Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Bit cynical

Joe_ Public wrote: »

You're right in the sense that tory spin is all about labour holding up the get brexit done mantra, all that annoying "dither and delay" mantra. The hilarious thing is that johnson paints corbyn as an arch remainer while jo swinson damns him as a hard brexiteer. Its all absurd but it is hurting corbyn from both sides so well done to them.

I think the problem is that the "remove no deal from the table" is a constraint you want imposed on your political opponent but it is not something you would want for yourself in negotiations.

His tactics have been a bit like some of our smaller left-wing parties here in Ireland, parties that know they will never be in a position of power and would not get votes if voters felt there was a danger of them actually running things.

Joe_ Public

schmittel wrote: »

I think the Lib Dem policy is actually very clever given their particular circumstances.

The only unrealistic thing about their revoke position is that nobody believes they will win a majority - if they won it, then de facto their position is realistic.

Realistically their best bet is to hold balance of power in next parliament supporting Labour. By campaigning for Revoke they can present themselves as compromising by agreeing to second referendum, and can encourage their coalition partners to throw government weight behind remain in that referendum.

If by some miracle they manage to convince electorate not to get into widescale tactical voting then they could end up in opposition! Yes I accept this is unlikely but if they had gone for a Second referendum policy then there is no reason to vote for Lib Dems over Labour, and they would not have made any gains.

Revoke policy provides a strong reason to vote Lib Dem for both Labour and Tory voters.

It also helps them in Scotland to defend against rising SNP vote. The current Tory seats are up for grabs, and there will be plenty of Scots who would like to vote to stay in EU and UK. Vote for Lib Dems so. Indeed if I was a Lib Dem strategist I would be tempted to run in all seats in Northern Ireland. Allow those who want to remain in EU a clear voting opportunity to do so, not tied up in sectarian politics.

As I have mentioned in other posts, one thing that boils my head is the idea that a Revoke policy is somehow undemocratic or unrealistic. It makes perfect sense from both a democratic point of view and party policy point of view. I just cannot get my head around why it has riled up so many people.

The Lib Dems biggest problem is their leader, not their policy.

I dont have any moral issue with it, just seems a touch cynical to me but, like i said, c'est la politique! I think they devised it around 2-3 months back when they got tired of fielding tough questions about a people's vote. I recall swinson, as well as Caroline Lucas, getting flack for hinting they wouldn't honour the result if it voted leave again. Very soon afterwards they are revoke party and I'm not sure that was coincidence. This way, they can - if it comes to it - leave all the tricky stuff to labour to sort out and then piggy back in on it if the opportunity arises. Maybe im wrong on that, but i think theyre playing a risky game regardless and could well end up helping Johnson back into power.

briany

Just looking at the opinion polls from the 2017 UKGE, here. The Conservatives went into that with what looked to be an absolutely thwocking share of the vote. 40+ in virtually every poll on the day of the election and yet they managed to *lose* seats. This is subject to change, of course, but today's polls indicate a downward slump, hovering around the mid to high 30s. Labour have slumped also to mid 20s, with the Lib Dems making up the shortfall. How all this might translate to actual seats won is anyone's guess, and could well be no real indicator. By no means a done deal for the Conservatives, though. If neither main party manages to clinch a majority and the LDs once again become kingmakers, things are going to get *very* interesting indeed.

Joe_ Public

Bit cynical wrote: »

I think the problem is that the "remove no deal from the table" is a constraint you want imposed on your political opponent but it is not something you would want for yourself in negotiations.

His tactics have been a bit like some of our smaller left-wing parties here in Ireland, parties that know they will never be in a position of power and would not get votes if voters felt there was a danger of them actually running things.

No deal was/is a reckless position that fooled nobody in the eu and p!ssed off huge numbers of people, including large number of mps in johnsons party. Wasnt just a labour thing, over 400 mps voted for ruling out a no deal option last march. It was the most conclusive vote iirc.

Strazdas

briany wrote: »

Just looking at the opinion polls from the 2017 UKGE, here. The Conservatives went into that with what looked to be an absolutely thwocking share of the vote. 40+ in virtually every poll on the day of the election and yet they managed to *lose* seats. This is subject to change, of course, but today's polls indicate a downward slump, hovering around the mid to high 30s. Labour have slumped also to mid 20s, with the Lib Dems making up the shortfall. How all this might translate to actual seats won is anyone's guess, and could well be no real indicator. By no means a done deal for the Conservatives, though. If neither main party manages to clinch a majority and the LDs once again become kingmakers, things are going to get *very* interesting indeed.

GE campaigns can be very unpredictable. Let's see who Johnson does under pressure and how Corbyn and Swinson respond (people are nearly forgetting Johnson was shaky in the Con leadership debates)

Bit cynical

Joe_ Public wrote: »

No deal was/is a reckless position that fooled nobody in the eu and p!ssed off huge numbers of people, including large number of mps in johnsons party. Wasnt just a labour thing, over 400 mps voted for ruling out a no deal option last march. It was the most conclusive vote iirc.

But not a tenable constraint to have when negotiating. You have to be able to walk away.

I can see why these MPs voted that way but it was not to help the UK get a better deal; it was to undermine negotiations.

Bit cynical

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Labour could take a leaf out of the tories bill and go with the Upton to offer the choice of Boris's deal vs remain but with extras.
Extras being the focus on the NHS and policing that the tories are doing, and which ensures want to do.
But if remain is a referendum choice then they'd address immigration and EU FoM problems by introducing the rules that are allowed.
I.e. No turning up at the door, with no work and expecting to be housed.

They could also point out that the immigration problems are what the tories introduced.

Probably better than their current position which I think voters will see through.

Joe_ Public

Bit cynical wrote: »

But not a tenable constraint to have when negotiating. You have to be able to walk away.

I can see these MPs voted that way but it was not to help the UK get a better deal; it was to undermine negotiations.

But look, there are no secret weapons here, everyone knows the projections. The EU knows no deal will hurt them, but also that it will destroy the uk, especially n ire, and that the people just wont allow that. Because the vast majority of them remain sane. It was never ever a viable negotiating stance, im trying to picture david davis sitting across the table from michel barnier and threatening to walk out the door but the image fails me because its simply too absurd.

Bit cynical

Joe_ Public wrote: »

But look, there are no secret weapons here, everyone knows the projections. The EU knows no deal will hurt them, but also that it will destroy the uk, especially n ire, and that the people just wont allow that. Because the vast majority of them remain sane. It was never ever a viable negotiating stance, im trying to picture david davis sitting across the table from michel barnier and threatening to walk out the door but the image fails me because its simply too absurd.

Yet that was Johnson's stance: "We will leave on the 31st October come what may" and although some in the Tory party opposed him, he was elected overwhelmingly by that party as leader on that very stance which he maintained publicly until very recently.

Even when he was told he would have to ask for an extension, he still maintained that he would bring the UK out on the 31st.

The deal, such as it was, was only obtained because people thought he might actually go through with it. From Ireland's point of view it is a worse deal than May's deal, yet Varadkar was seen to be publicly supporting it. The reason for this is that it is better from our point of view than no deal which would be a calamity for Ireland.

If we believed that Boris could not walk away from the deal then it would have made much more sense for Ireland to continue to insist on May's deal as we had been doing and not reopen negotiations.

quokula

Bit cynical wrote: »

But not a tenable constraint to have when negotiating. You have to be able to walk away.

I can see why these MPs voted that way but it was not to help the UK get a better deal; it was to undermine negotiations.

In any normal negotiation, "walking away" means going back to the status quo prior to negotiations, not blowing up everything you had previously.

If you walk away from a car dealership you keep your own car. No deal is the equivalent of threatening to set your own car on fire if the dealer doesn't give you a discount on the new one.

looksee

Deleted User wrote: »

The last thing that voters in the UK want to hear is:

- For 6 months, a new deal will be negotiated.
- After, a referendum on that deal will be held, lasting another 6 months.
- Said referendum will be "Remain versus Remain-Light" - no Leave option.
- In fact, let's throw in a referendum on Scotland, too.

But that's precisely what Labour are offering.

They are so out of touch with the UK population, it's quite literally staggering.

I sincerely hope that the Labour Party experience a political oblivion on December 12.

What is 'Remain light'?

prawnsambo

Bit cynical wrote: »

The deal, such as it was, was only obtained because people thought he might actually go through with it. From Ireland's point of view it is a worse deal than May's deal, yet Varadkar was seen to be publicly supporting it. The reason for this is that it is better from our point of view than no deal which would be a calamity for Ireland.

If we believed that Boris could not walk away from the deal then it would have made much more sense for Ireland to continue to insist on May's deal as we had been doing and not reopen negotiations.

It is May's deal. Pretty much word for word except it's back to the NI backstop - converted to a frontstop - and associated changes relating to GB no longer being in it. It's mad that people don't see this. Smoke and mirrors clearly work.

PeadarCo

Bit cynical wrote:

But not a tenable constraint to have when negotiating. You have to be able to walk away.

The UK can walk away nothing stopping them in principle. However it's a stupid strategy that's not viable for a whole range of reasons that have been repeated numerous times over the various Brexit threads namely the UK needs a deal and walking away just makes the UKs situation worse. The EU knows that even if the UK walks away the UK will come back to the table and have to do a deal on the EUs terms. The best example of that is Boris Johnson. Who stamped up and down, threatened to walk away and still did came back and did a deal on the EUs terms. A deal that's very similar to what May got and has been described as worse in many respects.

So in practice the UK doesn't have the option of walking away which is simply a reflection of how weak it's negotiating position is and has always been. Ignoring this imbalance of power won't make it go away.

quokula

It's also worth pointing out that the narrative that "the threat of no deal made the EU compromise" is a complete nonsense.

The negotiations were going nowhere whatsoever, then the Benn act came into effect, and then progress actually got made because the threat of an extension forced Boris to take negotiations seriously and compromise.

Bit cynical

quokula wrote: »

In any normal negotiation, "walking away" means going back to the status quo prior to negotiations, not blowing up everything you had previously.

If you walk away from a car dealership you keep your own car. No deal is the equivalent of threatening to set your own car on fire if the dealer doesn't give you a discount on the new one.

No it doesn't always mean going back to the status quo. In this case the status quo is revoking A50 and back to the EU. But where is the threat in that? Where is the bargaining power from the UK's perspective?

We in the EU, of course, would love if the only option other than what we offer the UK is revocation but it does not represent a good stance for the UK. Why would we even bother talking to them at all if this was the only option they had?

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

The deal, such as it was, was only obtained because people thought he might actually go through with it. From Ireland's point of view it is a worse deal than May's deal, yet Varadkar was seen to be publicly supporting it. The reason for this is that it is better from our point of view than no deal which would be a calamity for Ireland.

If we believed that Boris could not walk away from the deal then it would have made much more sense for Ireland to continue to insist on May's deal as we had been doing and not reopen negotiations.

The deal wasn't obtained by Johnson managing to get the EU to cave in, it was Johnson having to come up with something to go back to his own parliament with and he was the one over the barrel, which he put himself on in the first place.

He successfully managed to get the EU to give the UK a worse deal. That's not exactly master negotiating tactics by any stretch.

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

He successfully managed to get the EU to give the UK a worse deal. That's not exactly master negotiating tactics by any stretch.

It is a better deal from a Brexiteer perspective. Remember many of them were against the UK being in a customs arrangement during the transition period.

It is a worse deal from Ireland's perspective however. The backstop which we had been insisting upon is gone. The customs arrangement which would have covered the whole of the UK, where a lot of our agricultural and other exports go, is also gone.

The problem however is that Boris was threatening no deal so we had to accept it.

quokula

Bit cynical wrote: »

No it doesn't always mean going back to the status quo. In this case the status quo is revoking A50 and back to the EU. But where is the threat in that? Where is the bargaining power from the UK's perspective?

We in the EU, of course, would love if the only option other than what we offer the UK is revocation but it does not represent a good stance for the UK. Why would we even bother talking to them at all if this was the only option they had?

And yet no progress was made at all during all the bluster around no deal, then as soon as no deal was ruled out by parliament, progress got made.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

No it doesn't always mean going back to the status quo. In this case the status quo is revoking A50 and back to the EU. But where is the threat in that? Where is the bargaining power from the UK's perspective?

We in the EU, of course, would love if the only option other than what we offer the UK is revocation but it does not represent a good stance for the UK. Why would we even bother talking to them at all if this was the only option they had?

The UK government don't have anything to bargain with, they don't have all the cards and they are not even sure what game it is that is being played. All that no deal was a threat to was the UK itself, and a short term minor annoyance for Ireland at most.

quokula

Bit cynical wrote: »

It is a better deal from a Brexiteer perspective. Remember many of them were against the UK being in a customs arrangement during the transition period.

It is a worse deal from Ireland's perspective however. The backstop which we had been insisting upon is gone. The customs arrangement which would have covered the whole of the UK, where a lot of our agricultural and other exports go, is also gone.

The problem however is that Boris was threatening no deal so we had to accept it.

I'm not sure you fully understand what was negotiated if you believe that Ireland's demands for the backstop were not met. The new deal literally implements the backstop from the beginning.

robinph

quokula wrote: »

I'm not sure you fully understand what was negotiated if you believe that Ireland's demands for the backstop were not met. The new deal literally implements the backstop from the beginning.

... And the backstop was only until an alternative could be figured out, the new deal has backstop clauses from the outset and with no way of removing it sensibly.

Bit cynical

quokula wrote: »

I'm not sure you fully understand what was negotiated if you believe that Ireland's demands for the backstop were not met. The new deal literally implements the backstop from the beginning.

No it is a compromise on our part. Under May's deal, if the backstop was deemed necessary it could be brought in and there was nothing the UK could do about it. There could never be a border under May's deal. Now there is a possibility of one. It is a lesser provision than the previous deal.

But it is better than no deal which would have meant the hardest of hard borders so we went for it. However if Boris had not promised to leave with or without a deal it would have been much easier on our part just to continue to insist on May's deal which was better for us economically and politically.

FrancieBrady

UUP pulling back from the 'no pact' stance.

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

... And the backstop was only until an alternative could be figured out, the new deal has backstop clauses from the outset and with no way of removing it sensibly.

However in reality no alternative to the backstop would ever have been found hence it was essentially permanent.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

No it is a compromise on our part. Under May's deal, if the backstop was deemed necessary it could be brought in and there was nothing the UK could do about it. There could never be a border under May's deal. Now there is a possibility of one. It is a lesser provision than the previous deal.

But it is better than no deal which would have meant the hardest of hard borders so we went for it. However if Boris had not promised to leave with or without a deal it would have been much easier on our part just to continue to insist on May's deal which was better for us economically and politically.

The Johnson deal sticks a border down the sea, what is the problem for Ireland with that?

Johnson was threatening to leave with no deal which would mean a border in Ireland, but the UK parliament had already taken that off the available options, and is the one thing that they overwhelmingly have voted against ever happening through this process.

boggerman1

Question time once again and the uneducated mess of the UK on full display except for mairead McGuinness.and once again Isabel oakeshott allowed peddle her pro brexit nonsense.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

However in reality no alternative to the backstop would ever have been found hence it was essentially permanent.

But that just shows how idiotic the whole idea is in the first place. There was still the option of removing the backstop though if something could have been figured out.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

The deal, such as it was, was only obtained because people thought he might actually go through with it. From Ireland's point of view it is a worse deal than May's deal, yet Varadkar was seen to be publicly supporting it. The reason for this is that it is better from our point of view than no deal which would be a calamity for Ireland.

If we believed that Boris could not walk away from the deal then it would have made much more sense for Ireland to continue to insist on May's deal as we had been doing and not reopen negotiations.

All of the insider whispers that we've heard so far indicate that Johnson was given a crash course in trade negotiations and came away "well shook"; next thing we know, he has agreed to the very same WA that May was about to sign when the DUP torpedoed it. He has achieved *nothing* that the EU hadn't already prepared - he has only followed in May's footsteps and is currently wearing one of her cast-off dresses.

Johnson's threat of "no deal" was as hollow as his "do or die" promise: Britain could only ever have left with "no deal" if it was willing to go all-out North Korea, and MPs were right to smack him over the head for any such nonsense. The long and the short of it is that Johnson is good at storytelling and acting the fool ... but he is no leader, and definitely no negotiator.

Capt'n Midnight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

UUP pulling back from the 'no pact' stance.

On The View yer man as much as said they'll try to get a candidate in all 18 constituencies.

listermint

Question time audience mad as a bag of spanners. BBC is destroyed as a legitimate organisation.

I've actually turned off them don't watch it anymore. Absolute shadow of its former self.