Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

MrMusician18

Peregrinus wrote: »

In fairness, I think FF have a bit of a point here.

My one criticism of the government is that they should have been more upfront about the consequences if the UK refuses to honour it's no-hard-border guarantee by committing to the backstop, or something equally effective.

Letting people think that we could still avoid a hard border in that scenario played into the Brexiters' hands by giving them a basis for arguing that the backstop wasn't necessary/had a sinister purpose. And it discouraged business and people in Ireland from considering the prospect of a hard border, and how it might affect them, and what plans they might make to mitigate damage in that situation.

I don't think that the Irish government talking about what would happen in a no-deal situation could ever have been spun into Ireland accepting a no-deal. You can turn every talking about what would happen in no-deal into a diatribe against no-deal and a restatement of the need for the UK not to force it on us.

That's very naive. The Irish line is that the border is effectively unmanageable without an agreement, but if the Irish government laid out plans on how it was going to manage it without a deal it would fundamentally undermine their argument.

You can see bits of this where it's been leaked about how the border might be managed if the UK leaves without the WA - UK politicians have then turned around an said that the Irish have a plan and that the backstop is a trap

Inquitus

Interesting, majority for stopping no deal but no majority to find a way to do it!!

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Can only be changed by unanimous agreement of the UK and the other member states of the EU. In practice this means that the UK has to request an amendment, and the EU-27 have to agree unanimously to give it.

Well, no: unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.


There is nothing at all to stop the Council agreeing that they will offer, say, a 2 year take-it-or-leave-it fixed extension, and put it to the UK to accept or reject it. There is nothing there to say they must wait for the UK to request it first.

A Dub in Glasgo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, no: unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

I read that to mean that the EU can agree to extend if the member state concerned also agrees

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

they cannot come cap in hand to the EU asking to get the WA as it wont exist anymore.

They will come cap in hand looking for food and medicine.

Zubeneschamali

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I read that to mean that the EU can agree to extend if the member state concerned also agrees

Yes, my point is that the Council does not have to wait for the UK to request an extension.

They can agree on an extension they find acceptable and then publicly offer it to the UK. The optics would be very different.

And a garbled rumour of such a move could be behind Brown's notion that the EU will move the deadline.

dresden8

Water John wrote: »

Well Johnson has stepped up the talks with the EU. It's really urgent to get a deal before Oct 31st, so they'll now meet, twice a week!!!

Merkel must have dropped the backstop.

Boris definitely wasn't going to negotiate while the backstop was on the table.............

briany

Inquitus wrote: »

Interesting, majority for stopping no deal but no majority to find a way to do it!!

Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. And the days go by...

prawnsambo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I read that to mean that the EU can agree to extend if the member state concerned also agrees

Even if that were true, the EuCo would never do it. (a) because many are against further extensions and (b) it would smack of getting involved in an exiting member state's internal politics.

Zubeneschamali

prawnsambo wrote: »

it would smack of getting involved in an exiting member state's internal politics.

Someone with sense really should.

J Mysterio

Peregrinus wrote: »

That Ireland will need to collect tariffs on good crossing the border from NI, for one thing, or coming into Irish ports from GB. That it may be necessary to impose other checks and controls. That trade with the rest of the EU via the GB landbridge is likely to be severely disrupted, and businesses engaged in that trade should be actively seeking out mitigation strategies.


The Irish government should be realistic, and accept that no-deal is a very live possiblity, and should talk in some detail about what this will mean in practice if it does happen, so that nobody is suprised, when the time comes, by what it means.

I thinn the Irish government has been pushing that line all along? I don't understand your perspective really. The government has been running workshops, informational sessions and offering Brexit supports etc. What more do you want them to do?

I think the Irish government have done well. I think FF criticism is unhelpful and unwelcome. Just need to keep that green jersey on till full time.

A Dub in Glasgo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, my point is that the Council does not have to wait for the UK to request an extension.

They can agree on an extension they find acceptable and then publicly offer it to the UK. The optics would be very different.

And a garbled rumour of such a move could be behind Brown's notion that the EU will move the deadline.

I see, interesting

Balanadan

Looks like the Brextremists are talking about Ireland leaving the EU and re-joining them. ****in' hell

VinLieger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They will come cap in hand looking for food and medicine.

Yes and they will be supported as we wont ignore request on a humanitarian level but it doesnt stop no deal still being in effect, they will be stuck in that state for several months at least

prawnsambo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Someone with sense really should.

That someone has to be in the UK though. A GE would probably be the motivating factor to request one. It would have to be something of that nature. I actually thought Johnson wanted a GE, but I'm not so sure now. All the moves so far seem to have been to try and hide the Tories from any kind of VONC or other defeat that could precipitate one. Yet the noises are all about looking as brexity as possible as if on an election footing. Still as confused as ever.

newport2

Charles Babbage wrote: »

There is a further difference, in Ireland the nature of the abortion legislation to follow the referendum was clear. In Switzerland, the EU gun laws were clear that you were aligning with. In both cases fruther change was possible in the future, but the immediate implications of the the vote were clear.



The problem with Brexit is not only the widespread nature of the impact but the complete absence before the referendum of a plan for post Brexit arrangements. This lack of clariy was entirely deliberate, of course.

The problem is that they don't have a written constitution. If they did, then prior to the referendum, drafts to the amendments for both outcomes would have to be drawn up. That would force the issue on defining and providing details on what "leave" actually meant before the referendum. But because they didn't have to do this, the Leave campaign was able to wing it and not provide any details on what leave actually meant.

Water John

Smyths despite the spelling is an Irish owned company, christmas toys are safe.

The court cases are a long shot, at best. The main focus is on getting legislation though that forces the PM to request an Extension.
Johnson having to go to the 27 and ask for this, mumbling under his breath, would be very humiliating for him.

VinLieger

Balanadan wrote: »

Looks like the Brextremists are talking about Ireland leaving the EU and re-joining them. ****in' hell

Is this just the rabble on twitter or is it someone in government? Like weve heard it multiple times before but just curious what level its at this time.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think it is simpler than that. The Government know for a fact that No Deal is utterly, instantly disastrous for the UK and therefore can't last long even if the UK are bonkers enough to try it.

There is no point in pissing everyone off, North and South of the border, by talking about checks and infrastructure when No Deal can't last more then a week or two.

I am not confident of this.

Johnson may or may not intend a no-deal, but at the very least he is clearly prepared to countenance one. He is following a course of action in which is it a very, very possible outcome.

And I don't think the "collapse in two weeks" thing is true. Once you have burned down your house and shot your wife and children for The Cause, you are totally and unequivocally committed to The Cause; you cannot look back for an instant. No-deal Brexit does harm to the UK which it will be very difficult to undo. All of this conspires to make it very difficult to admit that you have made a mistake, and try to undo the harm.

I think Johnson's willingness to countenance no-deal is based on the following thinking: Immediately it is clear that no-deal is inevitable he will engineer an election and hold it as soon as possible after no deal. The Brexit party will be creamed - they're a single-issue campaign and the issue will have been disposed of. The Remain parties will be demoralised and in disarray. The Labour party will be the chaotic shower of gobsh!ites that it has been for the past several years. Johnson will rely on the Spirit of the Blitz carrying through for at least a couple of weeks, plus the fact that it will be several weeks before the real harms of no-deal Brexit start to become undeniably evident. He'll hope to have secured a satisfactor majority in the Commons before public opinion turns seriously against him. And then he'll cling to office with a determination and ruthlessness that will make Teresa May look milk-and-watery.

VinLieger

Water John wrote: »

Smyths despite the spelling is an Irish owned company, christmas toys are safe.

The court cases are a long shot, at best. The main focus is on getting legislation though that forces the PM to request an Extension.
Johnson having to go to the 27 and ask for this, mumbling under his breath, would be very humiliating for him.

But here's the thing what if they get legislation through and he refuses to go? He's already said he won't step down for a VONC so why would this be any different?

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Even if that were true, the EuCo would never do it. (a) because many are against further extensions and (b) it would smack of getting involved in an exiting member state's internal politics.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Someone with sense really should.

Yes. But that someone has to be British.

Seth Brundle

InTheShadows wrote: »

Great news.

So you're happy with the undemocratic mechanism being used to pursue your so called "will of the people"?


Edit: may I also remind you of my last response to you on this nonsense which you've so far failed to provide a retort...

Seth Brundle wrote: »

InTheShadows wrote: »

Absolutely pathetic. These people need to get a job and except the will of the majority

Is it the will of the majority to have their democratic parliament closed by a PM that was not elected by the house in agreement with an unelected head of state?
Is it the will of the majority to create financial damage simply because they were not informed or they were misled by a barage of media adverts funded by Russian money?
Is it the will of the majority to leave the EU including the single market?
Is it the will of the majority to leave the EU including the customs union?
Is it the will of the people to lose all of the benefits of EU membership such as visa-free travel or no mobile phone roaming charges?
Is it the will of the majority to pay more for their shopping simply because when importing food, the UK will be forced to pay high WTO rates?

Exactly when did the people vote for the above and in what way were the questions they answered phrased?

newport2

Water John wrote: »

The main focus is on getting legislation though that forces the PM to request an Extension.
Johnson having to go to the 27 and ask for this, mumbling under his breath, would be very humiliating for him.

It would be interesting. What's to stop Johnson going to the EU and saying

"Hi, I'm here to ask for an extension I don't want. Going to cause as much disruption as possible going forward and will never agree to a deal unless you fold. Will you give me an extension please?"

I'm exaggerating of course, but he could make threats alongside the request, reducing the chance of them being granted it.

PeadarCo

Balanadan wrote: »

Looks like the Brextremists are talking about Ireland leaving the EU and re-joining them. ****in' hell

This is a serious problem for negotiations. How can the current UK government negotiate with the EU when they don't understand the Irish position and the political realities underlying it. Nevermind the rest of the EU. Brexiters still appear to be living in cloud cuckoo land. It's very hard to see anything but a no deal brexit given the crazy expectations hard line Brexiters.

Balanadan

VinLieger wrote: »

Is this just the rabble on twitter or is it someone in government? Like weve heard it multiple times before but just curious what level its at this time.

Twitter and one or two ramblings published in the likes of the Telegraph.

Christy42

newport2 wrote: »

It would be interesting. What's to stop Johnson going to the EU and saying

"Hi, I'm here to ask for an extension I don't want. Going to cause as much disruption as possible going forward and will never agree to a deal unless you fold. Will you give me an extension please?"

I'm exaggerating of course, but he could make threats alongside the request, reducing the chance of them being granted it.

Even without the threats he might not get it.

However doubt he will do anything close to that. Absolute massive uturn from him in recent days so he must be feeling the pressure.

No negotiation while the back stop is still there has turned into increased negotiations.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So you're happy with the undemocratic mechanism being used to pursue your so called "will of the people"?

What you'll find, is that no matter what actions are taken, as long as it leads to Brexit, it doesn't matter.
That's the mindset. Massive financial loss, possible return of troubles to NI, medical and food supply shortages, etc....... it doesn't matter. As long as it leads to Brexit and leaving the EU, it's fine.
I wouldn't mind if there was an actual logical reason was provided (not just soundbites like "control", esp when "control" is being taken away from Parliament by one unelected PM and one unelected head of state). But that's where we are, and why progress on a deal won't happen and why the 31st of Oct should have happen months ago.

InTheShadows

When the EU screws us over it's going to be epic watching the pro EU media here spin it as a win.

Zubeneschamali

prawnsambo wrote: »

That someone has to be in the UK though.

We are down to the wire and they are still eejiting about.

So, I propose that the EU council agrees an extension offer and puts it on the table ready for the Council meeting in Finland on Oct. 17th.

The offer spells out that a fixed one (or better, two!) year extension is available to the UK if they request it any time up to 23:59:59 on Oct 31st. No other extension will be entertained, and any request for a shorter or conditional extension will be rejected.

Over to you, Boris.

VinLieger

InTheShadows wrote: »

When the EU screws us over it's going to be epic watching the pro EU media here spin it as a win.

Your still waiting for that bus ehh?

Also bookmarking this for after October 31st or whenever Johnson sulks to europe to ask for another extension or to sign the WA