Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't disagree with your post, but if every politician on both sides and in the EU has said they will protect the GFA, why should Leo be the first to openly talk about putting up borders?

Because he may, in fact, be the first to have to put up borders.

If there is a crash-out Brexit, both sides will need to erect controls but neither side will want to be seen to be the first to erect controls. So there'll be a kind of Mexican standoff, with each waiting for the other to move, and both hoping that developments elsewhere will resolve the position before either has to move. (E.g. Ireland will hope that chaos at UK's channel ports, shortage of consumer goods, collapse in industrial output, will bring UK back to table before border issue get really pressing.)

But if the situation isn't resolved in this way fairly soon one of them will have to move first, and that will probably be Ireland, because we have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the SM and the CU both for our own advantage and in solidarity with other member states. (Solidarity is two-way, remember.) UK will already be suffering masive reputational damage and economic dislocation from crash-out Brexit; problems resulting from open Irish border will be small beer to them, so they can let them ride for longer than we can afford to.

So, forseeably, Varadkar will be moving on border controls before UK does. So, if nothing else, it's in his interests to manage Irish public expectations in this regard.

Enzokk wrote: »

This would be openly questioning the UK and whether they would be living up to their obligations, as they have said they would. We cannot assume the worst in public of our closest neighbour.

That consideration for a long time justified Varadkar not speculating in public about what he would do if the UK decided not to honour its guarantee.

But not any more. UK Parliament has rejected the backstop and has not advanced any serious alternative, and for many months now leading UK figures are openly contemplating, even calling for, a no-deal Brexit, which is of course the legal and legislated default. I think we can safely discuss what would happen, and what would have to happen, in that event without being accused of making unwarranted and uncharitable assumptions. Failing to honour its guarantee is very much a policy option under active and open consideration in the UK.

Enzokk wrote: »

This is a waiting game, you prepare for the worst but in no way do you publicly let this be known.

I think we're past that. At this point not to acknowledge that the worst could realistically happen doesn't look like diplomacy so much as like living in denial.

spacecoyote

Link may be paywalled, I'm not sure, but a good concise piece in the FT around Johnsons Gatt 24 rubbish:

https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/1143486078218907653

54and56

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Its ironic that the Unionists are the ones who are going to break up the Union

And beautiful :P

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

I think we're past that. At this point not to acknowledge that the worst could realistically happen doesn't look like diplomacy so much as like living in denial.

The worst is just one of the several contingencies that has been planned for by Ireland and the EU.

Leroy42

Just to clarify, whilst many are calling for No Deal in the UK they don't really mean it as we understand it.

When they talk about No Deal they mean no formal WA type pack. They fully expect lots of side deals and extensions. They are trying to bypass the WA and move directly to trade negotiations, exactly as they have always done.

They are banking on an implementation period, even if it's not actually called that, whereby everything stays pretty much as is and they can roll the WA into trade talks.

That is what all this is about. It was their plan from day 1. It was the reason they 'agreed ' to the backstop in Dec 17. To move from Phase 1 to Phase 2.

It hasn't worked so far, but with little else to play they are doubling down.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The worst is just one of the several contingencies that has been planned for by Ireland and the EU.

Yes. The issue, though, is not whether we should plan for the worst, but whether we should talk about our plans for the worst. I think we should, and we should have been doing so for some months now.

Leroy42

Peregrinus wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

The worst is just one of the several contingencies that has been planned for by Ireland and the EU.

Yes. The issue, though, is not whether we should plan for the worst, but whether we should talk about our plans for the worst. I think we should, and we should have been doing so for some months now.

I think the thinking behind it to avoid normalising it. They don't want people to simply accept the border. They want the people in NI to wake up and see the effects and then force the UK to change course.

Its like No Deal. After many months of it being mentioned people are now not only accepting it, but many are actively calling for it!

It is pretty obvious that telling them won't work. It will be dismissed as project fear or Ireland trying to scare NI.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. The issue, though, is not whether we should plan for the worst, but whether we should talk about our plans for the worst. I think we should, and we should have been doing so for some months now.

Everyone who should know about them knows about them.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Everyone who should know about them knows about them.

I know, but there's more to it than that. Public expectations in Ireland need to be managed, and the effect of Ireland's position on the discourse in the UK needs to be considered. The less we talk about it, the easier it is for Brexiter to spin the line that Ireland won't be putting up border controls in any event, and neither will the UK, so the backstop is unnecessary.

Russman

Leroy42 wrote: »

When they talk about No Deal they mean no formal WA type pack. They fully expect lots of side deals and extensions. They are trying to bypass the WA and move directly to trade negotiations, exactly as they have always done.

They are banking on an implementation period, even if it's not actually called that, whereby everything stays pretty much as is and they can roll the WA into trade talks.

Totally agree this is the case, but given how the EU has given no indication it will budge (nor should it), I suspect the UK is in for a very rude awakening on 1st Nov. Autumn/winter 2019 has the potential to be truly monumental.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know, but there's more to it than that. Public expectations in Ireland need to be managed, and the effect of Ireland's position on the discourse in the UK needs to be considered. The less we talk about it, the easier it is for Brexiter to spin the line that Ireland won't be putting up border controls in any event, and neither will the UK, so the backstop is unnecessary.

But that is complete delusion, especially from people for whom one of the major issues with the EU was the need to "control our borders". And there's really no point in trying to reason with someone who is delusional. They will just take what you've said and integrate it into their fantasy. Or dismiss it.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

But that is complete delusion, especially from people for whom one of the major issues with the EU was the need to "control our borders". And there's really no point in trying to reason with someone who is delusional. They will just take what you've said and integrate it into their fantasy. Or dismiss it.

The aim is not to reason with the delusional, so much as to counter the narrative that the delusional are pushing on the merely uninformed.

As long as Varadkar doesn not say, very clearly, that if there is a crash-out Brexit with no backstop, border controls are inevitable, then he allows the delusional to cherry-pick his own past comments to spin the line that the backstop is unnecessary, since border controls can be avoided without it. That narrative needs to be contradicted so that (a) people in the UK correctly understand what choosing or allowing a crash-out would entail, and (b) when border controls are instituted the blame lies where it should.

trellheim

I think the time has come - and we see this yesterday from the Dept of Finance - to start the hard prep and this means the people as well . 4 months and 5 days to an unavoidable crash-out.


Note that the EU are trying to sort out Switzerland at same time and thats taken years and without any WA

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

Because he may, in fact, be the first to have to put up borders.

If there is a crash-out Brexit, both sides will need to erect controls but neither side will want to be seen to be the first to erect controls. So there'll be a kind of Mexican standoff, with each waiting for the other to move, and both hoping that developments elsewhere will resolve the position before either has to move. (E.g. Ireland will hope that chaos at UK's channel ports, shortage of consumer goods, collapse in industrial output, will bring UK back to table before border issue get really pressing.)

But if the situation isn't resolved in this way fairly soon one of them will have to move first, and that will probably be Ireland, because we have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the SM and the CU both for our own advantage and in solidarity with other member states. (Solidarity is two-way, remember.) UK will already be suffering masive reputational damage and economic dislocation from crash-out Brexit; problems resulting from open Irish border will be small beer to them, so they can let them ride for longer than we can afford to.

So, forseeably, Varadkar will be moving on border controls before UK does. So, if nothing else, it's in his interests to manage Irish public expectations in this regard.

I don't think we need to move before the UK though. Why should we be talking and preparing for a border when the UK has indicated multiple times there will not be a border? We may be the first to start preparations, but that will only be after the UK has indicated it will break their obligations and what they have said and written to the EU and Ireland,

Peregrinus wrote: »

That consideration for a long time justified Varadkar not speculating in public about what he would do if the UK decided not to honour its guarantee.

But not any more. UK Parliament has rejected the backstop and has not advanced any serious alternative, and for many months now leading UK figures are openly contemplating, even calling for, a no-deal Brexit, which is of course the legal and legislated default. I think we can safely discuss what would happen, and what would have to happen, in that event without being accused of making unwarranted and uncharitable assumptions. Failing to honour its guarantee is very much a policy option under active and open consideration in the UK.

I think we're past that. At this point not to acknowledge that the worst could realistically happen doesn't look like diplomacy so much as like living in denial.

But the UK Parliament has also ruled out no-deal repeatedly as well which would mean no border. All options are on the table and none have been ruled out by the UK so why should we focus on one outcome?

What we also have to take into account is that we are in a election campaign so we should not be making decisions or take actions when it could influence the two candidates and what they promise they will deliver.

lawred2

spacecoyote wrote: »

Link may be paywalled, I'm not sure, but a good concise piece in the FT around Johnsons Gatt 24 rubbish:

https://twitter.com/alanbeattie/status/1143486078218907653

It's a good read. And I've read pretty much the same rebuttal of that same fantasy multiple times.

Pity noone cares what some 'patronising elitist'* boffin in the FT has to offer..


* Not my words

ancapailldorcha

Mod: One-liner/Smiley post deleted. No more please.

Hurrache

It's not us, it's you, declares Raab, trying to set the narrative that the EU kicked them out and it had nothing to do with the UK.
https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1143780549665968128

kunst nugget

Hurrache wrote: »

It's not us, it's you, declares Raab, trying to set the narrative that the EU kicked them out and it had nothing to do with the UK.
https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1143780549665968128

Great reply on that thread.

https://twitter.com/MRLibDem/status/1143785454287933440

Hurrache

Beth Rigby also flags his nonsense. Sky have always been good on the subject, but there does seem to be bit more of a bite from the media over there, although that probably could be due to Johnson more so than a revelation on Brexit.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1143780699880792065

Seth Brundle

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't think we need to move before the UK though. Why should we be talking and preparing for a border when the UK has indicated multiple times there will not be a border? We may be the first to start preparations, but that will only be after the UK has indicated it will break their obligations and what they have said and written to the EU and Ireland,


But the UK Parliament has also ruled out no-deal repeatedly as well which would mean no border. All options are on the table and none have been ruled out by the UK so why should we focus on one outcome?

What we also have to take into account is that we are in a election campaign so we should not be making decisions or take actions when it could influence the two candidates and what they promise they will deliver.

The UK are the ones leaving. The UK are the ones who, as it stands, have not agreed to the agreement which will mean a smooth transition and good relationship with the EU.

You mention how the UK has ruled out a no-deal scenario. However, the UK have failed to tell the EU what they actually want. Without an agreement, what do the UK want? What do they expect?

The EU can not do anything else: it is all down to the UK.
If the EU are the first to erect a border, it is simply as a result of the UK's choices.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

I don't think we need to move before the UK though. Why should we be talking and preparing for a border when the UK has indicated multiple times there will not be a border? We may be the first to start preparations, but that will only be after the UK has indicated it will break their obligations and what they have said and written to the EU and Ireland,

The UK has "guaranteed" no hard border, but it has also refused to make any of the choices needed to deliver on that guarantee. And many in the UK seem to think it simply means that the UK itself will not operate border controls. Which, obviously, even if were credible to think of the UK doing this unilaterally for more than a short period, is nothing like enough to avoid a hard border.

In short, the UK appears to be completely unrealistic/in denial about what delivering on its guarantee actually requires, and the credibility and dependability of its guarantee, and even perhaps the good faith of its guarantee, is very much in question. We are long past the point where there is any advantage to Ireland/to the EU in not acknowledging this.

Enzokk wrote: »

But the UK Parliament has also ruled out no-deal repeatedly as well which would mean no border. All options are on the table and none have been ruled out by the UK so why should we focus on one outcome?

Parliament has not rules out no deal. It has said that it rejects no deal, but at the same time is has passed legislation under which, unless Parliament takes further action, no deal will happen on 31 October. And Parliament has several times voted not to take that further action. Parliament not liking the outcome of its own choices and actions is not enough to avert that outcome, no matter how often parliament says that it doesn't like it.

I'm not saying that no deal is inevitable, or that it is the only circumstance for which we must plan, but it is definitely a possibility, and one of the circumstances for which we should plan. And of course in other respects we are planning for it, explicitly and openly. So there is not case at all for saying that we should not openly plan to address the implication a no-deal Brexit would have for the border.

Enzokk wrote: »

What we also have to take into account is that we are in a election campaign so we should not be making decisions or take actions when it could influence the two candidates and what they promise they will deliver.

You're talking about the Tory party leadership selection process? My point is that not acknowledging the need for border controls in the event of a no-deal Brexit allows the candidates in that process to promote, or hide behind, and entirely mendacious case that the backstop is unnecessary because border controls can and will be avoided by the Irish and UK authorities simply failying to operate any border controls. There is no interest at all for Ireland in encouraging, facilitating or failing to counter this wholly dishonest lie.

Nody

Seth Brundle wrote: »

You mention how the UK has ruled out a no-deal scenario. However, the UK have failed to tell the EU what they actually want. Without an agreement, what do the UK want? What do they expect?

No they have stated what they want; EU to pay them for leaving; to be allowed full access to single market and all EU benefits without paying or follow any EU rules while doing so and of course the four freedoms only to apply one way along with things such as trademark recognition etc.

In short; they (the Brexiteers) are stamping on the ground like a petulant three year old at a restaurant demanding to be Emperor of the Universe who can get anything they want and don't understand why the adults are rolling their eyes at them and asking them to choose from the menu in front of them of actual options.

devnull

Hurrache wrote: »

Beth Rigby also flags his nonsense. Sky have always been good on the subject, but there does seem to be bit more of a bite from the media over there, although that probably could be due to Johnson more so than a revelation on Brexit.
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1143780699880792065

She's also wrote a good article on things today:
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-time-to-be-straight-about-the-no-deal-trade-off-11749050

The problem is that there's such an ideological shift that Brexit will be great for the country that many people now are of the opinion that anything is worth it no matter how much damage it does. Unfortunately they will be getting a very rude awakening before they realise all the things that they have taken for granted. They dont know what hardship is but they migth soon.

Enzokk

Seth Brundle wrote: »

The EU can not do anything else: it is all down to the UK.
If the EU are the first to erect a border, it is simply as a result of the UK's choices.

I have no doubt we will be the first to erect a border, I am talking about being the first to acknowledge that we will be putting up a border. We should only talk about and "start" our preparations for a border once the UK has guaranteed and is leaving without a deal. Talking about our plans and making them public until then will serve no purpose but give talking points to the newspapers and politicians in the UK.

We are in a tough spot here, either we confirm we have plans for a border which will cause an uproar as we will not be looking to fulfill our part of the GFA, or we wait and do nothing and get caught out when a border is needed. I just feel it is better not to start talking about a border in public right now.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK has "guaranteed" no hard border, but it has also refused to make any of the choices needed to deliver on that guarantee. And many in the UK seem to think it simply means that the UK itself will not operate border controls. Which, obviously, even if were credible to think of the UK doing this unilaterally for more than a short period, is nothing like enough to avoid a hard border.

In short, the UK appears to be completely unrealistic/in denial about what delivering on its guarantee actually requires, and the credibility and dependability of its guarantee, and even perhaps the good faith of its guarantee, is very much in question. We are long past the point where there is any advantage to Ireland/to the EU in not acknowledging this.


Parliament has not rules out no deal. It has said that it rejects no deal, but at the same time is has passed legislation under which, unless Parliament takes further action, no deal will happen on 31 October. And Parliament has several times voted not to take that further action. Parliament not liking the outcome of its own choices and actions is not enough to avert that outcome, no matter how often parliament says that it doesn't like it.

I'm not saying that no deal is inevitable, or that it is the only circumstance for which we must plan, but it is definitely a possibility, and one of the circumstances for which we should plan. And of course in other respects we are planning for it, explicitly and openly. So there is not case at all for saying that we should not openly plan to address the implication a no-deal Brexit would have for the border.


You're talking about the Tory party leadership selection process? My point is that not acknowledging the need for border controls in the event of a no-deal Brexit allows the candidates in that process to promote, or hide behind, and entirely mendacious case that the backstop is unnecessary because border controls can and will be avoided by the Irish and UK authorities simply failying to operate any border controls. There is no interest at all for Ireland in encouraging, facilitating or failing to counter this wholly dishonest lie.

As my reply above, we are being forced to play a political game about the border with the UK right now. We both know what the other cannot do and we are having to play a game of chicken about the border. The UK knows we cannot confirm we are preparing for a border, just as we know they cannot confirm they are preparing for a border. We are both waiting for the first mover on the border to blame the other side. I just feel we have time before we go public about it and we can move until either the UK confirms they are leaving and are starting preparations for a border or they leave without a deal on the 31st October. Either way we do not move first.

My hope it still that we have plans, under the utmost secrecy, for a border already. But we cannot let people know we have these plans as they are against the very thing we have been telling the UK they cannot breach. That would be some own goal, telling the UK they cannot erect a border but here is our plans in the open.

Hurrache wrote: »

It's not us, it's you, declares Raab, trying to set the narrative that the EU kicked them out and it had nothing to do with the UK.
https://twitter.com/anandMenon1/status/1143780549665968128

The blame game being set up by Raab for a policy they are advocating for. Why do you need to blame someone for a policy you want?

kunst nugget

Enzokk wrote: »

The blame game being set up by Raab for a policy they are advocating for. Why do you need to blame someone for a policy you want?

Because he wants it for the benefit of him and his cronies, but he needs to blame the EU when the shyt hits the fan for Joe Public and they have to queue for tins of beans.

eagle eye

I've been hearing that a well organised Brexit will end up costing us big but a disorganised chaotic Brexit means we'll get loads of funding. Is this true?

CelticRambler

trellheim wrote: »

Note that the EU are trying to sort out Switzerland at same time and thats taken years and without any WA

It was said by someone at some point in the last few years that due to the headache of "sorting out" Switzerland, the EU would never let that kind of relationship develop with another country ever again.

Peregrinus wrote: »

As long as Varadkar doesn not say, very clearly, that if there is a crash-out Brexit with no backstop, border controls are inevitable, then he allows the delusional to cherry-pick his own past comments to spin the line that the backstop is unnecessary, since border controls can be avoided without it.

But the delusional will cherry-pick any part of any comment and spin it any way they want, to be believed and re-tweeted and re-stated by all of their True Believers.

Peregrinus wrote: »

In short, the UK appears to be completely unrealistic/in denial about what delivering on its guarantee actually requires, and the credibility and dependability of its guarantee, and even perhaps the good faith of its guarantee, is very much in question. We are long past the point where there is any advantage to Ireland/to the EU in not acknowledging this.

We have seen, over the last three years, that "Dublin" and "Brussels" talk to each other all the time, that they game-plan for all possible scenarios, and that they have a single coherent response ready to distribute to the media within 30 minutes (at most) after any official declaration by a member of Her Majesty's Government.

I see no evidence to suggest that the same planning and model documents are not already filed in a cabinet in Brussels, with one or other to be pulled out if or when the Tories stop playing silly buggers with each other and get back to governing the country.

Assuming BoJo is elected PM and hangs on to the job till Halloween, my prediction is that as the new cliff-edge approaches, the EU will remind the UK with increasing emphasis that "No Deal" means no deals of any kind, that the existing unilateral transitional arrangements for planes, trains and isotopes have already expired, and that come November 1st, the gates to the EU will be shut and locked. All of them.

The EU will - in the first instance - indicate that it will assume responsiblity for shutting the Irish border, along with every other point of entry into the bloc, and hammer home the message on every media platform that there are no mini-deals on offer, and so as of 00:00 01 Nov, Britain can try fending for herself with no plans in place, or (finally) sign the WA and move on to the next stage.

Water John

Entrenchment is strange human trait, gets moreso as we age.
The Family Brain Show BBC2 explores this each night and shows dramatically the difference between adults and children. We use it as a mechanism to shut off having to reassess all that we have concluded. It thus prevents us from doing a full evaluation. Thus Brexiteers once having made that leap along with some other magical leaps, find it impossible to reevaluate their rational.

To quote from 150 years ago, Silas Marner ' A dull mind arriving at an inference that flatters a desire, is rarely able to retain the impression that, the notion from which the inference comes is, purely problematic'

farmchoice

eagle eye wrote: »

I've been hearing that a well organised Brexit will end up costing us big but a disorganised chaotic Brexit means we'll get loads of funding. Is this true?

no the exact opposite is true, a well organized orderly Brexit ( backstop included) will be least harmful to us.
a disorganized Brexit will in the short term place this country into a near emergency situation. a situation we have been planning for and that the EU have said they will help us with but none the less a very challenging position.
that is why we are drawing up two complete budgets for the autumn.
one premised on a organized Brexit and one on a no deal Brexit.

VinLieger

farmchoice wrote: »

no the exact opposite is true, a well organized orderly Brexit ( backstop included) will be least harmful to us.
a disorganized Brexit will in the short term place this country into a near emergency situation. a situation we have been planning for and that the EU have said they will help us with but none the less a very challenging position.
that is why we are drawing up two complete budgets for the autumn.
one premised on a organized Brexit and one on a no deal Brexit.

Also theres almost certainly going to be a post brexit budget too according to Paschal