Brexit discussion thread IV

Imreoir2

Seems like David Davis is positioning himself to be the Brexiteer replacement PM should May get ousted in the coming weeks. Reports of chatter in Conservative ranks that he would be suitably pro-Brexit but less divisive than Bojo.

Mr.Nice Guy

First Up wrote: »

That is not a concession by the EU. It is essentially what May offered.

The integrity of the Single Market will not be compromised. It is up to the UK to find the hoops to jump through to create a backstop. Their failure to do so is what is bringing us to reality.

The EU had previously said the backstop had to be specific to NI on customs. They have now moved from that so it is a concession

An Ciarraioch

Our ambassador to the UK, Adrian O'Neill, is doing an excellent job as a panellist on the Westminster Hour on Radio 4 tonight, in terms of highlighting the importance of the backstop - podcast will doubtless be up immediately after.

Spanish Eyes

Would May resign toot sweet I wonder and leave the sh!t storm for someone else now.

Answers on a postcard.

Water John

The briefings from the civil service here have been really excellent. Thus nobody representing us has mispoke.

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The EU had previously said the backstop had to be specific to NI on customs. They have now moved from that so it is a concession

It's not really. It was proposed in order to get over one of May's red lines and the DUP objections. It's another alternative to the Irish Sea border. It's hardly a concession since staying in the CU was always on the table.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

It was a Cameron type referendum, where the option was one that could not succeesd because it was a dog's dinnr of a system. The STV system woud be too complicated for British voters - where the voter puts the candidates in the order of thei choice - simples. Instead, they had STV where you nly chose first and second. It was then rushed with little attempt to explain it.

The last time a British Parliament had a single party government that enjoyed a popular majorit was in 1932.

The House of Lords is unelected, and the HofC is a minority government (since 1932), so that means it is undemocratic. What is it they say about the EU?

Gravy Train, unelected bureaucrats, Soviet Union etc. ad nauseam.

Angry bird

Finally crunch time is here. May does not have the numbers to get a deal. Her opponents do not have the numbers to replace her as Tory leader, nowhere near it. Corbyn simply wants an election and would be loathe to help out Tories in difficulty. All of this is the UKs problem to solve, not the EUs.

Sign up to the deal on EU terms or crash out, it was always going to come down to this.

I expect a heave on May, with May to go over their heads and pursuade labour members to support.

While the EU will be open to more talks, in reality we're at the take it or leave it scenario.

Water John

Pretty near to it Angry Bird. She def needs some Lb votes in the bag. Will many risk the wrath of the Corbynistas and the threat of being deselected?

Mr.Nice Guy

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not really. It was proposed in order to get over one of May's red lines and the DUP objections. It's another alternative to the Irish Sea border. It's hardly a concession since staying in the CU was always on the table.

https://twitter.com/TomMcTague/status/1051381693364473856

From the same thread:

A full UK customs union has always been on offer but only to be negotiated as part of the future partnership. EU position has very much been that the backstop must all be NI-specific so nothing in it prejudices later trade talks on relations with whole UK.

I don't have a problem with the EU offering some concessions. One of the main complaints from Brexiteers is that it's the UK having to concede everything, which is not the case.

Hurrache

Pretty comprehensive thread on where the UK may find itself
https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1051411763680473090?s=19

ArmaniJeanss

prawnsambo wrote: »

Mogg does not have the support at all.

prawnsambo wrote: »

But bookies will always give odds to punters who want to throw their money away.

He's a serious player - he wins if he is a) the nominated member of the 'bastards' and crucially b) gets to the final two which goes a vote of the wider tory membership. Though it is more likely that Boris will be the selection from that side of the party - but he would win also in a vote of the members.

So the question is could either get to the final two on the vote of MPs. People instinctively think No because they reckon that would need maybe 150 MPs to support him to achieve this, but actually it would be certain with 1/3 of the votes + 1 (roughly 106 MPs) and could be achieved with as little as 85 or 90. Firstly the 'normal' side would need to put up two candidates (lets say Jeremy Hunt and Javid) because otherwise the ERG candidate is by definition in the Top 2. And they would need to split their vote in a very disciplined and even way, lets say 112 votes each. If they get it wrong and garner 140 and 85, then the ERG candidate sneaks onto the members ballot with 90.
Maths might be a bit rough but you get the jist.
And it assumes obviously that Boris (or JRM) could get ~90 MPs to support him, but I think its's ballpark of what is possible.

Kermit.de.frog

There is Tory Brexiteer (Andrew Bridgens) getting torn to shreads on 5 Live now

Total ignorance. He thinks as an Englishman he is automatically entitled to an Irish passport because of the Common Travel Area.

He was also torn apart on the issue of "technology" as a solution.

And asked does he know how many people were killed in the conflict - *Long pause* - "No".

That's what we are dealing in the Tory party.

The ignorance is breathtaking.

trellheim

History :


1. Major on ERM - forced to devalue ( Bundesbank did not give a toss and the french didnt want to fight )

2. Cameron on Immigration - very little deal gotten =

3 May on Brexit ... I reckon annoying the EU27 with no deal gotten is just going to lock them in to a default position

EdgeCase

That's one I've heard before. A lot of English people seem to think that they're automatically entitled to Irish passports. I mean without an Irish parent or grandparent they're only entitled to one if they live here continuously for 5 years and go through the naturalisation process.

ilovesmybrick

I just turned it on there (should be in bed, but I'm rubber necking on the car crash!) they just repeated what he said in response to a fairly mad caller. They don't seem to understand the difference between an application and a right! I think that they're confusing the gentleman's agreement where Irish and British citizens are treated as non-national nationals which isn't really codified in law. These references to pre-1972 are nuts. Pre-1922 I would have been a British citizen, as was my right. Now I have no such right. I can apply on the basis of my mother being born there, but I know a few people who did and it's a surprisingly convoluted process. They don't seem to grasp that the relationships between nations change over time.

In a previous life when I used to teach third level history one of the modules was on the formation of the concept of Nation in the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Throughout most of Europe this was a rather complex process depending on geography, linguistics, and heritage, but Britain was an outlier as a relatively stable entity for centuries and managed to avoid much of the turmoil that destroyed Europe's traditional borders. I can't help but think that this has in part led to some of the issues that have come to the fore here, they've never had a situation where they will lose rights and benefits due to circumstances completely outside of their control (except for the whole idiocy of Brexit coupled with some of the most inept politicians they've seen in a very, very long time). I suppose for Brexiters it's involves serious metal gymnastics, they can't accept that their decisions have led to a dilution of their opportunities, but they've sunk so much time and vitriol into the concept it's impossible to back down gracefully and accept the realities confronting them.

Kermit.de.frog

Everybody has to listen to a playback of the Stephen Nolan show on 5 live tonight, absolute gold if you want real understanding of just how much they don't actually know.

Now there is a female Tory MP saying they are all confused because "we were all told we could get Irish passports and everything was going to be fine"

*sigh*

BonnieSituation

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Everybody has to listen to a playback of the Stephen Nolan show on 5 live tonight, absolute gold if you want real understanding of just how much they don't actually know.

Now there is a female Tory MP saying they are all confused because "we were all told we could get Irish passports and everything was going to be fine"

*sigh*

So does this mean they want EU citizenship then?

It's almost like they enjoy the benefits of the EU.i wonder if there's a way for the UK to enjoy said benefits. Surely there is? :rollseyes:

judeboy101

So if the backstop is UK wide CU, I'm assuming they can't strike deals with other countries for goods, cet and all, if backstop remains? And why would EU bother striking a deal then?

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

So if the backstop is UK wide CU, I'm assuming they can't strike deals with other countries for goods, cet and all, if backstop remains?

Technically they can - Turkey does - but there is very little scope for it.

judeboy101 wrote: »

And why would EU bother striking a deal then?

Because, although the UK in simply walking away from the backstop would be in breach of the Withdrawal Agreement, most of the effects and provisions of the withdrawal agreement are pretty short-term. Once they've exhausted themselves, in a few years time the only operative provision of the WA is the one that says "no hard border!", and the UK will ask itself, "Well, if we walk away from the backstop, and are in breach of the WA, what do we lose? OK, we shred our reputation as a reliable negotiation partner but, frankly, there isn't much of that left anyway after the complete hames we made of the Brexit negotiation a few years back. So, really, there's no downside."

In the long run, the backstop is only dependable if its connected with something that gives the UK real benefits, so they lose something if they walk away. The WA gives the UK no real benefits after a few years. So the EU (and Ireland) has an interest in making a future relationship agreement the UK that is good for the UK and keeps the border open.

judeboy101

Peregrinus wrote: »

Technically they can - Turkey does - but there is very little scope for it.


Because, although the UK in simply walking away from the backstop would be in breach of the Withdrawal Agreement, most of the effects and provisions of the withdrawal agreement are pretty short-term. Once they've exhausted themselves, in a few years time the only operative provision of the WA is the one that says "no hard border!", and the UK will ask itself, "Well, if we walk away from the backstop, and are in breach of the WA, what do we lose? OK, we shred our reputation as a reliable negotiation partner but, frankly, there isn't much of that left anyway after the complete hames we made of the Brexit negotiation a few years back. So, really, there's no downside."

In the long run, the backstop is only dependable if its connected with something that gives the UK real benefits, so they lose something if they walk away. The WA gives the UK no real benefits after a few years. So the EU (and Ireland) has an interest in making a future relationship agreement the UK that is good for the UK and keeps the border open.

How does that stop an irishborder in 2020, turkey still has custom posts where trucks cars etc are still checked entering Bulgaria.

Peregrinus

judeboy101 wrote: »

How does that stop an irishborder in 2020, turkey still has custom posts where trucks cars etc are still checked entering Bulgaria.

UK simply remaining in the customs union does not stop a hard border. We were in a customs union with the UK from 1973 to the early 1990s (until the Single Market was completed) and thre was a hard border.

By the Joint Report of December 2017, the backstop involves "full regulatory alignment" between NI and RoI to the extent necessary to keep the border open. The Customs Union aligns customs regulations (obviously) which is a fair chunk of what is needed, but not everything. There must also be alignment of other relevant regulations. The backstop requires that from 2020 onwards, until some other arrangement is agreed.

First Up

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

From the same thread:

I suggest you get your information from more reliable sources than a discussion on Twitter.

Peregrinus

Discussions on Twitter can be very reliable; it depends on who's doing the discussing.

In this case the information comes from a discussion involving Tom McTague and Nick Gutteridge, both of whom are British political journalists based in Brussels. They are pretty clued-in when it comes to EU political positions. Plus what Gutteridge is saying (a UK/EU customs union would be on offer to the UK in the future trade agreement, if not ruled out by the UK's red lines) is pretty widely accepted to be the case.

Rhineshark

The headlines this morning are a combination of gloom and confusion.

So about the same as usual. Might be an idea if the media didn't breathlessly run to report on a deal when it's only a deal between the negotiators. In normal times that would mean something but it's not the actual detail that's causing problems, it's the politics. And it only causes convulsions in the DUP and ERG. On the other hand, as the guy who wrote that release pointed out, they had it confirmed from three sources, not disconfirmed by a fourth and they report what they hear.

Eh. Definitely no point being excited about it until all sides have signed off in it and the UK have transposed it to law. And even then, keep an eye on them.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

Plus what Gutteridge is saying (a UK/EU customs union would be on offer to the UK in the future trade agreement, if not ruled out by the UK's red lines) is pretty widely accepted to be the case.

We hardly needed a discussion on Twitter to tell us that. Informed journalists they may be but viewing the situation only from a British perspective misses much of the point. 27/28ths to be precise.

Peregrinus

Gutteridge is a freelance journalist based in Brussels, and McTague is chief political correspondent for politico.eu, a Brussels-based joint venture between Politico in the US and Axel Springer Verlag in Germany, which focuses on European, particularly EU, politics. It's absurd to suggest that they "view the situation only from a British perspective".

lawred2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Everybody has to listen to a playback of the Stephen Nolan show on 5 live tonight, absolute gold if you want real understanding of just how much they don't actually know.

Now there is a female Tory MP saying they are all confused because "we were all told we could get Irish passports and everything was going to be fine"

*sigh*

link?

Leroy42

The DUP are saying that the deal being put forward is worse than a no deal.

After listening to that Pro-Brexit Tory MP on 5 live last night, it is pretty clear that they really haven't a notion what the whole thing entails.

Forgetting about the whole passport disaster he gave, he also said that goods checks could be carried out by a combination of in factory checks and customer checks. He was never asked who is going to pay for all these customs officers who will now either have to be permanently stationed at certain factories or alternatively travel around to different factories. What happens with a delayed or an urgent order? Who pass for the service.

And then we get to the statement that the customer will do checking as well. This, apparently, will involve getting sent document of origin (in regards to food) to prove the chicken came from NI. These will be sent by e-mail. So now the guy in the warehouse in Cork needs to be a customs official as well. He didn't explain what happens if the customer has a query, or how exactly they can prove the consignment they get is the consignment on the paperwork.

Then reading those tweet threads. It is mindboggling the complexity of what is about to happen on 29 March.

Leroy42

lawred2 wrote: »

link?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0000pvm

Go to about 1:49 in to the program.