Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

They don't have to win any seats at all in order to cost the Tories the election; by taking Tory votes they can deliver seats to Labour and the Lib Dems (as just happened in the Brecon & Radnorshire By-Election). Current opinion polls put them in the 10%-15% range, which is not impossible in an actual election; UKIP got 12.5% in 2015. And if they attract that level of votes in a general election, modelling suggests that could net them zero seats or possibly 1 seat, but could cost the Tories 30-50 seats.

I know. And I'm quite sure that Cummings et al also know. And as I pointed out, Farage has suggested a pact with the Tories that would negate this effect. Whether or not that pact will be formed, Farage may well decide that targeting Labour seats in Leave constituencies may prove a more fertile ground than fighting and losing in Tory constituencies and harming his own interests by giving a boost to the (likely to be formed) remain alliance. Brecon and Radnorshire was a message to all parties, not just the LibDems.

Leroy42

lola85 wrote: »

The government needs to back down and accept Britain won’t accept the backstop.

It’s time to drop it.

She’s is unbelievable.

Has she given any indication of what the alternative is?

Or is she simply of the view that the SM and CU rules and regulations should cease to apply? Johnson in his letter to Tusk reiterated that the UK intends to diverge in standards.

Leroy42

Berserker wrote: »

The UK has said that it will not build a hard border on the island of Ireland. Case closed on that front. The EU views the matter differently and they will want to see a physical border on the island once Brexit becomes a reality. Ireland will be told to build and man that border. If they refuse to do so, they will be punished by the EU.

The UK says a lot of things. Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed wasn't it?

FrancieBrady

Leroy42 wrote: »

Has she given any indication of what the alternative is?

Or is she simply of the view that the SM and CU rules and regulations should cease to apply? Johnson in his letter to Tusk reiterated that the UK intends to diverge in standards.

The poster is wrong that it was 'Miriam's view'. She was just doing her job with the interviewee (Patrick O'Donovan FG I think) and playing devil's advocate.

Dytalus

Berserker wrote: »

The UK has said that it will not build a hard border on the island of Ireland. Case closed on that front. The EU views the matter differently and they will want to see a physical border on the island once Brexit becomes a reality. Ireland will be told to build and man that border. If they refuse to do so, they will be punished by the EU.

In the absence of border controls in the Irish Sea, the UK will need to establish a border on the island of Ireland. The only alternative is the one presented. Other nations of the world will refuse to deal with the UK if they see the EU (and Ireland in particular) getting preferential treatment for free in the absence of UK border controls.

This has been explained a thousand times. The case is not closed. The UK can say they won't put up a border all they like, it does not make it so. It doesn't allow them to handwave away and ignore all the international obligations they have committed to by joining the WTO.

Without the backstop, there will be a border. On both sides. The only question is who puts it up first.

murphaph

Berserker wrote: »

The UK has said that it will not build a hard border on the island of Ireland. Case closed on that front. The EU views the matter differently and they will want to see a physical border on the island once Brexit becomes a reality. Ireland will be told to build and man that border. If they refuse to do so, they will be punished by the EU.

You mean we will choose to protect OUR single market. Of course we will. It's the bedrock of our prosperity. Nobody will make us do anything. Irish agri-food will be the first sector calling for controls on goods coming across from NI.

CelticRambler

On the subject of Brexit preparedness, it seems that Britain's exporters are still sauntering forwards in the belief that "it'll be alright on the night":

Until now, the 250,000 businesses that export to the EU have been encouraged to ask for a customs pass. About 72,000 had signed up by last month.

The Guardian is reporting that the government has finally realised that maybe it'd be easier to just assign exporter identities to everyone, instead of waiting for them to ask. :rolleyes:

Business lobby groups said it had taken months of discussions with the Treasury to persuade ministers they should allocate numbers rather than wait for businesses to sign up.

But ...

Even with a customs pass there is no guarantee the EU will recognise Eori numbers after 31 October should a no-deal Brexit go ahead.

So much unjoined-up thinking.

Peregrinus

Berserker wrote: »

The UK has said that it will not build a hard border on the island of Ireland. Case closed on that front.

I'm not sure that the British government has said that. They have said rather lesser things.

For example, in his letter yesterday to Tusk, Johnson says:

"This government will not put in place infrastructure, checks, or controls at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland."

This only refers to what is done actually at the border. It's nothing like a commitment not to put in place a hard border since, obviously, the border can be hardened by infrastructure, checks and controls not physically located at the border. And of course it can be hardened by the imposition of tariffs on cross-border trade, something Johnson's letter fails entirely to mention.

Plus, please note, even this watered-down statement only refers to what "this government" will do. "This government" is not likely to last very long, especially if there is a no-deal Brexit. Johnson isn't making any commitment to legislate this commitment; it's just a policy which will be pursued while "this government" endures.

The truth is that the UK government does intend to do things which will give rise to a hard border. We know this if only because, if they had no intention of doing anything which would harden the border, they would accept the backstop obligations, since those obligations would not constrain them from doing anything they wanted to do.

Berserker wrote: »

The EU views the matter differently and they will want to see a physical border on the island once Brexit becomes a reality. Ireland will be told to build and man that border. If they refuse to do so, they will be punished by the EU.

If the UK unilaterally terminates the arrangements which currently avoid a hard border, and unilaterally refuses to enter into the replacement arrangements it has negotiated for the same purpose, then, yes, there will be hard border, and the EU will expect Ireland to do what Member States on the external border of the EU have to do. Ireland will not refuse; we are not going to sacrifice our place in the single market in the interest of the Brexiter project.

prawnsambo

54&56 wrote: »

Actually, having a GE on B day Oct 31st could be a master stroke. It would be the moment of peak Brexit optimisim for Brexiteers before the hard realities of a no deal kick in.

Not really. It may as well be held the following day. If nothing has happened before the 31st, then there's no chance of it happening on that day. The cat is still out of the box and the other, less hard-brexity constituency will know the game is up. At that point, they could switch to Labour or LibDem and ditch the Tories.

In order to win a majority, the Tories need to attract as many voters as possible. The hard brexiters are not enough on their own, and many of them are in Labour constituencies. So Johnson needs to attract a wider cohort. And all he really needs is to keep the gap between the Tories and Labour as wide as possible. FPTP helps him here.

CelticRambler

Let's say BoJo tries for a 31st Oct ballot, is there any means (fair or foul!) by which either/both Labour and the Lib Dems could cause an election to be delayed by a few weeks? Enough time for the first effects of a crash-out-no-deal Brexit to be seen on the streets and in the shops?

Leroy42

Apparently it is a public holiday in much of Europe on 1st November, and Gove has raised the suggestion that the UK might make it a public holiday as well.

But even if they don't it is very likely that most people and business's have made plans around the basis that there will be disruption on 1st. People will not want to travel unnecessarily on that day for fear of being stuck.

It will probably be akin to the day that the latest eastern Europeans countries got access to FoM into the UK and you have TV crews at arrivals at airports awaiting the influx of Romanians etc and nothing unusual happened. It will be over a number of weeks that the effects start to be noticed.

So holding a GE on or around that day makes better sense than waiting until the expected, and based on the YellowHammer leak it is fully expected, chaos to happen and try to run an election campaign in the midst of that. Given what they expect will happen on No Deal, the Tories have a very small window to try to hoodwink the UK voters into giving them 5 full years to try to dig themselves out of the whole and get their full range of deregulations etc through.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not really. It may as well be held the following day. If nothing has happened before the 31st, then there's no chance of it happening on that day. The cat is still out of the box and the other, less hard-brexity constituency will know the game is up. At that point, they could switch to Labour or LibDem and ditch the Tories.

In order to win a majority, the Tories need to attract as many voters as possible. The hard brexiters are not enough on their own, and many of them are in Labour constituencies. So Johnson needs to attract a wider cohort. And all he really needs is to keep the gap between the Tories and Labour as wide as possible. FPTP helps him here.

To win an election Johnson needs to recapture virtually the whole of the Brexit Party vote.

But, he needs to not do this by methods which alienate moderate Tories and drive them to the Lib Dems or elsewhere.

So the easiest way is not to have an election until Brexit has actually happend. Once Brexit has happened, especially a no-deal Brexit, the Brexit Party's whole reason for existing evaporates. It's not really a party; it has no policies, no platform, no record of acheivement in government at any level; no prominent personalities other than Farage, who himself has no record of achievement. It's a single-issue campaign more than a party. The day after Brexit, it's history.

Tell me how

storker wrote: »

Stay PM is my bet. I remember Mary Harney saying "Your worst day in government is still better than your best day in opposition". I don't see why that...er...principle wouldn't apply just as much in Westminster as it does in Kildare Street.

Brexit has changed a few rules.
I'd say half the Tories would love to be firing out accusations across the house for a while than receiving them.
I just wouldn't trust that Boris could hold on to Tory leadership for 3 years in order to make his return.

BonnieSituation

lola85 wrote: »

The government needs to back down and accept Britain won’t accept the backstop.

It’s time to drop it.

She’s is unbelievable.

I always take any of here inane comments on anything serious or political as FF kite flying.

It always feels like the brother has a word in her ear all the time.

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

Let's say BoJo tries for a 31st Oct ballot, is there any means (fair or foul!) by which either/both Labour and the Lib Dems could cause an election to be delayed by a few weeks? Enough time for the first effects of a crash-out-no-deal Brexit to be seen on the streets and in the shops?

UK election law is massively complicated, and the rules about timing depend on the circumstances in wich the election is called.

But the first step in calling an election is dissolving parliament, and once parliament is dissolved there is nothing the opposition parties can do to delay (or advance) the election, because parliament isn't sitting, and can't sit until after the election - during this period, there is no parliament.

So if Johnson want to have an election on a given date and the opposition don't want the election until later, the only way they can acheive that is trying to make it impossible for him to call the election in the first place - something that, at least in theory, is possible under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The problem is that if succeed in preventing him from calling an election now (but leave him as PM) you have no guarantee that he will move to have an election in a month or two. And since opposition parties generally want an election - it's pretty much the only way they can ever stop being opposition parties - that's something that would weigh very heavily with them.

So, really, what they would have to do is to get a vote of no confidence passed, and then put together an alternative government that could take office without a general election. Which there is much talk of. But it would need the backing of virtually every single non-Tory member of the House of Commons, plus a number of rebel Tories. And that's a very hard coalition to assemble.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

To win an election Johnson needs to recapture virtually the whole of the Brexit Party vote.

But, he needs to not do this by methods which alienate moderate Tories and drive them to the Lib Dems or elsewhere.

So the easiest way is not to have an election until Brexit has actually happend. Once Brexit has happened, especially a no-deal Brexit, the Brexit Party's whole reason for existing evaporates. It's not really a party; it has no policies, no platform, no record of acheivement in government at any level; no prominent personalities other than Farage, who himself has no record of achievement. It's a single-issue campaign more than a party. The day after Brexit, it's history.

If he does that, he's already lost the moderate Tory voter to the LibDems. So he's gained the BP vote and lost a similar chunk to the LibDems. And a lot of BP votes are in Labour leave constituencies. By your reckoning; having wiped out the BP, he's just given their votes back to Labour. And the Scottish Tories are dead meat too as well as (quite possibly) those in Wales. As for the DUP? I wouldn't fancy their chances of keeping all their seats either.

ArmaniJeanss

Having an election in late October seems almost impossible to me.

General Elections are all-consuming affairs where the cabinet basically campaigns for a month all around the country, including weekends, appearing in debates, constantly available for interviews. They are a tightrope walk, one false step on the wrong day can set you back 2 percentage points.

During an election campaign the affairs of government tend to just chug along with the civil service taking control.

But in this case the preparations for Brexit are going to need the complete attention of the Cabinet in the run-up to November 1st. Pro or anti-Brexit, I don't think anyone would disagree that the run-up to a no-deal Brexit is going to be the most demanding time for the UK in about 60 years.

Surely you can't run a campaign and run Brexit preps at the same time.

To an extent the same applies to an early November election as the campaign would overlap too much.

embraer170

Full review of HS2 launched. The U.K. is starting to cut investment in infrastructure. Not good for the economy in the long-term.

MarinersBlues

Simon Coveney did very well with Miriam on RTE just now.
I am not a FG supporter for the most part but he inspires a fair bit of confidence in me that we will handle this correctly.

He batted back every question that was based on a misleading or inaccurate predicate very effectively.
He does a great job of cutting through the BS and dealing with cold hard facts and reality.

The UK are sorely missing a politician or tv presesnter that can do that.

Tell me how

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Simon Coveney did very well with Miriam on RTE just now.
I am not a FG supporter for the most part but he inspires a fair bit of confidence in me that we will handle this correctly.

He batted back very question that was based on a misleading or inaacurate predicate very effectively.
He does a great job of cutting through the BS and dealing with cold hard facts and reality.

The UK are sorely missing a politician or tv presesnter that can do that.

Should there be a GE in Ireland before Brexit has either been revoked or carried out, I would actually consider voting for local FG (ordinarily they'll probably lose out as I find them uninspiring) candidates in an effort to ensure he maintains holding such a key role.

I know it'll be a critical election for Ireland as every GE should, but Brexit status will be influential.

Leroy42

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Having an election in late October seems almost impossible to me.

General Elections are all-consuming affairs where the cabinet basically campaigns for a month all around the country, including weekends, appearing in debates, constantly available for interviews. They are a tightrope walk, one false step on the wrong day can set you back 2 percentage points.

During an election campaign the affairs of government tend to just chug along with the civil service taking control.

But in this case the preparations for Brexit are going to need the complete attention of the Cabinet in the run-up to November 1st. Pro or anti-Brexit, I don't think anyone would disagree that the run-up to a no-deal Brexit is going to be the most demanding time for the UK in about 60 years.

Surely you can't run a campaign and run Brexit preps at the same time.

To an extent the same applies to an early November election as the campaign would overlap too much.

Well, on the basis that the Tories seem interested in party than country, and the fact they they seem to have treated any preparations or even the notion that No Deal will lead to significant issues as a nonsense I really don't see that they would have much issue with taking such a course of action.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

If he does that, he's already lost the moderate Tory voter to the LibDems. So he's gained the BP vote and lost a similar chunk to the LibDems. And a lot of BP votes are in Labour leave constituencies. By your reckoning; having wiped out the BP, he's just given their votes back to Labour. And the Scottish Tories are dead meat too as well as (quite possibly) those in Wales. As for the DUP? I wouldn't fancy their chances of keeping all their seats either.

I take your points.

There's no easy route to an election victory for Johnson; the issue is whether before 31 Oct or after is the better of two not very good prospects.

Whether before or after, he has to crush the Brexit Party. If they get 10-15%, the Tories cannot get a majority. The fact that they may also deny some seats to the Labour party is irrelevant. So, which makes it easier to crush the BP; before or after Brexit? After, is the obvious answer because, as already pointed out, they are irrelevant after Brexit. As for Tory Remainers switching to Lib Dem or others, Johnson may reckon that this is also a lower risk after Brexit; there may be less temptation to switch to a Remain party when it is too late to affect the nature and timing of Brexit. Post-brexit, Tory remainers (or more of them, anyway) may reckon that keeping Corbyn out is the bigger priority.

Plus, if Johnson hold an election post-Brexit he will at least have acheived something that he can point to. If he holds an election pre-brexit, he is vulnerable to the charge that he is faffing about, wasting valuable time, distracting attention from the issues, holding an election that he didn't need to hold. Elections aren't popular; holding an unscheduled and perceived-to-be-unnecessary election didn't work out well for Teresa May.

sandyxxx

According to a campaigner on SKY BoJo is off around Europe proposing Ireland temporarily LEAVES the customs union to facilitate Brexit.....the Tory rep isn’t denying it.....WE ARE DEALING WITH CLOWNS!

Oafley Jones

Peregrinus wrote: »

UK election law is massively complicated, and the rules about timing depend on the circumstances in wich the election is called.

But the first step in calling an election is dissolving parliament, and once parliament is dissolved there is nothing the opposition parties can do to delay (or advance) the election, because parliament isn't sitting, and can't sit until after the election - during this period, there is no parliament.

So if Johnson want to have an election on a given date and the opposition don't want the election until later, the only way they can acheive that is trying to make it impossible for him to call the election in the first place - something that, at least in theory, is possible under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The problem is that if succeed in preventing him from calling an election now (but leave him as PM) you have no guarantee that he will move to have an election in a month or two. And since opposition parties generally want an election - it's pretty much the only way they can ever stop being opposition parties - that's something that would weigh very heavily with them.

So, really, what they would have to do is to get a vote of no confidence passed, and then put together an alternative government that could take office without a general election. Which there is much talk of. But it would need the backing of virtually every single non-Tory member of the House of Commons, plus a number of rebel Tories. And that's a very hard coalition to assemble.

Outside of terms/No confidence motion, doesn't calling an election require a 2/3 majority in the commons? I know Labour are keen, but why wouldn't anyone let the Tories sit what they've created for a while.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

UK election law is massively complicated, and the rules about timing depend on the circumstances in wich the election is called.

But the first step in calling an election is dissolving parliament, and once parliament is dissolved there is nothing the opposition parties can do to delay (or advance) the election, because parliament isn't sitting, and can't sit until after the election - during this period, there is no parliament.

So if Johnson want to have an election on a given date and the opposition don't want the election until later, the only way they can acheive that is trying to make it impossible for him to call the election in the first place - something that, at least in theory, is possible under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. The problem is that if succeed in preventing him from calling an election now (but leave him as PM) you have no guarantee that he will move to have an election in a month or two. And since opposition parties generally want an election - it's pretty much the only way they can ever stop being opposition parties - that's something that would weigh very heavily with them.

So, really, what they would have to do is to get a vote of no confidence passed, and then put together an alternative government that could take office without a general election. Which there is much talk of. But it would need the backing of virtually every single non-Tory member of the House of Commons, plus a number of rebel Tories. And that's a very hard coalition to assemble.

On selecting an election date, it seems pretty clear what the procedure is if Johnson loses a VONC, but if he were to propose an election date post Brexit day it would put Corbyn in some difficulty. Corbyn would get exactly what Labour has been campaigning for, but the cost would be no-deal Brexit. So you wonder if that situation would arise what Labour would do. Would Corbyn go for the election but risk being the third or possible fourth biggest party in the HoC (having facilitated not just Brexit but a no-deal Brexit and I doubt he will campaign on becoming EU members again), or give up his chance for power to try and stop no-deal Brexit by forcing the government to sit until the 31st October and doing everything he can to stop it?

Leroy42

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Outside of terms/No confidence motion, doesn't calling an election require a 2/3 majority in the commons? I know Labour are keen, but why wouldn't anyone let the Tories sit what they've created for a while.

Corbyn has stated numerous times that he wants a GE. He can't then turn the opportunity to get to that with any credibility.

Berserker

Dytalus wrote: »

Other nations of the world will refuse to deal with the UK if they see the EU (and Ireland in particular) getting preferential treatment for free in the absence of UK border controls.

Yes, I can see China and the UK refusing to trade with the UK, a G8 nation because of the Irish border. Trump is going to turn his back on a deal, which puts America first, give US pharma firms access to the NHS because of a border on an island, which is 1/5th of the size of Texas. The level of self-importance on this forum is something to behold at times.

Peregrinus wrote: »

and the EU will expect Ireland to do what Member States on the external border of the EU have to do. Ireland will not refuse; we are not going to sacrifice our place in the single market in the interest of the Brexiter project.

Thanks for clearing that up but you need to take you green tinted glasses off and stop trying to put the blame on the UK for the hard border. It is going to be and was always going to be EU driven.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

I take your points.

There's no easy route to an election victory for Johnson; the issue is whether before 31 Oct or after is the better of two not very good prospects.

Whether before or after, he has to crush the Brexit Party. If they get 10-15%, the Tories cannot get a majority. The fact that they may also deny some seats to the Labour party is irrelevant. So, which makes it easier to crush the BP; before or after Brexit? After, is the obvious answer because, as already pointed out, they are irrelevant after Brexit. As for Tory Remainers switching to Lib Dem or others, Johnson may reckon that this is also a lower risk after Brexit; there may be less temptation to switch to a Remain party when it is too late to affect the nature and timing of Brexit. Post-brexit, Tory remainers (or more of them, anyway) may reckon that keeping Corbyn out is the bigger priority.

Plus, if Johnson hold an election post-Brexit he will at least have acheived something that he can point to. If he holds an election pre-brexit, he is vulnerable to the charge that he is faffing about, wasting valuable time, distracting attention from the issues, holding an election that he didn't need to hold. Elections aren't popular; holding an unscheduled and perceived-to-be-unnecessary election didn't work out well for Teresa May.

Just to take your last point first. He can't take the blame for an election if it's 'forced' on him by losing a VONC or a Queen's speech. He can then take the stand of looking for a majority in order to carry his mission out without [insert epithet of choice here] hamstringing him at every turn.

You make a reasonable point about moderate Tories not wanting to let Corbyn into number ten and accepting that brexit is a done deal. But that doesn't account for the fact that calling an election for after b-day 3 takes all the ambiguity out of the issue. For weeks in advance. The Schroedinger's brexit is irretrievably dead. From day one. The only way for remain/soft brexit voters to react to this is to coalesce and try and wipe the Tories out. We're no longer talking about possibilities. Hard brexit will have happened and the execution date set.

J Mysterio

sandyxxx wrote: »

According to a campaigner on SKY BoJo is off around Europe proposing Ireland temporarily LEAVES the customs union to facilitate Brexit.....the Tory rep isn’t denying it.....WE ARE DEALING WITH CLOWNS!

I think the point they are trying to convey is that the UK cannot be asked to stay in a backstop when Ireland would not countenance staying in the UK orbit to facilitate a deal?

That's the only thing I can think they might mean. The two things are not the same and it's clearly absolutely preposterous and insulting in how deranged the proposition is but, hey, there we are. It's playing stupid, which Boris is good at.

prawnsambo

J Mysterio wrote: »

I think the point they are trying to convey is that the UK cannot be asked to stay in a backstop when Ireland would not countenance staying in the UK orbit to facilitate a deal?

That's the only thing I can think they might mean. The two things are not the same and it's clearly absolutely preposterous and insulting in how deranged the proposition is but, hey, there we are. It's playing stupid, which Boris is good at.

Well this is where it has come from. EU has to be 'flexible' apparently.