Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

tubercolossus wrote: »

Britain has little experience of referendums. If only there had been a neighbour English-speaking country with lots and lots of experience of holding, wording and running referendums to which they could have turned for advice. If only.

Very true. We should be very proud of our Referendum Commission.

schmoo2k

Tell me how wrote: »

Doesn't quite fit in with the taking back control narrative though, does it.

We all know the narrative is flawed - they signed up for a few of these programs I believe, but they got to choose which ones I suppose?

tubercolossus

I don't think 'give and take' accurately characterises the nature of the EU/UK negotiations. Unless you mean the UK mostly giving and the EU mostly taking.

schmoo2k

tubercolossus wrote: »

Britain has little experience of referendums. If only there had been a neighbour English-speaking country with lots and lots of experience of holding, wording and running referendums to which they could have turned for advice. If only.

I always said every election / referendum should have a comments section and a "rate your government 1 out 5" option, that way folks can express their disdain while voting appropriatly.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

But the hardness of Brexit is now baked into the agreement that they signed yesterday. Johnson even said on camera that, yes, he'd read it. So that's that: there are no surprises, or at least there must be nothing in there that Johnson is unhappy with, and (by extension) nothing that the ERG could have had any problem with, otherwise they wouldn't have voted for it.

This is why I say that the worst it can be will be a re-make of the IMB pantomime. A Withdrawal Agreement passed with minimal scrutiny, much whinging, some utterly stupid threats to tear it up, and - exactly as predicted - a total climbdown by Johnson & Co. at the end without the EU moving one iota from its original position.

From this point forwards, the EU has the new Trade Agreement as its reference document. If the UK wants to revise the T&Cs of any paragraph, they will be invited to present their concerns and/or proposals to the relevant joint commission and allow the process to unfold over the course of time (with no deadline for agreement). This neutralises any opportunity for the ERG to turn any particular issue into a battle, because they will always have a deadline hanging over them: the date of their next general election.

It's not just the ERG, this is a populist, nationalist English Tory Party. Any One Nation or pro EU Tories have been banished. They have a majority of 80 and over three years before they start campaigning again. They were elected on the premise of the EU being a bully. They must be seen to deliver a hard Brexit and they will continue to wave the flag of sovereignty and point to the EU bully boys. They need about 40% to be re-elected. Polls show that about 40% of British voters are Brexiteers. For them, nationalism is now more important than the economy. That's why they will continue to other the EU and to fight with the EU at every turn so that they are seen to be defending England Britain.

RobMc59

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It is areas such as this that are minefields. I think the fact that a deal on financial services wasn't agreed speaks volumes.

I thought that at first but the rather hurried conclusion of the deal to allow EU and UK government approval before tonight could suggest there are loose ends(Gibraltar, financial services amongst others?)which will be addressed over the coming weeks.

tubercolossus

RobMc59 wrote: »

I thought that at first but the rather hurried conclusion of the deal to allow EU and UK government approval before tonight could suggest there are loose ends(Gibraltar, financial services amongst others?)which will be addressed over the coming weeks.

That word is going to put its back out doing all that heavy lifting...

Professor Moriarty

RobMc59 wrote: »

I thought that at first but the rather hurried conclusion of the deal to allow EU and UK government approval before tonight could suggest there are loose ends(Gibraltar, financial services amongst others?)which will be addressed over the coming weeks.

Fair point, it will have to be addressed for sure. But the fact that there wasn't even the bare bones of an agreement on financial services doesn't bode well. Check out this article here. Grim reading if you work in financial services in London.

ancapailldorcha

tubercolossus wrote: »

Britain has little experience of referendums. If only there had been a neighbour English-speaking country with lots and lots of experience of holding, wording and running referendums to which they could have turned for advice. If only.

tubercolossus wrote: »

That word is going to put its back out doing all that heavy lifting...

Mod: Refrain from the pithy comments please.

CelticRambler

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

It's not just the ERG, this is a populist, nationalist English Tory Party. Any One Nation or pro EU Tories have been banished. They have a majority of 80 and over three years before they start campaigning again. They were elected on the premise of the EU being a bully. They must be seen to deliver a hard Brexit and they will continue to wave the flag of sovereignty and point to the EU bully boys. They need about 40% to be re-elected. Polls show that about 40% of British voters are Brexiteers. For them, nationalism is now more important than the economy. That's why they will continue to other the EU and to fight with the EU at every turn so that they are seen to be defending England Britain.

Again, that can be nothing more than a performance for the domestic audience. In practice, they can't really bother the EU to any great extent because (a) their current access is now conditional on the terms agreed (not happy -> see you in boardroom 277 at the next session of the joint commission); and (b) any additional access to the Union can be considered slowly, very slowly, and very, very, very carefully, over whatever length of time the EU decides is appropriate. Any indication that future negotiations are turning into a "battle" will be counter-productive - because the EU can simply put the whole process on pause for a decade.

Sam Russell

Does Gibraltar joining Schengen open the door for NI, while still being part of the UK, to join Schengen along with Ireland.

The CTA would be unaffected, with passports or national ID cards being required crossing into GB or back, but otherwise everything stays as is.

Of course, GB and NI should introduce a national ID card, but that is another mater - but it is a red line to those Brexiteer types.

CelticRambler

Given the fuss a certain section of the NI community created around the idea of having to show their passports when travelling to/from GB the last time the idea was floated (only a decade or so ago), I wouldn't think so ...

But to think that only a year ago, the UK had total sovereignty over all of its dominion. And here we are on the eve of 01-01-21, and already two of it's territories are seeing EU officials acting in a formal capacity on the internal border with GB.

ancapailldorcha

Sam Russell wrote: »

Does Gibraltar joining Schengen open the door for NI, while still being part of the UK, to join Schengen along with Ireland.

The CTA would be unaffected, with passports or national ID cards being required crossing into GB or back, but otherwise everything stays as is.

Of course, GB and NI should introduce a national ID card, but that is another mater - but it is a red line to those Brexiteer types.

I wouldn't say so.

I can't see Ireland being able to join Schengen with the CTA still in effect. I always saw the CTA as being a form of UK-Ireland Schengen to accommodate NI.

AutoTuning

Gibraltar is just a blip form the EU's point of view. So is Northern Ireland. From an almost any point of view neither of them are particularly relevant, beyond just ensuring they're resolved and that Northern Ireland remains calm and peaceful.

They're special cases. There are special cases like that throughout Europe, many of which were made irrelevant by the EU's open borders. However, there are enclaves and special administrative regions and all sorts of strange historical setups for communities that are caught on borders.

I wouldn't extrapolate anything that applies to either of them to anything else like financial services, which is a huge, huge systemic and very fundamental issue.

peter kern

Sam Russell wrote: »

Does Gibraltar joining Schengen open the door for NI, while still being part of the UK, to join Schengen along with Ireland.

The CTA would be unaffected, with passports or national ID cards being required crossing into GB or back, but otherwise everything stays as is.

Of course, GB and NI should introduce a national ID card, but that is another mater - but it is a red line to those Brexiteer types.

you cant have comnon travel area and schengen...

Capt'n Midnight

Tell me how wrote: »

Incompetent, he set up the referendum to assuage a guy who had failed to be elected to parliament 7 times and as you said, the parameters around the referendum were way too favourable to Leave.

In addition to the other points you mentioned above, his campaigning message and allowing many in his own party to have free reign to very actively campaign to Leave were also signs of incompetence.

It would be libellous to suggest that UKIP couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

But only because that happened in the City of London Distillery.


Farage tried to bypass the parties by running in the speakers constituency during a controversy and finished behind Flipper the Dolphin.


The problem with FPTP is that small changes in %'s represent huge changes in seats.

peter kern

AutoTuning wrote: »

Gibraltar is just a blip form the EU's point of view. So is Northern Ireland. From an almost any point of view neither of them are particularly relevant, beyond just ensuring they're resolved and that Northern Ireland remains calm and peaceful.

I wouldn't extrapolate anything that applies to either of them to anything else like financial services, which is a huge, huge issue.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/31/spain-and-uk-reach-draft-deal-on-post-brexit-status-of-gibraltar

gibraltar deal is to benefit of spain.

i guess this confirms eu does deals they like, and dosnt what they dont like

AutoTuning

peter kern wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/31/spain-and-uk-reach-draft-deal-on-post-brexit-status-of-gibraltar

gibraltar deal is to benefit of spain.

i guess this confirms eu does deals they like, and dosnt what they dont like

Yeah but they're adaption of rules to facilitate very small anomalies. Neither the EU nor the UK are likely to have any particular objection to that. It primarily facilities Gibraltar and Northern Ireland to ensure non-disruption to what are both small, quite isolated regions in odd trans-frontier situations.

Not facilitating them would just cause major issues for both the UK and the EU. From the Tories' point of view both are just sticking points for Brexit.

It came down to the fact that from the Tories' point of view neither NI nor Gibraltar mattered electorally or mathematically, and they just needed to have a resolution and the EU was happy to facilitate as neither of them are significantly large enough to have any economic impact or distorting impact on the single market or EU systems.

From a Northern Ireland point of view, it's worth remembering the EU's primary mission is peace and stability in Europe, for members or non-members alike. They also see themselves as one of the facilitators of the Good Friday Agreement and Ireland as full member state is a both a signatory to and guarantor of that agreement, so that brings the EU into play en bloc.

Professor Moriarty

CelticRambler wrote: »

Again, that can be nothing more than a performance for the domestic audience. In practice, they can't really bother the EU to any great extent because (a) their current access is now conditional on the terms agreed (not happy -> see you in boardroom 277 at the next session of the joint commission); and (b) any additional access to the Union can be considered slowly, very slowly, and very, very, very carefully, over whatever length of time the EU decides is appropriate. Any indication that future negotiations are turning into a "battle" will be counter-productive - because the EU can simply put the whole process on pause for a decade.

Again, the problem with putting it "on pause for a decade" is that Ireland's economy and peace would be in serious jeopardy. Never mind the reality that, while Britain will take serious damage, so will France, Belgium, Netherlands etc. I think we're not going to convince each other. I see this Tory party as very right-wing, nationalist and populist. They have now become the Brexit party. In those contexts, they are very dangerous and unpredictable. You see it as the EU having all the cards and control. We'll agree to differ.

Leroy42

AutoTuning wrote: »

Yeah but they're adaption of rules to facilitate very small anomalies. Neither the EU nor the UK are likely to have any particular objection to that. It primarily facilities Gibraltar and Northern Ireland to ensure non-disruption to what are both small, quite isolated regions in odd trans-frontier situations.

Not facilitating them would just cause major issues for both the UK and the EU. From the Tories' point of view both are just sticking points for Brexit.

It came down to the fact that from the Tories' point of view neither NI nor Gibraltar mattered electorally or mathematically, and they just needed to have a resolution and the EU was happy to facilitate as neither of them are significantly large enough to have any economic impact or distorting impact on the single market or EU systems.

From a Northern Ireland point of view, it's worth remembering the EU's primary mission is peace and stability in Europe, for members or non-members alike. They also see themselves as one of the facilitators of the Good Friday Agreement and Ireland as full member state is a both a signatory to and guarantor of that agreement, so that brings the EU into play en bloc.

The issue is not their size, but rather their importance.

UK went to war with Argentina over the Falklands after all. But whatever way one tries to spin it, Brexit has resulted in a weakening of the UK. NI, Gibraltar are now closer to the EU than the UK, and the UK have shown their commitment to both of those is not 100%.

It is ironic that many Brexiteers claim the ending of the EU is on the horizon, yet seemingly have nothing to say when their own union is being dismantled in front of our eyes.

Obviously, when Scotland makes its move, these very same people will be back declaring that the Union is more important than anything and that nothing should be allowed to weaken it.

As an aside, the Falklands are not included in the deal, afaik.

mrunsure

A lot of people seem to be predicting that Johnson will quit being PM soon, maybe after the Covid crisis. The favourite to takeover would be Sunak. Would that make any difference?

AutoTuning

The Falklands comparison is a tad hyperbolic when you consider, whatever your view of who should own them, Argentina actually militarily invaded them in a hostile act.

There's nobody in their right mind suggesting that the EU or any EU member was planning to militarily take any part of the UK, rather they were just keeping the status quo open for the residents of those areas so that they are not very negatively impacted.

All that's been achieved is ensuring that Northern Ireland and Gibraltar are benefiting from a status that gives them as close to zero disruption as possible.

Strazdas

mrunsure wrote: »

A lot of people seem to be predicting that Johnson will quit being PM soon, maybe after the Covid crisis. The favourite to takeover would be Sunak. Would that make any difference?

He's definitely a Brexiteer anyway. He was in favour of it even before the referendum was announced (which would suggest he is further to the right than people suspect).

Jizique

Sam Russell wrote: »

Does Gibraltar joining Schengen open the door for NI, while still being part of the UK, to join Schengen along with Ireland.

The CTA would be unaffected, with passports or national ID cards being required crossing into GB or back, but otherwise everything stays as is.

Of course, GB and NI should introduce a national ID card, but that is another mater - but it is a red line to those Brexiteer types.

In fairness, we should also have an ID card but the civil liberty heads lose their proverbial any time it is brought up

Tell me how

mrunsure wrote: »

A lot of people seem to be predicting that Johnson will quit being PM soon, maybe after the Covid crisis. The favourite to takeover would be Sunak. Would that make any difference?

Strazdas wrote: »

He's definitely a Brexiteer anyway. He was in favour of it even before the referendum was announced (which would suggest he is further to the right than people suspect).

The Headline 'Taking back control, believing in Britain and stopping immigration.'

The Reality; '2 of the most prominent Tory politicians are children of immigrants, there's a Russian former spy agent in the house of lords and the former PM's father is looking for French citizenship'

And they're going nowhere until at least 2024. Definitely a very dark and depressing times for UK citizens who truly believe in the EU.

mrunsure

Jizique wrote: »

In fairness, we should also have an ID card but the civil liberty heads lose their proverbial any time it is brought up

Although you have a passport card.

I was really looking forward to getting a UK ID card, so I didn't have to carry my passport when travelling in the EU. They were scrapped as soon as the 2010 government came in.

Sam Russell

peter kern wrote: »

you cant have comnon travel area and schengen...

Why not?

Schengen is a database that keeps track of entry and exit from the area so undesirables are kept under surveillance. It works very well.

How would that conflict with he CTA?

If Gibraltar can be in Schengen but not the CU or SM, why can NI not be in Schengen and the CTA, They are not mutually exclusive.

yagan

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why not?

Schengen is a database that keeps track of entry and exit from the area so undesirables are kept under surveillance. It works very well.

How would that conflict with he CTA?

If Gibraltar can be in Schengen but not the CU or SM, why can NI not be in Schengen and the CTA, They are not mutually exclusive.

There's another thing that will change for many who holiday to Ireland via ferry and northern Ireland who've only ever brought their driving licenses. Now they'll have to bring their passports to enter as Ireland will be in the SIS zone in six hours time.

Nody

Sam Russell wrote: »

If Gibraltar can be in Schengen but not the CU or SM, why can NI not be in Schengen and the CTA, They are not mutually exclusive.

Because you're in one or the other; Schengen includes free travel with in the area. Going forward if a British citizen goes to Gibraltar they will need to get a visa. NI can be the same only if there is no CTA because the CTA allows visa free travel.

Podge_irl

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why not?

Schengen is a database that keeps track of entry and exit from the area so undesirables are kept under surveillance. It works very well.

How would that conflict with he CTA?

If Gibraltar can be in Schengen but not the CU or SM, why can NI not be in Schengen and the CTA, They are not mutually exclusive.

Schengen is a common external border and the CTA allows travel between Ireland and the UK without passport checks. Schengen and the CTA are completely and utterly mutually exclusive as there would be insufficient control on Schengen's external border in Ireland.

Not sure of the relevance of the CU/SM to the discussion either.