Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

blanch152 wrote: »

The cross-community consent is a double-edged sword. If I were the DUP, the question I would ask is whether cross-community assent should also apply to other constitutional issues affecting Northern Ireland.

I am sure that they would be happy to agree to a 66% requirement to leave the customs union if it also meant a 66% requirement to constitutionally leave the UK.

That's nonsense though. The GFA and the 50%+1 therein can't be used as a sweetener for those intransigent toddlers. It's not our fault they've been unable to come along on this journey like adults.

Strazdas

Enzokk wrote: »

It's the weekend so a Tony Connolly recap is available,

Brexit breakthrough: Injury time winner, or fatal gambit?


There isn't much new to the information that is out there already. It seems that the precise details of what the UK has offered to the EU to get past the impasse is not known outside of those involved in the discussions. What he does confirm is that the talks happening is exploratory in nature and they have not entered in the tunnel as there is still a way to go before they can get there. It does seem like the idea being pushed right now is close to what May proposed and what made Johnson ultimately resign from cabinet. That is why I have my doubts about the sincerity of the UK with these talks, they will fail because Johnson has resigned before over these same proposals.

The gist of what Connelly is saying is that people in the EU are scratching their heads and are not sure what Johnson is up or if he is sincere about a deal or not (it probably just gives you an indication of how slippery he is).

LeinsterDub

quokula wrote: »

If you ignore what the UK media says about him and pay attention to what he actually does, he is literally the only major party leader who’s official policy is to have a people’s vote.

For now. He'll be announcing a new confusing mess, two horse riding of a compromise soon enough

hometruths

There is a lot of speculation not only that the proposal is the customs border down the Irish Sea, but also of a) what did Johnson want in return for this concession and b) how will he get this deal through parliament?

I suspect they might be linked. It is possible Johnson said to Leo/EU "The only way to solve this is to throw the DUP under the bus. I will do that and put the deal to a vote in the HoC if and only if the EU are prepared to say now it really is Deal or No Deal. i.e publicly rule out any extension after 31st October if this deal is not passed."

From Johnson's point of view that's a win/win. He delivers Brexit one way or another. From the EU's point of view it's a gamble, but one probably worth taking. The current HoC will never vote for anything unless there is a gun to their head, Johnson and the EU need to brandish that gun.

In these circumstances Johnson will get a healthy majority for his deal, as the most of the following should vote with him:

a) the bulk of the current Tory MPs
b) those expelled Tories that have not joined Lib Dems - they rebelled because they could not support anything that risked a No Deal, they can hardly vote down a deal that would result in No Deal.
c) Jacob Rees Mogg et al - i.e the ERG that are in government, they'll be whipped.
d) some of the Spartans - Steve Baker and his ilk - Johnson simply threatens them with deselection from the next election. He should get most of them.
e) The Labour Party - cannot see how Corbyn can honestly say vote against the government in the knowledge that it would result in No Deal. Even if did whip to vote against the deal, there should be enough Labour MPs keen to avoid to No Deal to get Johnson over the line with the above.

Basically if Johnson has played his cards right he will have backed the HoC into a corner of their own making.

Next week will be very interesting!!

CelticRambler

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I think the point about NI special status isnt so much European companies trading into the UK, but the other way around.

Lets take a UK bank. By setting up a sub office in Derry, they will have a base with access to the EU trade through.

Or a manufacturer. They could have a finishing plant in Newry and thus it would be manufactured in the EU.

The courts in Belfast could become the nexus point for all contract disputes between UK and EU companies.

US/Japanese firms who want to set up in the UK might look more favourably on Ni due to special status etc.

Yeah, but ... there's no reason for services to be included in an NI special status arrangement (not as part of the EU): you can't "smuggle" services, they're either provided or not, and it'd be just as easy to set up a registered office in a "real" EU country as a pseudo-state with limited access.

Ditto for US/Asian firms - they're not going to be making long-term investment decisions based on short-term arrangements. As it is, the Japanese are reducing their involvement in GB, so there'd have to be a damn good reason for them to want to set up a new base in NI, physically cut off from GB, not properly in the EU, and subject to the whim of a population that can't even maintain its own local government.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

There is a lot of speculation not only that the proposal is the customs border down the Irish Sea, but also of a) what did Johnson want in return for this concession and b) how will he get this deal through parliament?

I suspect they might be linked. It is possible Johnson said to Leo/EU "The only way to solve this is to throw the DUP under the bus. I will do that and put the deal to a vote in the HoC if and only if the EU are prepared to say now it really is Deal or No Deal. i.e publicly rule out any extension after 31st October if this deal is not passed."

From Johnson's point of view that's a win/win. He delivers Brexit one way or another. From the EU's point of view it's a gamble, but one probably worth taking. The current HoC will never vote for anything unless there is a gun to their head, Johnson and the EU need to brandish that gun.

In these circumstances Johnson will get a healthy majority for his deal, as the most of the following should vote with him:

a) the bulk of the current Tory MPs
b) those expelled Tories that have not joined Lib Dems - they rebelled because they could not support anything that risked a No Deal, they can hardly vote down a deal that would result in No Deal.
c) Jacob Rees Mogg et al - i.e the ERG that are in government, they'll be whipped.
d) some of the Spartans - Steve Baker and his ilk - Johnson simply threatens them with deselection from the next election. He should get most of them.
e) The Labour Party - cannot see how Corbyn can honestly say vote against the government in the knowledge that it would result in No Deal. Even if did whip to vote against the deal, there should be enough Labour MPs keen to avoid to No Deal to get Johnson over the line with the above.

Basically if Johnson has played his cards right he will have backed the HoC into a corner of their own making.

Next week will be very interesting!!

You could be on the mark with some or even most of that. As regards Labour position, i'd agree it puts them in a bit of a bind in that if a possible deal failed because they didn't vote for it then that could easily be used as a stick to beat them with during a subsequent campaign. But i still cant see how they could possibly back a deal, essentially may's deal with a bit of added fluff, without a second referendum guarantee. I thought the Benn Act made clear that any deal not passed by the house then led to extension so it opposing it doesnt automatically lead to no deal on that basis.

briany

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I thought the Benn Act made clear that any deal not passed by the house then led to extension so it opposing it doesnt automatically lead to no deal on that basis.

The Benn Act forces Johnson (ostensibly) to seek an extension. Obviously enough, it does not force the EU to grant one.

Anyway, the EU would be mad to agree to Johnson's potential proposal of ruling out an extension in exchange for concessions on the North. There are way too many variables in that equation. Johnson has shown himself as being way, way, way too untrustworthy already.

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You could be on the mark with some or even most of that. As regards Labour position, i'd agree it puts them in a bit of a bind in that if a possible deal failed because they didn't vote for it then that could easily be used as a stick to beat them with during a subsequent campaign. But i still cant see how they could possibly back a deal, essentially may's deal with a bit of added fluff, without a second referendum guarantee. I thought the Benn Act made clear that any deal not passed by the house then led to extension so it opposing it doesnt automatically lead to no deal on that basis.

The Benn Act only forces the PM to request an extension, it obviously does not place any obligation on the EU to grant one. If they refuse to grant one it is no deal by default. As the EU repeatedly say, the only way to avoid no deal is to vote for a deal.

If the EU have said before the vote that they will not grant an extension, it would be a hell of risk to vote against the deal. Essentially you would be voting for No Deal.

hometruths

briany wrote: »

Anyway, the EU would be mad to agree to Johnson's potential proposal of ruling out an extension in exchange for concessions on the North. There are way too many variables in that equation. Johnson has shown himself as being way, way, way too untrustworthy already.

I disagree with this, the EU are nothing if not pragmatic. And I suspect they might like a good excuse to refuse an extension and here it is.

Also irrespective of how untrustworthy Johnson is, if the NI staying in EU customs zone deal is on paper to the EUs satisfaction and is passed by the HoC, then it does not really matter how many different sides of his mouth Johnson is talking out of.

I agree Johnson wouldn't lie straight in the bed, but he is UK PM and the EU have to deal with him. They cannot just agree to nothing because they don't trust him. That makes them as bad as British HoC.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

The Benn Act only forces the PM to request an extension, it obviously does not place any obligation on the EU to grant one. If they refuse to grant one it is no deal by default. As the EU repeatedly say, the only way to avoid no deal is to vote for a deal.

If the EU have said before the vote that they will not grant an extension, it would be a hell of risk to vote against the deal. Essentially you would be voting for No Deal.

Yes, i understand that. My phrasing was unclear, what i meant was that Benn Act (though i'd have to recheck to be absolutely 100%) specifies that that extension would have to be sought in the event any deal doesn't pass the house. The timescale all seems a little fraught to me on that basis, but that's what i believe the act says anyway. If the EU was to come out against extension before that, then all bets are off, but no way i believe it would do so, sounds a bit reckless. I'm not of a mind that we'll even get to this point next week anyway, so maybe moot, but interesting to see how it develops all the same.

An Ciarraioch

This is an excellent academic article, that appears to have been made publicly available, about how the DUP have influenced Brexit, and relations both N/S and E/W:

https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1057/s41293-019-00126-3?author_access_token=1z1e9uMFBYJ2hFFSuy0cVlxOt48VBPO10Uv7D6sAgHvXa9_zn5TiEm3TjZ8rakeCsnKEub0mpSvc2hKDIdpwfdcGjvXfDXz59pCSc9JPKJwDBQNbBVEJEiQezxh-OffZdP_Q4pL-rlvpsI-bQEC0ug%3D%3D

hometruths

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yes, i understand that. My phrasing was unclear, what i meant was that Benn Act (though i'd have to recheck to be absolutely 100%) specifies that that extension would have to be sought in the event any deal doesn't pass the house. The timescale all seems a little fraught to me on that basis, but that's what i believe the act says anyway. If the EU was to come out against extension before that, then all bets are off, but no way i believe it would do so, sounds a bit reckless. I'm not of a mind that we'll even get to this point next week anyway, so maybe moot, but interesting to see how it develops all the same.

I agree that for them to come out against an extension sounds a bit reckless, but I am not convinced it actually is reckless! I can imagine a conversation a little like thus:

BJ: So EU would you be happy with the deal putting customs borders in the Irish Sea as per your December 2017 proposal.
EU: Absolutely BJ that ticks all our boxes. But how will you get that through that the HoC?
BJ: I cannot get anything through the HoC as long as MPs can keep voting to request an extension. If you publicly rule out an extension before the vote I think they will pass the deal.
EU: Hmm BJ, that sounds like a bit of a reckless gamble. We don't trust you, what guarantees can you give us?
BJ: The only guarantee I can give you is that if this deal fails and we have another extension there will be an election. I will seek a majority to come back to government and pursue a No Deal Brexit. Labour will seek a majority for God knows what, maybe a second referendum, who knows how that will play out. Maybe remain win and we revoke A50 in which case you'll have Farage and co clogging up the MEP for the forseeable. Or maybe Leave will win again and we are no further on.
EU: Hmm, that sounds like a bit of a gamble as well. Leave it with us, we'll call Macron, he'll be only too happy to play the hard man of Europe and publicly declare he will veto any extension if this deal fails.

As long as they are happy with whatever deal is on the table, it is in the EU's interest to get it passed asap without any further messing. If they have the ability to improve the odds of it passing in the HoC in my opinion it would actually be reckless if they did not do it.

Edit to add: Also if the EU rule out the extension and then HoC vote down a withdrawal agreement deal resulting in NO Deal, the blame is squarely on the UK MPs not the EU.

briany

schmittel wrote: »

I disagree with this, the EU are nothing if not pragmatic. And I suspect they might like a good excuse to refuse an extension and here it is.

Also irrespective of how untrustworthy Johnson is, if the NI staying in EU customs zone deal is on paper to the EUs satisfaction and is passed by the HoC, then it does not really matter how many different sides of his mouth Johnson is talking out of.

I agree Johnson wouldn't lie straight in the bed, but he is UK PM and the EU have to deal with him. They cannot just agree to nothing because they don't trust him. That makes them as bad as British HoC.

Yes, the EU are pragmatic, which begs the question why they'd leave the question of deal or no deal entirely up to Johnson and the wider state of British party politics, if they don't have to. Johnson's not even in a position to demand that concessions on the North are requited with taking an extension off the table. He's already promised multiple times that the UK will be out by the 31st, do or die, and faces a potential electoral pummelling if that doesn't happen. All the agreement between the UK and EU negotiators need be is,

- Agreed deal
- Agree to vote on it by a certain date (ideally several days) pre-31/10
- If the EU ratifies it, and the UK doesn't, extension legislation is triggered
- If the UK cannot ratify the deal, Johnson will probably be able to blame the opposition, saving at least some face.

Leroy42

it depends on whether the EU believes that a 2nd ref can ever take place. A deal means Brexit actually happens. A no deal, the betting is that the effects would be so bad that a 2nd ref would come into play pretty quick, or at the very least the EU have an even stronger position.

So why would the EU take a gamble now?

hometruths

briany wrote: »

Yes, the EU are pragmatic, which begs the question why they'd leave the question of deal or no deal entirely up to Johnson and the wider state of British party politics, if they don't have to. Johnson's not even in a position to demand that concessions on the North are requited with taking an extension off the table. He's already promised multiple times that the UK will be out by the 31st, do or die, and faces a potential electoral pummelling if that doesn't happen.

I'm not convinced that he faces an electoral pummelling. I think it is possible that if he can spin it that the only reason he did not leave by the 31st was because parliament and the EU thwarted him, and by extension thwarted the will of the British people yadda yadda yadda.

I think there is a real danger that if this current parliament does not pass a deal the next one will vote for No Deal and nobody will be able to stop them.

CelticRambler

schmittel wrote: »

I can imagine a conversation a little like thus:

BJ: So EU would you be happy with the deal putting customs borders in the Irish Sea as per your December 2017 proposal.
EU: Absolutely BJ that ticks all our boxes. But how will you get that through that the HoC?
BJ: I cannot get anything through the HoC as long as MPs can keep voting to request an extension. If you publicly rule out an extension before the vote I think they will pass the deal.
EU: Hmm BJ, that sounds like a bit of a reckless gamble. We don't trust you, what guarantees can you give us?...

EU: We don't trust you. In any event, you're going to need an extension to complete the process of translating this deal into domestic UK law, so write the letter asking for an extension. Here's a pen and a sheet of paper.

fergiesfolly

Have the actions, behaviour and language of the DUP and the reappearance of Nationalist violence not damaged NI ability to attract FDI into the North regardless of the outcome of Brexit?
Who would want to deal with a group as vitriolic, spiteful and self destructive ( from a broader NI point of view) as the DUP.

Joe_ Public

CelticRambler wrote: »

EU: We don't trust you. In any event, you're going to need an extension to complete the process of translating this deal into domestic UK law, so write the letter asking for an extension. Here's a pen and a sheet of paper.

Absolutely, that's the bottom line. They require an extension anyway even in the (unlikely imo) event of a deal being agreed. So it's almost entirely moot speculating on what EU motives might be. Only question to my mind is do they offer an extension on the basis that a second ref is implied, ie at least 6 months or well beyond the mooted January deadline at least.

briany

schmittel wrote: »

I think there is a real danger that if this current parliament does not pass a deal the next one will vote for No Deal and nobody will be able to stop them.

If the next UKGE were to return a no-deal parliament, that'd be fair enough. It certainly wouldn't be my choice, but it would at least be a confirmation of what the British public wanted.

hometruths

Leroy42 wrote: »

it depends on whether the EU believes that a 2nd ref can ever take place. A deal means Brexit actually happens. A no deal, the betting is that the effects would be so bad that a 2nd ref would come into play pretty quick, or at the very least the EU have an even stronger position.

So why would the EU take a gamble now?

I suspect they have passed the point of wanting the UK to remain. For future EU/UK good relations really at this stage the UK have to leave. Either they will make a go of it in some shape or form, and the relationship can be rebuilt, or it will be a disaster and after some time they admit defeat and request reentry which will be granted and the relationship can be rebuilt.

If there was a 2nd referendum that voted remain the relationship will be toxic for another generation. The EU don't need the hassle.

That's why I think it is in the EUs best interests to get a deal done now. If another deal fails the two most likely outcomes are No Deal or Remain, I think both are worse options for EU than an orderly deal.

In fact I actually think a 52-48 Remain result in a second referendum would be worse for the EU than No Deal.

Edit: Sorry just reread your post, and I think we are saying the same thing!

hometruths

CelticRambler wrote: »

EU: We don't trust you. In any event, you're going to need an extension to complete the process of translating this deal into domestic UK law, so write the letter asking for an extension. Here's a pen and a sheet of paper.

My first post said:

publicly rule out any extension after 31st October if this deal is not passed.

i.e the only reason we'll grant an extension is to allow time for legislating the details of a deal that has been approved in HoC.

am i bovvered

schmittel wrote: »

There is a lot of speculation not only that the proposal is the customs border down the Irish Sea, but also of a) what did Johnson want in return for this concession and b) how will he get this deal through parliament?

I suspect they might be linked. It is possible Johnson said to Leo/EU "The only way to solve this is to throw the DUP under the bus. I will do that and put the deal to a vote in the HoC if and only if the EU are prepared to say now it really is Deal or No Deal. i.e publicly rule out any extension after 31st October if this deal is not passed."

From Johnson's point of view that's a win/win. He delivers Brexit one way or another. From the EU's point of view it's a gamble, but one probably worth taking. The current HoC will never vote for anything unless there is a gun to their head, Johnson and the EU need to brandish that gun.

In these circumstances Johnson will get a healthy majority for his deal, as the most of the following should vote with him:

a) the bulk of the current Tory MPs
b) those expelled Tories that have not joined Lib Dems - they rebelled because they could not support anything that risked a No Deal, they can hardly vote down a deal that would result in No Deal.
c) Jacob Rees Mogg et al - i.e the ERG that are in government, they'll be whipped.
d) some of the Spartans - Steve Baker and his ilk - Johnson simply threatens them with deselection from the next election. He should get most of them.
e) The Labour Party - cannot see how Corbyn can honestly say vote against the government in the knowledge that it would result in No Deal. Even if did whip to vote against the deal, there should be enough Labour MPs keen to avoid to No Deal to get Johnson over the line with the above.

Basically if Johnson has played his cards right he will have backed the HoC into a corner of their own making.

Next week will be very interesting!!

This is a great summary...... my only question is that if this happens then the EU are giving up any hope of a PV and the UK remaining.
I suppose the last few months of sitting in the European Parliament listening to the EU Brexit members spouting nonsense means that at this stage they are happy to see the back of the UK.

Enzokk

Labour cannot allow Brexit to happen with Johnson as PM. He promised it would happen on the 31st October and if it does and there is an election afterwards Labour will be lucky to have 200 MPs returned. I don't know how any Labour MP would vote for a Johnson deal when it excludes a lot of the concessions they won from May on worker's rights either.

There is more of a chance of a second referendum passing through the HoC than any new deal as the problem Johnson has is the same one May had, only he spaffed his majority up the wall. Too soft and the ERG and their 70 votes are against it, too hard and he cannot get Labour to support it in any way. Just like you cannot leave the customs union and have open borders, so it is with a deal. There is no way one gets through parliament the way he has set it up himself.

Joe_ Public

I think most labour mps will be hoping and praying a deal isnt brought back before the house next week. It's all very well saying Johnson will be in trouble for not living up to his promise, but they could still get some mileage out of the opposition not backing the deal and enhancing the perception that they just want to block brexit at any cost. We'll even get the bizarre "Corbyn the extreme remainer" trope thrown in for good measure. How many people will engage deep enough with the reality that the deal doesn't offer any of the guarantees and protections labour have been demanding? Dont know to be honest, but i'm not convinced their post October 31 position could be as good as people imagine.

Infini

briany wrote: »

If the next UKGE were to return a no-deal parliament, that'd be fair enough. It certainly wouldn't be my choice, but it would at least be a confirmation of what the British public wanted.

To be quite honest considering the distortionate effect of FPTP even thats not quite right. The conservatives have won a majority with a third of the vote remember.

CelticRambler

schmittel wrote: »

i.e the only reason we'll grant an extension is to allow time for legislating the details of a deal that has been approved in HoC.

Boris is a lame duck. There's no reason for the EU to hitch their wagon to his failing government, but it would be in the EU's interest not to bolt the stable door when there's another horse in there.

The EU can "live with" a crash-out Brexit, but if there's a chance the Rebel Alliance comes back to the EU and say "sorry for stupidity of the last lot, but we're here now and we don't have those silly red Tory lines. Would you give us a few months to get a plan together?" the EU would be daft to say no.

briany

Infini wrote: »

To be quite honest considering the distortionate effect of FPTP even thats not quite right. The conservatives have won a majority with a third of the vote remember.

Until the British choose otherwise, that's how their parliamentary elections are set up. It would be all the more reason for those of an anti-Brexit/anti-no-deal-Brexit to get out and vote themselves.

Inquitus

CelticRambler wrote: »

Boris is a lame duck. There's no reason for the EU to hitch their wagon to his failing government, but it would be in the EU's interest not to bolt the stable door when there's another horse in there.

The EU can "live with" a crash-out Brexit, but if there's a chance the Rebel Alliance comes back to the EU and say "sorry for stupidity of the last lot, but we're here now and we don't have those silly red Tory lines. Would you give us a few months to get a plan together?" the EU would be daft to say no.

I don't think the EU has that option, once they have left, things get much much more legally complex for them rejoin, so that would be the death of remain.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1183033512145969152

Johnson needs to dump the DUP. Simple as.

Water John

From reading Tony Conneeelly, my take was that the proposal came from the Irish side and Coveney went to Barnier first to run it past him, before contact with the UK.
I would presume the Irish Civil Service and strategists would have, game played all the scenarios suggested over the past 3 years. They went back to that folder, pulled out an old one from TM and suggested applying it to NI only.
Psst, don't tell the DUP.