Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

Zubeneschamali

kuro68k wrote: »

Because the UK can't be trusted. If there was a time limit of say 2 years then the UK would be able to simply wait it out and not do a deal.

I would be OK with a realistic time limit on the backstop - 50 years.

Norway is still in the "temporary" EEA after 24 years. Sweden has not adopted the Euro 24 years after signing up to the treaty of Maastricht saying they would. Lots of things in EU land take more than 25 years.

50 years is also how long Rees Mogg thinks it'll be before Brexit is showing results, so he can scarcely complain.

Seth Brundle

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I would be OK with a realistic time limit on the backstop - 50 years.

Norway is still in the "temporary" EEA after 24 years. Sweden has not adopted the Euro 24 years after signing up to the treaty of Maastricht saying they would. Lots of things in EU land take more than 25 years.

50 years is also how long Rees Mogg thinks it'll be before Brexit is showing results, so he can scarcely complain.

We got an assurance off them that there would be no border.
Now they are going back on their word and want something that will require a border.
In under a year, the Britsh government have shown that they most likely can't be trusted on the backstop and yet you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt?

prawnsambo

demfad wrote: »

WRT to the Irish border the solution was always going to be a Norway style deal with Customs Union which elimated the need for a back stop or a Canada style deal with a full NI backstop.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't A50 simply a withdrawal agreement with just a 'framework' for a future relationship? So the framework isn't cast in stone and can depend on any number of outcomes after the withdrawal takes place. So NI is an issue that is part of the 'housekeeping' that must be catered for in the withdrawal agreement because there is an international treaty that the EU is a co-guarantor of that has to be upheld. Along with other issues like the settlement of bills etc.

Leroy42

Hermy wrote: »

Silly question - I probably should have grasped it by now - but why is it that the NI backstop cannot be time limited?

Well, that is what TM and the UK agreed to in December and again in March.

Why should the EU now change an agreement simply because it turns out the UK didn't read it?

But on a more technical level, as was stated previously, the only value in the backstop is to force the UK to actually do something. I time limit would mean that they simply kick the can down the road (they have 2 years experience of this) and then simply take it away. So where it the value in that to Ireland or the EU?

A 50 year time limit wouldn't work. It wouldn't be accepted in the UK for a start, and if 50 then why not indefinite. Inbuilt into the backstop is that it can actually cease at any point, once replacement means are in place (technological solutions etc). So in effect it is not, as is being stated in the UK, and indefinite period. Unless of course one takes the view that all the talk of technological solutions is not even believed in the UK.

But by not having a time limit, the UK is forced to actually come up with a solution rather than a simple fudge. A fudge that will be more to do with internal politics than actual solutions.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't A50 simply a withdrawal agreement with just a 'framework' for a future relationship? So the framework isn't cast in stone and can depend on any number of outcomes after the withdrawal takes place. So NI is an issue that is part of the 'housekeeping' that must be catered for in the withdrawal agreement because there is an international treaty that the EU is a co-guarantor of that has to be upheld. Along with other issues like the settlement of bills etc.

The Withdrawal Agreement will be a legally binding treaty between the UK and the EU dealing with the issues arising from the UK's departure from the EU including the divorce payment, the Irish border backstop, the transition period and citizens rights post-Brexit.

Alongside the Withdrawal Agreement will be a separate text, the "political declaration" on a future relationship. This will not be legally binding and at this stage it looks as if it will be quite sketchy. It will set out agreed parameters/objectives for the agreement on a future relationship that the EU and the UK will negotiate, starting after Brexit actually happens next March. Those negotiations, if they are successful, will eventually lead to one or more legally binding agreements between the UK and the EU.

trellheim

big cabinet UK meeting today ( Pizza last night with gove hunt et all ) .... watch twitter like a hawk today

lawred2

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

The volume of Irish exports to UK has fallen from about 20% to 10% already (https://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/othercsopublications/brexit-irelandandtheukinnumbers/) and falling

we would be fine, the whole point of the Irish position is to avoid loss of trade, it is the UK that continues on its attempts to sail off into space on a back of a spacewhale that is not our fault The government is right to make a stand on the NI issue, not the first time in last 100 years UK has attempted to shaft this island and its people, feck that.

It's the first time that Ireland has the backing of a such a large bloc however where it came to an entanglement with the UK...

This is new territory for Westminster. Having to deal with an Ireland that possesses geopolitical clout.

Zubeneschamali

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In under a year, the Britsh government have shown that they most likely can't be trusted on the backstop and yet you are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt?

The December agreement was just to say that IF there was a withdrawal agreement, it would contain a backstop. If the conclusion of the talks is that no such Withdrawal Agreement is possible, it is not breaking an international treaty to ask well, how about we scrap the backstop? It is just an ask at negotiations. If you don't ask, you don't get.

It is an annoying thing to ask, since it would effectively set the negotiations back a year just days before they end if they did get it, and no-one in any negotiation wants to revisit earlier rounds they considered finished.

But pulling this in negotiations is not the same thing as signing an actual international agreement with the backstop in it (time limited or not) and then breaking it, which would be very much more serious.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The December agreement was just to say that IF there was a withdrawal agreement, it would contain a backstop. If the conclusion of the talks is that no such Withdrawal Agreement is possible, it is not breaking an international treaty to ask well, how about we scrap the backstop? It is just an ask at negotiations. If you don't ask, you don't get.

It is an annoying thing to ask, since it would effectively set the negotiations back a year just days before they end if they did get it, and no-one in any negotiation wants to revisit earlier rounds they considered finished.

But pulling this in negotiations is not the same thing as signing an actual international agreement with the backstop in it (time limited or not) and then breaking it, which would be very much more serious.

But I don't think the EU would analyse this as simply "no such Withdrwal Agreement is possible". As the EU would see it, no agreement is possible because the UK has decided it cannot commit to the backstop that, last December and again last March, it agreed must be in the Withdrawal Agreement.

So, while the UK wouldn't have broken any legally binding commitment, it would have burned a huge amount of diplomatic creditworthiness and political goodwill.

And, while it would be free to suggest a Withdrawal Agreement with no backstop, both self-interest and self-respect make it a racing certainty that the EU would tell them to sod off.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

the EU would tell them to sod off.

Oh, I certainly agree that there was never any chance that the EU side would consider it.

I am just pointing out that there is a difference between changing your position during negotiations (even on something considered settled), and actually signing up to a treaty and then breaking the terms.

Rhineshark

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The December agreement was just to say that IF there was a withdrawal agreement, it would contain a backstop. If the conclusion of the talks is that no such Withdrawal Agreement is possible, it is not breaking an international treaty to ask well, how about we scrap the backstop? It is just an ask at negotiations. If you don't ask, you don't get.

It is an annoying thing to ask, since it would effectively set the negotiations back a year just days before they end if they did get it, and no-one in any negotiation wants to revisit earlier rounds they considered finished.

But pulling this in negotiations is not the same thing as signing an actual international agreement with the backstop in it (time limited or not) and then breaking it, which would be very much more serious.

Tbh, it was serious enough as it was. It was signed to but renaged on in such a way as to make it clear that it was signed in bad faith with no intention of transposing it into law. Then you had May saying that no PM could countenance what she, as PM, had countenanced, the likes of Johnson indicating that he only agreed at the time because he thought it was a lie to pull the wool over the eyes of the dumb foreigners and the ERG managing to render it illegal.

In terms of British influence, diplomacy and negotiation it was a disastor. Also in terms of playing to stereotypes. Perfidious Albion indeed.

briany

Let me see if I have this right,

The backstop was agreed in December as a way to prevent a hard border in Ireland in the event of no-deal, but attempting to hold the UK to that agreement may be the cause of no-deal in itself.

It's the political equivalent of a geometric brain teaser like the Penrose Stairs.

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Withdrawal Agreement will be a legally binding treaty between the UK and the EU dealing with the issues arising from the UK's departure from the EU including the divorce payment, the Irish border backstop, the transition period and citizens rights post-Brexit.

Alongside the Withdrawal Agreement will be a separate text, the "political declaration" on a future relationship. This will not be legally binding and at this stage it looks as if it will be quite sketchy. It will set out agreed parameters/objectives for the agreement on a future relationship that the EU and the UK will negotiate, starting after Brexit actually happens next March. Those negotiations, if they are successful, will eventually lead to one or more legally binding agreements between the UK and the EU.

Thank you. That's what I thought myself, but the constant talk in London about a 'deal' confused me. It appears now that they are the ones who are confused and don't know what they are doing. That's more than a bit worrying.

trellheim

Just so everyone is aware timeline

EUCO 27 Art 50 meeting 1900 Brussels tomorrow night - UKPM has agreed to address

If we are going to see some movement it will happen in next 36 hours. Otherwise you may be in No Deal land.


PS : did any PR come from Leo's and Arlene's din in Pearl Brasserie last night ?

briany

trellheim wrote: »

Otherwise you may be in No Deal land.

At what point would you say they're definitely in No Deal land (at any point before March 29th 2019, that is)?

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

The backstop was agreed in December as a way to prevent a hard border in Ireland in the event of no-deal

No, the backstop will be a clause in the Withdrawal Agreement. If there is no WA, there will be no backstop, and it is no-deal crashout in March.

The backstop is in the WA in case the later negotiations on the Future Relationship can't do better than, say, a Canada style Free trade Agreement (which looks quite likely at the moment), but those talks don't even start until Brexit day.

trellheim

At some point EU 27 ( watch Merkel's foreign min like Axel Dittmann ) will get p'd off and you will see "negative waves" . Either the UK will cave or its light the blue touch paper and stand back. The amount of general irritation from the EU26 ( minus IE and UK ) is being really dialled back by order to ensure the deal has some chance , more for IE's sake than anything

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

At what point would you say they're definitely in No Deal land (at any point before March 29th 2019, that is)?

The EU side already admitted that there will be a November summit on Brexit. That makes it a cast iron certainty that there will be no deal before November no matter what the EU now says.

Varadkar has said a no-deal brexit would be a disaster and talks may continue into December. So I think the real drop dead deadline is Christmas.

It will be some scramble to get a deal ratified by 27+ national bodies between Jan 1 and Mar 29, but I think it can be done if the UK caves in utterly and completely.

briany

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The EU side already admitted that there will be a November summit on Brexit. That makes it a cast iron certainty that there will be no deal before November no matter what the EU now says.

Varadkar has said a no-deal brexit would be a disaster and talks may continue into December. So I think the real drop dead deadline is Christmas.

It will be some scramble to get a deal ratified by 27+ national bodies between Jan 1 and Mar 29, but I think it can be done if the UK caves in utterly and completely.

If the UK caves completely, I can imagine Larry the Leave voter from Luton will fall off the bar stool at his local Wetherspoons due to a massive rage-induced heart attack.

I would never predict civil war in the UK, but this would have to come pretty close.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

I can imagine Larry the Leave voter from Luton will fall off the bar stool at his local Wetherspoons due to a massive rage-induced heart attack.

There is a small, small cadre of truly committed Leavers - they could never even get a UKipper into Parliament. These people will go into full melt down.

The various Tory factions are not really committed to a no-deal brexit. Before the referendum, none of them were even talking about a no-deal brexit. They have just been using Brexit as a stick to beat the other factions of the Tory party.

May will announce that she has gone down fighting and gotten the very best last minute deal possible from the EU, the Telegraph and the BBC will say "good show" and they'll all go back to attacking Corbyn for being a Martian or whatever.

The fact that the deal she gets will have been on the table for more than a year will be quietly ignored.

First Up

There's too many variables to be able to predict the final outcome with confidence.

However there are two certainties; the EU will not compromise on the integrity of the Single Market and UK politics are going to be turned on their heads.

MrMusician18

All deadlines are artificial, and in the event of no deal you'd expect the UK to request more time under art. 50 which I would think would be granted. The EU wants a deal too and doesn't want to precipitate a recession we have to remember.


The only way we get no deal is if the UK cannot come to the terms set out and the EU tires of the instability it is causing and decides to lance the boil. The one thing to watch out for is if Brexit becomes a drag on EU27 growth.

We could see talks go right down to the wire in March, with art. 50 extended to facilitate ratification

ArthurDayne

Heard Leave voters being randomly interviewed on the street today on the radio.  A good number of them blame the Brexit impasse on the government having no plan to implement Brexit.

Stuff like this makes me want to tear my hair right out.  I am a great believer in the mantra that democracy only works when each individual member of society takes responsibility for their democratic decisions.  If a political party offers hope of a better tomorrow, then a responsible democrat seeks answers and detail -- and if they don't, it rings hollow when they pin the blame on politicians for whom they voted rather than assume their own responsibility as an active voting citizen .  There are simply no excuses nowadays for not being informed -- regardless of level of education.  So if we are being kind to Leave voters and presume that they were indeed perfectly well-informed -- then they would have known well that there was no plan (precisely the reason why many reluctant Remainers voted to stay).

It does not matter if someone claims to be a mere Ordinary Joe and claims that it's not this job to make politicians' plans for them. If you voted for a proposal which had no plan -- you ratified it with your vote -- you freely and independently ratified it despite the fact that nobody had presented any solid plan for what the end result would even look like, never mind getting there.  Take responsibility for your vote and accept that if you vote for something which has no blueprint to make it work -- it is invariably going to be a mess to make work.  I suspect I shall tearing yet more follicles out however as the blame game goes up another few gears in the coming months.

ArthurDayne

Heard Leave voters being randomly interviewed on the street today on the radio.  A good number of them blame the Brexit impasse on the government having no plan to implement Brexit.

Stuff like this makes me want to tear my hair right out.  I am a great believer in the mantra that democracy only works when each individual member of society takes responsibility for their democratic decisions.  If a political party offers hope of a better tomorrow, then a responsible democrat seeks answers and detail -- and if they don't, it rings hollow when they pin the blame on politicians for whom they voted rather than assume their own responsibility as an active voting citizen .  There are simply no excuses nowadays for not being informed -- regardless of level of education.  So if we are being kind to Leave voters and presume that they were indeed perfectly well-informed -- then they would have known well that there was no plan (precisely the reason why many reluctant Remainers voted to stay).

It does not matter if someone claims to be a mere Ordinary Joe and claims that it's not this job to make politicians' plans for them. If you voted for a proposal which had no plan -- you ratified it with your vote -- you freely and independently ratified it despite the fact that nobody had presented any solid plan for what the end result would even look like, never mind getting there.  Take responsibility for your vote and accept that if you vote for something which has no blueprint to make it work -- it is invariably going to be a mess to make work.  I suspect I shall tearing yet more follicles out however as the blame game goes up another few gears in the coming months.

MrMusician18

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

There is a small, small cadre of truly committed Leavers - they could never even get a UKipper into Parliament. These people will go into full melt down.

The various Tory factions are not really committed to a no-deal brexit. Before the referendum, none of them were even talking about a no-deal brexit. They have just been using Brexit as a stick to beat the other factions of the Tory party.

May will announce that she has gone down fighting and gotten the very best last minute deal possible from the EU, the Telegraph and the BBC will say "good show" and they'll all go back to attacking Corbyn for being a Martian or whatever.

The fact that the deal she gets will have been on the table for more than a year will be quietly ignored.

Ukip has a huge national vote and its only the fptp system that keeps them out of parliament.

It would be a mistake to say that they are a small grouping.

Zubeneschamali

MrMusician18 wrote: »

We could see talks go right down to the wire in March, with art. 50 extended to facilitate ratification

I think that if Barnier lands a deal by Christmas, the 27+ national parliaments will probably pass it to get this phase over with (and securing the divorce payment may be a consideration).

If the UK play silly buggers and try to push WA talks into 2019 and ask for an Article 50 extension, I can see individual parliaments thinking "Hey, if they can get all this attention, why shouldn't we?" and starting to make extra demands. If that starts, they are out on their ears in March, there won't be time to deal with any such demands.

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Ukip has a huge national vote and its only the fptp system that keeps them out of parliament.

It would be a mistake to say that they are a small grouping.

Yes the FPTP system is what keeps them out of parliament but they got 1.8% of the vote in 2017, down from 12.6% in 2015, hardly what would be described as a huge national vote

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/ConorMcMorrow/status/1052160343370293248

The Government will have to be clear and concise in the next while on it's arguments to prevent this gaining traction.

Howlin is right, there is always going to be some dissent if this threatens a deal.

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

(UKIP) got 1.8% of the vote in 2017, down from 12.6% in 2015, hardly what would be described as a huge national vote

That's because in 2017, they had won, they got Brexit passed a referendum, they had fulfilled their destiny. And as a party, they didn't really have any other policies to run on.

But in the Euro election of 2014, before the referendum, they got 25% of the vote and beat both Labour and the Tories. Which tells you that a lot of people who vote Tory or Labour for Westminster really can't stand the EU. can May sell a temporary Customs Union backstop to these voters?

LuckyLloyd

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Ukip has a huge national vote and its only the fptp system that keeps them out of parliament.

It would be a mistake to say that they are a small grouping.

Excuse me sir, UKIP garnered a mere 2.1% of the vote within England at last year's General Election. The structure of their party has been in continuous disarray over the past two years. They are an irrelevance at the present time.