Brexit discussion thread IV

J Mysterio

Mod Note: Continuation of previous thread (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057816858)

Tories 'deserve to lose' if they carry on feuding over public spending and Brexit, admits Theresa May’s former policy chief

Leaving the EU has become 'an alley street-cat fight between rival gangs', George Freeman says

“I think if we lose our reputation for economic competence, if we can't show that we are managing the public finances properly, if we treat Brexit like an anti-business moment, contemptuous of the concerns of business, and if we don't show that we have a distinctive conservative approach to supporting enterprise, risk, hard work, savings, and we go down the road of big tax rises, big spending spree, anti-business, I fear we will lose and we'll deserve to,” Mr Freeman said.

Leroy42

There is no doubt that Cameron takes the blame for the ref, but this narrative that May is somehow locked in and cannot make decisions.

She has allowed this "will of the people" mantra to take hold. She allowed, by going on with the inane "BRexit means BRexit nonsense to let anybody pick whatever they wanted. The like of Boris and JRM picked the hardest form.

She has allowed Boris to repeatedly undermine her. She has allowed her cabinet be taken over by internal divisions and allowed them to be broadcast to the world.

She didn't bother to stand up to the DUP in December.

She went out and gave the speech including the red lines, she took the hostile line about getting what we want or we will walk away. These are her decisions. She is the PM, the person with the ultimate power.

EdgeCase

Well I don’t actually see much difference between current Tory rhetoric and the rhetoric of Marine Le Pen or AfD. They aren’t centre right anymore.

May is politely spoken but other than that, she’s leading a right wing party in de facto coalition with one of the most extreme right wing parties in the EU.

Red_Wake

Love that new thread smell.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

There is no doubt that Cameron takes the blame for the ref, but this narrative that May is somehow locked in and cannot make decisions.

She has allowed this "will of the people" mantra to take hold. She allowed, by going on with the inane "BRexit means BRexit nonsense to let anybody pick whatever they wanted. The like of Boris and JRM picked the hardest form.

She has allowed Boris to repeatedly undermine her. She has allowed her cabinet be taken over by internal divisions and allowed them to be broadcast to the world.

She didn't bother to stand up to the DUP in December.

She went out and gave the speech including the red lines, she took the hostile line about getting what we want or we will walk away. These are her decisions. She is the PM, the person with the ultimate power.

She has been given ways out as well. If she really wanted to she could have stopped everything and started a proper investigation into campaign finances of Vote Leave and if this undermined the vote. She could have asked for a new vote seeing that there is enough evidence that there has been collusion between the campaigns and there might have been interference from outside.

She has that power but has barreled ahead without a care with her head down and not looking at what she is doing.

Inquitus

Over 30,000 comments later, 18 months or so, and we still have no clarity whatsoever on what Brexit will look like! Here's to 40,000!

Nody

Inquitus wrote: »

Over 30,000 comments later, 18 months or so, and we still have no clarity whatsoever on what Brexit will look like! Here's to 40,000!

Dark, hard and bitter; exactly as I like my stout as well :P

KingNerolives

#2ndReferendum

trellheim

#2ndReferendum

Try and sell that . Grieve's amendment last week being voted down proved this train cant be stopped. Only road out is for May to convince the middle of the road or big business like Airbus to put the fears into the moderates.

But remember - May wants out.

Not sure how much more dramatic this can get though.

Leroy42

There does seem to be a certain narrative that May is gamely trying to ward off the hard brexiteers and is playing a sly game.

I just don't buy it. At every opportunity she has chosen the path to hard brexit. The election attempt to get a super majority could well have been that, but certainly the decision to accept the DUP, whether purposefully of not in terms of Brexit, made the chance far more likely.

She then went off on her red lines speech, she might have believed that the EU would bend but she has always stated that NO deal is better than a bad deal, ie she is quite prepared to risk a hard Brexit.

Her attempt to leverage the EU citizens rights as a bargaining ship was another play.

Her time as Home Secretary, she barley disguised her contempt for the ECJ. The only way to get away from that is hard Brexit.

So, my reading of it is that May would like a better deal, who wouldn't want a better deal in anything, but hard brexit is fine with her. Any concessions she can get is icing on the cake.

An Ciarraioch

The Chequers summit has reportedly been cancelled:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-plots-a-soft-brexit-2018-6

J Mysterio

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Chequers summit has reportedly been cancelled:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-plots-a-soft-brexit-2018-6

Ehhh... ok.... so white paper? Any kind of paper will do really.

Peregrinus

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Chequers summit has reportedly been cancelled:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-plots-a-soft-brexit-2018-6

No, it hasn't been cancelled; it has been expanded into an all-Cabinet meeting (as opposed to just a meeting of the Brexit subcommittee of the Cabinet).

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it hasn't been cancelled; it has been expanded into an all-Cabinet meeting (as opposed to just a meeting of the Brexit subcommittee of the Cabinet).

Well yes and no; it was suppose to be a two day meeting with war cabinet day 1 (Thursday) and the wider cabinet on day 2 (Friday). Day 1 has now been cancelled and it's only a 1 day meeting with the wider cabinet.

listermint

Me thinks the business community has made their Voice made, There is alot of bewildered politicians going in there having been given it in the ear from Business big and small.

Leonard Hofstadter

I miss the days when the Tories were the party of business and weren't busy trying to impoverish the UK.

Hopefully the lobbying by the likes of the CBI is what has persuaded them to change their minds (although I am rather sceptical to put it mildly).

Enzokk

The link that LeinsterDub provided in the last thread is very interesting. I understand now why the DUP went for Brexit. They believe that when (not if mind you) Brexit is a success it will ensure that a united Ireland will never happen as people will be content being in the UK and will see no need to join the EU via Ireland.

So just as David Cameron gambled on the EU referendum, so did the DUP. They hope that Brexit is such a success that people in NI will see no need to change the status quo and will want to be British due to that. That is a massive risk they took. The fact that many of their MLA's and MP's are wary of the EU probably clouded their thinking here. They may just have scored an incredible own goal when the match hadn't officially started.

At least that that clears up the thinking process of the DUP for me. Its still an idiotic move on their part, but at least I sort of understand why they are for Brexit.

Infini

Enzokk wrote: »

The link that LeinsterDub provided in the last thread is very interesting. I understand now why the DUP went for Brexit. They believe that when (not if mind you) Brexit is a success it will ensure that a united Ireland will never happen as people will be content being in the UK and will see no need to join the EU via Ireland.

So just as David Cameron gambled on the EU referendum, so did the DUP. They hope that Brexit is such a success that people in NI will see no need to change the status quo and will want to be British due to that. That is a massive risk they took. The fact that many of their MLA's and MP's are wary of the EU probably clouded their thinking here. They may just have scored an incredible own goal when the match hadn't officially started.

At least that that clears up the thinking process of the DUP for me. Its still an idiotic move on their part, but at least I sort of understand why they are for Brexit.

It's faulty logic though of the worst kind. The status quo is what kept the whole UI issue off the agenda because both being in the EU without any border crossings and such made a UI more of a formality issue. Leaving WILL backfire spetacularly expecially if a wealth divide open's up that leave's the North far worse off than the south which would be prospering. Their short sighted stupidy has reinvogirated the whole UI issue and made it front and center of any contingency plans as one of the first viable option's of removing a border.

Brexit WILL be a disaster, their carryon and whole lack of any serious planning shows that they're incompetent at best and outright stupid at the worst. They refuse to listen to any facts because it doesnt suit their agenda to leave whatever the cost and because of this, if they walk off that cliff the UK's days will be definately numbered as this will break them.

J Mysterio

NHS - in crisis
Military/ MOD - in crisis
Financial/ City - in crisis
Transport - trains/ planes - in crisis
Car Industry - in crisis
Fruit pickers- in crisis
Scotland tourism- in crisis

Etc. Etc.

+ PSNI in crisis

Northern Ireland’s police chief has revealed the chaos surrounding preparations for the Irish border after Brexit, protesting that no one is in charge.

George Hamilton told MPs there was no coordinator who was “actually taking responsibility

"We feel like we are in the dark around all of this – we don’t have that go-to coordinator to assist with us, to tell us what the requirement is,” Mr Hamilton said.

The evidence was described as “very troubling” by Sylvia Hermon, an independent Northern Ireland MP – while the DUP’s Ian Paisley Jnr said it “sounds like a shambles”.

Mr Hamilton also revealed he had yet to have a meeting with Theresa May about the Brexit threat to the border – and that he had not met her at all since last October.

Leroy42

^^ its getting into the region of neglect at this point. All the signs point to the fact that the government have not prepared anything in terms of any change.

Dover, the Port tunnel, customs employees, regulatory bodies, travel systems (visas etc). The NI border, the NI police.

What are these great systems they have in said will deal with the border? Have IT contracts been signed, have suppliers even been contacted?

It seems, from the complaints from business and unions, that nobody is being told anything. There is no reason why they should not have been informed of the plans at this stage, given that a large part of the negotiation strategy is that the UK are prepared to walk away. So wouldn't it make sense to at least give the impression to the EU that the UK is ready for such an eventuality.

Capt'n Midnight

Enzokk wrote: »

The link that LeinsterDub provided in the last thread is very interesting. I understand now why the DUP went for Brexit.

Everyone was saying remain would win.

So they saw it as a no risk way of proving their Britishness and increasing their finances thanks to NI parties being allowed anonymous donations for historical reasons. And of course it was the opposite of what the both the shinners and the UUP wanted.

They sold out. They were the conduit for dodgy funding of the Metro Ad campaign that didn't run in NI. There's the whole Cash For Ash scandal. And there's the Billion Pound Bribe , but precious little of that has actually arrived as Stormont isn't running.

Downing Street has said that so far £430m has been released. In 2017/18, £20m was given to health and education while the £410m allocated for the Stormont budget is currently going through parliamentary approval procedures.

20 pieces of silver was a lot of money for an individual in Roman times.
£20 million for an entire province , not so much.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

What are these great systems they have in said will deal with the border? Have IT contracts been signed, have suppliers even been contacted?

Anyone remember the weather in March ?

The same weather next year will throw a massive spanner in the works , if there's a hard Brexit.


So far I haven't heard of any major UK building works for Brexit.
It's just "park the trucks alonge the motorway" and hope for the best.


Ask Apple just how long it takes to get planning permission if someone is opposing it to make a killing (allegedley). It wouldn't suprise me that lots of land in the UK near ports has been bought up. A good bit of land near the NI border has increased in value.


275 days to go.

An Ciarraioch

The number of UK tourists to this country is finally on the increase again, but is still poised to be overtaken as our largest market by Continental Europe:

https://cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/ot/overseastravelmay2018/

KingNerolives

This white paper release is like Xmas day for me

#imsad

Capt'n Midnight

China is finally accepting UK beef again after BSE.

Then again they only started accepting US beef last year, so there's more competition.

Not really Brexit related, just a reminder that China can introduce a 20 year ban overnight and has done. But hey, #takebackcontrol

McGiver

Enzokk wrote: »

At least that that clears up the thinking process of the DUP for me. Its still an idiotic move on their part, but at least I sort of understand why they are for Brexit.

He said: “I, like most people, knew it wouldn’t be straightforward but I didn’t think anyone suspected it would be as long drawn-out, complicated and divisive (a process) as some people are trying to turn it into.”

Only a person who is completely ignorant and didn't make or read any analysis could say such a nonsense. I'm no expert, but even I can understand that unwinding 40 years of economic and regulatory integration into European structures etc cannot be done in just 2 years. At least not without serious damage. Only Brexiteers and DUP believe this fantasy.

Charles Babbage

Enzokk wrote: »

The link that LeinsterDub provided in the last thread is very interesting. I understand now why the DUP went for Brexit. They believe that when (not if mind you) Brexit is a success it will ensure that a united Ireland will never happen as people will be content being in the UK and will see no need to join the EU via Ireland.

With all due respect this explanation is nonsense, although the like many Brexiteer arguments it covers the real objective with one that is superficially plausible. The DUP wanted to strengthen the border, cause economic damage in nationalist areas near the Border and increase the British contribution to NI so that nobody could make a United Ireland add up. But of course while nationalists might be somewhat mollified by an NI with more public spending this was never likely. Brexit being (much of ) a success was never likely. But even if there was some remote chance of success no nationalist would be happy at this coming at the expense of customs huts and the like. The older DUP were so caught up in themselves, they didn't even think that a lot of middle of the road people were actually quite pro EU and not at all interested in incurring economic hardship to leave the EU.

The DUP will be mentioned in political science books as a major f***up for years to come.

Enzokk

Charles Babbage wrote: »

With all due respect this explanation is nonsense, although the like many Brexiteer arguments it covers the real objective with one that is superficially plausible. The DUP wanted to strengthen the border, cause economic damage in nationalist areas near the Border and increase the British contribution to NI so that nobody could make a United Ireland add up. But of course while nationalists might be somewhat mollified by an NI with more public spending this was never likely. Brexit being (much of ) a success was never likely. But even if there was some remote chance of success no nationalist would be happy at this coming at the expense of customs huts and the like. The older DUP were so caught up in themselves, they didn't even think that a lot of middle of the road people were actually quite pro EU and not at all interested in incurring economic hardship to leave the EU.

The DUP will be mentioned in political science books as a major f***up for years to come.

I am just trying to make sense of their decision. Before this it never made sense to me why they would back Brexit. But seeing the gamble they themselves describe they took I can see why they would follow that direction. It's still a extremely stupid move that has no chance of success, but I see why they would make that choice.

I do agree with the sentiment of your post though, it still baffles me that they are once again rowing against the tide in their own country. But that seems par for the course for the DUP and hypocrites will be hypocritical I suppose. I just never thought that their positions would be so obviously stupid. I do wonder about those that think they are a viable political party though. I mean the DUP are idiots, but those that fall for their shenanigans, what are they?

Peregrinus

I think the DUP initially backed Brexit out of tradition (the EU is a Romish conspiracy) and instinct (suspicious of foreigners and foreign links) and affinity (they always like to tog out with the Neanderthal wing of the Tory party). They probably didn't pay close attention to arguments about whether Brexit would benefit or injure NI. They probably didn't expect Brexit to pass anyway, so the practical implications were unimportant.

Having once adopted that position, they couldn't climb down from it. They're a deeply insecure bunch of lads, as I have mentioned before, and one of the ways in which this insecurity manifests itself is that they find it extraordinarily difficult to reconsider any position they have adopted, once they have adopted it, because that might look like admitting to having made a mistake. The 'M' word! Never. Never. Never.

After the Brexit referendum was carried (to their suprise as much as to everyone else's) some of the less mad members of the party began to think about what this actually meant for NI and how it might play out, and for a time they were somewhat successful influencing the party towards a softer Brexit. If you look at the manifesto that the DUP ran on in May's misbegotten general election, it did not call for the UK to leave either the Customs Union or the Single Market. It called for:

- "a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the European Union"

- the ability to opt-in to EU funds

- arrangements to facilitate ease of movement of people, goods and services

- continued participation in funding programmes like research funding.

That's a pretty soft Brexit, and one which could in fact be delivered by a Norway-type Brexit, or something quite like it.

But after the election, of course, the DUP found themselves in a position to make or break the Tory government. They chose to make it, in return for a mess of pottage, but hard-Brexit members of the party - I'm looking at you, Nigel Dodds - argued that this required the party to support the much harder Brexit for which May campaigned, and which she still seemed bent on delivering, despite her dismal election result. The alliance with the Tories strengthened the hand, and the influence, of the hard Brexiters in the DUP. What also strengthened their hand is that they are mostly in Westminster, where they are active and involved, while the DUP soft Brexiters are more found in the Assembly, which is moribund.

Arlene (who in DUP terms is a soft Brexiter) tried to hold the line for a time, and called for a "sensible Brexit" that would work for NI and the Republic. But the Hard Brexiters in Westminster won the day decisively last December, when they compelled Arlene to tell May that the first draft of the Joint Report was unacceptable, and they had paragraph 50 (UK will not institute NI/GB border) inserted.

Since the, the hard Brexit view has dominated in the DUP. So far as I can see, they have never really formed the view that it's in NI's interests, economically speaking. They do buy into the standard Brexity claptrap about the economic benefits of Brexit, but more because it supports the hard Brexit position to which they are drawn by instinct, and which it is politically advantageous for them to hold, than because they are convinced by it. And, because of their insecurity already mentioned, having doubled down on hard Brexit, they'll never move away from it now.

LeinsterDub

You might remember Ciaran of James O'Brien fame

https://twitter.com/donnyc1975/status/1012263215718428672

The rest of Europe has moved on, they are bored of the UK's sideshow . Come back to us when you've a real plan lads.

Leroy42

Listening to the Guardian Brexit podcast, the view from the EU reporter the EU has indeed moved on.

They are very much resigned to the high possibility that the UK will crash out. Not because they (EU) don't want a deal but moresoe because the UK haven't brought anything to the table.

The fact that they appear to want a CU on goods but not on services, deemed cherry picking, is saying to them that the UK is not taking this seriously.

The hope is still that a last minute deal will be struck, but at this stage it is thought that any concessions will have to come from the UK side as they have left it too late to persuade the EU to change their rules. The transition period will then see some concessions.

But from a Meeting that was until recently billed as a crucial summit to one in which TM will possibly get 1 hour over coffee to talk is quite a change. And far from the EU being fully engaged, and pleading with the UK, the EU are happy to let Barnier manage the process and they will review when he has something to offer.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

All the signs point to the fact that the government have not prepared anything in terms of any change.

Yes, which means that either they are the most unbelievably incompetent shower that ever governed or...

They were always planning to betray brexit and there will be no real change.

Seth Brundle

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, which means that either they are the most unbelievably incompetent shower that ever governed or...

They were always planning to betray brexit and there will be no real change.

I don't think it can be this.
There are too many people pushing for a hard Brexit, BJ for starters.Maybe it was the plan at the start but it has gone way too far to back down now - those who do will effectively end their political careers.

Trasna1

Enzokk wrote: »

The link that LeinsterDub provided in the last thread is very interesting. I understand now why the DUP went for Brexit. They believe that when (not if mind you) Brexit is a success it will ensure that a united Ireland will never happen as people will be content being in the UK and will see no need to join the EU via Ireland.

So just as David Cameron gambled on the EU referendum, so did the DUP. They hope that Brexit is such a success that people in NI will see no need to change the status quo and will want to be British due to that. That is a massive risk they took. The fact that many of their MLA's and MP's are wary of the EU probably clouded their thinking here. They may just have scored an incredible own goal when the match hadn't officially started.

At least that that clears up the thinking process of the DUP for me. Its still an idiotic move on their part, but at least I sort of understand why they are for Brexit.

It's also total nonsense. The DUP went for Brexit because the nationalists and Republicans were for remain. They also went for Brexit because it allowed them to wrap up in union jacks, and portray themselves as true unionists believing in a strong independent United kingdom.

The reality is of course they feel they could do this because they thought they would be valiant losers and wouldn't have to own the consequences.

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

The hope is still that a last minute deal will be struck, but at this stage it is thought that any concessions will have to come from the UK side as they have left it too late to persuade the EU to change their rules. The transition period will then see some concessions.

Will there be a transition if there is no deal?

Zubeneschamali

Seth Brundle wrote: »

There are too many people pushing for a hard Brexit, BJ for starters.Maybe it was the plan at the start but it has gone way too far to back down now - those who do will effectively end their political careers.

May is not working towards a long political career, she is looking to tomorrow, maybe next week.

Next February, the options will be:

a) kick the can down the road with some sort of non-Brexit Brexit transition period A50 extension keep talking option or

b) Hard Brexit with no preparation, meaning no food in the shops, no medicines in hospitals, no flights in the air, no fuel on forecourts, riots, looting, the army on the streets, Scottish independence, chaos on the NI border, the end of the UK.

When it comes to it, they will fold.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Will there be a transition if there is no deal?

No.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, which means that either they are the most unbelievably incompetent shower that ever governed or...

They were always planning to betray brexit and there will be no real change.

I don't think this can be the case for May. May did not commit herself to any particular form of Brexit until well after she won the party leadership (it was all vague platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit", you may recall) so she didn't plump for hard Brexit with all the red lines in order to win the leadership. She chose her Brexit when she was party leader, and apparently riding high in the polls over the supposedly unelectable Corbyn. So she wasn't under any kind of political constraint or pressure. She chose her own Brexit, and she chose appallingly. She chose a Brexit that she could not deliver and that, if she did deliver it, could not possibly work well for the UK.

It makes no sense to think that she chose this, intending to betray it later. She will pay a huge political price if (or when?) she betrays it - a price that she could easily have avoided by not committing to this version of Brexit in the first place.

I think she genuinely did not know how disastrous her Brexit vision was. She's a slow learner, but she has learned that she simply cannot deliver what she has publicly committed herself to, and she is trying to drag her government towards a functionall, deliverable Brexit policy. She may not succeed - her efforts may be too little, too late. But this is certainly not a position she consciously strategised to get herself into.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Will there be a transition if there is no deal?

No.

Leroy42

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I don't think it can be this.
There are too many people pushing for a hard Brexit, BJ for starters.Maybe it was the plan at the start but it has gone way too far to back down now - those who do will effectively end their political careers.

I think this might be close to the truth. I think the UK really did believe that Brexit would be easy, they fully believed that the EU needed them more than they did it (since they hate the EU and think it is useless it isn't a hard position to understand).

Hard Brexit was never anything other than a negotiation position, and a political stance to garner support from the public. 'The tough Little Englander giving Johnny Foreigner whats for'

EU without the UK is unthinkable (except that is was exactly that for years) and that seeing the UK threaten to walk away would bring the EU rushing back with any deal the UK wanted.

No deal was never a serious consideration, hence the total lack of actual planning or even a plan on what to plan for. TM's first speech very much was along the lines of the UK want Brexit, this is what we want, and if you don't give it to us then we walk away. What is your answer?

And the EU simply shrugged and said the two positions were incompatible. We want you to stay but you don't like anything about us so lets just try to make this as polite as possible and move on.

However, the threat of No Deal has continued to be raised to try to force the EU to chance, and each time it fails, it is ramped up even more. To the point where a No Deal almost seems like the option that was always wanted and the EU are turning their noses up and the great deal the UK was offering.

So I think a combination of bravado, posturing, political manoeuvring and stupidity have combined to make some people think that a No Deal is actually good for the UK

Unpossible

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

May is not working towards a long political career, she is looking to tomorrow, maybe next week.

Next February, the options will be:

a) kick the can down the road with some sort of non-Brexit Brexit transition period A50 extension keep talking option or

b) Hard Brexit with no preparation, meaning no food in the shops, no medicines in hospitals, no flights in the air, no fuel on forecourts, riots, looting, the army on the streets, Scottish independence, chaos on the NI border, the end of the UK.

When it comes to it, they will fold.

Will February not be too late by then?
Does a transition deal have to be approved by all European parliaments or only the final deal?

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

She chose her Brexit when she was party leader, and apparently riding high in the polls over the supposedly unelectable Corbyn. So she wasn't under any kind of political constraint or pressure.

She was under no kind of politicical pressure from outside the Tory Party. From Day 1 in #10, May has been under pressure from her own Eurosceptics to demand the maximum from the EU in negotiations.

Everyone could see, and the EU publicly pointed out, that they would either have to go for a really hard brexit or ditch the red lines.

If she always intended to go for a Hard brexit, they would have been taking real action to prepare for it. They haven't prepared anything, so in my book that means they were never intending that.

So they have always been planning to ditch their red lines.

But they can't do it too early, or the Brexiteers will rebel.

Zubeneschamali

Unpossible wrote: »

Will February not be too late by then?
Does a transition deal have to be approved by all European parliaments or only the final deal?

If we get to February and the UK is facing Mad Max day in March, the EU will bend the rules to prevent utter chaos. Extend Article 50 for 5 years and appoint Barnier negotiator-for-life.

Peregrinus

Unpossible wrote: »

Will February not be too late by then?
Does a transition deal have to be approved by all European parliaments or only the final deal?

The Withdrawal Agreement has to be approved by each Member State in accordance with its own constitutional processes, which in most or all cases will mean involving national and sometimes subnational parliaments.

All this needs to end by 29 March 2019 so, realistically, if it hasn't started by early January, it ain't happening.

In that scenario there are two possibilities:

1. Crash-out Brexit on 29 March with no deal of any kind. This is the nuclear option.

2. Extend the Art 50 period until some date after 29 March 2019. This requires unanimous consent of the EU-27, but only at governmental level, not national parliaments. So it's something that could be agreed at a European Council meeting.

But it wouldn't be a shoe-in. There's no point in extending the Art 50 negotiation period if we're only going to end up in the same place in six months (or whenever). So there would have to be pretty good reason to think that an extension would actually produce a workable deal. In other words, the deadlock would have to have already been broken.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

She was under no kind of politicical pressure from outside the Tory Party. From Day 1 in #10, May has been under pressure from her own Eurosceptics to demand the maximum from the EU in negotiations.

Except she was already party leader, and was riding high in the polls. What could the eurosceptics do to her? They could possibly mount a leadership challenge, but it seems very unlikely that they would win it. May was well-positioned to survive any leadership heave. (I bet she looks back fondly on those days.)

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Everyone could see, and the EU publicly pointed out, that they would either have to go for a really hard brexit or ditch the red lines.

But they could only see that after she adopted the red lines. She didn't have to adopt them, is my point; she chose to. She could have tried to craft a Brexit designed (a) to reassure the 48% at home that their concerns were being listened to and would have some influence in shaping Brexit, and (b) to appeal to the EU, and (c) to be rational and workable. She chose to do none of these things, and she has been paying for her choice ever since.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If she always intended to go for a Hard brexit, they would have been taking real action to prepare for it. They haven't prepared anything, so in my book that means they were never intending that.

We need to agree our terms. As far as I'm concerned:
- Soft Brexit would be Norway, Switzerland, something like that; remain in single market and/or customs union; accept ECJ jurisdiction where relevant.

- Hard Brexit is what May actually wants - leave the CU; leave the SM; reject ECJ jurisdiction, but with a deal addressing transition period, financial settlement, etc and with a trade deal of some kind providing "frictionless trade" or, at any rate, favourable trade terms.

- Crash-out Brexit is what nobody wants.

It's crash-out Brexit that they haven't bee preparing for. You reckon this is because they have always planned to accept soft Brexit. I reckon it's because they have been in persistent denial about the fact that they won't get hard Brexit; they started out believing or assuming that they would get it, and they have been very reluctant to let go of the idea that they won't.

I don't know when May finally accepted that it wasn't going to happen. It may in fact have been some time ago, and since then she has been playing a long, slow game of moving to soft Brexit by salami tactics, for the reason you suggest. Or it may have been a slowly-dawning realisation. It's even possible that she still hasn't fully accepted it.

But if her plan all along had been to have a soft Brexit, then nailing her colours to a hard Brexit mast would have been an extraordinary tactic, and not one that political circumstances at the time required her to adopt. It's only singe the General Election, remember, that she's been a wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's no point in extending the Art 50 negotiation period if we're only going to end up in the same place in six months (or whenever). So there would have to be pretty good reason to think that an extension would actually produce a workable deal. In other words, the deadlock would have to have already been broken.

I disagree. It is in the EUs interest that the UK never leaves at all. It is in the EUs interest that if the UK does leave, it stays in the Single Market and Customs Union. If the UK ever leaves, a Norway model is in the EUs interests. If the UK is going for a Hard Brexit, it is in the EUs interest that it does it in an orderly way with a suitable transition period and an arrangement for the NI border.

These are all EU interests which a hard Brexit next March would damage. Given the choice next February of damaging its own interests by forcing a Hard brexit with no preparation, or extending A50 to allow one of these better outcomes to be negotiated, the EU will kick the can down the road.

Not for the sake of the Brits being tied to the radiator of Imperator Mays war-rig, but purely out of EU self-interest.

And if they do punt, I think they will go long - extend negotiations for 5 years to take the deadlines and headlines out of them. The whole matter can be delegated to Barnier and a permanent staff and the EU can move on and talk about real stuff.

Of course the UK press will go mental, but they will do that no matter what happens, and the EU doesn't really care anymore.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

- Hard Brexit is what May actually wants - leave the CU; leave the SM; reject ECJ jurisdiction, but with a deal addressing transition period, financial settlement, etc and with a trade deal of some kind providing "frictionless trade" or, at any rate, favourable trade terms.

You could be right - if this is what May really wants then her lack of preparation for crash-out brexit is more understandable - the EU will give her most of that tomorrow if she asks for it, no need for a crash-out.

The only bit they can't have is frictionless trade, and they'll need to put the DUP in their box, but neither of those should be a sticking point.

But if that is all she wants, why the utter lack of progress?

Peregrinus

Under Art 50, they can only give the UK the extension that the UK agrees to. They can't extend indefinitely, or for five years, unless the UK wants that extension. For domestic political reasons, I don't think May can look for such an extension.

I agree, they'd like the UK to stay a member, or failing that to remain in close association, but it doesn't follow that they will automatically grant an extension. The UK's current uncertain state is damaging, and drains attention and resources. They won't prolong it unless doing so does actually look likely to result in the UK opting to stay, or opting for a close association. The current state of affairs - the UK has no clear and realistic notion of what it wants - is not something that would found an extension. The UK will have to change its position signficantly before an extension become politically realistic.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You could be right - if this is what May really wants then her lack of preparation for crash-out brexit is more understandable - the EU will give her most of that tomorrow if she asks for it, no need for a crash-out.

The only bit they can't have is frictionless trade, and they'll need to put the DUP in their box, but neither of those should be a sticking point.

But if that is all she wants, why the utter lack of progress?

The EU will give her most of that tomorrow provided she commits to arrangements which will keep the Irish border open. I don't think she can puit the DUP back in the box as easily as you suggest. Between the DUP, and the Tory remainer rebels, even if there are only a few of them, it's hard to see how she could get it through Parliament.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Under Art 50, they can only give the UK the extension that the UK agrees to. They can't extend indefinitely, or for five years, unless the UK wants that extension. For domestic political reasons, I don't think May can look for such an extension. .

If we get to that position in negotiations, it will be do it the EUs way or the end of UK domestic politics along with the end of the UK itself.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Between the DUP, and the Tory remainer rebels, even if there are only a few of them, it's hard to see how she could get it through Parliament.

This means the DUP and remainer rebels would prefer to precipitate a crash-out Brexit with no preparation? Are these the people she is hoping to railroad with a last minute Call My Bluff act rather than the Eurosceptics as I supposed earlier?