime Time last tonight and reckons BJ's tactic will be to table a motion such that the HoC passes the WA but with an end-date on the Backstop. He could be right up to that point - but even that passing is not a given. But he then goes on to speculate that other member states will put pressure on Leo to accept a 5-7 year time-limit to avoid chaos in 5-7 weeks.;)

They also speculated that BJ will know his stated intentions will result in an extremely short stint as PM and he will completely change course once he secures the job and head for a second referendum.

I think this is where the EU may throw the UK a bone. Fine, England, Wales and Scotland can have a time limited backstop. But absolutly not for Northern Ireland. The British government have made the backstop become this almighty thorn when it didn't need to be.

Fr Tod Umptious

maynooth_rules wrote: »

I think this is where the EU may throw the UK a bone. Fine, England, Wales and Scotland can have a time limited backstop. But absolutly not for Northern Ireland. The British government have made the backstop become this almighty thorn when it didn't need to be.

But the DUP are still the kingmaker
And any "bone" that distinguishes NI from the UK will not fly with them.

This is the whole genesis of this from back in December 2017.

robinph

Tell me how wrote: »

Think a GE is the most likely outcome before the end of the year with the EU allowing an extension for that purpose.

Could Corbyns master plan be to continue to argue with himself over which way is best to sit on a fence in order to convince the Tories they will win a GE easily. Then the moment it is announced then Labour come out with an actual position on a second referendum / remain and win?

Alan_P

maynooth_rules wrote: »

I think this is where the EU may throw the UK a bone. Fine, England, Wales and Scotland can have a time limited backstop. But absolutly not for Northern Ireland. The British government have made the backstop become this almighty thorn when it didn't need to be.

The EU don't care in the slightest about a backstop for England, Wales and Scotland. The requirement for it to apply to the whole UK was a UK demand, created by May's dependence on DUP votes. Restricting the backstop to NI was the original, simpler, cleaner solution, and reopening that possibility would be a reason to renegotiate. But how does that get through the HOC, given DUP resistance ?

funkey_monkey

robinph wrote: »

Could Corbyns master plan be to continue to argue with himself over which way is best to sit on a fence in order to convince the Tories they will win a GE easily. Then the moment it is announced then Labour come out with an actual position on a second referendum / remain and win?

Doubt he is that smart or forward thinking. Labour are just as split as the Tories and Corbyn is no fan of Europe either.
He has sat on the fence too long for the swing voters to flock to Labour. They would be more likely to go for Lib Dems who have been consistent with their anti Brexit stance.

funkey_monkey

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

But the DUP are still the kingmaker
And any "bone" that distinguishes NI from the UK will not fly with them.

This is the whole genesis of this from back in December 2017.

Alan_P wrote: »

The EU don't care in the slightest about a backstop for England, Wales and Scotland. The requirement for it to apply to the whole UK was a UK demand, created by May's dependence on DUP votes. Restricting the backstop to NI was the original, simpler, cleaner solution, and reopening that possibility would be a reason to renegotiate. But how does that get through the HOC, given DUP resistance ?

There might be enough Labour votes to back it this time. ERG and other brexiteers will be desperate now to get going. HoC has only ever voted on a UK wide backstop - not a NI specific one.

It is plain as day that GB MPs do not give a flying fig about NI and with the majority of NI political parties and business groups supporting the backstop, coupled with the EU election votes going mostly to pro backstop candidates then the possibility of this getting through the HoC without the support of the DUP is feasible.

Peregrinus

funkey_monkey wrote: »

There might be enough Labour votes to back it this time. ERG and other brexiteers will be desperate now to get going. HoC has only ever voted on a UK wide backstop - not a NI specific one.

It is plain as day that GB MPs do not give a flying fig about NI and with the majority of NI political parties and business groups supporting the backstop, coupled with the EU election votes going mostly to pro backstop candidates then the possibility of this getting through the HoC without the support of the DUP is feasible.

The ERG, or many of them, will vote against an NI-only backstop because, basically, they will vote against any deliverable form of Brexit so that they can continue to nourish their greivances.

funkey_monkey

Laois_Man wrote: »

Peter Foster - Europe editor of the Telegraph was a contributor on RTE Prime Time last tonight and reckons BJ's tactic will be to table a motion such that the HoC passes the WA but with an end-date on the Backstop. He could be right up to that point - but even that passing is not a given. But he then goes on to speculate that other member states will put pressure on Leo to accept a 5-7 year time-limit to avoid chaos in 5-7 weeks.;)

There is an argument that if an end to the backstop in 5-7 years is such a bad thing that the EU could not support, then why are they 'allowing' one to occur in 3 months time.

However, the EU stance has been so consistent and vocal on this issue that there is no way they can back down from it and save face.
Also there is the bigger issue whereby if the EU switch to the UK proposition against the a smaller member nation then it would open a lot of conflict within the EU.
Although I would not argue that some members might just want Ireland to pipe down - although I've read read anything about this specifically. Poland maybe?

They also speculated that BJ will know his stated intentions will result in an extremely short stint as PM and he will completely change course once he secures the job and head for a second referendum.

I'm still not sure that a 2nd referendum would put sufficient daylight between the sides to comprehensively draw a line under this mess.

funkey_monkey

Peregrinus wrote: »

The ERG, or many of them, will vote against an NI-only backstop because, basically, they will vote against any deliverable form of Brexit so that they can continue to nourish their greivances.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. They are a mad bunch alright, but they will fall into line. They are mad for Brexit of any form:

lawred2

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure about that. They are a mad bunch alright, but they will fall into line. They are mad for Brexit of any form:

Is that a poll of conservatives?

funkey_monkey

lawred2 wrote: »

Is that a poll of conservatives?

Conservative members.

Link: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/18/most-conservative-members-would-see-party-destroye

Peregrinus

funkey_monkey wrote: »

There is an argument that if an end to the backstop in 5-7 years is such a bad thing that the EU could not support, then why are they 'allowing' one to occur in 3 months time.

Because if we allow it today, the resulting hard border is not permanent: UK is in desparate need of a deal and there is leverage to get it to agree and commit to to the measures needed to restore the open border.

Whereas if we give the UK a deal and then in 5 or 7 years a hard border eventuates, the UK has what it wants and there is no pressure on it to do anything about the border. So that's a permanent hard border.

funkey_monkey wrote: »

However, the EU stance has been so consistent and vocal on this issue that there is no way they can back down from it and save face.
Also there is the bigger issue whereby if the EU switch to the UK proposition against the a smaller member nation then it would open a lot of conflict within the EU.
Although I would not argue that some members might just want Ireland to pipe down - although I've read read anything about this specifically. Poland maybe?

All of those reasons. But the main reason is, if the EU has to choose between different scenarios all of which lead to a hard border, then it's in its interests to choose the scenario in which the hard border is not the result of anything the EU has agreed to. This is much more important than the question of precisely when the hard border happens.

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm still not sure that a 2nd referendum would put sufficient daylight between the sides to comprehensively draw a line under this mess.

Nothing will comprehensively draw a line under this mess until the passage of at least a generation. The object here is not generally satisfactory resolution; it's just harm minimisation.

lawred2

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Conservative members.

Wow they've collectively lost their marbles..

The 'union' is quite clearly a sham at this stage

Peregrinus

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Conservative members.

Link: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/06/18/most-conservative-members-would-see-party-destroye

Conservative members are probably saying they would accept these outcomes - breakup of the UK, end of the Tory party - as a result of Brexit precisely because they don't seriously expect that any of them would result from Brexit. So it costs them nothing to claim to be willing to accept them.

The one outcome that they think could happen - a Corbyn premiership - is the one they say they wouldn't accept.

And in fact this is Brexit in a nutshell. Brexiters support Brexit despite all the damage it could do simply by refusing to believe in the damage it could do.

Zubeneschamali

funkey_monkey wrote: »

I'm still not sure that a 2nd referendum would put sufficient daylight between the sides to comprehensively draw a line under this mess.

Nothing will ever put a line under it, but it would be far, far less damaging for for the UK to remain in the EU while squabbling with itself about Brexit than to leave and squabble with itself outside.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because if we allow it today, the resulting hard border is not permanent: UK is in desparate need of a deal and there is leverage to get it to agree and commit to to the measures needed to restore the open border.

Varadkar's "infinite patience" is misleading, and I wonder how deliberate that is. It suggests that others like Macron have lost patience and just want Brexit to be over. This is a much nicer thing for the UK to believe than the truth, so Varadkar may be trying to sugar coat it.

Macron thinks No Deal is OK not because it will mean Brexit is over, but because he thinks the UK are currently living in a fantasy land and as long as they keep getting extensions they will stay there.

No Deal will be a short, sharp shock - an international ice-bucket challenge, and when they return to ask the EU for a deal, they will have woken up in the real world and realized that they are in a very bad place.

And realizing that, they will be in an extremely weak negotiating position, which will suit the EU (and Macron) very well.

kunst nugget

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Varadkar's "infinite patience" is misleading, and I wonder how deliberate that is. It suggests that others like Macron have lost patience and just want Brexit to be over. This is a much nicer thing for the UK to believe than the truth, so Varadkar may be trying to sugar coat it.

Macron thinks No Deal is OK not because it will mean Brexit is over, but because he thinks the UK are currently living in a fantasy land and as long as they keep getting extensions they will stay there.

No Deal will be a short, sharp shock - an international ice-bucket challenge, and when they return to ask the EU for a deal, they will have woken up in the real world and realized that they are in a very bad place.

And realizing that, they will be in an extremely weak negotiating position, which will suit the EU (and Macron) very well.

Which all sounds great. The problem is we'll end up most likely being the collateral damage in that scenario. I just hope there's something planned on the EU side to stop our economy tanking in the event of a No Deal.

Berserker

PeadarCo wrote: »

Why would the EU open up talks? A no deal just increases the EUs leverage.

A no deal Brexit will do a hell of a lot of damage to the rest of the EU and they want to avoid that at all costs. I've every confidence in Boris when it comes to these negotiations. I hope/expect that he'll take a Trumpian approach and we'll see a change in tact from the EU when that happens. The UK is not going to sail into economic nothingness, if it leaves on a no deal Brexit. People are forgetting that!

Infini wrote: »

Reversing Brexit does put the issue back in the box its just that while Ireland can have infinite patience the rest of Europe might not and that's the thing. If the UK crashes out the Border becomes a serious problem and only reunification will remove that issue as the UK and the DUP failed their voters by selling politically defective and idiotic policies...

The border has only ever been and will only ever be a serious problem because the RoI and the republican movement, to be more specific, want to make an issue out of it. Everyone on the UK side of Brexit has been very clear about their willingness to avoid a hard border on the island. A UI is not a goer at this moment in time; I see no real demand for it in the general population and it will certainly be off the table in the event of a hard Brexit because the RoI will be in a deep recession. The RoI will end up as collateral damage no matter what form Brexit takes. The harder the Brexit, the worse that damage will be.

Professor Moriarty

Berserker wrote: »

A no deal Brexit will do a hell of a lot of damage to the rest of the EU and they want to avoid that at all costs. I've every confidence in Boris when it comes to these negotiations. I hope/expect that he'll take a Trumpian approach and we'll see a change in tact from the EU when that happens. The UK is not going to sail into economic nothingness, if it leaves on a no deal Brexit. People are forgetting that!



The border has only ever been and will only ever be a serious problem because the RoI and the republican movement, to be more specific, want to make an issue out of it. Everyone on the UK side of Brexit has been very clear about their willingness to avoid a hard border on the island. A UI is not a goer at this moment in time; I see no real demand for it in the general population and it will certainly be off the table in the event of a hard Brexit because the RoI will be in a deep recession. The RoI will end up as collateral damage no matter what form Brexit takes. The harder the Brexit, the worse that damage will be.

You're spot on. If Johnson behaves like Trump, there will be a change in the EU's tact.

First Up

Berserker wrote:

A no deal Brexit will do a hell of a lot of damage to the rest of the EU and they want to avoid that at all costs. I've every confidence in Boris when it comes to these negotiations. I hope/expect that he'll take a Trumpian approach and we'll see a change in tact from the EU when that happens. The UK is not going to sail into economic nothingness, if it leaves on a no deal Brexit. People are forgetting that!

I'd have thought this Brexiteer delusion had been well and truly debunked by now.

Berserker wrote:

The border has only ever been and will only ever be a serious problem because the RoI and the republican movement, to be more specific, want to make an issue out of it. Everyone on the UK side of Brexit has been very clear about their willingness to avoid a hard border on the island. A UI is not a goer at this moment in time; I see no real demand for it in the general population and it will certainly be off the table in the event of a hard Brexit because the RoI will be in a deep recession. The RoI will end up as collateral damage no matter what form Brexit takes. The harder the Brexit, the worse that damage will be.

Nothing to do with a UI. Its about the integrity of the Single Market. The Irish border is the EU's border and the other 26 members are entitled to (and will get) the same protection there as anywhere else.

First Up

Professor Moriarty wrote:

You're spot on. If Johnson behaves like Trump, there will be a change in the EU's tact.

Oh really? What do you expect that will be?

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

Oh really? What do you expect that will be?

Yes really. If Johnson takes a belligerent attitude with the EU then they will not be as tactful as they have been. Berserker inadvertently made a good point.

An Claidheamh

Berserker wrote: »

A UI is not a goer at this moment in time; I see no real demand for it in the general population and it will certainly be off the table in the event of a hard Brexit because the RoI will be in a deep recession.

We'll be in deep recession? Who is leaving the EU again? 😂

Economic predictions from Brexiters thus far..... 🙄

NI will not be able to fund itself, UK will break up and cut off the NI sponges.

Berserker

First Up wrote: »

I'd have thought this Brexiteer delusion had been well and truly debunked by now.

Debunked? TM was not a Brexiteer. Boris truly believes in it. New game starts when he goes to Brussels.

First Up wrote: »

Nothing to do with a UI. Its about the integrity of the Single Market. The Irish border is the EU's border and the other 26 members are entitled to (and will get) the same protection there as anywhere else.

So the EU will implement a hard border to protect it's borders. I just hope that republicans will direct their angst at the EU and not the UK when the border appears.

Christy42

Berserker wrote: »

A no deal Brexit will do a hell of a lot of damage to the rest of the EU and they want to avoid that at all costs. I've every confidence in Boris when it comes to these negotiations. I hope/expect that he'll take a Trumpian approach and we'll see a change in tact from the EU when that happens. The UK is not going to sail into economic nothingness, if it leaves on a no deal Brexit. People are forgetting that!



The border has only ever been and will only ever be a serious problem because the RoI and the republican movement, to be more specific, want to make an issue out of it. Everyone on the UK side of Brexit has been very clear about their willingness to avoid a hard border on the island. A UI is not a goer at this moment in time; I see no real demand for it in the general population and it will certainly be off the table in the event of a hard Brexit because the RoI will be in a deep recession. The RoI will end up as collateral damage no matter what form Brexit takes. The harder the Brexit, the worse that damage will be.

Errrr which will be worse off after a no deal brexit? It really is threatening the EU that it will get blood on its clothes the EU had better give in and stop the UK shooting itself.

Sure damage will be done to both sides but it is entirely ignoring the scale of the damage done to both sides to suggest this.

The UK has lied about being willing to avoid a hard border. It has months left and the best they have is "alternative arrangements". Since they have not gone into further detail I am beginning to suspect they are lying. No backstop or time limited backstop = hard border until they have incredibly detailed proposals telling us how to avoid it. There is no reason for us to sign up to a hard border.

Dytalus

Berserker wrote: »

The border has only ever been and will only ever be a serious problem because the RoI and the republican movement, to be more specific, want to make an issue out of it. Everyone on the UK side of Brexit has been very clear about their willingness to avoid a hard border on the island. A UI is not a goer at this moment in time; I see no real demand for it in the general population and it will certainly be off the table in the event of a hard Brexit because the RoI will be in a deep recession. The RoI will end up as collateral damage no matter what form Brexit takes. The harder the Brexit, the worse that damage will be.

Nothing to do with the republican movement wanting a UI, and everything to do with international agreements and law. I've explained this before, but simply not wanting a hard border isn't enough for there to not be one. Let me extract the relevant bit:

As to why this would be required:
Contrary to what a lot of people say, there is no specific rule among the World Trade Organisation's laws that say countries must put up borders between each other, HOWEVER the WTO has a rule known as the "Most favoured Nation" (which is a horrible misnomer, in my opinion). This is essentially a non-discrimination rule for members of the WTO. It means that the UK cannot give favourable treatment to one nation over others outside of mutually agreed upon trade agreements (this is why such agreements are very difficult to negotiate and take a long time. The EU's recent trade deal with Singapore took eight years to complete).

This would mean: Outside of any existing trade agreements (which the UK has none of currently), the UK must treat all nations equally per WTO rules. While the WTO cannot force a nation to do anything, it does act as a kind of 'court' for member nations. If one of the other members takes issue with how the UK is handling its borders, then they are liable to face legal repercussions and trade sanctions from other WTO members.

If the UK wants to keep the Irish border open while outside of the EU, they must keep every one of their borders equally open or face a whole heap of trouble from fellow WTO members. Most-Favoured-Nation and all that jazz.

They can't just wave their hands and be done with it. Nor can we, nor should we want to. Getting in trouble with our fellow EU member states for not protecting the Single Market will only compound any post-Brexit trouble we face.

Professor Moriarty

Berserker wrote: »

Debunked? TM was not a Brexiteer. Boris truly believes in it. New game starts when he goes to Brussels.



So the EU will implement a hard border to protect it's borders. I just hope that republicans will direct their angst at the EU and not the UK when the border appears.

If the nationalist community is angry, their anger will be directed at the British government. Funny you think otherwise.