Brexit discussion thread XI (Please read OP before posting)

J Mysterio

Snippet here of Johnson's CPC speech.

The man is so disingenuous, it's stomach churning.

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1179390505450397697

Water John

The Ireland-France interconnector has been on the go with at least 10 years. Hardly a response to Brexit.

An Ciarraioch

gooch2k9 wrote: »

That's something they are very good at up here. If you'd believe them you would think only one side ever caused any bother.

Any word on the proposals being presented?

RTE saying Varadkar Johnson phone call later on.

Press conferences will begin in exactly two hours:

https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1179388366439227392

Joe_ Public

quokula wrote: »

That was the day before the vote.

This is what Yougov were projecting when that general election was actually called:

Yep, it was those favourable polls that actually led Theresa May to call the election in the first place. There was a good piece on polling in Saturdays Guardian last. It mentioned the 2014 Indy ref in which Cameron felt the need to grant the Scots parliament more powers two days before the vote after a you gov poll had the nationalists 2 points ahead.

Andrew Cooper, of the polling firm Populus, told how they'd reviewed their methodology after getting the 2015 election wrong and still got 2017 wrong. This is what he said in the piece: "We came to the conclusion that the underlying methodology problems of voting-intention polls are so fundamental that we can't solve them......the traditional voting-intention poll is actually just a rubbish product. It's an attempt by asking only two questions to get at what is getting to be an incredibly complex piece of information."

On the other hand, You Gov did a constituency by constituency prediction for 2017 in terms of seats and seems they got 93% right, but that's obviously a sample of one so remains to be seen if they have found a more precise system of polling.

An Ciarraioch

Laura Kuenssberg has been given the details:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1179396838262280194

Hurrache

She grabbed them from here, they've not long published them
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-proposals-for-a-new-protocol-on-irelandnorthern-ireland?utm_source=6f722822-2a09-4a24-9beb-1a396a349e84&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications&utm_content=immediate

prawnsambo

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Laura Kuenssberg has been given the details:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1179396838262280194

So there goes the NI agri-food industry. And pretty much every other industry in NI.

LeinsterDub

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It's clearly the EU bribing us to back down on the backstop. :pac:

https://twitter.com/CiaranCuffe/status/1179397645544108032


More rowing behind from the EU

Hurrache

It's basically a time limited solution in everything but name. Stormont, if it ever sits again, has a veto, which we all know basically means the unionists have a veto. So come the end of the transition period they vote to exit this 'solution' and we're at the point in which the backstop sought to prevent.

LeinsterDub

Water John wrote: »

The Ireland-France interconnector has been on the go with at least 10 years. Hardly a response to Brexit.

The half billion is the response , or at least the timing of the announcement is

quokula

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Yep, it was those favourable polls that actually led Theresa May to call the election in the first place. There was a good piece on polling in Saturdays Guardian last. It mentioned the 2014 Indy ref in which Cameron felt the need to grant the Scots parliament more powers two days before the vote after a you gov poll had the nationalists 2 points ahead.

Andrew Cooper, of the polling firm Populus, told how they'd reviewed their methodology after getting the 2015 election wrong and still got 2017 wrong. This is what he said in the piece: "We came to the conclusion that the underlying methodology problems of voting-intention polls are so fundamental that we can't solve them......the traditional voting-intention poll is actually just a rubbish product. It's an attempt by asking only two questions to get at what is getting to be an incredibly complex piece of information."

On the other hand, You Gov did a constituency by constituency prediction for 2017 in terms of seats and seems they got 93% right, but that's obviously a sample of one so remains to be seen if they have found a more precise system of polling.

It's not really a matter of polling methodology. People just don't know who they're going to vote for when there's been no campaign yet.

The vast majority of people don't follow politics daily. They've just sort of taken by osmosis from the right wing press that is so dominant over there, which has left them with a vague dislike of Corbyn without knowing why, and lots of faith in the bright new Conservative leader. Exactly like last time.

Once a campaign gets under way, partly we've seen that Corbyn is a very strong and passionate campaigner, while Johnson was elected partially as a reaction to May being a poor campaigner, but he's had so many gaffes and failures since then that he hardly inspires confidence.

But campaigning is only a small part of it. More importantly is that voters actually engage their brains and start thinking about who to vote for. Lots of polls have shown that remove his name, Corbyn's policies are generally very popular with the electorate. And right now they've forgotten about policies, but when they start thinking about them again the polls will look very different.

Add to that the current Lib Dem remain vote, some of that will stick, but many remainers who say they're going to vote for the Lib Dems will start to realise when they sit down and think about it that a vote for the Lib Dems is only going to make a Tory government more likely, and a vote for Labour guarantees a second referendum between Remain and Soft Brexit. They'd be utterly insane not to vote for Labour if stopping Brexit is their priority.

By the same token Leavers may ditch Labour in favour of Tories or more likely the Brexit party though, which will likely be key to determining the outcome.

Akrasia

It seems the British solution to the NI Border is to try to drag the Republic of Ireland out with them

It is utterly unacceptable solution as any differences between the 'all ireland customs union' regulatory regime and the EU single market and customs union would result in the requirement for customs checks between Ireland and the EU

It's also an attempt to get around the backstop by making the arrangement contingent on being agreed to by the NI assembly which could easily be voted down, after Brexit has already happened, leaving nothing in it's place, in other words, getting around the backstop by climbing through the bathroom window

igCorcaigh

Sorry for my ignorance, but...

If the EU reject this new offering from BJ, how can a no deal happen, because of the Benn Act?

Parliament has rejected a no deal, so wouldn't it be mandatory then for the UK government to request an extension if no deal is available by October 31?

Dytalus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://twitter.com/CiaranCuffe/status/1179397645544108032
More rowing behind from the EU

I know this had been talked about before, but I had my doubts about whether it would happen. Nice to see that it's going ahead - solid show of support from the EU.

J Mysterio

Akrasia wrote: »

It seems the British solution to the NI Border is to try to drag the Republic of Ireland out with them

It is utterly unacceptable solution as any differences between the 'all ireland customs union' regulatory regime and the EU single market and customs union would result in the requirement for customs checks between Ireland and the EU

It's also an attempt to get around the backstop by making the arrangement contingent on being agreed to by the NI assembly which could easily be voted down, after Brexit has already happened, leaving nothing in it's place, in other words, getting around the backstop by climbing through the bathroom window

Exactly. Brings to mind Jeffrey Donaldson's one word reply to that unionist tool. This is completely unacceptable, and they know it.

J Mysterio

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Sorry for my ignorance, but...

If the EU reject this new offering from BJ, how can a no deal happen, because of the Benn Act?

Parliament has rejected a no deal, so wouldn't it be mandatory then for the UK government to request an extension if no deal is available by October 31?

That's the big question. Everyone expects some sort of chicanery from Johnson, but what exactly, is unclear.
The reality though is that he most likely does not want a No Deal Brexit - that is just looking tough for all the extremists and mentallers of the right.
What he really wants is an extension and general election, he just can't be seen to ask for it.

Nody

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Sorry for my ignorance, but...

If the EU reject this new offering from BJ, how can a no deal happen, because of the Benn Act?

Parliament has rejected a no deal, so wouldn't it be mandatory then for the UK government to request an extension if no deal is available by October 31?

Boris simply needs to delay / ignore the law to send in the request for extension. Take it to the courts and slow things down long enough to ensure he gets to 1st November and he's succeeded in his goal (if it's hard crash out). The more likely option is to force the parliament to call for an election and based on the election he / caretaker government put in place pending election can request an extension without looking weak to the brexiteers and go to election on "I will deliver Brexit and would have if those traitors did not stop me" to swoop up the Brexit vote and the Tory hardcore core voters.

An Ciarraioch

Unsurprisingly, Arlene is happy:

https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1179400476892303366

robinph

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Sorry for my ignorance, but...

If the EU reject this new offering from BJ, how can a no deal happen, because of the Benn Act?

Parliament has rejected a no deal, so wouldn't it be mandatory then for the UK government to request an extension if no deal is available by October 31?

It's why they are desperate for a VONC as that then deflects the blame for the extension from Johnson as the VONC would result in someone else doing the asking, or if the opposition really balls things up Johnson closing down parliament for the election and no-deal happening whilst people are looking the other way.

boggerman1

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Unsurprisingly, Arlene is happy:

https://twitter.com/DUPleader/status/1179400476892303366

If Arlene is happy living in the dmz then its a joke.

Nody

boggerman1 wrote: »

If Arlene is happy living in the dmz then its a joke.

Arlene is happy because she can vote to leave the deal and return NI to the UK after 4 years of separation basically. There's no permanent risk of staying outside the UK trade union etc. which is what the deal require as it's an "until resolved" backstop required rather than time limited which is what's offered.

is_that_so

robinph wrote: »

It's why they are desperate for a VONC as that then deflects the blame for the extension from Johnson as the VONC would result in someone else doing the asking, or if the opposition really balls things up Johnson closing down parliament for the election and no-deal happening whilst people are looking the other way.

That seems to be the only thing the Opposition agree on. He's not getting one, at least not until after 31st October.

briany

Nody wrote: »

Boris simply needs to delay / ignore the law to send in the request for extension. Take it to the courts and slow things down long enough to ensure he gets to 1st November and he's succeeded in his goal (if it's hard crash out). The more likely option is to force the parliament to call for an election and based on the election he / caretaker government put in place pending election can request an extension without looking weak to the brexiteers and go to election on "I will deliver Brexit and would have if those traitors did not stop me" to swoop up the Brexit vote and the Tory hardcore core voters.

As far as I know, even if Johnson flat refuses to request the extension, the request can still be proffered on his behalf. So, if the EU are wont to grant an extension and parliament are willing to approve the terms of that extension, then an extension will happen.

Kiith

Leo saying it's not promising...which is no surprise. No chance the EU will accept this, but will probably work well for Brexiteers who want anyone else to blame.

Nody

briany wrote: »

As far as I know, even if Johnson flat refuses to request the extension, the request can still be proffered on his behalf. So, if the EU are wont to grant an extension and parliament are willing to approve the terms of that extension, then an extension will happen.

But at this stage even with a new Corbyn lead government all we'd end up is at best a renegotiation of terms and that in turn would require an election. Hence I can't see a reason for EU to suggest an extension short of an planned election in the UK because that's the only way there can be any way forward. Extension to January 2020 will do nothing and opens up a whole new can of issues in terms of funding etc.

Hurrache

Nody wrote: »

Arlene is happy because she can vote to leave the deal and return NI to the UK after 4 years of separation basically. There's no permanent risk of staying outside the UK trade union etc. which is what the deal require as it's an "until resolved" backstop required rather than time limited which is what's offered.

I'm sure I read in their document they have a veto at the end of the transition period, and then every 4 years. The end of the transition period comes much sooner.

edit: yes, it's in here, section 3(13)

Our proposal is that, before the end of the transition period, and every four years
afterwards, the UK will provide an opportunity for democratic consent to these
arrangements in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, within the framework
set by the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement. If consent is withheld, the arrangements
will not enter into force or will lapse (as the case may be) after one year, and
arrangements will default to existing rules.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/836030/Explanatory_Note.pdf

igCorcaigh

Thanks for the replies.
Although I'm still no wiser if a no deal is legal or not.

If it comes down to a hard border either by a UK deal to impose one, or a default one by no deal, which option would the Irish government favour...

The no deal hard border, just because it could say they and the EU didn't sign up for it?

Or an agreed hard border, which the Irish government were forced into accepting, albeit temporary, at least on paper?

AlmightyCushion

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
Although I'm still no wiser if a no deal is legal or not.

If it comes down to a hard border either by a UK deal to impose one, or a default one by no deal, which option would the Irish government favour... The no deal hard border, just because it could say they and the EU didn't sign up for it? Or an agreed hard border, which the Irish government were forced into accepting, albeit temporary, at least on paper?

A no deal border puts us and the EU in a much stronger position. The UK will need a trade deal with the EU and we can tell them we won't consider a trade deal until they sort out the border issue and the divorce bill.

CelticRambler

Mefistofelino wrote: »

We still have to pony up at least half a billion Euro for infrastructure that probably wouldn't have been required otherwise.

France is a net importer (by value) of electricity, most of the imported being "green" megawatts from Italy and Switzerland. No reason why Irish suppliers couldn't make a few Euros supplying the French with even greener electricity (especially if the Swiss and Italians start to have problems when their glaciers have melted and they have barely enough hydro for themselves).

Kiith wrote: »

No chance the EU will accept this, but will probably work well for Brexiteers who want anyone else to blame.

The EU are well aware of the Brexiters blame-game. To date, the main characters have been very good at finding turns of phrase that leave no doubt as to who are the eejits in the room.

Dytalus

igCorcaigh wrote: »

Thanks for the replies.
Although I'm still no wiser if a no deal is legal or not.

If it comes down to a hard border either by a UK deal to impose one, or a default one by no deal, which option would the Irish government favour... The no deal hard border, just because it could say they and the EU didn't sign up for it? Or an agreed hard border, which the Irish government were forced into accepting, albeit temporary, at least on paper?

The former, definitely. If we sign a deal that leads to a hard border, then we have agreed to close off the border. A decision the Government and People of Ireland cannot countenance. Signing any kind of deal to bring one about, however temporary, is a grave failing. And when negotiations happen in the future the UK can always point at us and say "you were fine with it last time".

But if it happens because of UK intransigence, there is always the option to return to the negotiating table and correct it. We won't have sullied our hands, or our negotiating position, by previously saying "okay, we can accept a hard border".