Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

nobody suggested that the uk had any say in this ,so i guess it makes no sense to point that out that anybody suggests that the uk had a say in this.

but it seems that france seemed to think that an extension could open the brexit deal . and was maybe more focused on the uk than china .

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/france-reluctant-delay-brexit-tariffs-uk-eu-electric-cars-sources-2023-10-02/

it was not so much that there was a different solution germany and france had in mind , it was more that france said there should be no solution and contract means contract, while the rest of the eu looked more at the bigger picture.

Let's think this through.

1. There's no doubt that hard Brexiters did pretend that any concern expressed about a hard border in Ireland was simply a perfidious EU plot to stymie Brexit/a perfidious Irish plot to use Brexit to weaken the Precious Union.
2. It's also true that the DUP joined in this pretence.
3. And, therefore, hard Brexiters could point to the position of the DUP in support of their claims.
4. But . . .
5. The hard Brexiters could (and no doubt would) have advanced their claims regardless of the position of the DUP.
6. I'm sceptical that DUP support did much to give the hard Brexiter position greater credibility with the public in Great Britain. Few people in Great Britain pay much attention to, or attach much credence to, the position of the DUP on any subject. DUP support is not a factor likely to influence public opinion in Great Britain on any matter to any significant degree.
7. In any case, the hard Brexiters didn't really have a strategy of building public support for their vision of Brexit. Their strategy was to win the referendum with vague promises, and then to push hard Brexit through Parliament, relying on the division and confusion of their enemies and the British tradition that the dominant faction in the less unpopular of the two major parties can pretty much do what it wants, regardless of public opinion.
8. Thus, they never made any attempt to build a wide consensus in favour of hard Brexit. We all remember how hard Brexiters reacted when there was a push for a second referendum on the nature or terms of Brexit; there was collective pant-shîtting on such a scale that the smell still lingers. They were perfectly aware that hard Brexit did not, and would never, enjoy majority public support, and their strategy for achieving it did not rely on appealing to or influencing majority opinion at all.
9. What they sought to do was to influence other MPs, and in particular other Tory MPs. And by "influence" I mean either win them around to the hard Brexiter point of view, or overbear them so they were unable effectively to oppose the hard Brexiter point of view. Either would do.
10. So, did DUP support to much to strengthen the position of hard Brexiters within the Tory party, or within Parliament?
11. I'm very sceptical. Why would it?
12. The only people in British politics who even pretend to take the DUP seriously are the looney right of the Tory party, for which the DUP is pathetically grateful. This abject dependence is part of the reason why the hard Brexiters had little difficulty in getting the DUP to betray the wishes, interests and welfare of NI and to jeopardise the security of the Union by supporting hard Brexit.
13. But, as most people always knew and as everybody knows now, pathetic gratitude and abject dependence is very much a one-way thing. The looney right had no compunction about shafting the DUP when it suited them.
14. Which brings me to my point; given how little regard the right of the Tory party has for the DUP, why would we imagine the positions adopted by the DUP on any question would carry much weight or influence with MPs on the Tory right?
15. And nobody seriously imagines that moderate, centrist or progressive MPs of any party are susceptible to the influence of the DUP or the positions it adopts.
16. Therefore, I am deeply sceptical that the positioning of the SUP was at all instrumental in delivering the form of Brexit that the UK got.

None of this is to absolve the DUP. I don't think they can be blamed for delivering hard Brexit, or for delivering the Protocol. That would have happened anyway. But they have done considerable damage to the union, and to the cause of unionism. If the DUP, the dominant unionist party, won't — even now! — prioritise the wishes, interests and welfare of NI and stand by the union, they lose all credibility when they call on others to do so. They should have insisted all along that the hardness of Brexit was secondary to, and subordinate to, the place of NI in the Union. That's not a battle that, in my view, they could have won, but it was a battle they had to fight if they were to retain any self-respect, or to present unionism as an ideology with any confidence in its own worth. I think their failure to do that has done real, long-term damage to the unionist cause.

^^^ Exactly this.

It's irrelevant that the general GB public had no idea who the DUP were. I'm also not arguing that it dramatically changed existing Tory MPs views or the general public opinions. But that intervention stopping May's deal then let any proposed NI sea border define the Brexiteers narrative going forward. It allowed those opposing, the Twitter online British flag anti EU brigade and the forum Leaver regulars, another strap line for their Twitter handle and more ammunition for their stance.

If you were for May's existing agreement then you were against the 'Union' and of course a 'traitor' who was happy to accept the break up of the UK.

Obviously the ERG didn't believe their pretend convictions as they voted for the NIP subsequently but prior to that it suited them to use NI as the reason not to accept any deal with the EU and push for a hard(er) Brexit.

Are you sure it would not have passed with DUP support? She was reportedly only 20 votes from passing her deal with the DUP onboard. I'd imagine she might have got it over the line by a vote or two, considering many probably thought as Mike Penning disclosed.

The Conservative MP Sir Mike Penning said the decision to vote against May was a body blow to May.

“That’s really disappointing, because a lot of colleagues were looking to follow the DUP through the lobbies if they were happy with the backstop,” he told Sky News.

The ERG numbers swelled at the time though, giving them a level of influence they never had before or since. There is a good chance this is due to the flag waving and "big bad EU" narrative which they were pushing at the time. It was a perfect storm of circumstances which gave them any influence and the DUP being part of government was certainly part of that storm.

And remember, those Tory MPs were elected under May and overall were not as hardline as the group later elected under Johnson.

Added to the economic constriction is the increased dependency ratio as Asian immigrants are bringing entire families whereas EU immigrants were mostly young adults without dependents.

Yet again, Brexit, the gift that keeps on giving:

But but they said Brexit would free the UK from red tape... 🙄

At a wild guess, in essence what will happen is that the documentary requirements mitigation already agreed with the EU, and operated throught the "green lane", or some barely-changed version of these, will be set out in the new promised new UK legislation — i.e. some version of the practices and processes already operated on an administrative basis will be formalised in legislation.

They'll have to come up with new repackaging for the DUP. Windsor framework didn't work so maybe the Saxe-coburg and Gotha alignment seeing as prince Billy was from mainland Europe.

Here we go again. As soon as I read the announcement I knew you would be back for round #513 of "the EU is about to abandon Ireland" 🙄

Has anybody in the UK government said there will be "zero paperwork, zero checks"? No? Then I think your doommongering about Ireland's place in the Single Market is — once again — a bit premature.

For him Ireland being let down by the EU isn't "the sky falling". Mr. Frog is a massive Irexiter.

I know I'll get a ban for this but it's the likes of Kermit constantly being allowed to repeat the same debunked tropes on an update thread makes this whole site feel like some drop-in centre for lounge bores.

We've seen this multiple times across Brexit. The UK insist that a deal us done, its oven ready, the EU has caved.

Much celebration in the Brexit side that finally Brexit has been done properly.

Then the actual documents start coming out and slowly the reality becomes clear.

But, it was never about reality. Uts about setting the narrative. Getting the big headlines about success and letting the real negatives drip slowly so that they are never a massive story.

The DUP can't stay out of Stormont forever. Alliance etc are snapping at their heels. So they needed a way to claim a victory.

Even the 3bn I bet is a con. Nothing they wouldn't have got anyway, maybe a bit more upfront. There is no way, with an election looming, that the Tories are giving 3bn to NI, a place where there are no seats to be won

Walking ball of red faced rage Sammy Wilson isn't happy.

He says this still ties Northern Ireland to EU rules.

Hahaha FFS the hardline DUP and Tory Brexiters are now up in arms over this. Sunak they claim seems to have solved the problem by tying the entire UK to the EU. The whole thing will fall apart again if Britain wants to diverge.

Confirmation bias. You are looking for the bits of information to suit your argument rather than looking at the facts.

You really think Sunak, after the Windsor agreement being his only positive agreement, has unilaterally changed it?

You think the EU is no longer interested in the security of the single market?

You think UK created all this hassle and political infighting about the sea border only to simply wave it away? So Johnson was completely wrong to ever agree to it?

All the previous evidence points to this being yet another attempt by the government to look like they achieved something, when in reality the facts will probably show different.

It raises a massive question though.

If want you believe is correct, then serious questions need to be answered as to why the UK are brining in checks at all since apparently the EU isn't bothered.